« This is Not a TOP Post | Main | Very Cool Bokeh Picture by oonfelix »

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Those you mention are the full frame Arts?? Cause Amazon lists the 19 and the 60 as 'Art'.

Thx

Ray H.

I have the 35mm version of this lens, I never take it off my D800. It's a fabulous lens. Take a look at my homepage for a recent example!

"The flagship Art series lenses have been popular among photographers who want less expensive alternatives to the major brands' own premium lenses without sacrificing state-of-the-art performance."

No. The flagship Art series of lenses have been popular among photographers fed up with the mediocrity of OEMs' allegedly premium lenses, and who don't have to lose autofocus as you do with Zeiss lenses. The reasonable prices are just icing on the cake.

"No. The flagship Art series of lenses have been popular among photographers fed up with the mediocrity of OEMs' allegedly premium lenses, and who don't have to lose autofocus as you do with Zeiss lenses. The reasonable prices are just icing on the cake."

No. The flagship Art series of lenses have been popular among photographers who know that OEMs make very good lenses that cost a lot of money but who want better lenses for less money, and who don't have to lose autofocus as you do with Zeiss lenses.

After early experimentation, I've long had a policy of sticking with good, pro Nikon lenses. It's been a safe policy. But last fall I needed a better 50mm, and Nikon's new high-end 58mm didn't seem to be getting the reviews to justify the hefty price. So I tried Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 Art lens -- and it blew me away.

It's shockingly good wide open. At f/1.4 it's really sharp and has amazingly low chromatic aberration. Only the weight is an issue, at almost two pounds (including rear cap, hood, and lens cap), almost triple the weight of my Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, and almost as much as my heavy Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom.

So I've become a convert.

Now I want to check out this new Sigma 24mm, and I'm crossing my fingers that Sigma's working on an 85. (That one may depend on the quality of the bokeh, which is gorgeous on my Nikon 85.)

I'm sure this will be a good lens for APS-C systems too.

The Sigma 35/1.4 is not only "a less expensive alternative". I compared it to my Nikon AF-S 35/1.4 and sold the latter. Technically it's also better than the Zeiss 35/1.4 (definitely more contrast wide open), but the Zeiss produces a certain look that I like.

Rats. It appears to be only Sony 'A' so won't suit my '7'

I wonder how popular this lens will become as 24/1.4 is not the first focal length most people will consider. The competition is tough though, I conder the Zeiss 25/2 a sleeper since it doesn't get mentioned often, but the image quality is great. That lens really converted me to thinking that Zeiss really has a touch for balancing all the aspect of a lens.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4 Art for my Nikon and what I like about it is its dependability: it's sharp, focuses well, and doesn't have any obvious weaknesses. It's thus my go-to lens for all sorts of candid and event photography. However, I consider the rendering of it somewhat clinical and I only like 35 mm when I'm close to people, so for other subjects I don't use it so much (it's big and heavy too!) It gets a lot of raves on the net and I always think it's a competent tool that I use often, but I rarely get excited about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007