Reading mode: Light Dark

24/1.4 - Nikon, Canon, Sigma MTF comparison

Go to last post
I'm excited to see what Sigma can bring to the table, although frankly I was *really* hoping for a 135/1.8 Art instead, or an 85/1.4 Art. I love my Nikon 24/1.4G; so the bar is set high for Sigma. But that being said, the Sigma likely will be sharper wide open, at the probable expense of bokeh. So for those who shoot near the wide end, the Sigma might be just an option more than a "winner/loser".

My interest will be in how it compares stopped down in landscape work. The Nikon 24 is particularly well balanced across many things and distances. Could the Sigma art be better than the Nikon in some things? Absolutely... I could see it perhaps being a bit better at microcontrast, and actually my hope is that the Sigma rocks in it's own way, because I'm not "threatened" by the lens and given how bloody much I shoot at 24mm, if the Sigma art is as good as the excellent 35 and 50 arts I could absolutely see owning - and using - both, as tools in the toolbox with different characteristics and strengths as opposed to one being the outright winner in a battle. We shall see. Whether I'll get one before my summer travels, however is another question entirely.

I also will be curious how Sigma manages the finer and more subtle aspects of contrast with the lens. I think very highly of my 35/1.4 Art and 50/1.4 Art (and there is no way I could classify them as "cold and sterile" - they measure slightly warmer than the equivalent Nikons and they simply are more transparent to the scene and honest, which is not the same as clinical - the old 85/1.8 AFD was clinical - neither Art is by any stretch of the imagination), but there are subtle differences between the two art primes so far in terms of the contrast performance.

More good lenses are nice to have as options to choose from. Now, Sigma, get busy on that 135 design :)

-m
 
I still haven't pulled the metaphorical trigger on my 20mm f/1.8G purchase, and am still vacillating on it versus the 14-24, and was kind of hoping that Sigma would come along with a 20mm Art lens to simplify the situation -- I just adore my 35mm and got one of the lucky copies that hasn't needed any autofocus adjustments. I don't think that I can justify getting both the 20 and a 24. Rats.
 
anotherMike said:
I'm excited to see what Sigma can bring to the table, although frankly I was *really* hoping for a 135/1.8 Art instead, or an 85/1.4 Art. I love my Nikon 24/1.4G; so the bar is set high for Sigma. But that being said, the Sigma likely will be sharper wide open, at the probable expense of bokeh. So for those who shoot near the wide end, the Sigma might be just an option more than a "winner/loser".

My interest will be in how it compares stopped down in landscape work. The Nikon 24 is particularly well balanced across many things and distances. Could the Sigma art be better than the Nikon in some things? Absolutely... I could see it perhaps being a bit better at microcontrast, and actually my hope is that the Sigma rocks in it's own way, because I'm not "threatened" by the lens and given how bloody much I shoot at 24mm, if the Sigma art is as good as the excellent 35 and 50 arts I could absolutely see owning - and using - both, as tools in the toolbox with different characteristics and strengths as opposed to one being the outright winner in a battle. We shall see. Whether I'll get one before my summer travels, however is another question entirely.

I also will be curious how Sigma manages the finer and more subtle aspects of contrast with the lens. I think very highly of my 35/1.4 Art and 50/1.4 Art (and there is no way I could classify them as "cold and sterile" - they measure slightly warmer than the equivalent Nikons and they simply are more transparent to the scene and honest, which is not the same as clinical - the old 85/1.8 AFD was clinical - neither Art is by any stretch of the imagination), but there are subtle differences between the two art primes so far in terms of the contrast performance.

More good lenses are nice to have as options to choose from. Now, Sigma, get busy on that 135 design :)
Click to expand...
Good post Mike, and one I hope is true, though I won't be getting the Sigma 24 to find out.

However I am curious to see what the reviews and professional raters have to say about it. With the way Sigma is going, I've no doubt the lens will be good. In fact I think Sigma is doing a great job of putting quality pro type lenses out on the market to challenge the big two, and their performance proves up to the task.

In the end though it'll be interesting to see how the re-sale value holds against Nikon and Canon equivalents. And also against the other lens makers as well.

My two cents.
 
exapixel said:
I still haven't pulled the metaphorical trigger on my 20mm f/1.8G purchase, and am still vacillating on it versus the 14-24,
Click to expand...
LOL - see this post And the winner is...

In the end I passed on the 14-24 and went with the 24 f1.4. Here you have another option to look at in the Sigma 24. I on the other hand didn't want to wait for the release of a new lens as I pretty much knew I was going to get one of the lenses listed in my Decision thread.
 
I haven't heard a thing, not a peep, about a 20 art. Nothing. The lenses in the art pipeline I've heard about were the 24 and the 85, and about an equal chance of one of those being first, and then the 135 and potentially a 24-70/2 art (yup) down the road. I also heard that while Sigma has had some adventuresome ideas for art lenses that not all of them have turned out to be practical to manufacture, so I wouldn't hold my breath on a 24-70/2 in other words.

The 20/1.8G is definitely sharper than the 24/1.4G wide open or near it, if that matters any...

-m
 
Thanks. But now I don't know whether to wait for availability of the Sigma 24mm or to just jump on the Nikon 20mm, which seems like a solid performer by all accounts.

--

"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."
 
exapixel said:
Thanks. But now I don't know whether to wait for availability of the Sigma 24mm or to just jump on the Nikon 20mm, which seems like a solid performer by all accounts.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be more practical to decide on focal length first? Then decide which lens to get.

And know that the 20 and 24 are two different lenses for different purposes. The 24 can be used as a general purpose lens, whereas the 20 is more of a landscape lens. Yeah, you could move here and there but that is the general nature of the two lenses.

With that I would decide on which focal length best fits your needs, then decide on which lens to get. Here's and example of what I'm talking about...

I bought the Sigma 35 Art f1.4 and though it is a great lens, I've not used it much due to it's focal length. It's simply not wide enough for me. On the flipside I just bought the Nikon 24 f1.4 and this is a lens I intend to use a lot. Heck I've used it more in a week than I've used my 35 Art since getting it two years ago. There's nothing wrong with the Sigma, I just don't like the focal range.

I also thought about going with the Nikon 20 but that's a bit too wide for my liking, and I wouldn't get the perspective I'd get with the 24. In this instance the 24 is the happy medium between the 20 and the 35 for what I like to do - general photography, still life, and people pictures. And the perspective is just right for my liking.

Anyway that's how I would approach it - what works best for me (you).

Good luck.
 
Thank you for your advice. I'm pretty sure that I'm still headed for 20mm as a wide prime for landscapes, and I'm just whining about not being able to get there with the solid build, sharp look, and sensible price of the 35mm Art. :-)
 
anotherMike said:
I'm excited to see what Sigma can bring to the table, although frankly I was *really* hoping for a 135/1.8 Art instead, or an 85/1.4 Art. I love my Nikon 24/1.4G; so the bar is set high for Sigma. But that being said, the Sigma likely will be sharper wide open, at the probable expense of bokeh. So for those who shoot near the wide end, the Sigma might be just an option more than a "winner/loser".

My interest will be in how it compares stopped down in landscape work. The Nikon 24 is particularly well balanced across many things and distances. Could the Sigma art be better than the Nikon in some things? Absolutely... I could see it perhaps being a bit better at microcontrast, and actually my hope is that the Sigma rocks in it's own way, because I'm not "threatened" by the lens and given how bloody much I shoot at 24mm, if the Sigma art is as good as the excellent 35 and 50 arts I could absolutely see owning - and using - both, as tools in the toolbox with different characteristics and strengths as opposed to one being the outright winner in a battle. We shall see. Whether I'll get one before my summer travels, however is another question entirely.

I also will be curious how Sigma manages the finer and more subtle aspects of contrast with the lens. I think very highly of my 35/1.4 Art and 50/1.4 Art (and there is no way I could classify them as "cold and sterile" - they measure slightly warmer than the equivalent Nikons and they simply are more transparent to the scene and honest, which is not the same as clinical - the old 85/1.8 AFD was clinical - neither Art is by any stretch of the imagination), but there are subtle differences between the two art primes so far in terms of the contrast performance.

More good lenses are nice to have as options to choose from. Now, Sigma, get busy on that 135 design :)

-m
Click to expand...
Totally agree - I just think Sigma have more work on their hands in this focal length. I'm surprised they didn't go after 85 first. Perhaps the "elephant" in that case is the existence of the 85 F1.8 G, which might not be perfect, but is very,very good, relatively cheap and perfect for those who shoot at that focal length infrequently. By way of comparison, I think Nikon could severely limit future sales of the 35 Art lens if they dropped the price of the 35 F1.8G a little more.
 
exapixel said:
Thanks. But now I don't know whether to wait for availability of the Sigma 24mm or to just jump on the Nikon 20mm, which seems like a solid performer by all accounts.

--

"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."
Click to expand...
I would rate the Nikon 20 as better than solid - I just think if it had been designed for ultimate optical performance it could have been 5-10% more impressive. That said, put the Nikon 20 on the front of a D750 or D810 and you'll likely be very, very happy with the results in most circumstances.
 
Glad to see that the pixel peepers have already condemned the new Sigma 24mm F1.4 even though no one has even held it in their hands yet.

My experience with both the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART and 50mm F1.4 ART is that for the money they are the best . Yes I like sharp but they also have excellent micro contrast, decent bokeh. etc. My hope is that Sigma is pushing Nikon to make better primes that are more affordable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yxa
RSchussel said:
Glad to see that the pixel peepers have already condemned the new Sigma 24mm F1.4 even though no one has even held it in their hands yet.

My experience with both the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART and 50mm F1.4 ART is that for the money they are the best . Yes I like sharp but they also have excellent micro contrast, decent bokeh. etc. My hope is that Sigma is pushing Nikon to make better primes that are more affordable.
Click to expand...
Ah, but where would we be without endless speculation about unrealeased products... ;-)

For me, I would trade some of the absolute sharpness provided by the Sigma 50 for more of an emphasis on microcontrast. That's basically the call Sigma made on the 35 Art, which is sharp and contrasty by any measure, but the 50 amps up the global contrast a tad too much for me.

I also think Sigma need to pay more attention to OOF rendering. The flip side of the sharpness of the 50 Art is some ropey bokeh in some conditions. For a F1.4 24, it's important that wide open the subject (say a wedding group) isn't going to have a horrible background. That of course is the design direction of the existing Nikon 24 F1.4G.

I will confess that right now I would be more likely to buy a slower Nikon prime (perhaps F1.8? ;-) ) just because I'm a big believer in having a lightweight, but almost as good, travel kit. That may change if the Sigma outperforms.

Regardless, I'm sure analysing and comparing the Nikon and the Sigma will be interesting. I can't imagine the Sigma will be bad - I'm more interested in it's strengths and weaknesses though.
 
Where are you getting the idea that we're knocking the Sigma 24/1.4 Art?

The poster your thread replies to and my own thoughts both tend to say similar things: we are excited to see what it offers, yet mention that it may not be as easy to be 'the winner' as it was going against the (IMO weaker) Nikon 35 and 50mm offerings. That's not negative in my view.

And this is a gear forum - of course we're going to speculate on newly announced stuff :)



-m
 
RSchussel said:
Glad to see that the pixel peepers have already condemned the new Sigma 24mm F1.4 even though no one has even held it in their hands yet.
Click to expand...
They have? Where have they said that?
RSchussel said:
My experience with both the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART and 50mm F1.4 ART is that for the money they are the best . Yes I like sharp but they also have excellent micro contrast, decent bokeh. etc. My hope is that Sigma is pushing Nikon to make better primes that are more affordable.
Click to expand...
 
Lance B said:
RSchussel said:
Glad to see that the pixel peepers have already condemned the new Sigma 24mm F1.4 even though no one has even held it in their hands yet.
Click to expand...
They have? Where have they said that?
Click to expand...
Oh, that was me:
Lance B said:
exapixel said:
I hereby condemn the new Sigma 24mm f/1.4 lens, and I know that I'll hate it if I ever get one into my pixel-peeping hands. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry.

--

"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."
 
I agree with other cautions that an MTF test in isolation at a single focus distance (usually infinity for MTF) using a 1000:1 contrast target, or the current "fashion" of a 1000:1 contrast target at a whatever focus distance covers a roughly 2x3 foot target may be unwise.

The Canon MTF result at f8 looks very different to f1.4 :)

None of the 3 MTF's show good corner quality compared to long focal length lenses.

I do not disagree the Sigma based only on the MTF has a slight edge over the Nikon. On the other hand I do not know where you can easily find 1000:1 contrast subjects in the real photographic world.

I would not by a car based solely on whether it did 0 to 60 mph in 10.2 or 10.4 seconds. There is more to how good a lens is than MTF in isolation.
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
I agree with other cautions that an MTF test in isolation at a single focus distance (usually infinity for MTF) using a 1000:1 contrast target, or the current "fashion" of a 1000:1 contrast target at a whatever focus distance covers a roughly 2x3 foot target may be unwise.

The Canon MTF result at f8 looks very different to f1.4 :)

None of the 3 MTF's show good corner quality compared to long focal length lenses.

I do not disagree the Sigma based only on the MTF has a slight edge over the Nikon. On the other hand I do not know where you can easily find 1000:1 contrast subjects in the real photographic world.

I would not by a car based solely on whether it did 0 to 60 mph in 10.2 or 10.4 seconds. There is more to how good a lens is than MTF in isolation.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't buy any car that had a 0-60 time in the 10-second plus range :)
 
exapixel said:
Thanks. But now I don't know whether to wait for availability of the Sigma 24mm or to just jump on the Nikon 20mm, which seems like a solid performer by all accounts.

--

"I like your pictures. You must have a nice camera!" -- "Thanks. I like your poetry. You must have a nice pen."
Click to expand...
For your consideration: Things I like about my Sigma 35mm Art - build quality and subsequent weight.

Things I don't like - same as above. The Nikon 20mm has been well received and it is light.
 
calson said:
I shot with the Canon 24mm f1.4 on 1d Mark III cameras and it was a soft lens and on the Canon camera the autofocus was not terrible accurate which further reduced image quality.

The Nikon 24-70mm and 14-24mm zooms are sharper than the Canon prime by a very large degree. So good that there is no reason to bother with primes.
Click to expand...
Yea right. Let's me and you go out some night for some hand held shots. I'll bring both my Canon 24mm 1.4 and my Nikon 24mm 1.4, you bring your f2.8 zooms and let's see what we end up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top