Sigma 40mm F1.4 Art beta sample gallery

It's only bad at high ISO if you care about pixel level noise, where there isn't anything with as many pixels. High ISO noise at the image level is identical to the D850.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D850

5 months agopermalink

couchpotato

1.2 kg, why it has to be so heavy?

5 months agopermalink

People are eating too much and getting unfit, they want to help...

5 months agopermalink

ibender

LOL, I did the same thing when I went to that bridge.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6862182570/photos/3811976/2017-08-25t11-28-28-raw

5 months agopermalink

Lassoni

What's the point of an odd focal length? They already have 50mm and 35mm

5 months agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Lens makers love to bring out 40 and 45s but no one knows why. It must have something to do with bragging rights when they all get together for the annual Lens Engineers’ Ball.

5 months agopermalink

I really like the 40mm FoV, as it's a little wide but not so far away from normal as a 35. I have a m43 20mm (40mm equiv) and the Canon 40mm (both of which are great BTW).

5 months agopermalink

SeoulFood

35mm film and a full frame digital sensors are 36mm wide and 24mm tall. The length of the diagonal is approx. 43mm, which is considered the true "normal" focal lenght. So, 40mm is closer to a "normal" focal length than a 50mm. I believe Pentax is the only company with a 43mm lens, which I hear is VERY good.

5 months agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Now that I am thinking more clearly, a 40mm lens is a logical companion to a 24 or 28mm because a 35mm is not enough of a jump to make a significant difference and a 50mm is almost too much. It is also a natural companion to their 20mm... if you go by the rule that each lens in your bag should be double the focal length of the one before it.

5 months agopermalink

BTW I think taking the diagonal of the sensor as "normal" is wrong as you should take what approximates to human vision (which IMHO is 50mm for generally looking around and 85mm for something you're concentrating on...)

5 months agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Did you guys know that arguments about which lens replicates human vision have been going on for so long that these kinds of debates used to be printed on paper? In magazines? That were mailed to your house every month? And brought by a letter carrier who you had known most of your lifes? In a house you could afford?

5 months agopermalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

These days that would be the house with the Unicorns keeping the lawn well mowed?

5 months agopermalink

SeoulFood

Wikipedia knows best...right?

5 months agopermalink

captivating-photography

Hmmm...the Sigma 20mm, 40mm, 85mm,125mm is looking like a very tasty set! 🤤

5 months agopermalink

Nomoreheroes

125mm? that would be an odd size

5 months agopermalink

Fotoni

Not much difference against 35mm. Should had done 43mm instead because that is the natural sharper zone. I can verify this because 50mm always look a bit too narrow and 35mm is a bit too wide when looking the sharper area.

There is plenty of inferior lenses which are also cheaper, if you seek lighter and smaller. That is why there is M43 systems and phone cameras. Sigma Art, Zeiss Otus, Pentax DFA*50/Tokina Opera are for people who seek high optical quality and certain price range. I have used Pentax K-1 + DFA*50 ( 2 Kg) for couple weeks and weight or size is not a problem. It is a huge difference compared to D3200 + 50mm 1.4g which feels like a toy now.

5 months agopermalink

colesf

I don't understand the point of a 40mm lens, no matter how fast or sharp.
BORING on any size sensor.

I think the lens companies are just trying to push everything upmarket. What's next on their marketing plan? Maybe they should try the iPhone model: make products that are so overpriced that people have to lease them.

5 months agopermalink

Jim Keye

It's for Cinema. Apparently they don't think its boring.

5 months agopermalink

thebustos

40mm is a pretty standard focal length for cinema.

5 months agopermalink

colesf

Cinema? It's made primarily for Nikon and Canon's regular bodies. I doubt most people reading this will use it for cinema applications.

Still BORING.

5 months agopermalink

thebustos

A bullet point from Sigmas website about the lens:

"Optical performance of high-end cine lens"

DPR's own coverage mentioned that it was designed to to satisfy needs for 8K video. Additionally, Canon's pro cine cameras use the EF mount as well as various Black Magic and RED cameras. It also, comes in Sony E- mount.

5 months agopermalink

I love my little Canon 40mm lens. I'm a big fan of the focal length generally, and this new Sigma looks AMAZING. I can't imagine a boring focal length. They are all useful and interesting.

5 months agopermalink

I would not call it boring, but challenging. The 40mm is so very very normal that it generates no WOW-effect by itself.
Like an UWA or a tele with micro-DOF.
You must be a great photographer to impress people with a 40mm.

5 months agopermalink

nightstreet

I like 40mm. I started with a 41mm on a rangefinder and have always like that focal length, and hardly ever shoot at 50mm. I have a Nikkor 35mm now but would prefer a 40mm. After years of shooting the usual zooms 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, My set now is 21/40/90 primes, also faster at f/1.4 versus the f/2.8 of the zooms.

5 months ago*permalink

Syrah

Boring is the person behind the lense

5 months ago*permalink

beavertown

That key lock phone looks like from the iphone fake bokeh.

5 months agopermalink

fatdeeman

So the fake Iphone bokeh actually looks like real bokeh?

5 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Thanks Sigma, thanks Tokina, Tamron, et al. Thanks a lot.
Two of your FF lenses and a medium sized today's FF camera and I can subscribe to the daily visits to my physiotherapist.

5 months agopermalink

Wout de Zeeuw

Excellent images, very sharp, and creamy bokeh.

5 months agopermalink

rmexpress22

I shoot with a Sigma 85mm Art regularly and have never wished that it was lighter.

I appreciate light lenses also, which is why I really like the EF-s lenses for some uses.

But either you want a big, high quality, beefy lens, or you don't.

5 months agopermalink

arbux

No idea why someone would want big beefy lens.

5 months agopermalink

CanonSharpShooter

Sorry Big does not equate to high quality..

5 months agopermalink

thetoolman

This Sigma is going to cost a heck of a lot more than the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM or the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens, which is about 38.4 mm on a Canon crop sensor camera. Both of these Canons are truly tiny compared to the Sigma too. I own both and they are incredibly tack sharp. I realize the Sigma is an F1.4 and will have better bokeh and low light capability, but does its size, weight, and cost, justify buying it? Any comments?

5 months ago*permalink

Sigma is not even a listed company，you cannot make a single dime even if sigma makes mistakes in lense market.

By making a 40/1.4 sigma at least provides lense option，
what good do these keyboard-lense-criticizer provide？
just imagine themselves running a lense company？

5 months agopermalink

ManfredGrebler

"but does its size, weight, and cost, justify buying it? "

This is a question everyone can only answer for his own.

5 months agopermalink

Calaverasgrande

I do not know if I would call the Canon 40mm F2.8 EF tack sharp. It's pretty good, but not great. Whenever I used to plonk it on my camera I always felt I was compromising quality for portability.
I did get some pretty great shots with it, but this had a lot more to do with how it made my camera easy to have at hand compared to my 85 F1.8 or 24-105 L.
It also seems to get pretty low contrast images when compared to my other Canon lenses.

5 months agopermalink

Depends on your needs and budget, right? Same answer for every such question.

5 months agopermalink

MrBrightSide

Riddle me this: In the series of photos of the locks, as the f/stop gets smaller the file size gets bigger. At f/1.4 it's around 8.7 mb, by f/4 it's has almost doubled.
With each decrease in f/stop he increased the ISO.
So, is the file size increase due to the gain added to the image, or is it larger there's more image data thanks to the greater depth of field?

5 months agopermalink

More noise, more data in jpegs.

5 months agopermalink

The greater dof bings more detail thus bigger file

5 months agopermalink

Calaverasgrande

blurring also helps to reduce file size. Try it on a jpeg sometime.

5 months agopermalink

MrBrightSide

Regarding blurring a jpg to reduce file size, is that why Photoshop Export for Web function and some other image processors used to have controls to add blur on export?

5 months agopermalink

Samuel Dilworth

A still-bigger lens that probably projects a still-better image than last week’s state-of-the-art colossuses. But how useful is it really?

I ask because I am most (or only) concerned with corner-to-corner sharpness in carefully composed photographs of the environment. The sort of thing that was done with large-format film. Think Stephen Shore. And those photographs never need low f-numbers. Instead they would benefit from a modest (often hardly any) zoom range to fine-tune the composition and because moving the camera to the perfect spot is often difficult. Furthermore, lens shift would be desirable.

The conclusion is that I would like Sigma’s next bold move to be a 35–70 mm or 28–50 mm zoom lens with a few millimetres of shift/rise/fall (no need for tilt), low distortion, stonking image quality otherwise, and whatever f-number allows it to exist and be affordable – perhaps f/4 or even f/5.6.

The alternative seems to be an even sharper 38 mm f/1.4 weighing 2.5 kg.

5 months agopermalink

ManfredGrebler

I fully understand your wish for a slow but optically superb zoom. (Though I don't bother about shift.)
But actually I think only few people will buy it. It won't be cheap and who will pay (just guessed) nearly 1000$ for a 4/35-70 lens? (And it won't be very small, too.)
So I stick with my Nikon 1.8 primes and cropping.

But I also appreciate these 1.4 top quality lenses. Different tools for different needs.

5 months agopermalink

Samuel Dilworth

I appreciate these huge f/1.4 primes too, although I don’t use them. In combination with high-resolution cameras, they produce even better results than large-format film cameras (except for lens movements). And large-format systems were even bigger.

It takes real engineering to make these impressive lenses available at the relatively low prices Sigma charges. I respect that too.

But Sigma already has excellent 35 mm and 50 mm f/1.4 lenses. How useful is it to have an even better (probably) 40 mm lens in the middle?

I think Sigma should accept a new challenge, something like the lens I suggested. Part of the challenge would be explaining why that lens would be useful to photographers, since many don’t yet understand why.

Many years ago, Zeiss made a uniquely high quality (at the time) 35–70 mm f/3.5–5.6 zoom for the Contax G system. That lens weighed 290 g. For 1 kg Sigma could do a good, modern, constant-aperture equivalent for SLRs.

5 months agopermalink

ManfredGrebler

Samuel Dilworth
I also wondered about the focal lenght. (35-40-50)

But the 40mm was first designed as a Cine lense. And as the design already existed they offered DSRL versions, too.

5 months agopermalink

Samuel Dilworth

Good point, ManfredGrebler.

Probably Sigma knows what it is doing. I just wish someone would make lenses for me!

5 months agopermalink

xiao_xiang

I would never have believed I would agree with this focal length.
I find 50mm too tight, and 30mm too wide.
In my view, a 40mm is a perfect general purpose focal length.

As for a sigma art lens. Well. Why not get the best?

5 months agopermalink

I agree. 40mm is a perfect general purpose focal length. It is really special.

5 months agopermalink

If anyone find those who does not need or want an art lense but does keep complain about lense weight annoying, plz like me.

I hope sigma keep ignoring these annoying whining and making optically superb lenses.

5 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

May you visit your physiotherapist daily for a longer while.
And no annoying whining.

5 months agopermalink

James Stirling

It is the folk using the little tiny lenses whose muscles are wasting away that will need to visit the physios ;-)

5 months agopermalink

everybodyisone

For the not so traditional focal length section I wish for a fast 65 mm!

5 months agopermalink

Canon 40mm on 1,6x crop body: 64mm.
Pentax 43mm on 1,5x crop body: 64,5mm

5 months agopermalink

quiquae

The 40mm is the only Canon prime I have never been able to find a good use for on a crop body, so I’d love to learn what kind of situation makes you wish for a 65mm prime.

5 months agopermalink

keeponkeepingon

Really? No use for the 50? 35? I guess that 5mm is a deal breaker? 22mm? 85mm? 100mm macro? Why is the APS-C sensor size perfectly mated to 40mm and no other focal length? Please elaborate?

5 months ago*permalink

quiquae

@keeponkeepingon
You misunderstand. I have no problem using my other primes (22, 28, 35, 50, 100) on APS-C. It’s just the 40mm I struggle with—I can’t seem to find any subject that frames well in a 64mm equivalent FOV. That’s why I’m asking for insight from someone who clearly thrives on the focal length.

5 months agopermalink

mosc

The only advantage to me of a 40mm prime is size. You can make a tiny one relative to 50mm's and 35mm's it seems like. Maybe just some market segment that isn't dominated by the need for f1.4 glass? Not quite sure.

Regardless, this just seems like an unnecessary lens. Wouldn't you prefer the 35? Their 35mm is pretty sweet.

Or has somebody's dream focal length finally come true?

My dream prime is probably 22mm f2.8.

5 months agopermalink

MarshallG

I don’t know if Sigma makes much profit from their exotic, expensive ART lenses. But the prestige of making some of the world’s best lenses must help them sell many more of their mid-range lenses.

5 months agopermalink

fishy wishy

Yet more teaser trailers for photographic gear.
And might I ask where I have to go for critical benchmarks once the lens is released?
DPReview doesn't seem to do them anymore.
I'm not making pre-orders on the evidence of fluff, sorry.

5 months agopermalink

MarshallG

That’s not kind. We just had the big Photokina trade show, and every manufacturer announced something. DPReview reports news; they reported the announcement. As we all know, DPR tests a lot of cameras and relatively few lenses. It seems as though accurate qualitative lens testing is complicated and expensive.

5 months agopermalink

AlpCns2

Looks like another Sigma jewel to me - IQ is superb. A big lens, though.

5 months agopermalink

Sion H

Good gallery.

5 months agopermalink

CAT Productions

Some of the samples show superb IQ. Definitely getting this lens.

5 months agopermalink

mxx

Many people complaining about price, size, and weight. But of course it is just one more choice, and choice is good, is it not?

5 months agopermalink

Choice is great!!

5 months agopermalink

RolliPoli

'Fast' 'Sharp' 'Light'
You can have any two,
but never all three.

5 months agopermalink

lacikuss

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, fast, sharp, light, small, cheap.

So you can!

5 months agopermalink

Saaaaaaad

I don't think an F2.8 prime is considered fast, but ok.

5 months agopermalink

takumarkid

Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 is fast, sharp, small and maybe will someday have eos R mount.

5 months agopermalink

What about the Leica M-lenses?
35mm/1.4 and 50mm/1.4 combined are smaller than this.

5 months agopermalink

Michael_13

... unless you pick mFT. :-)

5 months ago*permalink

RolliPoli

Maybe I should have clarified for some of you. You can't compare across formats or compare manual and auto focus. I though that would be obvious. You do not get speed without size. There are laws of physics involved. Further, a Leica f1.4 lens is not 'small' when compared to a Leica f2 or f2.8 Again, speed/size ...no free lunch kids. The veteran shooters amongst us laugh at the idea f2.8 is 'fast' An f1.8 50-58mm lens was the 'kit lens' in the 'olden days' when people took pictures on film wound into things with names like Spotmatic and Nikkormat. I'm on a roll now..... That was also a time when 'full frame' or the 24x36 35mm format was considered a 'miniature' format. OK gang, physics and history class is over................

5 months ago*permalink

The Summilux 35mm 1.4 is the size of an mFT lens.
It is a very small FF lens. 46mm long.
AF would not add a single mm to it.
Perhaps 15mm more to the diameter.

5 months agopermalink

James Stirling

@ takumarkid the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 is not sharp across the frame it needs to be stopped down to at least F/4 to get decent corners. It has massive fringing wide open which again needs to be stopped down to F/2 or so. Throw in field curvature and it loses any appeal

5 months agopermalink

The Summilux-M 35/1.4 qualifies as sharp, fast and light, but unfortunately also terribly expensive. And Leica will likely never make an AF version for any camera.

5 months agopermalink

lacikuss

Maybe not the fastest but tell me if f/2.8 is slow for any professional zoom in any range?

Just because it is a prime lens the focal ratio doesn't make it different from a zoom lens. How about sharpness of most of those faster lenses at wide open? Not to mention that the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM sells for about $200 is very sharp, light, small and and can be used for video recording too in a pancake lens format.

Canon has the leading market share because they have this type of lenses at everybody's budget. Does Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji, Leica or anybody else offer something like this? the EOS M is the same story, the bodies are not great but the glass is very good at a very affordable price for everybody. And BTW the camera doesn't make the photographer...but the glass certainly helps

5 months ago*permalink

joelbedford

I've been hoping someone would release a super fast 40mm for some time now...Though this looks a lot bigger than I was hoping for, I'm stoked that Sigma threaded the needle between 35mm and 50mm and delivered this lens. 40mm is my favourite focal length, so maybe I'm biased. Can't wait to buy this.

5 months agopermalink

Niala2

Well with FE (Sony fullframe) mount You have it, Your excellent small fast 40mm f/1.2.
(But it's MF).

5 months agopermalink

Morvegil

Reminds me of the 50mm 1.4 Art, Superb

5 months agopermalink

Zvonimir Tosic

Yeah, they sat together at school, third row next to window.

5 months agopermalink

CaPi

1.2kg.

5 months agopermalink

That's heavy. Very heavy.

5 months agopermalink

SETI

OK. Images are great, indeed. But I'll stay with my tiny 40mm f/2.8 STM. I also have great 35mm f/2 IS lens and it's weight/IQ is what I call golden middle.

5 months agopermalink

Rensol

Agree

5 months agopermalink

GrahamHO

I agree too. The EF35mm f2 IS is superb. So if we already own a 35 mm lens, why would we want a 40 mm lens?

5 months agopermalink

misspiggy01

thanks for the brick wall! quite impressive!

for me 40mm is a strange FL. 35 gives me a nice sense of teh space, 50 a more concentrated view without too much compression, but 40 to me is neiter nor.

pity though that there is no cheap option like canons 40 pancake for my nikon system. id like to try it for a while, but my d800 sucks for MF...

5 months agopermalink

Niala2

(40mm is within the range of many zooms. Study mass exif data could maybe revel surpringly many forty-ish shots..)

5 months agopermalink

Lars V

Some internal vignetting from the camera mirror box in frame 23. Huge rear element, causes this type of problem with some Canon and Nikon bodies. I have seen this with Nikon 85/1.4 D/G, and Canon 85/1.2L. Not a lens problem per se, but such a huge rear element demands that there is clearance behind it.

5 months ago*permalink

You have to handle the SIGMA 105mm/1.4 for a while
and then grab this 40mm/1.4.

5 months agopermalink

kadardr

OK, I made up: not this, the Voigtlander 40mm F2 Ultron SL II I want.

5 months agopermalink

rbach44

Something I cant seem to figure out:

Why modern lens’ apertures seem to be getting wider (and lenses consequently larger) while high ISO performance of pretty much every camera is getting better and better. Remember the film days where ISO reasonably maxed out 3200 and f/1.4 was considered superspeed?

I for one would be happy with a set of well corrected, reasonably compact f/2 lenses. Or, god forbid, a redux of those lovely Zeiss/Contax f2.8 primes…

5 months agopermalink

Exactly!
A FF picture at ISO 6400 looks really good today.
The 2.8 zooms could be 4.0 without a problem.
But for the small ML FF cams we got a 28-70/2.0 (!!!)
Idiotic size even next to a EOS 1d.

5 months agopermalink

rbach44

Exactly my sentiments. Seems like bokeh addiction and cool new toy factor sells more than convenience nowadays...

5 months agopermalink

multisystem

I'm another one that would like to see 4.0 or 3.5 max aperture primes that are compact, light, reasonably priced yet optically excellent. Bokeh is now an end in itself not the means to an end and a way to distract from uninteresting subjects.

5 months agopermalink

Scintilla Aquila

Well, at least some companies realized this (Fujifilm, Voigtländer, Handevision, Samsung before they quit)... and until the rest do as well, at least it's still pretty easy (with focus peaking or a really good focusing screen) to use all those old Contax primes of which you speak. (And Takumars, and the Pentax FA Limiteds...)

This sentiment is exactly why I have the Distagon 28/2.8 | Planar 50/1.7 | Sonnar 85/2.8 trio myself.

5 months ago*permalink

chse

Bokeh is the last line of defense against a handfull of small sensor cams in a mobile.

5 months agopermalink

aris14

Νο matter if my personal opinion is that these lenses are of limited use/interest for a lot of reasons, this is an exceptional lens overall. And yes Mr. Yamaki is right, it's a reference lens by all means.
Btw, shooting in Aegean Sea's Archipelago will bring any lens to its limits considering contrast and not only... The same stands for every sensor and camera processor. Aegean's sea light and clean atmosphere do not forgive any lens/cam/sensor misbehavior.

5 months agopermalink

mmcfine

It seems like Sigma didn't receive this year's Photokina theme memo. 'Smaller and lighter'.

5 months agopermalink

Thanks for igoring all these weak people asking for lighter/smaller BS！

Well done sigma，
keep making ART lenses without any compromise in optical performance！

5 months agopermalink

radissimo

Dear SIGMA, we love you lenses, they optically superb, but could you work on weight of your lenses a bit?

5 months agopermalink

Esign

A heavy lens, provided you hold the camera and lens combination under the center of gravity (and not one-handed in the battery compartment called grip; will always give slightly sharper pictures because your trembling hands could not move it so easily.

5 months agopermalink

Dave Oddie

"A heavy lens, provided you hold the camera and lens combination under the center of gravity (and not one-handed in the battery compartment called grip; will always give slightly sharper pictures because your trembling hands could not move it so easily."

For camera with IBIS or when using the kind of shutter speeds in most of these samples camera shake at this focal length is not an issue. I'd go further and say holding a light camera and lens combination steady is easier than a heavy one. After a day shooting with this lens and lugging it around I think you are more likely to have a shaky grip than with lighter lenses.

There is nothing positive about this lens weighing 1.2kg

5 months agopermalink

CAT Productions

Tradeoffs!

5 months agopermalink

Dr Gal

Esign, that is not how muscle works. Halfway through my days as a conscript I switched from a heavy, full size assault rifle to a much lighter M16 carbine (a local conversion with sawed off barrel). Both used the same ammo, with the M16 having a shorter barrel and lower muzzle velocity. Yet, my hits from a standing position were superior with the lighter carbine, and the difference was even greater after holding the rifle for some time. Less muscle fatigue, less trembling, better results - whether you are shooting pictures or targets.

5 months agopermalink

EXkurogane

Weak people everywhere.
I do not mind the weight. I've been carrying f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes in my bag around and i never complain. The image quality makes it worth it.

5 months agopermalink

photofan1986

I love the 40mm focal length, but no thanks, I'll keep my 20mm f1.7 Panasonic.

5 months agopermalink

Prairie Pal

You will have to pry my 20mm f1/7 Panasonic from my cold dead hands.

5 months agopermalink

zzzxtreme

Version 1 or 2?

5 months agopermalink

Prairie Pal

V 1 for me.

5 months agopermalink

photofan1986

I had both, kept V1. It's built better, despite the plastic housing. The V2 is made of thin metal, and is easy to dent. Also, I don't like the shiny front lens contour. Other than that, they're identical.

5 months agopermalink

SMCTakumar

I think this Sigma wide open outperforms the Panasonic stopped down a few stops. Different league, different use. I don't think the two compare, looking at the samples of course but I might be wrong. The Sigma looks amazing, incredibly sharp with amazing colour.

5 months agopermalink

Osa25

Just to be clear when discussing the Panasonic 20mm:
Size: 2.48 x 1.00″ (63 x 25.5 mm)
Weight:3.07 oz (87 g)

The Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens is designed to achieve compact size, and to achieve peak image quality around F2 or 2.8.

The Sigma design objective I dont know, but at 1200g, well....ne clearly can infer that size was not set as a limitation, let1s put it that way. 😊 So comparing these is a bit apples to oranges. But if image quality is even remotely in same ball park, then wow....

5 months ago*permalink

zxaar

If i have to guess then sigma at f5.6 on ff or would smoke the Panasonic at f2.8. They are different things and shall not be compared.

Having said this personally for me weight and size of sigma are deal breaker. (I won't consider).

5 months agopermalink

Osa25

"smoke"? As in under a microscope? Would there be a visible difference in an A3 print? Or is this theoretical "smoking" as in benchmark mania?

5 months agopermalink

peterwr

40mm? Take. My. Money.

Oh, wait - 1200g? Nope. f2 or 2.8 and half the weight, I could live with - but since my love of the 40mm was inspired by the Rollei 35, I'd still be a bit twitchy.

5 months agopermalink