# UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2018)

```
We haven’t heard much about Sigma in a while, but it looks like the next lens from the company will be a 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art if <a href="http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/02/14-24mm-f28-dg-hsm-art.html">today’s reports are true</a>.</p>
<p>This would give Sigma a very compelling ultra wide angle lens lineup with the 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art alongside the 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art and the 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art.</p>
<p>Expect an announcement this month ahead of CP+.</p>
<p>We haven’t heard anything further about new Sigma 70-200mm lenses.</p>
<p><strong>Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art Specifications:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Mount: Canon · Nikon · Sigma</li>
<li>Lens construction: 11 groups of 17</li>
<li>Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular aperture)</li>
<li>Maximum photographing magnification: 1: 5.4</li>
<li>Size (for Sigma): ų 96.4 mm x 135.1 mm</li>
<li>Weight (for Sigma): 1,150 g</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-33496 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_1-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_2-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_3.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_3-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_3-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma_3-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 7, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

I wonder if this will garner a little more attention than 2016's 12-24.
Canon's wide angle lenses don't seem to get quite as much attention as Nikon's 14-24f2.8 has had either, which seems to be one of the few lenses that hobbyists will save up for (and the Nikon lens isn't too expensive either).

Nikon still seems to have the best combination of being reasonably priced, reasonably sharp, well corrected, and it has the widest aperture.
What they gave up was 2-3mm on the wide end, but I guess it was "the standard" for long enough it's hard to avoid all the positivity that lens earned.

It's a bit ironic that a first party lens has the winning price to performance ratio in this category.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

Sounds like I'll sell the Samyang 14mm just to pay the tax on this one...


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

If Canon were to offer, at last, that would be exciting. Too close to the 16-35 2.8?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

Wondering why two lenses so close to each other in focal lengths which dont accept filters(Nikon offers 14-24 f2.8 and it has bulbous front element)?


----------



## amorse (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

I've always liked the idea of a 14-24 f/2.8 from Canon, but if I'm honest, I'd never bring it with me because the filter thread and ability to use 100mm filters is more important to me than the extra 2mm. In this case I'm happier with a 16-35 and carrying an extra 14mm on the rare occasions that I needed that extra 2mm.

Every time I see someone using that Nikon lens I always start to feel jealous, but then they pull out their filters and I don't feel bad anymore.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*

If Canon made an EF 14-24mm f/2.8, a certain crowd would have whined Canon is not innovative, and is just trailing Nikon.

[As if Nikon didn't take 5+ years to release a longer PC-E 19mm & fisheye zoom, and never released a 5X macro.]

Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



Antono Refa said:


> Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.



Then who in the world is Sigma targeting with this lens? 

The reason I'd get "excited" about Canon offering the same is reliable AF. PLUS great service that I'm familiar with. (I have no experience with Sigma service.)

While having one or two gap-filling lenses from competing brands makes sense, building up a quiver of lenses that need servicing from several different vendors definitely detracts from perceived $$$ savings at time of sale.

Nevertheless, a zoom wider than 16mm and faster than f/4 is something missing from Canon, so I'll read and watch reviews with interest.

As for "bulbous," filter challenges, etc., if that's what it takes to get rectilinear at ultra-wide, to me, a necessary compromise. I'd just cross my fingers every I went out with it!


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



YuengLinger said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.
> ...



There would always be people who want wider & faster just because.



YuengLinger said:


> Nevertheless, a zoom wider than 16mm and faster than f/4 is something missing from Canon, so I'll read and watch reviews with interest.
> 
> As for "bulbous," filter challenges, etc., if that's what it takes to get rectilinear at ultra-wide, to me, a necessary compromise. I'd just cross my fingers every I went out with it!



Like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L, which Canon makes for over 25 years? Or does it have to be a zoom because Nikon makes one?

The next step will be 'Canon lacks a lens to compete with the Voightlander 10mm f/5.6', to be followed all the way to zooms starting @ 0mm, as fisheye lenses prove there's a need for a rectilinear lens with a 180 vdeg AoV.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 8, 2018)

I do not see the urgent need for 2.8 instead of 4.0 fastness in a ultra wide zoom. if i really need fastness at 14mm there is the 14mm 1.8 lens which got nice reviews.

As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

if the new 14-24 has similar bad vignetting i do not see why to give up 2mm at the wide end.


----------



## sanj (Feb 8, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> I do not see the urgent need for 2.8 instead of 4.0 fastness in a ultra wide zoom. if i really need fastness at 14mm there is the 14mm 1.8 lens which got nice reviews.
> 
> As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.
> 
> if the new 14-24 has similar bad vignetting i do not see why to give up 2mm at the wide end.



Agree


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



Chaitanya said:


> Wondering why two lenses so close to each other in focal lengths which dont accept filters(Nikon offers 14-24 f2.8 and it has bulbous front element)?



Because the front element tends to get dramatically more bulbous wider than 16mm -- you'd need a very very large filter, like in excess of 90mm, so next to one offers that: 

Canon 14L II = no front filter ring
Nikon 14-24 = no front filter ring
Tamron 15-30 = no front filter ring
Zeiss 15mm = 95mm filter ring

...whereas seemingly everyone has a 16- zoom that takes a filter. 16mm FF would appear to be the inflection point between practical / impractical as far as filtering goes.

- A


----------



## kiwiengr (Feb 8, 2018)

sanj said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see the urgent need for 2.8 instead of 4.0 fastness in a ultra wide zoom. if i really need fastness at 14mm there is the 14mm 1.8 lens which got nice reviews.
> ...



For me the EF 11~24L does the job well. I would rather have the extra 3mm (about 30%) than one stop. Nothing against Sigma and their Art series, I love the 135....


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



amorse said:


> I've always liked the idea of a 14-24 f/2.8 from Canon, but if I'm honest, I'd never bring it with me because the filter thread and ability to use 100mm filters is more important to me than the extra 2mm. In this case I'm happier with a 16-35 and carrying an extra 14mm on the rare occasions that I needed that extra 2mm.
> 
> Every time I see someone using that Nikon lens I always start to feel jealous, but then they pull out their filters and I don't feel bad anymore.



+1000

Just like I said about the practicality of front filtering wider than 16mm (see what I just posted above), this is doubly problematic for 100m / 4x6 filtering. For starters you don't have the convenience of a front filter ring, so you need a special filter kit that mounts on the hood / lens barrel. In addition, larger filters are required to avoid vignetting at such a wide FL, which takes you out of the most common 100mm product ecosystem --> you have fewer filter options and stuff costs more. 

The Nikkor is a fairly legendary piece of kit (Canonites didn't have similarly sharp UWA zoom for landscapes until the 16-35 f/4L IS came out), but those extra 2mm -- in fairness, not a bad thing at all for landscape compositions -- has this filtering baggage as a result.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

kiwiengr said:


> For me the EF 11~24L does the job well. I would rather have the extra 3mm (about 30%) than one stop. Nothing against Sigma and their Art series, I love the 135....



Folks were screaming for Canon to make the the 14-24 2.8 before the great trio of 16-35L x2 + 11-24L came out. I asked them why and I got a smorgasbord of answers:


We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
We don't have a great astro zoom.

So in 2014 we got our landscape zoom update -- the 16-35 f/4L IS. Sharp, light, well built, and it had the front filter ring so vital for landscape filtering. IS was simply gravy for the dude who wants to shoot non-tripod-able dark interiors at reasonable ISO, handheld waterfalls, the odd video, etc. 

_But the calls for a 14-24 f/2.8 persisted_. One down, but three to go:


We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
We don't have a great astro zoom.

And then in 2015 Canon put out the 11-24 f/4L. All your focal length are belong to us. 14-24 2.8 calls still persisted, but with both the 16-35 f/4L IS and 11-24 f/4L now available, the number of folks wanting it were fewer:


We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
We don't have a great astro zoom.

And then in 2016 Canon put out the 16-35 f/2.8L III, an absolutely skull-splittingly sharp instrument for those that shoot events, sports, reportage, etc. as well as the landscaper who wanted a do-it-all tool. We now have:


We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
We don't have a great astro zoom.

Since those three came out, very very few people have been piping up here about a 14-24 2.8. I wonder if Sigma waited too long to offer such a lens.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



Antono Refa said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



A zoom offers more focal lengths, in case you didn't know.

You are arguing with yourself.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> kiwiengr said:
> 
> 
> > For me the EF 11~24L does the job well. I would rather have the extra 3mm (about 30%) than one stop. Nothing against Sigma and their Art series, I love the 135....
> ...



We gave up hope when the novelty monster 11-24 f/4 was released. I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon. Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.



Yep, the one achilles heel of the 16-35 f/2.8L III (besides the realities of its size / weight / cost) is the vignetting. It's principally @ the combination of 16mm f/2.8 -- stopping down or shooting longer makes this less of an issue, but yes, you don't want to see this in an f/2.8 lens.

But the 16mm sharpness is really good, and you still get to keep the front filter ring. It would appear the only way to get those two things is to vignette, and to solve that, you're looking at a Tamron 15-30 bulbous front element that blows up the filter ring. It's a tradeoff.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.
> ...



Good points!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
> ...



What about my list above implies that I am hung up on landscapes? I think I gave equal air to landscapes / U-UWA / all-purpose use in my post above.

I would contend that Canon has just about everyone covered here on the UWA end:

Travel: 16-35 f/4L IS
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
(Environmental) portraiture: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Architecture: 11-24 f/4L (or T/S)
U-UWA lovers: 11-24 f/4L 
Astro: [crickets]

So I ask you: what large group of shooters is being left out in the cold by Canon not offering 14mm @ f/2.8 in a zoom?

(And _not wanting a big pickle jar retrofocal 50 prime_ is not remotely the same thing as wanting a pancake, and you know that. ) 

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Just about covered, yes!

Their current 14mm f/2.8, while attractively smaller than the Sigma 1.8, just doesn't get solid enough reviews for me to go for.

I was under the impression from earlier posts that you were focused on landscape. I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

One thing the 16-35mm f/2.8 III has going for it is significantly less distortion than the f/4 IS--at least from what I see on TDP comparisons. The vignetting is a bummer and what's keeping me from trading up.

A 14-24mm f/2.8 with even less distortion and vignetting would be very welcome. More welcome from Canon, but I hope Sigma makes a better one than Nikon's. I'm interested!


----------



## whothafunk (Feb 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
> Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
> Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
> Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
> Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III


For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.



Sure, but filtering isn't just for landscapers or protecting your front element. Daylight event folks might need an ND as well.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.
> ...



I think this is super tiny subset. The ND's are occasionally useful for preplanned outdoor portraits, but I'd say only very rarely for events and photojournalism. How much more subject isolation would we get with an ND on an UWA with a max aperture of f/2.8?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 8, 2018)

whothafunk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
> ...



I was referring to the 16-35 f/4L IS being Canon's answer for video shooters because it has IS, not that it's the best tool from all manufacturers for that job. The Tamron might be better for that application, sure.

I would say a do-everything UWA zoom offers [fast] + [IS] + [front filterable]. _And that lens does not exist:_


Tamron gets you [fast] + [IS]
16-35 f/4L IS gets you [IS] + [front-filterable]
16-35 f/2.8L III gets you [fast] + [front-filterable] (<-- most would claim this product to be the all-battlefield UWA zoom, but it lacks IS)

Choose the right tool for your needs, I guess.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 8, 2018)

whothafunk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
> ...



I have the Tamron and it is a great lens. At least I think so. I haven't, though, been able to get a front filter kit yet.

Even though the Tamron is a very good lens, I still wish I'd bought the Canon if for nothing else than it's purported lack of distortion (not including the projection distortion). Yes, I saved a bunch of money, but by now I wouldn't be missing that money anymore.  I'd also be basking in a much wider FOV and no keystoning.

Both need the expensive front filter kits. 

Who is Sigma targeting? The same people the rest of the makers are targeting. Also, let's not forget, Sigma has a fan base like all the other makers do.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 9, 2018)

*Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art*



YuengLinger said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



You don't say!



YuengLinger said:


> You are arguing with yourself.



At least I'm arguing with someone who knows what Canon has to offer.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 9, 2018)

Looks like Nikonrumors got wind of the announcement first: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-a


----------



## exkeks (Feb 9, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.



According to DXOmark, the vignetting @16mm wide open is just about the same. So the "speed" advantage of the f/2.8 version is equally distributed.


----------



## snoke (Feb 9, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon. Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...



Some people say lens for specific job only. Why? Good question. Is ignorant comment.


----------



## snoke (Feb 9, 2018)

Sigma claim low "less than 1%" distortion. Amazing. Beat 16-35/2.8.

11mm field of view = 117.1 degrees
12mm field of view = 112.6 degrees
14mm field of view = 104.3 degrees
16mm field of view = 96.7 degrees

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 9, 2018)

exkeks said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.
> ...



This statement is interesting, i could not yet check it. My information was from Lenstip and TDP. More confusing is, that it seems not to be easy to even measure vignetting, even by routined reviewers. Same confusion about distorsion (for the 11-24 this time) which looks completely different at lenstip than at other reviewers.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

Vignetting data from LensTip (all values = wide open at widest FL on a FF sensor):

Canon 16-35 f/4L IS = -2.17 EV
Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III = *-4.07 EV* -- healthy discussion on that here
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC = -1.79 EV

And in that discussion link the III vignetting data is corroborated elsewhere. It's a function of focus distance, but largely you need to crank up the corners quite a bit in post to get back what the lens can't reel in, especially if you are shooting at 16 f/2.8.

So hendrik's comment that 'you lose your speed / you only get the true speed of the lens in the center' is not unfounded. I think it's a bit harsh to imply Canon isn't really giving you an f/2.8 lens here so much as (possibly) recognize that the world's sharpest UWA zoom did not come for free -- 16mm vignetting appears to be the cost. 

One also might wonder if the magical combination of [sharp] + [has filter ring] + [f/2.8] + [low vignetting] might have been possible if Canon had jumped to a _larger yet_ filter ring / front element diameter, say 86mm or higher. I don't think they would have dramatically improved vignetting without moving to a more bulbous front element, but a larger outer diameter might have helped.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Feb 9, 2018)

Astro-landscape photographers may be interested.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Astro-landscape photographers may be interested.



Yep, but Sigma -- for all it's butt-kicking on resolution -- has had limited success fighting coma.

I don't shoot astro, but it would appear from the posters here that coma performance is as vital as resolution with an astro lens.

And this has not been the strong suit of the wide/fast Art lenses:

Sigma 14 f/1.8 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/506.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 20 f/1.4 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/430.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 24-35 f/2 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/447.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-35_mm_f_2.0_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A


----------

