# Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art -- this week?!



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

http://photorumors.com/2015/10/14/this-is-the-upcoming-sigma-20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens/

Wow! When Photo Rumors plays he "This is the_______" card with the title, that's a like a CR3 for them. Talk about coming out of nowhere. 

Astro folks rejoice?

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2015)

"Very low distortion and minimized coma" sounds good to me


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 14, 2015)

If true, good news indeed. The Sigma 24mm Art had coma issues when aperature was greater than f/2.8. Going wider to 20mm makes it even harder to reduce coma. We will have to wait and see how well this rumored lens actually performs for astro.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 14, 2015)

Ok....wow. Didn't we JUST get a 24mm from them last Tuesday? : ???

I dunno, guys. I'm not big into using wides for my work since most of what I prefer is portraiture. Is there really a market for 20 AND a 24 so close together in release? Asking for opinions and thoughts. I like what Sigma is doing though.


----------



## Brea (Oct 14, 2015)

Who's selling their 16-35mm f4 Canon for this... decisions....


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Ok....wow. Didn't we JUST get a 24mm from them last Tuesday? : ???
> 
> I dunno, guys. I'm not big into using wides for my work since most of what I prefer is portraiture. Is there really a market for 20 AND a 24 so close together in release? Asking for opinions and thoughts. I like what Sigma is doing though.



If 24mm is your environmental portraiture lens, surely they'll aim the 20mm at the astro crowd, right? 

Also, if they think 20mm -- by any measure, a lower priority FL -- is worthy of Art status, perhaps Sigma's ambitions are bigger than we thought. I had originally thought we'd see the staples of 24/35/50/85 and that might be it. But going after a 20mm variant makes me wonder if a 100mm or 135mm is also up their sleeves.

- A


----------



## beckstoy (Oct 14, 2015)

20?! I love Sigma's new ART lenses, but ... 20?!

#StillWaitingForThe85

I wonder what they could do at 200 or 135mm? Think they could pull off a 1.8 on either? That would be epic, and I'd throw my $ down immediately.


----------



## nightscape123 (Oct 14, 2015)

a 20 f/1.4 would be a game changer for astro work. If it has low coma and decent vignetting control then this would be the must have lens of the year for astro work. 

I'd buy this up in a second if the coma isn't too bad.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2015)

Wonder how they will go about the 135. The L isn't very expensive and epic IQ. I don't think I would buy a new Sigma 135 with OS over a mint used 135 L. Af on that thing is crucial.


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2015)

Well, Sigma A 24 mm f/1.4 DG HSM coma sucks!

http://www.lenstip.com/430.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

So I wouldn't get my hopes high until a review...

Of course I will consider it, if coma is really low...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Oct 14, 2015)

Astro photog's wet dream. Sigma is killing it and they're not letting up.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> 20?! I love Sigma's new ART lenses, but ... 20?!
> 
> #StillWaitingForThe85
> 
> I wonder what they could do at 200 or 135mm? Think they could pull off a 1.8 on either? That would be epic, and I'd throw my $ down immediately.



Even if the 135mm Art they make is f/2, it will still blow the doors off of the now 19 year old 135L, so I'd still welcome it at f/2. (f/1.8 would be gravy, though.)

- A


----------



## NancyP (Oct 14, 2015)

Gosh. And my dream was that my beloved Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 would wake up and become f/2.0 for astro work... The Zeiss is wonderful for astro at f/2.8, but two times, or four times, the photons would be unbelievable, if coma is small.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 14, 2015)

Oh oh, this might be expensive for me.... ;-)


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> http://photorumors.com/2015/10/14/this-is-the-upcoming-sigma-20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens/
> 
> Wow! When Photo Rumors plays he "This is the_______" card with the title, that's a like a CR3 for them. Talk about coming out of nowhere.
> 
> ...


A game changer.... but where is the 85A?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

Also, though I'm sure it won't perform like the 28 Otus, I wonder if that lens's widely announced arrival prompted Sigma to sneak in with this 20mm leak to give the pre-ordering world something else to think about.

(I recognize those lenses are likely apples and oranges to one another, but an f/1.4 wide lens is an f/1.4 wide lens -- the Sigma might be able to do 80% of what the 28 Otus could do for 1/4 the price.)

- A


----------



## e_honda (Oct 14, 2015)

As someone pointed out in the Photo Rumors comments, it looks like a fixed hood and there are no markings for a filter thread size. So in all likelihood this is a bulbous front element that won't be able to take a standard front filter 

I guess there a trade offs. Haven't seen an f1.4 lens this wide before, I don't think.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > http://photorumors.com/2015/10/14/this-is-the-upcoming-sigma-20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens/
> ...



That is the shocker. _*Surely*_, the 85 Art would sell 5x what this odd FL will sell. There simply are more portrait folks out there than astro folks.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

e_honda said:


> As someone pointed out in the Photo Rumors comments, it looks like a fixed hood and there are no markings for a filter thread size. So in all likelihood this is a bulbous front element that won't be able to take a standard front filter
> 
> I guess there a trade offs. Haven't seen an f1.4 lens this wide before, I don't think.



Good catch! That relatively small Digicame photo doesn't show the hood-to-lens lineup dots like the other Art lenses. This very well may be a fixed hood, which would royally p--- off landscapers.

Seems a shame if so. Canon and Nikon can pull off 16-something zooms with front filter rings -- why couldn't Sigma?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

On the other thread, someone pointed out that the hood looks integral on this lens. No hood-to-lens lineup dots are in that picture.

That's an ouch for landscapers.

- A


----------



## e_honda (Oct 14, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Good catch! That relatively small Digicame photo doesn't show the hood-to-lens lineup dots like the other Art lenses. This very well may be a fixed hood, which would royally p--- off landscapers.
> 
> Seems a shame if so. Canon and Nikon can pull off 16-something zooms with front filter rings -- why couldn't Sigma?
> 
> - A



None of those are f1.4.

And Canon's 16-35 f2.8II, as maligned as it is, is the only thing that is 16mm, f2.8 and can take a front filter.

It's pretty clear that the wider you get along with the bigger aperture, you have to start making lenses with bulbous front elements; otherwise there's probably going to be downfalls like more vignetting, more distortion.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

e_honda said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Good catch! That relatively small Digicame photo doesn't show the hood-to-lens lineup dots like the other Art lenses. This very well may be a fixed hood, which would royally p--- off landscapers.
> ...



I still contend Tamron foolishly, idiotically, inexplicably, infuriatingly chased the 14-24 Nikon when they put out their 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It's a fine optic, but the single decision to go down to 15mm pushed them into 'bulbous' territory, the front filter was lost, and POOF -- there went all the prospective landscapers.

I really hope that 1 extra mm wider (and yes, I appreciate that's not a small framing change on the UWA end) was worth losing all the landscapers. It was a wretched design decision for that reason alone, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2015)

Would rather buy the Zeiss 15 with filter threads than the Tamron. But as pointed out, at 1.4 , 20mm is pretty sweet!


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Would rather buy the Zeiss 15 with filter threads than the Tamron. But as pointed out, at 1.4 , 20mm is pretty sweet!



Agree personally, but I think it depends on what you shoot with it. 

Landscapers should avoid non-front-filterable glass like the plague. Some 11mm prime owners (I mean 11-24 f/4L owners, excuse me) who shoot landscapes would disagree, but threading in filters is a must to me.

But if you are shooting astro (or maybe really low light events where you can't use a flash?), you don't really care about the threads as much, and this Sigma might fit the bill.

- A


----------



## RGF (Oct 15, 2015)

photo tips says this friday.

I hope.

Like to get one in early 2016 for several trips I have planned.


----------



## kbmelb (Oct 15, 2015)

I like this. I have never liked 24mm. Always felt like it was either too wide or not wide enough. I've owned both Canon 24Ls and either sold or returned them. A 20mm 1.4 might just be my cat's meow.


----------



## Zanken (Nov 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I still contend Tamron foolishly, idiotically, inexplicably, infuriatingly chased the 14-24 Nikon when they put out their 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It's a fine optic, but the single decision to go down to 15mm pushed them into 'bulbous' territory, the front filter was lost, and POOF -- there went all the prospective landscapers.
> 
> I really hope that 1 extra mm wider (and yes, I appreciate that's not a small framing change on the UWA end) was worth losing all the landscapers. It was a wretched design decision for that reason alone, IMHO.
> 
> - A



I really hate this attitude. A theoretical Tamron 16-30 would not be the same thing with a filter thread. It would be a very different lens. It would likely be bigger/heavier and more than likely worse edge performance and CA. There is a reason why Canon have made a bunch of different 16-35ish f2.8 lenses and haven't come close to IQ of the Nikon lens with the bulbous front element.

Canon now has an f4 lens to suit your filter thread and IQ needs.

I'm much more a fan of different brands trying to appeal to find their own niche in the marketplace rather than spit out their old versions of the 'tried and true.'

On topic, Sigma released some photo samples on their blog:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2015/20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-hands-on-sneak-peek-with-image-samples/

It looks soft wide open which is a shame. I had hoped that it would be a decent improvement over the old f1.8 model which I still had a lot of fun with.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

Zanken said:


> I really hate this attitude. A theoretical Tamron 16-30 would not be the same thing with a filter thread. It would be a very different lens. It would likely be bigger/heavier and more than likely worse edge performance and CA. There is a reason why Canon have made a bunch of different 16-35ish f2.8 lenses and haven't come close to IQ of the Nikon lens with the bulbous front element.



You are correct, it would be a very different lens. _More landscapers might actually use it!_ 

Look, I'm just saying that chasing 15mm + f/2.8 is a step _towards_ astro / events / sports and a step _away_ from landscapes. You absolutely can shoot all of those with this lens, but I think you will find landscape work will have the most strings attached -- for starters, it's a heavy f/2.8 lens when landscapers tend to live in a stopped down world, and it requires a very large and expensive filter setup. 

As Dustin has shown, you can net some _killer_ landscapes with it, but I'd contend the following: unless 15mm really unlocks something magical for you, you can highly likely net the exact same image more conveniently, more inexpensively and in a more compact and lightweight total bag with the 16-35 f/4L IS. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not bashing the lens -- far from it. _I'm pissed it's so hard/expensive/large to filter because I'd love to try it if it wasn't._

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 4, 2015)

Zanken said:


> On topic, Sigma released some photo samples on their blog:
> http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2015/20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-hands-on-sneak-peek-with-image-samples/
> 
> It looks soft wide open which is a shame. I had hoped that it would be a decent improvement over the old f1.8 model which I still had a lot of fun with.



Right, on topic, we all should give this a go -- a proper review of this new Sigma 20mm lens:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457

And, for those too impatient to leaf through, here's the (potentially) bad news:
http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

I don't shoot astro -- is that a death sentence for this lens, or is it just a bummer?

- A


----------



## Djaaf (Nov 4, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Right, on topic, we all should give this a go -- a proper review of this new Sigma 20mm lens:
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457
> 
> ...



Depends on your expectations. 
As said before, there's not much competition in that segment (apart from the Nikon 20 f/1.8, but it's just as bad...), so... it's bad, but it's not like someone is offering something better. 

I was hoping to get it, but i'll keep my Samy 14mm f/2.8 for now. It's less bright but the shorter focal allow for longer pose without having to compensate for the earth rotation... All in all, not a big difference in total light gathered...and the 14 is almost coma-free. 

If it comes down in price quite a bit or if I manage to find it used in a few months/year for around 500€, I'll give it a go. 

Djaaf.


----------



## sanj (Nov 4, 2015)

I am going to buy this lens. It sounds great for shooting in crowds in low light.


----------



## MickDK (Nov 4, 2015)

Don't understand Sigmas reasoning here. No filters? Bad coma? Yuck. 

Not for landscapers - and not good for astro either. 

Should be OK for low light event shooting though.

I'd much prefer the Rokinon/Samyang 24mm F1.4 (low coma and very sharp).


----------



## docsmith (Nov 4, 2015)

Bad coma? Have you compared it to the 24 f/1.4s? Much improved over the Canon and slight improvement over the Sigma. Plus...sharper wide open and pretty much across the board. I am not 100% sold yet, but that review did not disappoint.


----------



## meywd (Nov 4, 2015)

I expected a better coma performance since well.....its meant for astro, but still its tempting at 20mm and $1k, though the 35mm f/1.4 II tempts me more, waiting for lenstip's review of it, but even if it's not better, it will get higher usage.


----------

