# Review: Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG Art via LensRentals.com



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 3, 2015)

```
<p>LensRentals.com has completed their comparison review of the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG Art series lens. They have put it against the 24mm fast prime options from Canon, Nikon and Rokinon. This Sigma certainly holds up well, especially when it comes to sharpness in the center. Although, the endorsement for this lens isn’t quite as enthusiastic when compared to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art.</p>
<blockquote><p>The new Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens does, indeed, out resolve the offerings from the major manufacturers, at least in the center of the image. At the edges, though, the advantage disappears. More importantly with any 24mm f/1.4 lens, try as you will, unless you really stop the lens way down you aren’t going to get a flat field of focus. And if you are going to stop the lens way down, why invest all the extra money for a wider aperture lens.</p>
<p>That doesn’t make these bad lenses. There are clearly some types of photography that this focal length is invaluable for, and in that case you just learn to work around the shortcomings. In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/just-the-lenses-sigma-24-f1-4-art-comparison#more-22105" target="_blank">Read the full comparison review</a> | Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art $849: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/SG2414CA.html%20" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></p>
```


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 3, 2015)

Good to see some actual testing.


----------



## infared (Apr 3, 2015)

"In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true."
Yes...I will go with my Sigma 35mm Art if I need Low DOF in a wide lens....and with the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS in my quiver...I see no reason to purchase a 24mm prime...just don't need that added expense and baggage.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 3, 2015)

infared said:


> Yes...I will go with my Sigma 35mm Art if I need Low DOF in a wide lens.....I see no reason to purchase a 24mm prime...just don't need that added expense and baggage.



This is exactly why they make different lenses. For me, 35mm is not wide enough. I see no reason to have a 35mm when it is so close to 50mm. often when I'm shooting a concert I don't get to move around--I'm stuck in one spot. So that extra coverage by the 24mm make a big difference.

So glad we have choices to suit our individual shooting needs. ;D


----------



## Aichbus (Apr 3, 2015)

Roger Cicala somehow argues that since then lens has no flat field of focus it is not usable at 1.4 and has to be stopped down, which negates the purpose of a 1.4 lens. I don't share this view at all. What do we mostly need a 1.4 lens for? 

a) There is little ambient light and we need to freeze motion. 
b) There is enough light to stop down, but we want the shallow depth of field.

In both cases you probably don't care about a flat field of focus. Case a) might be the wedding dance. In this case you are lucky if one of the dancers is in focus. Because of the movements, you can't hope for both dancers to be in the plane of focus, let alone the background. In case b) your object fills a tiny part of the frame anyway, so the field curvature isn't a problem either. From what Roger said I conclude that you can get sharp images at the corner of the frame if you deliberately put the focus there (and expect the center of the image to be out of focus). That's fine for case b).

If you try a handheld shot of a brick wall at night you might have a problem, but frankly, for brick walls at night,you don't need f1.4, you need a tripod.

If you use this lens you will probably find that there are situations where the field curvature will actually turn out to be beneficial: Interior architectural photography. In most of those shots, the center of the image is farer away than the sides. Think of a cathedral, where you have the altar in the center. Because of the wide angle, you might have the sides of the church in the corners of your image. Field curvature actually makes those sides sharper!

My Conclusion: There isn't any lens that fits all needs, but I think this lens fits the needs of users who think they need 24 mm @ 1.4 pretty well.


----------



## LovePhotography (Apr 3, 2015)

So, the Sigma 24mm Art prime lens is not tack sharp in the edges and doesn't have a flat field of view, but the Canon 16-35mm f/4 does?


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 3, 2015)

I like Roger and appreciate his free information, but I disagree with him a bit on this one. The 24 f/1.4 lenses produce a considerably different perspective than the 35 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, take a few steps back and the framing is the same, but the perspective is not...and what if you can't take a few steps back? That's a big issues when shooting indoors for events and such - you can't step back.

Also, on the field curvature issue - if you want to shoot a landscape photo at f/1.4 you had better be prepared to blur out a lot of the scene (like Christoper O'Donnell). If not, you're doing it all wrong. For environmental portraits, the 24 f/1.4 lenses give a totally unique look with a sharp subject and a blurred but recognizable background.

These lenses are for portraiture or creative photos with lots of bokeh. If you want to use them for other purposes, you are really wasting your money as just about any zoom or slower prime will be as good or better when they are both stopped down.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2015)

I love me some Uncle Rog blog posts, I do, but I generally disregard his composition tips. : I agree with others that his comments about the weaknesses of this lens (a) are not new in a large aperture WA prime, and (b) are not 'solved' by stopping down as (often) that isn't the point of this lens.

His findings, in much more fancy and granular detail, back up the LensTip review of the 24 Art: give or take a few pluses and minuses, optically it's on par with a Canon 24 f/1.4L II at about half the price. 

So this lens isn't the homerun of the 35 Art and 50 Art. But at that value proposition, it's still a solid base hit.

- A


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 3, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> But at that value proposition, it's still a solid *triple*.- A



There, fixed it for ya ;D


----------



## Aichbus (Apr 3, 2015)

LovePhotography said:


> So, the Sigma 24mm Art prime lens is not tack sharp in the edges and doesn't have a flat field of view, but the Canon 16-35mm f/4 does?


The 16-35 f/4 also has a fair amount of field curvature, but if focussed properly you don't see it, because it's hidden in the depth of field at f/4. (as it is not a problem with the 24 art when stopped down to f/4). You *can* see it, if the focus is not perfect. Then it is possible that the center is sharp (because it is still within the dof, and the corners are unsharp (because beyond dof).


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 3, 2015)

Another comment I would make is on distortion, the Sigma is lower distortion than the competition.

Overall if the qualification of an "Art" lens is to be better than the best (non-Zeiss) lenses out there for under $1,000 then this still meets the criteria. I still think it's amazing that they're managing this and it's fantastic that we can still build so much excitement for new products in a century old industry.
This is probably just the first example of a focal length where the first party lenses were already decent.
Sigma still has the best 24mm lens, at any price.
It would be fantastic to see Zeiss take a crack at an Otus 24mm, then Sigma could re-release their lens with the updated formula...


I really have to wonder how much reverse engineering is responsible for these lenses.
The 50A, 150-600, 24A all perform eerily close to the best alternative (I haven't looked at any 35mm comparisons lately), and release timing seems to coincide with the competition (or just be based off of old lenses). Will we now see a Sigma 11-24A for $1,500?
Not that I'm saying that's bad, they're raising the bar and this industry definitely needs that.
There is the 18-35A, but that almost seems like a fluke.
Lets see a 135A or 24-70A that beats the pants off the competition and is competitive five years from now.

On a completely different subject, at this point I would desperately love to see them just buy some Sony sensors and put out a half-decent body. If they could take the reins on their own AF system I can't help but think they could give Canikon a run for their money.
Samsung is entering the industry now and those guys are all about market disruption, I can't help but think the Sigma Foveon program has wasted a lot of potential for them and things are about to heat up to a point that would be very difficult for a new entry.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Apr 3, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Will we now see a Sigma 11-24A for $1,500?



If it is as awesome as my 24 & 50 Art lenses, consider this my pre-order! 8)


----------



## douglaurent (Apr 3, 2015)

I own this Sigma 24/1.4 Art lens since 8 days now, and after some loose testing my personal ranking shows the lens as best wide prime alternative, but not too much ahead of the Canon on second place:

#1 Sigma 24/1.4 Art
#2 Canon 24/1.4 II
#3 Nikon 24/1.4
#4 Nikon 20/1.8
#5 Zeiss 21/2.8 - because it's only f2.8
#6 Zeiss 25/2 - because it's only f2
#7 Sigma 20/1.8
#8 Canon 24/1.4 I


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 4, 2015)

> the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards


Hmmm, that doesn't quite work for astrophotography...


----------



## Khalai (Apr 4, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> > the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that doesn't quite work for astrophotography...



Nor does the field curvature and pronounced coma of this lens unfortunately...


----------



## AndreeOnline (Apr 5, 2015)

As many other have pointed out, I feel it's strange that all of a sudden "the perfect lens" became the reference in the conclusion.

It's been established that it's difficult to produce perfect fast wides. Perfect as a norm is desirable in the review section, but in the summary maybe the lens' performance should be relative to what what's on the market?

Shouldn't the fact that this lens is the best one in terms of absolute performance, plus it's half the price, be reflected in a somewhat more cheerful conclusion?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 5, 2015)

AndreeOnline said:


> As many other have pointed out, I feel it's strange that all of a sudden "the perfect lens" became the reference in the conclusion.
> 
> It's been established that it's difficult to produce perfect fast wides. Perfect as a norm is desirable in the review section, but in the summary maybe the lens' performance should be relative to what what's on the market?
> 
> Shouldn't the fact that this lens is the best one in terms of absolute performance, plus it's half the price, be reflected in a somewhat more cheerful conclusion?


I Concur. Perfection is unattainable.
If the possible level of perfection to achieve is Zeiss Otus, then one should compare new lenses with it.
Sigma 24mm Art does very well in relation to the best 24mm F1.4 available, and can be overcome by a future 24mm Otus, which is still just a dream.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Apr 5, 2015)

Got one. Like it alot. Happy to see it is more than competitive with the others. Sure I would love a lens that had perfect MTF charts for both sag & tan at pixel size of the 5Ds, etc at f1.4 - heck while dreaming dream bright, why not f 1.0! 

While theoretically possible, look at the price differential of the best 50mm that Roger posted a few weeks ago.

Chasing that next identifiable bit of resolution is a monumental effort in engineering, manufacturing, and I suspect weight as well - which all adds up to yet bigger dollars. 

Everything is a compromise, though in this case not so many.


----------

