Debating between Sigma 20mm / 24mm / 35mm Art

KevinRA wrote:

I owned the 24mm ART for a while and liked it - it's not optically perfect but centre performance pretty good at f1/.4 but needs really f/2.8 for truly sharp edges (when needed) - my copy autofocussed accurately on all of my canon bodies most of the time. It did show a little fringing and coma (not the coma-monster the canon 35 f/2 IS is at the edges at f/2) and did not have the "wow" factor wide open quite of the best - but easily beats my current 24-70 f/4 when both at f/4. Sold it only due to me establishing I did not normally have a need for 24mm f/1.4 after about 18 months. I did like the lens though and would buy one again rather than the canon equiv..

I bought a 35mm ART at one point and optically was quite good - and to be honest struggled with it on AF accuracy, even playing with the sigma dock. Also saw some a little fringing and coma at f/1.4, not horrendous. But the lens to my surprise did not work for me. Returned it due to AF issues, which the 24mm simply did not have in the same way. Many others love the lens - so maybe I had a bad copy? The canon 35 f/2 IS AF was perfect in comparison (both tested at f/2).

The 20 does look really interesting - but again I suspect I'd not myself have a use for it. Video perhaps if you can live with the vignetting?

Thanks Kevin. AF reliability is definitely a concern so that's a big turn off with the 35mm. I hadn't even thought about that since the 85mm Art has been extremely reliable on a 6D and 5D4. I don't mind vignetting at all with the 20mm. I actually prefer it since my subject is always center frame and I feel like that helps keep the visual focus on the subject.

Chez Wimpy wrote:

I have used all three focal lengths @ f1.4, but only the Art series 20mm (have owned both Canon 24L 1.4s and the Canon 35/1.4 mk1). My experience is that, yes, the 20/1.4 is quite unique and useful for environmental people pictures, but f1.4 on a 20mm lens is not as dramatically shallow as it is on 24mm (or on 35mm) given working distances to your subjects stay about the same. You really need to get in close with the 20 to isolate a portrait, and then the rectilinear distortion rears its ugly head. Depending on the crop forced by shooting 4K on a given camera, the 20 might beat the 24 for usable field of view in practice, but for environmental portrait photos I prefer 24. If I only had an 85mm lens however, I might go for the 35 because the gap between the two focal lengths is significant. What I found shooting 24-35-50 was too much overlap, so the 35 got squeezed out. For video on the old 5D2 I really liked the 35/1.4 though, the 16:9 crop felt about right for most planned shots (the lens seemed closer to a normal focal length) and there was great flexibility with DOF. I was shooting before the advent of gimbals, so I imagine the potential has improved even more!

I totally agree with you on your points about 20mm for people in pictures. This would be more of my wide angle for tight spaces where there's a group of people. But yes, for single portraits it'd be more of an artsy thing where I'd get interesting wide angle shots with the distortions. But more than that, the 20mm would give me FOV of 36mm on crop, so it has that dual purpose also.

ffabrici wrote:

I have used all 3 lenses discussed on 5DIV and 5DsR and I own the 20ART. The newer the ART lens construction is, the more consistent is the AF on Canon bodies.

35ART is a fantastic lens, optically almost on par with the Canon 35L II but it is the oldest ART lens and the AF is unfortunately inconsistent unless you are lucky to find a consistent copy.

24ART is also fantastic optically but is unfortunately suffering from coma like the Canon 24L II if you want to use it for astro. AF on the single lens I tested was very consistent and I haven't seen a huge debate about the AF problems like with the 35ART.

20ART is slightly sharper than the 35ART in the center, but it obviously has soft corners wide open due to the wider angle of view. The AF is very consistent and I use it along with my 35L II and 135ART as the preferred FL's that I need primes for. It suffers from extreme corner coma, which disappears at f/2.8 like the 24ART.

I would recommend both the 24ART and the 20ART, mainly because their AF is consistent in addition to the excellent optical performance that you get from all ART primes.

Good luck with your decision.

Thank you for your thoughts. It's noteworthy that AF reliability of the 35mm Art is also a concern for you and it seems like it is for others also.

arty H wrote:

This is not a recommendation, but a personal view. A 35 is as wide as I need for people photos. I would rather not get closer than this view provides, and it is rare that I need wider than this. When I do want a wider view, it is for travel or architecture, and then I use a wide zoom, generally an ultra wide.

I use the Canon 35F2IS, but if money were no object, I would go for the Canon 35F1.4 II. It is very rare that I want a faster aperture than F2, and the IS is very helpful

I would love to go for the Canon 35mm II but it's out of the price range that I want to spend for a lens that I won't use that much. Optically, it does look amazing.

Thank you all for your opinions. Since this essentially came down to the 35mm and the 20mm, I'm going to go for the 20mm. This give me the FOV that I prefer on crop and the extra width that I want on FF, as well at the AF reliability that I want to have. I do own a Canon 20mm 2.8 that no longer AF's so I do know I like the focal length already.