Sigma ART f/1.4 20mm any experience?

[Tomx72]

I am about to pull the trigger on the ultimate low-light wide lens and from the tests I like the sigma 1.4/20. It would serve a panasonic gx80 through the metabones 0.64x booster.

Does anyone have experience with the lens? Shall I be aware of any typical faults (decentering, etc) for the purchase?

 

[travelinbri_74]

I played with this lens a bit when it first came out, and was very impressed with the few files I got out of it, but I haven't seen it get as much traction as the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 Arts. Perhaps because Nikon makes a fantastic 20/1.8G that is less money and half the weight.

-TBri

 

[Stian Olaisen]

I love it =) Fast focusing, good isolation, sharp across the frame, great against sun and bright light, sharp as f. Need any images?

 

[Tomx72]

I love it =) Fast focusing, good isolation, sharp across the frame, great against sun and bright light, sharp as f. Need any images?

Thanks for both of your feedback! Of course, some wide-open images are very welcome !

 

[Stian Olaisen]

I see I need to shoot it more at F1.4 for sure. Need to dig into the archive. Here's one but not at F1.4 ... What are you going to shoot, landscape?

 

[Tomx72]

I see I need to shoot it more at F1.4 for sure. Need to dig into the archive. Here's one but not at F1.4 ... What are you going to shoot, landscape?

Mixed bag, landscape and indoors. Maybe some Astro kicks in as well.

 

[Stian Olaisen]

I will go and shoot some more with it wide open, got plenty at f2 and up.

But I know its sick sharp even at f1.4, found a couple of, well, bad ones really, but as you can see, its really really sharp at the very least, even if it's not a feast for your eyes. =)

Also, not so bad coma. Not at all. =)







EDIT: Question before I go to bed, maybe I should take a couple of indoors tomorrow maybe? =) Any examples in particular you want me to shoot?

 

[Tomx72]

I will go and shoot some more with it wide open, got plenty at f2 and up.

But I know its sick sharp even at f1.4, found a couple of, well, bad ones really, but as you can see, its really really sharp at the very least, even if it's not a feast for your eyes. =)

Also, not so bad coma. Not at all. =)

Indeed! After reading thelenstip review I was worried about coma a bit, but in real life this looks perfectly usable. Thanks!

EDIT: Question before I go to bed, maybe I should take a couple of indoors tomorrow maybe? =) Any examples in particular you want me to shoot?

Already convinced , I've nothing particular in mind.

 

[Paul JM]

I will go and shoot some more with it wide open, got plenty at f2 and up.

But I know its sick sharp even at f1.4, found a couple of, well, bad ones really, but as you can see, its really really sharp at the very least, even if it's not a feast for your eyes. =)

Also, not so bad coma. Not at all. =)





EDIT: Question before I go to bed, maybe I should take a couple of indoors tomorrow maybe? =) Any examples in particular you want me to shoot?

Sorry. but going to disagree. Lots of coma in the corners, and I cant quite place the problem with that image, but for iso 200 it has a pile of noise. How much sharpening did you apply ? (first image)

 

[Stian Olaisen]

I will go and shoot some more with it wide open, got plenty at f2 and up.

But I know its sick sharp even at f1.4, found a couple of, well, bad ones really, but as you can see, its really really sharp at the very least, even if it's not a feast for your eyes. =)

Also, not so bad coma. Not at all. =)





EDIT: Question before I go to bed, maybe I should take a couple of indoors tomorrow maybe? =) Any examples in particular you want me to shoot?

Sorry. but going to disagree. Lots of coma in the corners, and I cant quite place the problem with that image, but for iso 200 it has a pile of noise. How much sharpening did you apply ? (first image)

Guess I have to repeat myself : in a hurry to get to bed I only found a couple of bad pictures at f1.4, but also as I said, the lens is super sharp. There's only some coma in the corners, but I still it's not too bad and fixable if you want to. Oh, the noise is because I was way underexposed, had to raise it way to much, but then again, I said the pictures was bad. But the offer still stands about taking pictures if he want something specific =)

 

[Tomx72]

Sorry. but going to disagree. Lots of coma in the corners, and I cant quite place the problem with that image, but for iso 200 it has a pile of noise. How much sharpening did you apply ? (first image)

you haven't seen the results of my 1.4/50 nikkor from 2008... Besides, as I above stated, I plan to use it on m4/3 with speed booster, at an effective crop of ~1.3x. That would basically keep the sweet spot of the image.

 

[noflashplease]

I am about to pull the trigger on the ultimate low-light wide lens and from the tests I like the sigma 1.4/20. It would serve a panasonic gx80 through the metabones 0.64x booster.

Does anyone have experience with the lens? Shall I be aware of any typical faults (decentering, etc) for the purchase?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to simply buy a Samyang or Rokinon 12mm F2 in M43 mount? They even make a 8mm F/2.8 fisheye and a 10mm F/2.8 rectilinear lens?

 

[Stian Olaisen]

Too much family stuff today but here's a couple of more shots. =)

For edge to edge sharpness at f1.4, focus is at the bicycle in the middle:



And the bokeh:



Sharpness depth at close distance:



Found some more as I start digging that fits in, and there's better light on those too =)





My oldest son:

 

[Tomx72]

Too much family stuff today but here's a couple of more shots. =)

Great shots! Btw you seem to have a tiny bit of front-focusing on that bike shot (from the sharpness of the stones).

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to simply buy a Samyang or Rokinon 12mm F2 in M43 mount? They even make a 8mm F/2.8 fisheye and a 10mm F/2.8 rectilinear lens?

They are different kind of animals. With speed booster adapted lenses you are after extreme speed, this case sub-f/1.0 with superb performance for both edge-to-edge sharpness without the need of higher ISO-s in low light and without significant vignetting. Basically what you can expect is the IQ and DOF shown above by Stian, peeled off the image borders, all at f/0.9.

 

[Stian Olaisen]

Too much family stuff today but here's a couple of more shots. =)

Great shots! Btw you seem to have a tiny bit of front-focusing on that bike shot (from the sharpness of the stones).

Thanks Tom =) Yep just a nodge I guess. Superhappy with the lens, and from f2.8 it's superb and from F4 its insane. But what's important for me is that it's sharp enough wide open, so I have no hesitation using even then. =)

 

[davidevans1]

I love it =) Fast focusing, good isolation, sharp across the frame, great against sun and bright light, sharp as f. Need any images?

You use it with a D810 don't you? I read a review that found the autofocus (on the reviewer's copy and with the D810) hit and miss, with outliers. See here.

I'm thinking of this lens (or a Tamron 15-30 possibly) for using with a D810) so the AF consistency interests me in particular. I have a Sigma Dock, so would AF fine tune if necessary, but that wouldn't affect consistency I think.

Thanks for any feedback.

 

[Stian Olaisen]

Yep it's with the D810. I've used it quite a bit lately but I must say it usually hits very well. It is tuned with the dock though, and I'm happy with the AF performance so far. I'm quite surprised that the reviewer had any problems.