Hi Nassim, thanks for that awesome review!. I want to buy a good doggie portrait lens, im planning between 20 an 24mm 1.4. Both Sigma brand. Which you think could bring best and more bokeh?
Pete
January 3, 2019 12:20 am
All good, good, good… sigh :-( Could we please have an unbiased review. Is it biased? Yes, there are kick back links. …simple… and sad
Mark
March 25, 2018 11:19 pm
Hi there, I am looking at this lens Sigma 20 or 24mm 1.4 ART and the Nikon 20 or 24mm 1.8g. I currently have the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and am looking at a lighter lens that I can also use for astro photography that is reasonably sharp on the edges and can also be used for landscape.
Alex Carnes
March 9, 2018 1:50 am
I couldn’t get on with the lens. I eventually sold it and bought the Sigma 24-35/2 ‘Art’ instead. At 24mm, the zoom lens was actually shaper than the prime in the centre, which surprised me; the cost is considerable barrel distortion, but I’m more of a 28mm shooter, at which the zoom lens displays hardly any distortion. Looking back on it, I suspect my copy of the 24/1.4 was less than stellar, it just didn’t have the biting sharpness one expects from Sigma Arts. I also own the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and had to return a couple of each.
Joachim
February 27, 2018 10:55 pm
Chris, everybody has it’s own ideas about that two lenses. Instead of reading another opinion / experience, I first like you to suggest “Rent both and find out which works best for you”. I have both, and the 14/1.8 because I like the combination of shallow DoF and wide or wider angle of view – that’s my main reason to struggle with selling one of them, as they are close to each other.
The 20 mm is ½ pound more weight and much bigger volume in your bag. If you like to use filters, the 20 mm will need another big investment. I do only occasionally put on some ND filter on the 24 mm, not possible without a big and spacey and dedicated = expensive filter holder. I find the 24 mm easier to focus in some occasions, namely at night in a cityscape. Although it was adjusted (in daylight) I got sharper results with LiveView. Constantly sharper results. I should repeat that experience with D850, but on D810 I was a bit disappointed I have to use LV and very pleasantly surprised about the results.
Night skies: The 20 mm also shows coma in the corners. Few fast wide-angles might not, and I don’t know any really “coma free to the extreme corners wide open”-types. For portraits, the 24 shows less perspective distortions, but the 20 mm gives more space – and at worst, more obstacles…
Sharpness wise, both are great wide open in the center, but don’t expect the 20 mm being less of a challenge than Nasim found the 14 mm to be.
Btw. I’m still hoping he will find time to share his recipe of corner sharpness. A small / short hint would do. I find it rather challenging as these lenses are very sharp in the center. Other fall shorter in the center and not much worse in the corners, so things are even on a lower level. But the sharpness easily to me addicted to it..
Addendum to the above: I really like to correct some grammar issues and misleading content. First was “his own ideas”, second “I like to suggest you…” and third was the focus difficulties and night happened with the 20 mm, which is better to use with LV. Sorry for not being more careful and skipping the proofreading.
How refreshing to see someone online who cares about grammar! All too rare these days.
Chris Zeller
February 27, 2018 2:04 pm
Thanks Nasim for another excellent review complete with your beautiful photos. I’ve been eying this lens for some time mostly in comparison to the sigma 20mm. Have you had any experience with the 20mm? Which would you choose as a choose as a wide angle compliment to the sigma 35 and 50 I already have? Thinking of it for indoor portraits and night skies. Your focus issies put me off of the 14mm 1.8. Focus was perfect on the 35 and 50.
Hi Chris. Shooting with a 20mm is real fun. And if you use a high resolution camera with > 30MP you can crop to 24mm or 28mm easily later. If I have to choose between 20 and 24mm I’d take the 20mm with me. I do not do landscapes but when I’d choose the lens with the least distortion. I’d choose the lighter over the heavier lens. And for wide angle (below 35 or 28mm) I personally think a f/1.4-lens is not necessary because bokeh is not that important as with longer focal lengths.
John-Paul
February 27, 2018 7:14 am
I once tested the Nikon 24/1.4 and Sigma Art 24/1.4 and by side. One thing that really stood out was how with my copy of the Sigma, how soft and out of focus it was at wider apertures such as f/1.4. I don’t remember if it was +20, but I definitely had to do some ridiculous micro focus adjustment, after which it seemed to be pretty spot on. But wow, yeah, it seems to be poorly calibrated out of the box. I didn’t have the USB dock, so I couldn’t do any focus adjusting. However, On the other hand, I own the Sigma Art 35/1.4, which I bought after doing a side-by-side test with the Nikon 35/1.4, and found the Sigma to be a better lens. It’s sharp through f/2 and usable, but a bit soft wide open. Not sure if the USB dock would help. My experience with the Sigma Art 50/1.4 is similar to their 35.
Jan Holler
February 27, 2018 5:05 am
Thank you, Nasim. I like this kind of reviews which bring in the personal opinion and the reason for it besides just facts and figures. As we speak of wide angle lenses and their large(r) depth of field: Today’s DSLRs deliver more than acceptable results with higher ISO values. f/1.4 is not even a full f-stop away from f/1.8. Speaking of DOF: 3 meters away (~ 10 feet) with a 24mm: f/1.4 = 0.54m in front, 0.84m behind and f/1.8 = 0.65m and 1.14m (take those numbers as a comparison only not as true and absolute values). That is not much of a difference and therefore the difference in bokeh will (probably) be small. Your review of the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 I have (re)read. So my question is: Why should one even buy a 24mm f/1.4 when there is a 24mm f/1.8 for much less with about the same optical quality but much lighter if it is not about sturdiness? I still have my manual 24mm f/2.8 AI. If I wanted to replace that, I’d go for the Nikon 24mm f/1.8. My regards! -jan
Joachim
February 27, 2018 12:12 am
Yes, the 14/1.8, 138/1.8 and 85/1.4 have it. I used to say “even Nikon don’t exactly defines which kind of weather this claims to be proven of”, I found it just “something done” but far away fro the efforts Olympus or Pentax undertook to make their systems really waterproof.
Sigma was just a bit earlier with that lens than Nikon with their f/1.8 version. Like before with the 85/1.8G, Nikon threw out their f/1.4 versions. I wanted them but if I had the choice to go f/1.8, I’m not sure the Sigma would have won me over. I started buying Sigma Lenses when the 35/1.4 came out, on my camera still the one which is often with me.
And still: The f/1.8 Nikkor has a better overall performance but looking at your – excellent like always – pictures and my -less excellent, like always :) – ones, I don’t see you often need corner sharpness wider open. It’s good to remind me I have to stop down to f/8 to get a decent balance – but that aperture I use anyway to get more DoF, so I think I’m still doing fine with the Sigma Art – which is so much more customizable than the Nikkor ever was.
Joachim
February 26, 2018 11:56 pm
” And with its very attractive price of $850, it is over 2.3x more expensive than the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and 1.8x more expensive than the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, making it of excellent value.”
The Sigma being MORE expensive? ;) I’m nearly sure you meant the other way round.
Optically I never regretted the exchange of the Nikkor against the Sigma and it’s the widest lens of Sigma with a filter thread. The only moment I was less happy about the missing “rubber gasket weather protection” which the Nikkor has and the Sigma just don’t have was a splash my some curious wave at the harbour bay of a very small Welsh town. What can I say? The lens is still working while the more expensive d4 tripod head from ArcaSwiss turned out to become rusty at one screw. :) A couple of rainy days also are okay as long as I can prevent direct splashes.
Joachim, I restructured that sentence and forgot to replace “more expensive” with “cheaper”, sorry about that! :)
Sigma started adding rubber gaskets to their recent lenses (Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art has it). I just hope they do that to all lenses going forward, even the ones that were announced a while ago.
Hi Nassim, thanks for that awesome review!. I want to buy a good doggie portrait lens, im planning between 20 an 24mm 1.4. Both Sigma brand. Which you think could bring best and more bokeh?
All good, good, good… sigh :-(
Could we please have an unbiased review.
Is it biased?
Yes, there are kick back links.
…simple… and sad
Hi there, I am looking at this lens Sigma 20 or 24mm 1.4 ART and the Nikon 20 or 24mm 1.8g. I currently have the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and am looking at a lighter lens that I can also use for astro photography that is reasonably sharp on the edges and can also be used for landscape.
I couldn’t get on with the lens. I eventually sold it and bought the Sigma 24-35/2 ‘Art’ instead. At 24mm, the zoom lens was actually shaper than the prime in the centre, which surprised me; the cost is considerable barrel distortion, but I’m more of a 28mm shooter, at which the zoom lens displays hardly any distortion. Looking back on it, I suspect my copy of the 24/1.4 was less than stellar, it just didn’t have the biting sharpness one expects from Sigma Arts. I also own the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and had to return a couple of each.
Chris, everybody has it’s own ideas about that two lenses. Instead of reading another opinion / experience, I first like you to suggest “Rent both and find out which works best for you”. I have both, and the 14/1.8 because I like the combination of shallow DoF and wide or wider angle of view – that’s my main reason to struggle with selling one of them, as they are close to each other.
The 20 mm is ½ pound more weight and much bigger volume in your bag. If you like to use filters, the 20 mm will need another big investment. I do only occasionally put on some ND filter on the 24 mm, not possible without a big and spacey and dedicated = expensive filter holder. I find the 24 mm easier to focus in some occasions, namely at night in a cityscape. Although it was adjusted (in daylight) I got sharper results with LiveView. Constantly sharper results. I should repeat that experience with D850, but on D810 I was a bit disappointed I have to use LV and very pleasantly surprised about the results.
Night skies: The 20 mm also shows coma in the corners. Few fast wide-angles might not, and I don’t know any really “coma free to the extreme corners wide open”-types. For portraits, the 24 shows less perspective distortions, but the 20 mm gives more space – and at worst, more obstacles…
Sharpness wise, both are great wide open in the center, but don’t expect the 20 mm being less of a challenge than Nasim found the 14 mm to be.
Btw. I’m still hoping he will find time to share his recipe of corner sharpness. A small / short hint would do. I find it rather challenging as these lenses are very sharp in the center. Other fall shorter in the center and not much worse in the corners, so things are even on a lower level. But the sharpness easily to me addicted to it..
Addendum to the above: I really like to correct some grammar issues and misleading content.
First was “his own ideas”, second “I like to suggest you…” and third was the focus difficulties and night happened with the 20 mm, which is better to use with LV. Sorry for not being more careful and skipping the proofreading.
How refreshing to see someone online who cares about grammar! All too rare these days.
Thanks Nasim for another excellent review complete with your beautiful photos. I’ve been eying this lens for some time mostly in comparison to the sigma 20mm. Have you had any experience with the 20mm? Which would you choose as a choose as a wide angle compliment to the sigma 35 and 50 I already have? Thinking of it for indoor portraits and night skies. Your focus issies put me off of the 14mm 1.8. Focus was perfect on the 35 and 50.
Hi Chris. Shooting with a 20mm is real fun. And if you use a high resolution camera with > 30MP you can crop to 24mm or 28mm easily later. If I have to choose between 20 and 24mm I’d take the 20mm with me. I do not do landscapes but when I’d choose the lens with the least distortion. I’d choose the lighter over the heavier lens. And for wide angle (below 35 or 28mm) I personally think a f/1.4-lens is not necessary because bokeh is not that important as with longer focal lengths.
I once tested the Nikon 24/1.4 and Sigma Art 24/1.4 and by side. One thing that really stood out was how with my copy of the Sigma, how soft and out of focus it was at wider apertures such as f/1.4. I don’t remember if it was +20, but I definitely had to do some ridiculous micro focus adjustment, after which it seemed to be pretty spot on. But wow, yeah, it seems to be poorly calibrated out of the box. I didn’t have the USB dock, so I couldn’t do any focus adjusting. However, On the other hand, I own the Sigma Art 35/1.4, which I bought after doing a side-by-side test with the Nikon 35/1.4, and found the Sigma to be a better lens. It’s sharp through f/2 and usable, but a bit soft wide open. Not sure if the USB dock would help. My experience with the Sigma Art 50/1.4 is similar to their 35.
Thank you, Nasim. I like this kind of reviews which bring in the personal opinion and the reason for it besides just facts and figures.
As we speak of wide angle lenses and their large(r) depth of field: Today’s DSLRs deliver more than acceptable results with higher ISO values. f/1.4 is not even a full f-stop away from f/1.8. Speaking of DOF: 3 meters away (~ 10 feet) with a 24mm: f/1.4 = 0.54m in front, 0.84m behind and f/1.8 = 0.65m and 1.14m (take those numbers as a comparison only not as true and absolute values). That is not much of a difference and therefore the difference in bokeh will (probably) be small. Your review of the Nikon 24mm f/1.8 I have (re)read.
So my question is: Why should one even buy a 24mm f/1.4 when there is a 24mm f/1.8 for much less with about the same optical quality but much lighter if it is not about sturdiness? I still have my manual 24mm f/2.8 AI. If I wanted to replace that, I’d go for the Nikon 24mm f/1.8.
My regards! -jan
Yes, the 14/1.8, 138/1.8 and 85/1.4 have it. I used to say “even Nikon don’t exactly defines which kind of weather this claims to be proven of”, I found it just “something done” but far away fro the efforts Olympus or Pentax undertook to make their systems really waterproof.
Sigma was just a bit earlier with that lens than Nikon with their f/1.8 version. Like before with the 85/1.8G, Nikon threw out their f/1.4 versions. I wanted them but if I had the choice to go f/1.8, I’m not sure the Sigma would have won me over. I started buying Sigma Lenses when the 35/1.4 came out, on my camera still the one which is often with me.
And still: The f/1.8 Nikkor has a better overall performance but looking at your – excellent like always – pictures and my -less excellent, like always :) – ones, I don’t see you often need corner sharpness wider open. It’s good to remind me I have to stop down to f/8 to get a decent balance – but that aperture I use anyway to get more DoF, so I think I’m still doing fine with the Sigma Art – which is so much more customizable than the Nikkor ever was.
” And with its very attractive price of $850, it is over 2.3x more expensive than the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G and 1.8x more expensive than the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, making it of excellent value.”
The Sigma being MORE expensive? ;) I’m nearly sure you meant the other way round.
Optically I never regretted the exchange of the Nikkor against the Sigma and it’s the widest lens of Sigma with a filter thread. The only moment I was less happy about the missing “rubber gasket weather protection” which the Nikkor has and the Sigma just don’t have was a splash my some curious wave at the harbour bay of a very small Welsh town. What can I say? The lens is still working while the more expensive d4 tripod head from ArcaSwiss turned out to become rusty at one screw. :) A couple of rainy days also are okay as long as I can prevent direct splashes.
Joachim, I restructured that sentence and forgot to replace “more expensive” with “cheaper”, sorry about that! :)
Sigma started adding rubber gaskets to their recent lenses (Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art has it). I just hope they do that to all lenses going forward, even the ones that were announced a while ago.