# Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..



## rushfan21122 (Feb 10, 2015)

Just saw on B&H.. Didn't remember seeing this yet.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-sigma-gets-wide-24mm-f14-art-lens-dp0-quattro-camera?BI=4906


Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF
Sigma
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF
Different mount shown

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF Without Hood View
0
COMING SOON

Shipping: $3.99
PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS
EF Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
Aperture Range: f/1.4 to f/16
FLD and Special Low Dispersion Elements
Aspherical Glass Elements
Show more
(0) Write a review Q&A
Mount: Canon EF
Canon EF


----------



## candyman (Feb 10, 2015)

Good catch!
Wonder what the price will be. And...of course the reviews...


----------



## bereninga (Feb 10, 2015)

Wowww! I wonder if it'll be sub $1k and wipe the floor w/ Canon's 24mm 2.8 IS USM and 1.4. I'm excited about this lens, but prob won't be able to shell out for it.

I assume the AF issues will remain, but hey, I could be wrong. I also wonder about its size.


----------



## candyman (Feb 10, 2015)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=14466


----------



## Jesse (Feb 10, 2015)

Damn, wish it was the 85


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 10, 2015)

Jesse said:


> Damn, wish it was the 85


+1
Let's hope the 85 will follow soon.

But this one seems also pretty interesting. Waiting for reviews and price...


----------



## meywd (Feb 10, 2015)

I hope there is no coma, I guess the price will be as usual under $1k, so it's affordable but needs to perform if I am gonna skip on a telephoto lens for it


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 10, 2015)

meywd said:


> I hope there is no coma...


Hi meywd! 

I've just read the German press release:
http://www.sigma-foto.de/fileadmin/content/pressemeldungen/SIGMA_PR_A24.pdf

They say they have managed an "outstanding correction of sagittal coma" by "positioning aspheric elements on the rear" and so on. So they have aceived "high IQ performance from open aperture on".
Okay this is just a press release but sounds promissing. 

They also mentioned outstanding low CA by the use of FLD and SLD elements.

Let's wait for the reviews.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 10, 2015)

Here's the product page from Sigma America with more technical information:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24mm-f14-dg-hsm-a?link=feb-m-24mm

Funny, they state there: "This product is discontinued." ;D

edit: Now you can read: "Coming Soon"


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 10, 2015)

There will be nothing holding me from buying it if it'll be as good as the 35mm A. ;D


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 10, 2015)

bereninga said:


> Wowww! I wonder if it'll be sub $1k and wipe the floor w/ Canon's 24mm 2.8 IS USM and 1.4. I'm excited about this lens, but prob won't be able to shell out for it.
> 
> I assume the AF issues will remain, but hey, I could be wrong. I also wonder about its size.



Going by the 77mm filter thread, the lens looks to be about the same girth as the 50mm Art, but definitely shorter. Comparing the proportions of my 35mm Art against the picture of the 24mm, I believe the 24mm lens is fractionally shorter than the 35mm.

Edit: 85mm diameter x 90.2mm length so, yeah, my estimation above is right. At 665g, it's the same weight as the 35mm.


----------



## meywd (Feb 10, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > I hope there is no coma...
> ...





Maximilian said:


> Here's the product page from Sigma America with more technical information:
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24mm-f14-dg-hsm-a?link=feb-m-24mm
> 
> Funny, they state there: "This product is discontinued." ;D



Hi Maximilian

Thanks for the link, yeah I checked the press release but as you said it's better to wait for the reviews.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 10, 2015)

At least with 24mm ( on FF ) AF isn't as critical.......


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 10, 2015)

gigabellone said:


> There will be nothing holding me from buying it if it'll be as good as the 35mm A. ;D



I never really considered getting a 24mm, but I agree. If it is as good as the 35mm I have, this may be a good addition to my kit.


----------



## donn (Feb 10, 2015)

It's available on pre-order here in Norway. Same priced as the 50mm A and 35mm A. 

http://www.fotovideo.no/foto/Objektiver/Canon/Sigma-24mm-F14-A-DG-HSM-Canon-Eksklusivt-vidvinkelobjektiv139089-p0000192289


----------



## Viggo (Feb 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Where are all of the messages about how it won't autofocus correctly without sacrificing some virgins and doing a rain dance?



I actually tried that with the 2x35 and 2x50 I had, didn't work, so I will most definitely not buy another one. I'll keep the rest of my virgins, thank you...


----------



## infared (Feb 10, 2015)

Sweet! ;D


----------



## Etienne (Feb 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> At least with 24mm ( on FF ) AF isn't as critical.......



Not so. At f/1.4, focus is really difficult on 24mm. I had the Canon 24 f/1.4, and it missed focus most of the time when the focal distance was greater than 6 ft on my Canon 5D2. I sent it back because of AF issues. It's difficult to tell when you have good focus on a 24mm unless the subject is really close. I am told that this lens works better on the 5D3, but I never gave it another chance after my 5D2 experience.

I'll be interested in this Sigma if it performs better than the Canon in every respect, including AF. Wait and see time.


----------



## METEOR (Feb 10, 2015)

I wonder- Sigma 35 and 50 were "copy" of Zeiss. So which copy chosse sigma to make 24???


----------



## Cory (Feb 10, 2015)

My GAS just acted up a bit. I need some chamomile.


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 10, 2015)

can they please just take the 24-105 F4 out of the "ART" collection already? Excited to see what's next. I love the 18-35 F1.8 ART lens and extremely happy I purchased it. Would love to see another true ART style zoom lens.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 10, 2015)

Etienne said:


> At least with 24mm ( on FF ) AF isn't as critical.......



I will likely try it.
I had the original Canon 24 f1.4 (so compact and wonderful useful-even for flowers) .. and I rented a few times the 24 mk II ...the newer one had lower chromatics, a bit sharper in corners...but bokeh was not as good as original (imo) and shaded in corners worse than original...
so I waited... then I GAVE my brother my original 24 f1.4 ....for his 50D I gave him.....
and just last week I missed it ...so much... when shooting in dark clubs ... wide and fast is so valuable in a dark little club. my 35 A sig performed quite well as usual...but I sure miss the 24mm.... I could stand next to guitarist and yet... get the trio in the photo.

I remember the original Canon 24 f1.4, had focus problems ...especially out at 5-10 feet as described, However, I sent back to Canon and when it returned (they re-electronics it they said) it was just great all over. My sig 35 f1.4 A hardly ever missed focus on 5D2. And I got significantly more reliable focus on my 5D3 with Canon 24mk I, sig 35A and my 85L II....... vast improvement...especially the 85L.

I am getting the 11-24 Canon zoom ($gasp$)- so I am gonna have too much overlap for my normal tastes - but I NEED fast and wide...... for sure focus will be more difficult at 24mm wide open - especially in the 'dark' (imo) .. 

but I will try this one.... 
I hope for good coma, sharp edges, low distortion, low CA and reliable focus...to come with it. 

I thought the 85 would be my next sigma....but I kept the 85 f1.2 II .... after a long wait

I am never gonna get another guitar.... I guess... sigh


----------



## tron (Feb 10, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Where are all of the messages about how it won't autofocus correctly without sacrificing some virgins and doing a rain dance?


If it has NO coma I will not care about autofocus. I would use it fully wide open in manual focus for landscape astrophotography. That way I would be less afraid for future incompatibilities (there were some Sigma old lenses that used to work only fully open in modern digital cameras).

P.S Now, Some virgins - although not sacrificed- would be nice ;D
P.S2 I wouldn't use this lens at a rain dance though as I am pretty sure it wouldn't be weather sealed ;D


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 10, 2015)

Jesse said:


> Damn, wish it was the 85


+1, I hope they produce a new 85mm Art, since the current one is actually outstanding and DxO rates it as one of the best.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 10, 2015)

Why do people want the 85 art so much? It's the presumption that it will be even sharper than the 85 L mkii? It is it that it still be half the price?... our a faster auto focus system... sure there are plenty of reasons to want it, but it seems like the original sigma 85 isn't that old, and it is already pretty costly... So would an at version only be an extra $100?


----------



## Cory (Feb 10, 2015)

Would it be wrong to have a 24, 35, 50 and 85?


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 10, 2015)

Cory said:


> Would it be wrong to have a 24, 35, 50 and 85?



Why. Sigma makes a fine product... But that would be a heavy bag to carry around.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Feb 10, 2015)

24mm has more dof than 35/50 in most situations so AF in theory shouldn't be as bad.

85mm on the other hand, they had better get their AF right otherwise there will be lots of returns....


----------



## NancyP (Feb 10, 2015)

Landscape Astrophotography! Hope it is low-coma at f/1.4 (at most "square stars" in corner). I have to say that it is a challenge getting dark enough skies to profit maximally from f/1.4 on the 35mm Art.


----------



## jcarapet (Feb 10, 2015)

bsbeamer said:


> can they please just take the 24-105 F4 out of the "ART" collection already? Excited to see what's next. I love the 18-35 F1.8 ART lens and extremely happy I purchased it. Would love to see another true ART style zoom lens.



Don't worry, it's not just taken out of the art lineup, it's discontinued.


----------



## brianleighty (Feb 10, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Why do people want the 85 art so much? It's the presumption that it will be even sharper than the 85 L mkii? It is it that it still be half the price?... our a faster auto focus system... sure there are plenty of reasons to want it, but it seems like the original sigma 85 isn't that old, and it is already pretty costly... So would an at version only be an extra $100?


For me it's mostly price. If I'm spending in the range of the Canon 85L then I have lenses like the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS or the Canon 24-70 II. When Sigma didn't announce an 85 ART in September I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. I'd say around $1000 is about the max I'd be willing to pay (not that that is what it should cost just what I'd be willing to pay on sale). I bought my 35 ART for $780 and it's been a great lens. Primes are great but they obviously have a more limited use than zooms so I just can't justify spending $2000 on one when I could put that towards something else. Just my take on things.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 10, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Landscape Astrophotography! Hope it is low-coma at f/1.4 (at most "square stars" in corner). I have to say that it is a challenge getting dark enough skies to profit maximally from f/1.4 on the 35mm Art.


Indeed, though the 50 and 35mm Art unfortunately have quite poor coma wide open. The press release gives some hope, but I will also wait for a reputable review. A low-coma 24/1.4 would be a dream. The Samyang 24/1.4 seems to be the best so far in that respect (though don't know about the crazy expensive Zeiss).


----------



## JohnUSA (Feb 10, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Damn, wish it was the 85
> ...



Yeah my Sigma 85mm f1.4 is excellent. Not sure how they can improve on it. It did have a hiccup over the summer, began to front focus occasionally and sent it to Sigma in Long Island. Had it back in under a week and it's working great. Sigma reinstalled and/or updated the firmware.


----------



## brianleighty (Feb 10, 2015)

jcarapet said:


> bsbeamer said:
> 
> 
> > can they please just take the 24-105 F4 out of the "ART" collection already? Excited to see what's next. I love the 18-35 F1.8 ART lens and extremely happy I purchased it. Would love to see another true ART style zoom lens.
> ...


I heard that wasn't true and they're still producing it. I think why people have a hard time with that lens is it doesn't follow the usual trend of the ART series of either doing something no one else has done (18-35) or does it at least or in most cases better and for a cheaper price. The The 24-105 isn't a bad lens the problem is it's a kit lens so it can easily be found for around $600 giving the Canon an upper hand. I have no issue with it being in the ART category. I'm just not planning on buying it.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 10, 2015)

This and any other Sigma is off my radar until they have fully proven that they have fixed the AF issues. I´ll never go through the pain I had with the 35 and 50 Arts again ... Imagine an 85 f1.4 with that AF ...


----------



## bereninga (Feb 10, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Landscape Astrophotography! Hope it is low-coma at f/1.4 (at most "square stars" in corner). I have to say that it is a challenge getting dark enough skies to profit maximally from f/1.4 on the 35mm Art.
> ...



Off topic, but I would say the ultimate landscape astrophotography lens would be the Samyang 14mm/2.8. But I guess not as fast.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Why do people want the 85 art so much? It's the presumption that it will be even sharper than the 85 L mkii? It is it that it still be half the price?... our a faster auto focus system... sure there are plenty of reasons to want it, but it seems like the original sigma 85 isn't that old, and it is already pretty costly... So would an at version only be an extra $100?



85 and 135 are fairly easy lenses to produce and produce well given the field of view. Even the Canon 85mm f1.8 is an extremely solid performer at $400. It even achieves focus faster than the 85mm 1.2 L. So yes, the Sigma EX is already a solid lens, but given the direction Sigma is going they will be updating the 85 to join the ART family. Granted they may not have too much to do to improve it, but since it was made on the older process, they will be giving a fresh update and a new look to match the ART. They went 24mm first because they really didn't have a great lens in that focal length and it's a common one for landscapers. They may even knock out a 135mm before the 85mm too. But at about $1000, the old Canon 135L is still arguably the sharpest lens Canon produces. Sigma has a tall ladder to climb in the EF mount there because I can't see a Sig 135 coming in much less than that Canon. It's 50/50 what comes next. 85 vs 135


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 10, 2015)

brianleighty said:


> For me it's mostly price. If I'm spending in the range of the Canon 85L then I have lenses like the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS or the Canon 24-70 II. When Sigma didn't announce an 85 ART in September I went ahead and bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. I'd say around $1000 is about the max I'd be willing to pay (not that that is what it should cost just what I'd be willing to pay on sale). I bought my 35 ART for $780 and it's been a great lens. Primes are great but they obviously have a more limited use than zooms so I just can't justify spending $2000 on one when I could put that towards something else. Just my take on things.



That is fair. I got the 85 L mkii and it became my favorite lens, so much so that I tried to show horn it where it didn't belong, sports mostly & a little walk around.

I have four lenses at the moment, each with its specific duty. And I find I'm manually focusing a ton with the 85, that I might as well consider an otus. But I'm happy with it.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 10, 2015)

For me this is a very good news. I bought the 35mm very recently and had the chance to test it two weeks ago. 
It is in pair with the canon 85mm 1.2, by this I mean if I didn't know I would assume that they were taken with the same zoom lens, just at # focal lengths. Of course I am wrong, but I have no shame in showing my results with it to the same customer against the 85 mm 1.2 (both at f2.0).
With that said, to me it is all about rectilinearity. The new canon 11-24 seem to be the right one for my need (indoor video + fill flash in low light, in very tight area) but I am still scratching my head where to get $3000 for it. If the 24 ART can reach that level of linearity, I would live without 11mm (if I have to) because of the price while gaining ambient light at 1.4 (VS f4).


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Feb 10, 2015)

So happy it's a 24mm!!!!!!!! I want to pre-order but they're not up yet


----------



## dpc (Feb 10, 2015)

I noticed on photozone this morning that the 150-600 Contemporary was announced too. Perhaps not real news but perhaps it's close to purchase.


----------



## Larry (Feb 10, 2015)

Cory said:


> Would it be wrong to have a 24, 35, 50 and 85?



How can you even ask such a question? 

OF COURSE it would be wrong. 

Terribly wrong!

And it will grow hair on your palms like that other bad thing you do.

Look ashamed!


----------



## Cory (Feb 10, 2015)

Good point. I've gotten ahold of myself since my original post and you've confirmed everything. 
Thanks.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 10, 2015)

TommyLee said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > At least with 24mm ( on FF ) AF isn't as critical.......
> ...



I am really hopeful about this lens too, when my 24 f/1.4 mkII was well focused the shots were great. It really is a special focal length / aperture combination!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).

Also, given Viggo and Eldar's experiences with the Art series AF, I'm staying far away from this line of lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 10, 2015)

Two years ago, I would have never thought of replacing my 24mm,50mm,135mm prime kit with all sigma primes. They need to make a 135mm f/1.8 IS and I'd adopt a new prime set of only sigmas.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Feb 10, 2015)

???


CarlMillerPhoto said:


> So happy it's a 24mm!!!!!!!! I want to pre-order but they're not up yet



+1,000,000

I think I've checked B&H 20 times already today. ;D Gotta be first to pre-order this badboy--I've been waiting forever for this announcement. Well, at least since I got my 50mm Art. 

Love that lens!


----------



## kubelik (Feb 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).
> 
> Also, given Viggo and Eldar's experiences with the Art series AF, I'm staying far away from this line of lenses.



I'm particularly curious about the coma and astigmatism for exactly that reason - nightscapes. I don't really care much about its AF performance, but of course price/performance ratio is key.

Forgive my ignorance, I thought the 35mm and 50mm Art lenses were touted as being very sharp? was that not the real world observation? I haven't kept up to date with gear reviews lately.


----------



## ecka (Feb 10, 2015)

OMG 24/1.4 Art!
Great news.
Me happy :


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

kubelik said:


> Forgive my ignorance, I thought the 35mm and 50mm Art lenses were touted as being very sharp? was that not the real world observation? I haven't kept up to date with gear reviews lately.


I guess I wasn't clear on that - what I meant was that when shot wide open, the 24L II is very sharp, the 35L is modestly sharp, and the 50L is a bit soft. The Sigma Art lenses beat the 35 and 50, particularly the 50L quite a bit wide open. The 24L II is going to be a much bigger challenge on the sharpness side, but it's vignetting is considerable and the coma in the corners is terrible for stars.


----------



## Botts (Feb 10, 2015)

Man, if I still shot crop, I'd jump on this in a heartbeat!

For FF though, the 35A is my go to!


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 10, 2015)

24 1.4 comafree for ~700€ might be interesting. (35 Art vs 35L is the same price difference)

85 Art... Sigma build for Canon and Nikon. (and Sony) I've heard (i have no idea), that f/1.2 isn't possible on Nikon side due to smaller distance between lens and sensor - so a 85 1.2 Art should not be possible, correct?
Maybe 85 Art 1.4 is the maximum possible, but with a nice sharpness and faster AF this would be ok, i think. But I am no portrait guy, so 85 isnt my lens anyway.


----------



## PhotographerJim (Feb 10, 2015)

Wow, just a bit of self-promoting there at the beginning....


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 10, 2015)

bereninga said:


> Off topic, but I would say the ultimate landscape astrophotography lens would be the Samyang 14mm/2.8. But I guess not as fast.


Depends on your needs... for meteors and aurorae, speed is important. Meteors also tend to look less impressive at 14mm, and composition becomes more challenging. I certainly would prefer a good 24/1.4 



mackguyver said:


> what I meant was that when shot wide open, the 24L II is very sharp, the 35L is modestly sharp, and the 50L is a bit soft.


I don't find the EF 24/1.4L II that sharp. Only when stepped down to 2.8 does it become reasonably sharp, and then only as sharp as the EF 24-70/2.8L II zoom (worse center, better in the corners). And as mentioned before, the coma is absolutely terrible. So I find there is definitely room for improvement.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 10, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> Indeed, though the 50 and 35mm Art unfortunately have quite poor coma wide open. The press release gives some hope, but I will also wait for a reputable review. A low-coma 24/1.4 would be a dream. The Samyang 24/1.4 seems to be the best so far in that respect (though don't know about the crazy expensive Zeiss).



Which fast 35mm lenses have less coma than the Sigma Art? I haven't tried all that many, but even though it wasn't perfect the copy I briefly owned was far better in terms of coma than, say, the Canon 35mm IS.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 10, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Which fast 35mm lenses have less coma than the Sigma Art? I haven't tried all that many, but even though it wasn't perfect the copy I briefly owned was far better in terms of coma than, say, the Canon 35mm IS.


I don't really know, haven't tried any other. Perhaps it's the best, even though it's no good [wide open]. For a long while I thought it perhaps impossible to make a fast 24mm with little coma, but then the Samyang 24/1.4 came along and proved me wrong. Maybe the coma-optimised 35mm design just hasn't happened yet.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).
> 
> Also, given Viggo and Eldar's experiences with the Art series AF, I'm staying far away from this line of lenses.



I believe the Canon 35mm is more widely regarded as sharper than the Canon 24mm wide open. In fact, in my experience I felt that the 24mm was not very sharp except for the center wide open. Have no experience with the Nikon, of course.
Another aspect is price. One big reason for people buying the 35A is the lower price. I am sure a lot of people will go for a 24A if it is $ 500 cheaper than the 24L.
I agree with staying away from Sigma lenses due to AF issues though. A pity...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 10, 2015)

Wow... this new lens effectively kills my Sigma 20mm f/1.8


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 10, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Here's the product page from Sigma America with more technical information:
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24mm-f14-dg-hsm-a?link=feb-m-24mm
> 
> Funny, they state there: "This product is discontinued." ;D



Boy they aren't even waiting until a few months after release (24-105) this time. ;D

More seriously, it sounds nice, especially if the N24-70 isn't so great at 24mm and the 5Ds doesn't have the better DR that a few are now claiming (although it all seems like reaching to me) and one goes N.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> This and any other Sigma is off my radar until they have fully proven that they have fixed the AF issues. I´ll never go through the pain I had with the 35 and 50 Arts again ... Imagine an 85 f1.4 with that AF ...



Same here. Not even an attempt yet to fix the 50mm Art with a firmware update.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 10, 2015)

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open. I don't mind "square stars" in the extreme full frame corners at f/1.4. Pixel peepers may tut-tut, but the images look good. PS. for astrophotography, one shoots in manual, so the consistency issue is not pertinent. My copy has been fine for the few daytime shots taken with AF. (I also shoot landscapes with manual focus.)


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2015)

I'm hesitantly excited for this lens.

One thing that may put me off is the actual light transmission, the 18-35f1.8 has almost the same T-stop as f-stop, very good light transmission and it's almost as good as some f1.4 lenses for light gathering. DOF is something else entirely, but I primarily want a wide aperture for light transmission.
On the other hand if the new 24f1.4 has very low distortion then I'll probably get it regardless.


----------



## dash2k8 (Feb 11, 2015)

I'm definitely buying one.


----------



## Ripley (Feb 11, 2015)

Uhh... where's the other 61mm ???


----------



## Ripley (Feb 11, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > This and any other Sigma is off my radar until they have fully proven that they have fixed the AF issues. I´ll never go through the pain I had with the 35 and 50 Arts again ... Imagine an 85 f1.4 with that AF ...
> ...



I purchased the 35A and 50A over the holidays and their autofocus has been great.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 11, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).
> ...



my 35L WAS sharper than my 24L mk I, I got the sig 35 1.4 because it was sharper than the canon wide open
...gave my brother the 24L mk I, ...tried the 24L mk II...lower chromatics but too much vignetting...

I believe the sig 24 1.4 will fit right in with my sig 35 1.4... both of them better than current canon offerings
in most places...35L had a very slight BOKEH edge over sigma 35 IMO...

24mm and f1.4 has a heck of a lot of use for me....
the orig canon 24mm mk I was quite compact....

I also believe the sigma 135 f1.8/f2... with OS will... be a better NEXT lens for them...
I am waiting...and waiting


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 11, 2015)

TommyLee said:


> I also believe the sigma 135 f1.8/f2... with OS will... be a better NEXT lens for them...
> I am waiting...and waiting



My Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS is SOLD already. I have two lenses covering 24mm FL but if test on this lens indicates it performs fine, it will be an option to consider, particularly if distortion is lower and minimal coma.

If Sigma launches the 135 f2 OS lens along with the new 85mm f1.4 (with OS?), they can take my money right now.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 11, 2015)

The 3 Sigma lenses I own, all af perfectly. 
They focus a tiny touch slower than some of L glass, but they nail focus really well.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2015)

TommyLee said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The ef 24mm f1.4 II L is a sharper lens than either the ef 35mm f1.4 L or the mkI of the 24mm. But only a fool would consider a lens based only on a sharpness metric. The 35L renders far better photos than either the Sigma 35 art or the 24mm f1.4L. The 35L is primarily a portrait lens and in that use, it excels. 
I have said it many times here and have been accused of all sorts of stuff by Sigma fans. So i'll say it again, after using Canon's professional lenses and Sigma lenses in a professional context...I have found Sigma products disappointing, fragile and have inherent AF issues. What's the point of a sharp lens if it can't focus properly when you need it to? I have owned a lot of Sigma glass over the years, including their 70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4 (a complete dog), 180 macro, 12-24, 15mm fisheye, 24-70 f2.8, 120-300 DG OS (many know of my disappointment of this particular lens). All of these lenses have been replaced by Canon optics and they have out lasted, impressed and delivered consistency every time I've used them. 

So Sigma have released a new 24mm, I'll be using my existing 24mm f1.4 II L and my advice is this: if you want a great f1.4 24mm prime lens, get the Canon mkII. Otherwise, good luck with your purchase and I hope you have better milage with the Sigma brand than I have. I'm done with the brand.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 11, 2015)

The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open.


Is your experience perhaps from using it on APS-C? From what I recall on FF, the coma was not subtle. I will search for samples or obtain new ones tonight, weather permitting.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 11, 2015)

As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame. For my purposes, a good overall image, not scientific accuracy, "square stars" (small amount of coma, no wings) do not detract. I am not printing larger than 13 x 19 at the moment. Of course, I could stop down to f/2 and often do, if I think that I am going to blow the brightest stars off the right end of the histogram. f/2 has brightest round stars in far corners of FF. Speaking of which, Canon really ought to provide an option for RAW histograms.


----------



## bereninga (Feb 11, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html



Wow, that's a VERY impressive price. If I were in need of a 24mm, I'd pick this one.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 11, 2015)

bereninga said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
> ...


  I guess Sigma does want my money. If a 135mm Super Sigma is released, they'd get all my prime lens money.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open. I don't mind "square stars" in the extreme full frame corners at f/1.4. Pixel peepers may tut-tut, but the images look good. PS. for astrophotography, one shoots in manual, so the consistency issue is not pertinent. My copy has been fine for the few daytime shots taken with AF. (I also shoot landscapes with manual focus.)


I agree with NancyP in being able to accept slight coma in the extreme corners. Most print viewers are not as picky as we are and probably don't look that carefully at individual stars. However, with the pointed language in the lens description of two aspherical lens elements to minimize coma, I expect astrophotography to be a strength of this lens.
Vignette chart shows 2 stops of vignette in the corners (Wide open) not great, but not unexpected for a f/1.4 lens.


----------



## infared (Feb 11, 2015)

Cory said:


> My GAS just acted up a bit. I need some chamomile.



Yes...Yes..... I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???


----------



## Cory (Feb 11, 2015)

infared said:


> I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???


Now that you mention it - I have a crop sensor and a 10-18 so maybe 24 doesn't make a ton of sense. My other standard lens is the 35 2.0 IS and then I have a 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits. The 35 is generally what I have on the camera, but 50mm is a little "better" for indoor portraits. 
Would you think that having a 35 and a 50 makes sense? Of course, the difference is more pronounced on my crop than on your ff so maybe "yes", but maybe not. Maybe 28mm and 50mm to really round it out (vs. 35 and 50)?


----------



## Etienne (Feb 11, 2015)

Cory said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???
> ...



You'd be better with a 24 and a 50.
24 gives about 38mm (good all around), and 50mm give you a nice 80mm portrait lens.
OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 11, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open.
> ...



My experience (FF only) matches lenstip's:

http://www.lenstip.com/359.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

As far as I'm concerned coma is the one area where it most obviously beats the Canon 35 IS (aside from max. aperture, of course).


----------



## lintoni (Feb 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame. For my purposes, a good overall image, not scientific accuracy, "square stars" (small amount of coma, no wings) do not detract. I am not printing larger than 13 x 19 at the moment. Of course, I could stop down to f/2 and often do, if I think that I am going to blow the brightest stars off the right end of the histogram. f/2 has brightest round stars in far corners of FF. *Speaking of which, Canon really ought to provide an option for RAW histograms.*!


Are you aware that you can get RAW histograms with Magic Lantern?


----------



## Cory (Feb 11, 2015)

Etienne said:


> OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.


Hmmmm. My daughter's high school volleyball career has ended (a few favorites at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ ) so I could maybe sell my 10-18 and 70D to finance that. Also, I can probably sell my 200 2.8 since I'm going to get a 100-400 anyway and that might work indoors with the 6D.
Might that really make sense with my entire kit being the 6D, 35, 85 and 100-400?


----------



## LOALTD (Feb 11, 2015)

Just to echo what others have said: for me, the way this lens handles coma is going to be the determining factor in a possible purchase! I’ve rented the Canon 24/1.4 II numerous times, I love it, very sharp, great all-around rendering. But…the coma while shooting stars is simply too out-of-control. Shards of glass/bats in the corners, makes it a real deal breaker for nightscape (which is one of my favorite things to shoot).

For now I’ll be content with my 28/2.8 IS (for day) and Samyang 14/2.8 (for night). Having a 24/1.4 sure would be nice though 8)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 11, 2015)

Cory said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.
> ...



That is a very versatile kit for many people. You might miss an UWA though, depending on your usage.
I recommend adding a 16-35/4 or even a 17-40/4 if that is the case. Or a Rokinon 14/2.8.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 11, 2015)

NancyP said:


> As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame.


I would too, that's not what I mean by poor coma.



sdsr said:


> As far as I'm concerned coma is the one area where it most obviously beats the Canon 35 IS (aside from max. aperture, of course).


I start to wonder if I have a defect copy...

Anyway, I could not find a good 35mm Art starscape example in my archive and unfortunately the sky is overcast. Fortunately, I found a neighbour with some christmas light decorations left on the balcony rail, so I could use them as point sources. Instead of taking one picture, I focused in the center and then took one picture with the balcony in each corner of the field of view (in manual mode exposure and focus). 

To show that coma doesn't necessarily need to be this bad, I also performed this test with a Samyang 24/1.4, also wide open. I also found a starscape with the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, attached. From these tests, I stand by my statements that the coma of the Sigmas wide open is poor, but the Samyang 24/1.4 together with the Sigma press release indicating they may have made some progress in this area, gives me some hope for the Sigma 24/1.4 Art.


----------



## tron (Feb 12, 2015)

@epsiloneri: interesting demonstration of coma. Thanks. I believe though that the photos from Samyang apart from the exceptionally low coma exhibit yet another property of Samyang: Decentering


----------



## sdsr (Feb 12, 2015)

epsiloneri said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I'm concerned coma is the one area where it most obviously beats the Canon 35 IS (aside from max. aperture, of course).
> ...



I don't think so - the sample you posted looks about right. I didn't mean to suggest - nor did the lenstip review show - that it had no coma wide open; rather, in my experience it's better than the alternatives I've used/seen. If I remember right, it's completely gone by c. f2.5, while - say - the Canon 35mm IS starts out far worse and takes much more stopping down to remove. If you poke around in the reviews at lenstip I don't think you'll find better fast 35mm coma performance on FF (the Canon 35L is terrible). Maybe Leica can do better.... (I've not tested my Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 for coma, but one might hope that a slower lens would have less of it....)


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 12, 2015)

tron said:


> I believe though that the photos from Samyang apart from the exceptionally low coma exhibit yet another property of Samyang: Decentering


Yes, you're right - I will have to make some more experiments to see how bad it is 



sdsr said:


> the sample you posted looks about right.


Ok, so the Sigma 35/1.4 Art has the best coma you've so far seen a 35mm exhibit, although I would say it is still quite poor. I guess I'm just disappointed in that the 35 & 50 Art lenses seem so perfect in all other respects (including AF, for me) that I wouldn't have thought their coma to be this bad. I thought it perhaps was an inherent problem with fast designs, but then the Samyang proved this wasn't so (though it has other problems, it seems). So perhaps the SIgma 24/1.4 Art will indeed have improved coma, I sincerely hope so, because the EF 24/1.4L II is as bad (or worse) as the Art examples posted above [wide open].


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 12, 2015)

Ripley said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Ripley, could you please tell us the firmware version of your 50A? Thanks.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 12, 2015)

Cory said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.
> ...



That would make an excellent kit!

I am partial to ultrawide, so I would recommend adding the 16-35 f/4L IS at some point. That would give you a Pro setup from 16 - 400.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 12, 2015)

Cory said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???
> ...



35mm would probably still work. However 28mm might be a little better. Part of it is personal preference. I enjoy fast primes and shoot crop currently. I have 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm and they compliment each other well enough. 85mm is great, but for sure more of an outdoors, keep a bit more distance. I personally find 35mm (on crop) not always wide enough inside. The 28mm has worked well. Although sometimes when I bring gear with me, I leave the 28mm at home and its spot in the camera bag gets filled with the M + 22mm pancake.

Don't hear too much about 28mm primes these days, but on a crop sensor, I think it is the best focal length for a "normal" lens. And Canon's 28 f/1.8 is about as small/light as you can get without going to pancake lens.


----------

