Sigma Art Lens 24105 on Nikon 810 Problems With Focus

The Sigma 40mm f/1.4 Art is such a ridiculous lens. Whenever I've idea nigh 40mm lenses I idea virtually the Canon EF 40mm f/ii.eight pancake lens. I'one thousand sure many of us have owned ane of these lenses; it's actually pretty good. The tiny form factor, relatively fast autofocus speeds, and nifty image quality. Evidently, this lens was but too small for Sigma.

As a company, Sigma is known for producing somewhat irregular or relatively unique lenses. They're not afraid of making huge heavy lenses with super wide apertures. Lenses like the 14mm f/1.8 Art, and fast aperture zoom lenses similar the 24-35mm f/2.0 Fine art and my favorite APS-C lens, the 18-35mm f/ane.viii Art. All of these lenses have one thing in common, they're huge. The latest addition to Sigmas lineup is the 40mm f/1.iv Art lens. This 1 really takes the cake. I'm non even sure how they've managed to make this mid-range focal lens into the behemoth that is it. I mean it weighs more than the Sigma 85mm f/ane.4 Art.

How is that even possible?

Sigma Struggles to Brand Small Lenses

Ok, and then, the above subheading may be a picayune provocative but, at least it'due south not clickbait right? Here'due south the affair though, if y'all compare almost any Sigma fine art lens to whatever other manufacturer, Sigma is generally significantly larger and heavier. Accept the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lens for instance. The Nikon version is an incredible lens with both super sharp results wide open and beautiful bokeh. Sure, the Sigma 105 f/1.4 Art is better when it comes to optical performance but it's merely really noticeable on test charts. The weight and size differences are very real and very noticeable. The Sigma is heavy even when it comes to medium format lenses. The 105mm from Sigma is well-nigh as heavy every bit the Schnieder Kreuznach 150mm LS f/2.8 and really has a larger filter thread size. The weird thing is that even with the much larger front element, vignetting isn't much ameliorate when compared to the Nikon lens. Aside from existence slightly sharper, why is the Sigma lens so ridiculously huge?

Some other lens that comes to mind is the 85mm f/1.4 Art. Compare that to some of the other alternatives available from Canon and Sony you'll see a similar pattern. Sharpness broad open up is slightly better but other than that it doesn't offer any pregnant advantages. Even with the huge size and massive front chemical element, the lens even so has a pretty poor T-stop rating at T/1.eight. That's the same T-stop values as the Sony 85mm f/i.8 Batis. I should mention the fact that the vignetting is noticeably ameliorate than the Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM even if the T-cease isn't. I guess for this lens the front element is helping.

More recently Sigma released their 40mm f/i.4 Art lens. A contempo review from Kai Wong demonstrates just how huge and almost unwieldy this lens really is. I go that information technology is a super sharp lens, fifty-fifty when compared to high-end performers similar the Catechism 35mm f/1.iv II. This lens might even be the sharpest lens Sigma has ever produced and that'southward really saying something. Although, at one.2kg it's such an impractical, ridiculous lens that I wonder why anyone would actually want it. This is especially evident when yous consider the significantly smaller and lighter alternatives similar almost any 35mm f/one.iv or 50mm f/1.4 lenses.

The point I'yard trying to brand is that for one reason or another Sigma seems to struggle when it comes to producing fast aperture lenses that aren't beyond practicalities. Sigma seems to love having a huge front chemical element in their lenses. In my discussions with Sigma, they explained how the larger front element helps to prevent vignetting. I could be wrong hither merely surely, using a camera profile would be far more efficient, wouldn't it? Even with the same focal lengths compared to other manufacturers, Sigma prioritizes sharpness over everything else. This includes important aspects such as T-cease values and the weight/size of their lenses balloons to a point where information technology'south but lightheaded.

I've Stopped Shooting With My Sigma Lenses

For the final year, I haven't used whatsoever of my Sigma lenses for any professional work. Aside from a few comparisons I've done where I needed to shoot with them, I oasis't even used them for any of my personal work. This isn't intentional past whatsoever means information technology's simply that I'm reluctant to use my Art lenses for any work I accept.

They have upwardly too much infinite in the pocketbook, they weigh far too much and comparatively speaking they don't offer that much better quality compared to some other lenses I take. Lenses like the Batis 85mm or the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/ane.8 which are tiny in comparison and offer fantastic image quality unless you lot're being super pedantic about the finer details. I honestly care more nigh my back than having slightly better image quality that no 1 will really notice. Why would I want to endure so much for so little? Speaking of epitome quality, looking at the images beneath, is at that place really that much of a divergence in sharpness? One was with the Batis 85mm and the other with the Sigma 85mm Fine art on the Sony a7R III, both were shot broad open.

The departure in size is significant

When I offset bought lenses like the Sigma 85mm Art, I really boasted well-nigh how huge information technology was. The feeling I had was most like "yes this is what professional use" which is obviously nonsense. Having a huge lens with a massive front element is somewhat pleasing for the ego, some could describe it as overcompensating. Ultimately, I find that I don't use my Sigma lenses as much as some other lenses I at present own and it's purely because Art lenses are generally impractical.

In Defense Of Sigma

My assumptions are that Sigma uses large optics because that's probably i of the most effective ways to produce super precipitous high-resolution lenses. It would seem as though smaller eyes may non be able to produce the same level of item for a number of reasons. It may get to explain why and so many medium format lenses are so much ameliorate optically speaking and Sigma is using that method to produce full frame lenses. In that location's evidently a large market of photographers who want very high-quality lenses and don't heed the actress weight and size. If you need the absolute best in quality, then you may have to compromise in areas of practicality.

Unfortunately, in that location isn't a perfect choice and Sigma now caters to a certain section of the market that tends to appreciate quality over some practicalities. This is also i of the reasons I won't be selling my Sigma Art lenses someday soon because there are instances where I need that level of quality. It's rare just I similar the idea that I can offering then when required. Sigma has produced some incredible lenses and I'm honestly a huge fan. Being a fan, notwithstanding, doesn't mean I won't point out some of the aspects I dislike or consider to be rather ridiculous. The 40mm f/1.iv Art is definitely a ridiculous lens and right now I'thou struggling to sympathise how it could always be a popular option.

harperanowbod.blogspot.com

Source: https://fstoppers.com/originals/sigma-art-lenses-are-becoming-far-too-ridiculous-318522

Share this post