MTF Results for Recent Sigma Art Lenses
And you may find yourself in a shotgun shack.
And you may find yourself in another part of the world.
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile.
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house.
And you may ask yourself, well, what should I shoot with?
A number of people have noticed I haven’t been publishing MTF results for new lenses lately. There’s a lot of reasons for that, but all primarily come down to I’m doing too much other stuff. For a year, my priority has been improving our in-house testing methods; developing the Rapid MTF tests has taken several thousand hours (not all mine, but it seems that way sometimes). Introduction of new mounts (R, Z, SL) each means making modifications to our test bench, etc. etc.
There were also discussions with some other websites to host our data and make it more obtainable and organized. Those faded out, but for a while, I was hoping things would get automated, and I wouldn’t have to write these posts anymore. (And I’m the guy who coined the term HINAP: Hope Is Not A Plan. So yet again, my hope was a downpayment on inevitable disappointment.)
We still run the tests; I just haven’t had the time to do the write-ups. I’m going to try to get those out reasonably quickly by grouping them. Today we’ll post the several Sigma Art lenses that have been released and tested over the last few months.
My Expectations are Simple
I make no efforts to hide the fact that I love Sigma’s attitude; it’s refreshing. Every lens made by anyone balances three things: price, size, and image quality. Sigma has made their attitude clear; size can be damned; we’re going to make reasonably priced lenses with amazing image quality. If they’re huge, they’re huge. That’s what I expect from all the Art primes.
In these days when most manufacturers have replaced their marketing department with a Poet Laureate blowing more smoke than a California wildfire, Sigma goes with the three-step ‘how to build confidence’ model of marketing:
- Tell ’em what you’re going to do.
- Do it.
- Show them that you’ve done it.
Today I’m going to show you if they’ve done it. We’ll look at three newer Sigma Art Models: the 28mm f1.4 DG HSM Art; 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM, and 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lenses. I’m going to keep it relatively quick and straightforward: MTF charts, and a couple of comparisons for each lens. I’m not going to show variance graphs; people abuse them, and the variance for all of these was very low.
Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM
At $1600 it’s quite a bit cheaper than the other 105mm f1.4 lens (the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E ED), but at 3.5 pounds it’s pretty huge. It’s heavier than the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art. So it had better be good.
It is good. It is very, very good. I particularly draw your attention to the purple line (50 lp/mm) which correlates with fine detail on a high-resolution camera. We like for that to be over 0.5, and the Sigma is 0.7. That is truly exceptional, and the lens maintains sharpness well to the edge of the image with little astigmatism.
The obvious comparison is to the Nikon 105mm f/1.4, and the Sigma looks just spectacular here.
The Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar should be an unfair comparison; the Zeiss is being tested at f/2 which should give it a big advantage. Sigma doesn’t care, though; from a resolution standpoint, it’s clearly superior at f/1.4 to the Zeiss at f/2.
I’m not trying to tell you that you need a 3.5 pound 105mm f/1.4 lens. I’m just telling you that if you need a 105mm f1.4 lens, the Sigma Sumo Wrestler is the sharpest one.
Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM
I’m not sure if 40mm is the new 35mm or the new 50mm. The Sigma 40mm is (compared to the 105mm at least) a fairly light 2.5 pounds. Can they still do laser sharp with a pound less glass in this thing? Yeah, pretty much.
Of course, the MTF is not quite as impressive as the 105mm, because telephoto lenses are generally sharper than mid-range lenses. So let’s compare it to some similar focal lengths. My first comparison isn’t really fair; the Tamron 45mm f1.8 Di VC is one of my favorite bargain lenses, costing about 1/3 of what the Art does. The Tamron is an excellent lens, and I put this comparison up just to show how excellent the Sigma is.
Let’s move over to something more in the same financial class. I think comparisons to the Sigma 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 Art lenses are appropriate; unless you need to collect the whole set, a lot of people will be picking one from among these.
We’ll start with comparing the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art to the 40mm. (For those of you who don’t recall, the Sigma 35mm Art is our current mid-range resolution MTF champion. If you own a great 35mm prime lens, it’s MTF is nearly as good as the Sigma 35mm Art.) Which means the Sigma 40mm is at least as good in the center, and better away from the center than any of the 35mm f1.4 lenses we’ve tested.
We’ll do the other side of the bracket now, comparing the 40mm to the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art.
OK, let’s see if the Sigma can punch out of its price class. Here’s the Sigma 40mm compared to the much pricier and equally heavy Zeiss 55mm Otus, just for fun. Color me impressed.
Sigma 28mm f1.4 DG HSM
The 28mm f/1.4 slides neatly into the slot between the 24mm and 35mm Art lenses. (You didn’t know that was a slot? Cinematographers do, and that’s probably some of the reason Sigma made these lenses.) Like the other two, the MTF is excellent. The other nice thing is the 28mm is a LOT smaller and lighter than the others. So, can Sigma do sharp without huge? Yes. Yes, they can.
You can scroll up a bit and see that the 28mm Art definitely has a better MTF than the 35mm Art. Let’s compare it to the 24mm side-by-side. The 24mm is not the best of the Art primes, and the difference between it and the new 28mm is dramatic.
Let’s go straight to the mountaintop, and compare the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4 to the new Sigma. This comparison surprised even me. The Sigma is sharper in the center, although things even up away from the center. But you could buy all three of the latest Sigma’s for the price of the Otus 28mm.
Conclusions:
First, a reminder: this has been an MTF test. It is only an MTF test. Had this been an actual lens review I’d have talked about other stuff, but it’s not, and I don’t. I test lenses, and I tell you about the test results. If you’re into bourgeois concepts, like sharpness, then these are certainly worth further investigation. You have to decide if it ‘takes your creativity to a new level’ or whatever.
But as far as MTF tests go, Sigma Art lenses set the bar high back when the first ones were released. These new ones have raised the bar even higher. I shouldn’t be surprised; Sigma did exactly what they said they would do.
I think one of the major reasons for the new releases was to give more focal length selection for videography. The fact that we could get video versions of these as soon as (and in one case before) the photo lenses were released tends to support that.
But if you are considering adding an Art Prime to your photo collection, from a resolution standpoint, I’d take a very serious look at these three. Yep, they are big and heavy. Nope, no image stabilization. But damn, they outresolve just about anything else you can buy.
Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.
Same. As. It. Ever. Was.
Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz
Lensrentals.com
March, 2019
199 Comments
Wade Tregaskis ·
As always: thank you! Your data is the most trustworthy – pretty much the _only_ trustworthy such data out there, these days. I rely on it heavily. Please keep publishing!
I for one would support this endeavour via e.g. Patreon, if you were to set such a thing up. I’d love to have a material way to help support & accelerate your publishing of lens data. I suspect others would too.
Roger Cicala ·
Wade, it’s just a time thing. And training someone else to do it takes even more time than doing it. On a happy note, over the next month or so I’ll be publishing a series of posts of all our MTF tests so they’ll be easy to find. No more searching for ‘when did they test the Wonderbar 8mm f0.95’.
Sean Tomlinson ·
I’m so excited for all the fanchildren to line up and get the data to bicker until the end of time. What would we do without you Roger? Oh wait, we’d still see the bickering but it’d have even less data.
Roger Cicala ·
I’m sure it will only be used logically and factually. The most common use of MTF data is to go “oh, this lens has a great MTF. Too bad your camera can’t resolve it.”
Sean T ·
“Even your mama thinks your MTF is sad!”
Wade Tregaskis ·
As always: thank you! Your data is the most trustworthy - pretty much the _only_ trustworthy such data out there, these days. I rely on it heavily. Please keep publishing!
I for one would support this endeavour via e.g. Patreon, if you were to set such a thing up. I'd love to have a material way to help support & accelerate your publishing of lens data. I suspect others would too.
Roger Cicala ·
Wade, it's just a time thing. And training someone else to do it takes even more time than doing it. On a happy note, over the next month or so I'll be publishing a series of posts of all our MTF tests so they'll be easy to find. No more searching for 'when did they test the Wonderbar 8mm f0.95'.
Sean Tomlinson ·
I'm so excited for all the fanchildren to line up and get the data to bicker until the end of time. What would we do without you Roger? Oh wait, we'd still see the bickering but it'd have even less data.
Roger Cicala ·
I'm sure it will only be used logically and factually. The most common use of MTF data is to go "oh, this lens has a great MTF. Too bad your camera can't resolve it."
Sean T ·
"Even your mama thinks your MTF is sad!"
Barbu Mateescu ·
“…nope, no stabilization”.
If only there would be a camera with stabilization and a good, classical optical viewfinder… Oh wait, there is? Good, then let’s *not* make lenses in their mount!
🙁
Barbu Mateescu ·
"...nope, no stabilization".
If only there would be a camera with stabilization and a good, classical optical viewfinder... Oh wait, there is? Good, then let's *not* make lenses in their mount!
:(
Sean Tomlinson ·
Good to hear from you again Roger, I’ve been missing these. Great results, and oh my that’s impressive.
Sean Tomlinson ·
Good to hear from you again Roger, I've been missing these. Great results, and oh my that's impressive.
Kevin ·
Hi Roger,
You mentioned you were looking for sites to save your MTF data. I remember you posted some on the-digital-picture. Any plans to continue that?
Thanks
Roger Cicala ·
Bryan and I have talked about it. It may happen.
CodeCurmudgeon ·
What is the issue with saving the data? Is it storage space, or requires a database, or ??
Roger Cicala ·
Mostly it’s writing a display and search engine. I’m going to be putting up a series of posts over the next month with just all the MTF tests for all the lenses. That will let people find them. But it’s nice to be able to do side-by-side comparisons, etc.
CodeCurmudgeon ·
Ok. I was going to say I’m happy to provide hosting etc. But unfortunately I don’t have the time to help code up engine.
Roger Cicala ·
Mostly it's writing a display and search engine. I'm going to be putting up a series of posts over the next month with just all the MTF tests for all the lenses. That will let people find them. But it's nice to be able to do side-by-side comparisons, etc.
CodeCurmudgeon ·
Ok. I was going to say I'm happy to provide hosting etc. But unfortunately I don't have the time to help code up engine.
Brandon Dube ·
There's always this archive I keep -- https://retrorefractions.co...
Baconator ·
Very helpful, thank you! It saved Roger a question to throw the 35/1.4 II into comparison today :)
Kevin ·
Hi Roger,
You mentioned you were looking for sites to save your MTF data. I remember you posted some on the-digital-picture. Any plans to continue that?
Thanks
Matti6950 . ·
I've been waiting with excitment for another MTF test on your site. The 3 Sigma's actually had some of the highest curiosity i've had in a while. And now you offer a page with all 3 tested on same date! Fun reading times. On lenstip.com the results are closer (28mm vs 35mm art), wich had me a bit wondering, but knowing Sigma i know it's actually sharper, or they wouldnt have launched it (certainly not at 1250 euro). But some things are curious, for fine detail (especially trees, branches) my 50mm art BLASTS my 35mm away, and not my small margin (much bigger then tests both on lensrentals and other sites suggest. So it's hard to actually judge lenses. Some samples of the 40mm art, looked even better, so that piqued my interest, now more samples image of the 28mm art. I guess i got a golden copy of the 50mm art, or maybe it's just the infinity signature of the lens (wich it performance among the very best at of all lenses).
And it's this damn 50mm art that's the problem: it's so great, i'm not sure at F8 (my favorite aperture), the new ones will be that much better, astigmatism may be a tad lower, but tbh, the insane clean detail of the 50mm art, everything i throw it at, suggest that astigmatism that it has wide open is almost fully cured at f8, unlike other lenses. For instance ice crystals in high ress image, 50mm art can break down every cell wich clear seperation, forget about that with my other lenses: it will look like one bigger crystal, rather then a lot of small ones.
DrJon ·
Any chance of comparing the Sigma 40mm with the Canon 40mm, as I have that and think it’s great, so assume I need the 28mm and not the 40mm…
Roger Cicala ·
You talking about the 40 pancake? Not really a reasonable comparison, since the Canon is two full stops different than the Sigma. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good lens, but a tiny f/2.8 vs a huge f/1.4 doesn’t seem like a decision people are actually making. But here you go. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6dab49cb5a3a89f32f56b20c51f5be3cd46949bb7f87133f1ee3692225252b7a.png
Barbu Mateescu ·
Thank you!
For me, it wouldn’t be about what to buy but more about what to carry and how much I leave behind, when 1kg of lens stays at home.
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
Dear Roger, don’t you have any idea, why the EF 40/2.8 STM refuses to focus outside the middle part of frame on Sony bodies? I’ve experienced this on A7III + MBV, and others have had the same experience with MC-11. In the same time in same conditions said SP 45/1.8 VC focuses everywhere across the frame.
Roger Cicala ·
Vladimir, I don’t. Wasn’t even aware of the issue, so thank you for letting me know.
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
You’re welcome! Unfortunately it’s just a little part of various glitches experienced by me with adapted lenses. For example, when adapting the EF8-15L, on MBV it sticks around MFD, and it’s necessary to move the focus ring manually to continue autofocusing, on Commlite EF-E HS it utilizes insanely slow CDAF, on MC-11 it disables the IBIS.
Sggs ·
SONY ADAPTERS
I have that lens and 3 EF/FE AF adapters, from the time of my transition to mirrorless. One is a metabones 2 or 3, the first for full frame, a cheap brandless bought on ebay from China, that work surprisingly well with most lenses (24/105, 70/200) and a Mc11 that I just bougth to use the 150/600. In my experience, Metabones and china work very bad with the 40, hunt a lot, but is not totaly impossible to use. Best results with the sigma, but not in the corners. Manual focus doesnt work on either of then. I like using small and discreet (and cheap, so you work more confident) lenses on the street.
Recently I had a tamrom 150/600 and AF did not work with none adapter. The sigma 150/600 + mc11 works well on normal cameras, but not on IR. Maybe it can be callibrated, as it quickly find the focus point and in one moment loses it. There are no afordable tele FE lenses, so l use MF. Maybe buyng a new adapter will cost more than the 40/2.8…
DrJon ·
Actually I was thinking that while I like the fast 40 it’s a lot of weight and money for the f1.4-2 it gives you over the slow 40, and wondering how much better it was, so thank you for that, appreciated.
DrJon ·
Any chance of comparing the Sigma 40mm with the Canon 40mm, as I have that and think it's great, so assume I need the 28mm and not the 40mm...
Roger Cicala ·
You talking about the 40 pancake? Not really a reasonable comparison, since the Canon is two full stops different than the Sigma. Don't get me wrong, it's a good lens, but a tiny f/2.8 vs a huge f/1.4 doesn't seem like a decision people are actually making. But here you go. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Barbu Mateescu ·
Thank you!
For me, it wouldn't be about what to buy but more about what to carry and how much I leave behind, when 1kg of lens stays at home.
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
Dear Roger, don't you have any idea, why the EF 40/2.8 STM refuses to focus outside the middle part of frame on Sony bodies? I've experienced this on A7III + MBV, and others have had the same experience with MC-11. In the same time in same conditions said SP 45/1.8 VC focuses everywhere across the frame.
Roger Cicala ·
Vladimir, I don't. Wasn't even aware of the issue, so thank you for letting me know.
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
You're welcome! Unfortunately it's just a little part of various glitches experienced by me with adapted lenses. For example, when adapting the EF8-15L, on MBV it sticks around MFD, and it's necessary to move the focus ring manually to continue autofocusing, on Commlite EF-E HS it utilizes insanely slow CDAF, on MC-11 it disables the IBIS.
Sggs ·
SONY ADAPTERS
I have that lens and 3 EF/FE AF adapters, from the time of my transition to mirrorless. One is a metabones 2 or 3, the first for full frame, a cheap brandless bought on ebay from China, that work surprisingly well with most lenses (24/105, 70/200) and a Mc11 that I just bougth to use the 150/600. In my experience, Metabones and china work very bad with the 40, hunt a lot, but is not totaly impossible to use. Best results with the sigma, but not in the corners. Manual focus doesnt work on either of then. I like using small and discreet (and cheap, so you work more confident) lenses on the street.
Recently I had a tamrom 150/600 and AF did not work with none adapter. The sigma 150/600 + mc11 works well on normal cameras, but not on IR. Maybe it can be callibrated, as it quickly find the focus point and in one moment loses it. There are no afordable tele FE lenses, so l use MF. Maybe buyng a new adapter will cost more than the 40/2.8...
DrJon ·
Actually I was thinking that while I like the fast 40 it's a lot of weight and money for the f1.4-2 it gives you over the slow 40, and wondering how much better it was, so thank you for that, appreciated.
Tuolumne ·
Impressive results. However, the Sigma 40mm has been reported elsewhere as having significant focus shift which is unfortunate.
Barbu Mateescu ·
Canon 50/1.2L had egregious focus shift too, but still was used by many people, and to great effect (not just wide open); still, it’s unfortunate…
Also, “has been reported elsewhere” doesn’t really add to the discussion; care to share a link?
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
In mirrorless cameras the focus shift is not an issue anymore. Focusing with closed aperture is.
Barbu Mateescu ·
However nice a mirrorless camera might be, and no matter how many issues would be solved by not having the mirror box, some of us still appreciate a good optical viewfinder that shows the actual image thru the lens
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
It’s not good when you use a slow lens or strong ND filter.
Barbu Mateescu ·
OVF is no good when using ground glass to focus open wider than 2.8, not good for any other angle than eye-level, no good for the mismatch between the AF sensor distance and sensor distance, no good for the added size, weight and cost… But still the only way to get a truly real-time view thru the lens, not some delayed estimation.
Franz Graphstill ·
@Barbu – given that the “delay” is now a matter of a few milliseconds, which is of the order of the shutter lag anyway, it’s hardly an issue.
Besides, an optical viewfinder can’t offer you 100% magnification for fine manual focus, and an EVF can.
Still, feel free to stay with your antique cameras if you want 🙂
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
It's not good when you use a slow lens or strong ND filter.
Barbu Mateescu ·
OVF is no good when using ground glass to focus open wider than 2.8, not good for any other angle than eye-level, no good for the mismatch between the AF sensor distance and sensor distance, no good for the added size, weight and cost... But still the only way to get a truly real-time view thru the lens, not some delayed estimation.
Franz Graphstill ·
@Barbu - given that the "delay" is now a matter of a few milliseconds, which is of the order of the shutter lag anyway, it's hardly an issue.
Besides, an optical viewfinder can't offer you 100% magnification for fine manual focus, and an EVF can.
Still, feel free to stay with your antique cameras if you want :-)
iKonOkLasT ·
What does that have to do with the point that mirrorless focusing is not fooled by focus shift?
Mark Harris ·
LOL go to a local museum..they may have some optical viewfinders on display
Tuolumne ·
At least some people will be using this lens on a DSLR. For these people, focus shift will be a consideration in use of the lens or even whether to buy it. Should a DSLR user want to use autofocus, or the optical viewfinder for manual focus, then focus could be significantly off at certain apertures unless a compensatory adjustment (of uncertain size) is made.
In my case, if I get this lens I would probably use it with enlarged live view manual focus which should solve the problem for me.
EDIT: I removed an inaccurate sentence I originally wrote because I confused two different articles.
Larry Templeton ·
I honestly don’t know how shooting manual focus with very fast primes is any fun on a DSLR? To even have a realistic shot you need to install a focus screen, which has it’s issues, or shoot from the almost always laggy (and slow shot-to-shot) rear LCD.
I’m not even sure what this “delay” is that you speak of with an OVF vs. an EVF? Maybe you haven’t used one in a while? And there are a couple cameras that do a really good job of presenting a constant love view while shooting better than a DSLR does.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, or say one type of camera is better than the other—just that, as someone who really likes MF glass, I can’t imagine not having a mirrorless or SLT camera to help with that. The Sony a99II gives you the “proper” DSLR form factor, along with 12fps with it’s 42MP sensor (and Milvus and Otus glass can be adapted to work on A-Mount as well).
The Nikon Z6 and Z7 look attractive to me almost entirely because of their great grip, excellent rear LCD (and especially with the Z7, amazing EVF)—all due to how much betternit’d make the shooting experience with MF lenses and any large DSLR lens that might have back/front focus issues or focus shift problems.
Just my two cents. I’m not saying you’re going about anything the wrong way. Maybe one day EVF’s will be good enough for you? I don’t know.
Barbu Mateescu ·
I loved Sony’s A700, used the A99 (first one) for a bit but… Sorry, the “form factor” might be just like a DSLR, but I still prefer an actual optical viewfinder.
Of course, as I enumerated above, there are tons of reasons against OVF which get “corrected” with an EVF; I still “see” the act of taking *my* pics as inseparable from the optical view, just as there are lots of people who prefer the (non-TTL) rangefinders. More power to the EVF users, and I realise that the OVF is bound to become just a nostalgic niche, but… That’s what I’m confortable with.
Tuolumne ·
You’re assuming things about me which are not accurate, and knocking down straw men.
“I honestly don’t know how shooting manual focus with very fast primes is any fun on a DSLR?”
We were talking about the Sigma 40/1.4 and its focus shift. Focus shift isn’t even an issue until you stop down. At f/2.8 it’s significant on this lens, but by then the fact that the lens has an f/1.4 setting is irrelevant.
My manual focus on DSLRs is nearly always done with tripod and magnified live view on a D8xx. This works well for slow, deliberative shooting of landscapes which is where I generally use manual focus. I suspect we do photography rather differently. That’s fine, but it can result in a gap in understanding.
DSLR form factor per se is not a consideration for me. Ergonomics are, and that’s a matter of individual brands and models, not light path system.
I’ve been using lower-resolution EVFs for years on MFT cameras, generally with AF. The newest high-resolution EVFs have received high praise and I’m sure they will work well for precision manual focus in my hands. I’ve just not been in a hurry to get over to mirrorless full-frame. Still, I expect to get a Z6, mainly for handheld manual focus photography with older lenses that I already own.
CA Geographer (near Roseville) ·
At least some people will be using this lens on a DSLR. For these people, focus shift will be a consideration in use of the lens or even whether to buy it. Should a DSLR user want to use autofocus, or the optical viewfinder for manual focus, then focus could be significantly off at certain apertures unless a compensatory adjustment (of uncertain size) is made.
In my case, if I get this lens I would probably use it with enlarged live view manual focus which should solve the problem for me.
EDIT: I removed an inaccurate sentence I originally wrote because I confused two different articles.
Larry Templeton ·
I honestly don’t know how shooting manual focus with very fast primes is any fun on a DSLR? To even have a realistic shot you need to install a focus screen, which has it’s issues, or shoot from the almost always laggy (and slow shot-to-shot) rear LCD.
I’m not even sure what this “delay” is that you speak of with an OVF vs. an EVF? Maybe you haven’t used one in a while? And there are a couple cameras that do a really good job of presenting a constant love view while shooting better than a DSLR does.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, or say one type of camera is better than the other—just that, as someone who really likes MF glass, I can’t imagine not having a mirrorless or SLT camera to help with that. The Sony a99II gives you the “proper” DSLR form factor, along with 12fps with it’s 42MP sensor (and Milvus and Otus glass can be adapted to work on A-Mount as well).
The Nikon Z6 and Z7 look attractive to me almost entirely because of their great grip, excellent rear LCD (and especially with the Z7, amazing EVF)—all due to how much betternit’d make the shooting experience with MF lenses and any large DSLR lens that might have back/front focus issues or focus shift problems.
Just my two cents. I’m not saying you’re going about anything the wrong way. Maybe one day EVF’s will be good enough for you? I don’t know.
Barbu Mateescu ·
I loved Sony's A700, used the A99 (first one) for a bit but... Sorry, the "form factor" might be just like a DSLR, but I still prefer an actual optical viewfinder.
Of course, as I enumerated above, there are tons of reasons against OVF which get "corrected" with an EVF; I still "see" the act of taking *my* pics as inseparable from the optical view, just as there are lots of people who prefer the (non-TTL) rangefinders. More power to the EVF users, and I realise that the OVF is bound to become just a nostalgic niche, but... That's what I'm confortable with.
CA Geographer (near Roseville) ·
You're assuming things about me which are not accurate, and knocking down straw men.
"I honestly don’t know how shooting manual focus with very fast primes is any fun on a DSLR?"
We were talking about the Sigma 40/1.4 and its focus shift. Focus shift isn't even an issue until you stop down. At f/2.8 it's significant on this lens, but by then the fact that the lens has an f/1.4 setting is irrelevant.
My manual focus on DSLRs is nearly always done with tripod and magnified live view on a D8xx. This works well for slow, deliberative shooting of landscapes which is where I generally use manual focus. I suspect we do photography rather differently. That's fine, but it can result in a gap in understanding.
DSLR form factor per se is not a consideration for me. Ergonomics are, and that's a matter of individual brands and models, not light path system.
I've been using lower-resolution EVFs for years on MFT cameras, generally with AF. The newest high-resolution EVFs have received high praise and I'm sure they will work well for precision manual focus in my hands. I've just not been in a hurry to get over to mirrorless full-frame. Still, I expect to get a Z6, mainly for handheld manual focus photography with older lenses that I already own.
Danrich ·
This is my conclusion also, and sent mine back and wanted to love it
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01a84587767134e2b31ec204ee868238b0a7e770813f046ba67c1e24df98d50f.jpg
CA Geographer (near Roseville) ·
Impressive results. However, the Sigma 40mm has been reported elsewhere as having significant focus shift which is unfortunate.
Barbu Mateescu ·
Canon 50/1.2L had egregious focus shift too, but still was used by many people, and to great effect (not just wide open); still, it's unfortunate...
Also, "has been reported elsewhere" doesn't really add to the discussion; care to share a link?
CA Geographer (near Roseville) ·
https://www.cameralabs.com/...
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2...
Barbu Mateescu ·
Thank you for the links. Indeed, from the camera labs one can see that the lens is almost unusable at 2.0-2.8, at least not for a normal quick DSLR AF usage. Same as Canon's 50/1.2L, one would need great care when stopping down just a couple of (well...) stops.
Unrest ·
Don't know too much about the technical aspects of focus shift. Is it true that it's typically only apertures in the 2.0 to 2.8 range that are affected? So if you shoot at 1.4, focus shift isn't an issue? Are there any somewhat reliable workarounds for dealing with focus shift on a DSLR?
Barbu Mateescu ·
The focus shift happens precisely because the optical convergence moves (shifts) when you close down the aperture. In other words, a lens which is focused at a specific distance at one aperture (f/1.4 in this lens, on a DSLR) will focus elsewhere if nothing changes (same camera-subject distance, focus ring untouched etc) *but* you change the aperture .
If you have autofocus slightly in front or slightly in the back of your subject even with the maximum open aperture, then the lens is not properly adjusted to your camera; for most enthusiast/pro cameras, you have some option in the menu to micro-adjust the focus (and for that I recommend using the documentation that came in the box of your camera)
Devil's Advocate ·
technically, how does changing the aperture change the focus? Surely you're just adusting a hole which the light passes through?
Danrich ·
This is my conclusion also, and sent mine back and wanted to love it
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Ed Hassell ·
Great article. Thank you. Just for giggles, how does the Nikkor 28/1.4E compare to the new Sigma and the Otus?
Roger Cicala ·
I haven’t tested enough copies to publish results – we haven’t had much demand for it so LR doesn’t have sufficient copies.
Ed Hassell ·
Okay … that response implies that you have tested at least one copy — and, probably, more than one — but not the ten (or more, ruling out outliers) that you prefer for statistical integrity. Without holding you to it, could you comment on your tentative impression?
Roger Cicala ·
Like many new Nikon primes, the 28mm seems designed less for resolution and more for an even look across the entire frame. While I don’t have enough for valid stats, I can say it’s not going to compete with the Sigma for absolute resolution, more about an overall look. I don’t say this as a bad thing; the Nikon 58mm is a superb example of a much loved lens that doesn’t resolve awesomely wide open.
Ed Hassell ·
Thanks. That’s exactly the kind of assessment I was looking for. I’m hoping for a better “group” portrait lens as opposed to an ultimately sharp landscape lens. I want to discern detail in hair, but I’m seriously not interested in counting pores. 24mm is just a little too wide to portray those on the edges of a group accurately. 35mm can be just a bit too restrictive. 28mm is about as wide as I’m willing to go. I was hoping the 28/1.4E would have some of the “character” of the 58. Living in the boonies limits my ability to borrow lenses for just a few trial shots.
Unrest ·
I have the Nikon 28 1.4 E. It’s a really nice lens. Very sharp in the center wide open! But the Nikon 24 1.8 G (too wide or not) gives you 90% of the performance of the 28 1.4 E and is much lighter and less expensive. Just my opinion.
Ed Hassell ·
You’re right, the 24/1.8G is an exceptional lens, possibly better in some ways than its f/1.4 counterpart — I’ve got one. The truth is that I have more lenses than I really need but that has never stopped me from buying more.
Back in the ’60’s, the person who was in many ways my first photography mentor had me taking three 35mm film bodies to weddings and receptions: one with a 35mm f/2, one with an 85mm f/2 and one with a 135mm f/3.5 — no zooms back then — they were A!W!F!U!L! He shot with two Mamiya Press bodies and three lenses.
When I could afford faster glass, I modified my choices to a 28/2, either an 85/1.4 or a 105/1.8, and a 180 f/2.8, depending on the venue. I actually still have all four of those lenses. I’ve been using the 24-35 f/2 Sigma Art as my wide-angle reception lens, but I’d like get back to three primes. I’m using the 105/1.4E and the 200/2G and am trying to decide between the Nikkor and the S/A for the 28mm slot.
Roger Cicala ·
I haven't tested enough copies to publish results - we haven't had much demand for it so LR doesn't have sufficient copies.
Ed Hassell ·
Okay ... that response implies that you have tested at least one copy -- and, probably, more than one -- but not the ten (or more, ruling out outliers) that you prefer for statistical integrity. Without holding you to it, could you comment on your tentative impression?
Roger Cicala ·
Like many new Nikon primes, the 28mm seems designed less for resolution and more for an even look across the entire frame. While I don't have enough for valid stats, I can say it's not going to compete with the Sigma for absolute resolution, more about an overall look. I don't say this as a bad thing; the Nikon 58mm is a superb example of a much loved lens that doesn't resolve awesomely wide open.
Ed Hassell ·
Thanks. That's exactly the kind of assessment I was looking for. I'm hoping for a better "group" portrait lens as opposed to an ultimately sharp landscape lens. I want to discern detail in hair, but I'm seriously not interested in counting pores. 24mm is just a little too wide to portray those on the edges of a group accurately. 35mm can be just a bit too restrictive. 28mm is about as wide as I'm willing to go. I was hoping the 28/1.4E would have some of the "character" of the 58. Living in the boonies limits my ability to borrow lenses for just a few trial shots.
Unrest ·
I have the Nikon 28 1.4 E. It's a really nice lens. Very sharp in the center wide open! But the Nikon 24 1.8 G (too wide or not) gives you 90% of the performance of the 28 1.4 E and is much lighter and less expensive. Just my opinion.
Ed Hassell ·
You're right, the 24/1.8G is an exceptional lens, possibly better in some ways than its f/1.4 counterpart -- I've got one. The truth is that I have more lenses than I really need but that has never stopped me from buying more.
Back in the '60's, the person who was in many ways my first photography mentor had me taking three 35mm film bodies to weddings and receptions: one with a 35mm f/2, one with an 85mm f/2 and one with a 135mm f/3.5 -- no zooms back then -- they were A!W!F!U!L! He shot with two Mamiya Press bodies and three lenses.
When I could afford faster glass, I modified my choices to a 28/2, either an 85/1.4 or a 105/1.8, and a 180 f/2.8, depending on the venue. I actually still have all four of those lenses. I've been using the 24-35 f/2 Sigma Art as my wide-angle reception lens, but I'd like get back to three primes. I'm using the 105/1.4E and the 200/2G and am trying to decide between the Nikkor and the S/A for the 28mm slot.
Ryan Stone ·
Can you comment on the RF 50 vs the Sigma 40?
Roger Cicala ·
No, because I can’t test the RF on the bench yet. We have to have special mounts made.
Ryan Stone ·
Appreciate your work and your rental service. Can you comment subjectively on the two, I’m sure there’s been some discussion around the office on this trend of large, highly corrected glass. The Sigma design is lifted from their cine series, so it must be something special. I have the RF 50 and find it to be sublime, it’s Otus level IMO.
Roger Cicala ·
Actually, the opinion around the office is the Otus is nearly as good as the RF 50. 🙂
I’ve mentioned a couple of times I’m trying my best not to commit personally to any mirrorless right now, because I want more information. But the RF 50 calls me. It calls me a lot.
Roger Cicala ·
Actually, the opinion around the office is the Otus is nearly as good as the RF 50. :-)
I've mentioned a couple of times I'm trying my best not to commit personally to any mirrorless right now, because I want more information. But the RF 50 calls me. It calls me a lot.
Roger Cicala ·
No, because I can't test the RF on the bench yet. We have to have special mounts made.
Roger Cicala ·
I absolutely love reading the Google English translations of the Chinese translations of my articles, mostly because what often comes out is like technical poetry sometimes, and makes me wish I’d said it that way. My favorites from this article:
Roger: The Tamron is an excellent lens, and I put this comparison up just to show how excellent the Sigma is.
Translated: Tamron is a pretty good lens, but here turned into a green leaf that just reflects the excellent optical quality of Sigma.
Roger: The 24mm is not the best of the Art primes, and the difference between it and the new 28mm is dramatic.
Translated: Compared, the 24mm Art has no sense of existence, the gap is still quite large, and the new 28mm Art has a higher sharpness.
Roger: Let’s go straight to the mountaintop, and compare the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4 to the new Sigma. The Sigma is sharper in the center, although things even up away from the center.
Translated: Once again, the expensive Otus lens was sacrificed. The sharpness of Sigma’s center is better than that of Zeiss. In the position outside the center, Zeiss can find some face
AE-1Burnham ·
Prodigious!
…something “found in translation” here. Above I used Google tranny with “amazing” (Engligh->Chinese->English) as some sort of culture-twisting thesaurus to obtain the apropos “prodigious”. Alternatively: everybody needs an editor. Cheers & enjoy the weekend!
Claudia Muster ·
You don’t need to go as far as Chinese, British English will do just fine.
US English: amazing
British English: nice
US English: fantastic
British English: nice
US English: outstanding
British English: nice
etc.
Larry Templeton ·
You mean, “British English will do nicely”? 🙂 I have a question, if you will indulge me, Miss Muster. Why is it that I so frequently hear Brits carelessly throwing the exclamations, “Brilliant!” and “Lovely!”? (Half of the time prefacing both with “Absolutely!”) Those are tip-top on the glee tree.
And honestly, as if to make up for all instances of restrained indifference in one exclamation, there’s the also common “It works/was/is a treat!” That has got to instantly lower the testosterone count of in any male non-British party privy to that particular exclamation by at least 5%.
I’m not trying to defend Americans and their gruesome failure to verbally contain their excitement—or even their apathy. …And Americans do have the expression “kudos” in its many queer forms to account for. But I felt the need to point out that there is a very gay (or jolly) underbelly to that stiff upper lip that seems to spurt out like curdled jelly from a meat pie if given the proper opportunity—and I don’t quite get it?
Also, the 40mm Art is at the tippy top of my list (along with the VG-C3EM grip that’ll allow me to hold it.)
Mr.JAM ·
As Korean, I think one-way google translation is not that bad. … or not.
You: The 28mm f/1.4 slides neatly into the slot between the 24mm and 35mm Art lenses. (You didn’t know that was a slot? Cinematographers do, and that’s probably some of the reason Sigma made these lenses.) Like the other two, the MTF is excellent. The other nice thing is the 28mm is a LOT smaller and lighter than the others. So, can Sigma do sharp without huge? Yes. Yes, they can.
In Korean: The slide of 28mm f/1.4 Sigma is in between the slot of 24mm and 35mm art lenses. (Don’t you get it is a slot? the cinema shooter is the part of the reason why Sigma made this lens.) Like the other two, MTF is remarkable. Other good thing is the 28mm is smaller and lighter than the others. So, Can Sigma make the lens sharp without making it giant? Yeah, yes, they can.
You: Let’s go straight to the mountaintop, and compare the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4 to the new Sigma. This comparison surprised even me. The Sigma is sharper in the center, although things even up away from the center. But you could buy all three of the latest Sigma’s for the price of the Otus 28mm.
In Korean: Up to the mountain top, I’m comparing the new Sigma against Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4. This comparison surprised me. The simga is far away from the center, but at the center, it is sharper. But for the price of Otus 28mm, you can buy 3 brand new Sigma lenses.
Mister D. ·
I had a good laugh! At both posts this and Rogers’ what a treat! 🙂
Brenda ·
The latest study shows that on average 75% men and women are occupied into web-based jobs. Internet world has become bigger and more beneficial and making lots of money making opportunities. Home-based on-line tasks are trending and transforming people’s day-to-day lives. The reason why it is actually well known? Because it enables you to work from anywhere and anytime. You receive more time to spend with your family members and can plan out trips for holidays. People are generating nice income of $32000 per week by utilizing the effective and smart techniques. Carrying out right work in a right direction will always lead us in direction of success. You can begin to get paid from the first day at the time you check out our website. >>>>> PLU.SH/njexd
Roger Cicala ·
I absolutely love reading the Google English translations of the Chinese translations of my articles, mostly because what often comes out is like technical poetry sometimes, and makes me wish I'd said it that way. My favorites from this article:
Roger: The Tamron is an excellent lens, and I put this comparison up just to show how excellent the Sigma is.
Translated: Tamron is a pretty good lens, but here turned into a green leaf that just reflects the excellent optical quality of Sigma.
Roger: The 24mm is not the best of the Art primes, and the difference between it and the new 28mm is dramatic.
Translated: Compared, the 24mm Art has no sense of existence, the gap is still quite large, and the new 28mm Art has a higher sharpness.
Roger: Let’s go straight to the mountaintop, and compare the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4 to the new Sigma. The Sigma is sharper in the center, although things even up away from the center.
Translated: Once again, the expensive Otus lens was sacrificed. The sharpness of Sigma's center is better than that of Zeiss. In the position outside the center, Zeiss can find some face
AE-1Burnham ·
Prodigious!
...something "found in translation" here. Above I used Google tranny with "amazing" (Engligh->Chinese->English) as some sort of culture-twisting thesaurus to obtain the apropos "prodigious". Alternatively: everybody needs an editor. Cheers & enjoy the weekend!
Claudia Muster ·
You don't need to go as far as Chinese, British English will do just fine.
US English: amazing
British English: nice
US English: fantastic
British English: nice
US English: outstanding
British English: nice
etc.
Larry Templeton ·
You mean, “British English will do nicely”? :) I have a question, if you will indulge me, Miss Muster. Why is it that I so frequently hear Brits carelessly throwing the exclamations, “Brilliant!” and “Lovely!”? (Half of the time prefacing both with “Absolutely!”) Those are tip-top on the glee tree.
And honestly, as if to make up for all instances of restrained indifference in one exclamation, there’s the also common “It works/was/is a treat!” That has got to instantly lower the testosterone count of in any male non-British party privy to that particular exclamation by at least 5%.
I’m not trying to defend Americans and their gruesome failure to verbally contain their excitement—or even their apathy. ...And Americans do have the expression “kudos” in its many queer forms to account for. But I felt the need to point out that there is a very gay (or jolly) underbelly to that stiff upper lip that seems to spurt out like curdled jelly from a meat pie if given the proper opportunity—and I don’t quite get it?
Also, the 40mm Art is at the tippy top of my list (along with the VG-C3EM grip that’ll allow me to hold it.)
Mr.JAM ·
As Korean, I can say Korean google translation is not that bad. ... or not.
You: The 28mm f/1.4 slides neatly into the slot between the 24mm and 35mm Art lenses. (You didn’t know that was a slot? Cinematographers do, and that’s probably some of the reason Sigma made these lenses.) Like the other two, the MTF is excellent. The other nice thing is the 28mm is a LOT smaller and lighter than the others. So, can Sigma do sharp without huge? Yes. Yes, they can.
In Korean: The 28mm f / 1.4 slide is neatly inserted into the slot between the 24mm and 35mm art lens. (Did not you know that it was a slot? The photographer would be one of the reasons why Sigma created this lens.) Like the other two, MTF is also excellent. Another good thing is that 28mm is smaller and lighter than the others. So, can Sigma not be huge and sharp? Yes. Yes, they can.
You: Let’s go straight to the mountaintop, and compare the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4 to the new Sigma. This comparison surprised even me. The Sigma is sharper in the center, although things even up away from the center. But you could buy all three of the latest Sigma’s for the price of the Otus 28mm.
In Korean: Go straight to the top of the mountain and compare the new Sigma with the Zeiss Otus 28mm f1.4. This comparison amazed me. Sigma is farther from the center, but it is sharper at the center. However, you can purchase the latest Sigma for the price of Otus 28mm.
Mister D. ·
I had a good laugh! At both posts this and Rogers' what a treat! :)
bdbender4 ·
Into the blue again after the money’s gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
bdbender4 ·
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Steve Singer ·
Roger, you stated in your discussion of the new Sigma Art lenses that…”The fact that we could get video versions of these as soon as (and in one case before) the photo lenses were released tends to support that.”
Are you implying that Sigma may come out with photo lenses (for those of us who are only into still photography) that will replace the older Sigma Art series lenses (24, 35, 50mm lenses)?
Or are the newly released 28 & 40mm lenses both for photo and video use?
Roger Cicala ·
They release video and photo versions of all the arts. I did not mean to suggest they are replacing existing Art lenses.
Steve Singer ·
Roger, you stated in your discussion of the new Sigma Art lenses that..."The fact that we could get video versions of these as soon as (and in one case before) the photo lenses were released tends to support that."
Are you implying that Sigma may come out with photo lenses (for those of us who are only into still photography) that will replace the older Sigma Art series lenses (24, 35, 50mm lenses)?
Or are the newly released 28 & 40mm lenses both for photo and video use?
Barbu Mateescu ·
Thank you for the links. Indeed, from the camera labs one can see that the lens is almost unusable at 2.0-2.8, at least not for a normal quick DSLR AF usage. Same as Canon’s 50/1.2L, one would need great care when stopping down just a couple of (well…) stops.
Unrest ·
Don’t know too much about the technical aspects of focus shift. Is it true that it’s typically only apertures in the 2.0 to 2.8 range that are affected? So if you shoot at 1.4, focus shift isn’t an issue? Are there any somewhat reliable workarounds for dealing with focus shift on a DSLR?
Barbu Mateescu ·
The focus shift happens precisely because the optical convergence moves (shifts) when you close down the aperture. In other words, a lens which is focused at a specific distance at one aperture (f/1.4 in this lens, on a DSLR) will focus elsewhere if nothing changes (same camera-subject distance, focus ring untouched etc) *but* you change the aperture .
If you have autofocus slightly in front or slightly in the back of your subject even with the maximum open aperture, then the lens is not properly adjusted to your camera; for most enthusiast/pro cameras, you have some option in the menu to micro-adjust the focus (and for that I recommend using the documentation that came in the box of your camera)
Devil's Advocate ·
technically, how does changing the aperture change the focus? Surely you’re just adusting a hole which the light passes through?
decentrist ·
in the battle of form over function, form lost with the Sigma 40
Roger Cicala ·
I thought I had. You saying nicknaming one the Sumo Wrestler didn’t make you think it was big? Or you missed the 6 mentions about ‘size be damned’?
BG ·
Too subtle! 🙂
Chris in NH ·
“Overcorrected” would imply an optical defect, which is not the case. The whining from the wimp crowd is deafening. We get it, an extra pound is too much for you to bear.
decentrist ·
in the battle of form versus function, form lost with the Sigma 40. At what point do you comment about the mount ripping weight and size of these overcorrected howitzer-primes?
Roger Cicala ·
I thought I had. You saying nicknaming one the Sumo Wrestler didn't make you think it was big? Or you missed the 6 mentions about 'size be damned'?
JC ·
Too subtle! :)
Meh ·
"Overcorrected" would imply an optical defect, which is not the case. The whining from the wimp crowd is deafening. We get it, an extra pound is too much for you to bear.
Samuel H ·
WOW, just WOW
Me before this test: why would anybody buy that 40mm, the 35mm is super sharp but is a lot smaller and basically half the weight. Me now: OK THAT’S WHY.
Please do the Sigma APS-C lenses (particularly the 16mm and 56mm: those made stop craving full frame, I need your MTF results to be sure I’m on the right path!)
SC ·
I would also be interested in seeing the new Sigma Contemporary crop lenses. I have used the 16mm and 30mm on u4/3. In my (far less scientific) testing for my purposes (nightscapes primarily with some widefield astro) I’ve found the 16mm to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 30mm. Less astigmatism, coma, and chromatic aberration. I will quite happily admit that only having tested one of each is too small a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions.
I have my fingers crossed that the 56mm is of a similar standard/character to the 16mm. I’ve recently enjoyed shooting deep sky objects with the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 but would really appreciate a wider aperture. The 56mm appears to hit the mark in terms of features at a much more attractive price point than the Panalympus alternatives. Seeing the Lenstip coma test of the 56mm doesn’t impress me much, but neither do their results with the 16mm, I’ve found in my experience that the 16mm coma (and chroma) is better than the test would suggest.
Samuel H ·
WOW, just WOW
Me before this test: why would anybody buy that 40mm, the 35mm is super sharp but is a lot smaller and basically half the weight. Me now: OK THAT'S WHY.
Please do the Sigma APS-C lenses (particularly the 16mm and 56mm: those made stop craving full frame, I need your MTF results to be sure I'm on the right path!)
SC ·
I would also be interested in seeing the new Sigma Contemporary crop lenses. I have used the 16mm and 30mm on u4/3. In my (far less scientific) testing for my purposes (nightscapes primarily with some widefield astro) I've found the 16mm to be leaps and bounds ahead of the 30mm. Less astigmatism, coma, and chromatic aberration. I will quite happily admit that only having tested one of each is too small a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions.
I have my fingers crossed that the 56mm is of a similar standard/character to the 16mm. I've recently enjoyed shooting deep sky objects with the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 but would really appreciate a wider aperture. The 56mm appears to hit the mark in terms of features at a much more attractive price point than the Panalympus alternatives. Seeing the Lenstip coma test of the 56mm doesn't impress me much, but neither do their results with the 16mm, I've found in my experience that the 16mm coma (and chroma) is better than the test would suggest.
HaroldLee ·
Great aritcle. Any chance to compare the sigma 40 with the Batis 40mm?
Roger Cicala ·
I don’t have a 10-lens set of the Batis, but I’d say the Batis at f/2.0 is pretty close to the Sigma at f/1.4.
HaroldLee ·
Thanks for the information!
Roger Cicala ·
I don't have a 10-lens set of the Batis, but I'd say the Batis at f/2.0 is pretty close to the Sigma at f/1.4.
Sggs ·
Mr Cicala, I thank you again for your posts and briliant work. Once again I have questions. As I have some sony a7, a7r2, a7s2 mirrorless cameras I know about the problem of the thickness of the glass over the sensor and the loss of quality in adapting Canon lenses. But I dont see how it works with third party lenses. A emount sigma lens is optically diferent different of a canon mount? Does sigma adapt the lens for diferent cameras? The difference is just the carcass? If I buy a canon sigma 40mm it may be used in my sony (with sigma adapter mc11) and in my lumix cameras that are used for video, and that will be helpfull. What you advise me?
Roger Cicala ·
In general, the difference between Canon, Nikon, and Sony cover glass is pretty small and rarely a major problem. Additionally, only lenses with a rearward exit pupil have major problems. So if Sigma knows they’ll be using the lens on cameras with different sensor thickness, they put in some design constraints to make sure it’s not an issue.
Sggs ·
Thanks!
Roger Cicala ·
In general, the difference between Canon, Nikon, and Sony cover glass is pretty small and rarely a major problem. Additionally, only lenses with a rearward exit pupil have major problems. So if Sigma knows they'll be using the lens on cameras with different sensor thickness, they put in some design constraints to make sure it's not an issue.
SC ·
Thanks for the new tests! These are lenses I’ve been hoping to see on this blog. I’d been a bit ambivalent about the 40mm until I read some reviews on it. The data seems to more than backup the praise.
I’ve enjoyed shooting at 21mm on u4/3. On full frame I think I would be quite happy with the 40mm over a 50mm for the exceptional performance this lens gives.
SC ·
Thanks for the new tests! These are lenses I've been hoping to see on this blog. I'd been a bit ambivalent about the 40mm until I read some reviews on it. The data seems to more than backup the praise.
I've enjoyed shooting at 21mm on u4/3. On full frame I think I would be quite happy with the 40mm over a 50mm for the exceptional performance this lens gives.
Astro Landscapes ·
That 28mm looks rather awesome for nightscape pano stitching, as long as its plane of focus is flat at infinity. I would rather not lug the 40mm into the wilderness or up a mountain, though.
Here’s to hoping that Nikon and/or Canon can achieve similar sharpness with their new, bigger mirrorless mounts, without the massive size/weight of these three Arts. So far, though, optical perfection does still seem to require a “no free lunch” attitude, as we see in the Canon RF 50 1.2. But, for astro, I’ll settle for an ultra-sharp f/1.8 prime; I don’t need f/1.2 if it adds nearly a whole pound to the lens…
Chris in NH ·
It’s just a pound, not 5.
Alec Kinnear ·
Let’s assume most photographers have at least one lens on the camera and two in their bag. That’s a three to five pound variation over almost any lens set except Zeiss.
Astro Landscapes ·
That 28mm looks rather awesome for nightscape pano stitching, as long as its plane of focus is flat at infinity. I would rather not lug the 40mm into the wilderness or up a mountain, though.
Here's to hoping that Nikon and/or Canon can achieve similar sharpness with their new, bigger mirrorless mounts, without the massive size/weight of these three Arts. So far, though, optical perfection does still seem to require a "no free lunch" attitude, as we see in the Canon RF 50 1.2. But, for astro, I'll settle for an ultra-sharp f/1.8 prime; I don't need f/1.2 if it adds nearly a whole pound to the lens...
Meh ·
It's just a pound, not 5.
Alec Kinnear ·
Let's assume most photographers have at least one lens on the camera and two in their bag. That's a three to five pound variation over almost any lens set except Zeiss.
denneboom ·
i hope sigma will soon release sl versions, to compare it against the panasonic 50 f1.4
Lee ·
B&H says April 18 is the expected release date.
Gerard Roulssen ·
Would love to see a comparison between 28/1.4 Sigma Art and NIKKOR E … Nikon’s 28/1.4E is much, much better than 24/1.4G and 35/1.4G NIKKORs, so them twentyeights should be close.
Gerard Roulssen ·
Would love to see a comparison between 28/1.4 Sigma Art and NIKKOR E ... Nikon’s 28/1.4E is much, much better than 24/1.4G and 35/1.4G NIKKORs, so them twentyeights should be close.
T N Args ·
I thought the reason for the dearth of Micro 4/3 lens tests might have been due to a certain someone associated with the OLAF machine hating testing of Micro 4/3 lenses….
Roger Cicala ·
Well, yeah, I don’t like testing m4/3. But I test all kind of things I don’t like. Most of it is because all of the electronic focus ones I can’t test — we don’t have an eletronically wired m4/3 mount.
Roger Cicala ·
Well, yeah, I don't like testing m4/3. But I test all kind of things I don't like. Most of it is because all of the electronic focus ones I can't test -- we don't have an eletronically wired m4/3 mount.
Gerard R ·
Note here that Sigmas published MTF of the 40 is pretty drastically different than lens rentals mtf. Sigma shows 30 lp/mm starting at 90% contrast approx. and staying above 85% through most of the frame. Sigmas published 28mm MTF is very similar though to Lensrentals’ mtf above. The 40/1.4 was hailed as their best of the Art breed, and judging by the info above, it doesn’t seem so.
Unrest ·
Don’t forget, 40 mm lenses are more difficult to design compared with telephotos like the 135 & 105 Art lenses. Need more real world testing with the 40 Art before making a judgment in my view.
Unrest ·
Don't forget, 40 mm lenses are more difficult to design compared with telephotos like the 135 & 105 Art lenses. Need more real world testing with the 40 Art before making a judgment in my view.
Baconator ·
Very helpful, thank you! It saved Roger a question to throw the 35/1.4 II into comparison today 🙂
Baconator ·
Thanks for posting guys! The 40mm looks very impressive. MTF-wise it beats even the 35/1.4 II (mid/corners).
The 105 is a real gem, especially for the price.
Baconator ·
Thanks for posting guys! The 40mm looks very impressive. MTF-wise it beats even the 35/1.4 II (mid/corners).
The 105 is a real gem, especially for the price.
Y.A. ·
I would gladly trade 0.1-0.2 at the edges for 500-600g of weight. It almost feels like this lens was created for the sole purpose of producing great MTF figures. I was so bummed when the specs for the 40 came out as 40mm is my favorite FL.
Chris in NH ·
Get to the gym.
CTK ·
I go 4 times a week and am probably stronger than you…. which is why I don’t need to take pride in carrying a 3lb lens.
Chris in NH ·
If you were truly as strong as me, you wouldn’t cry like a baby about a lens weighing a measly 3 lbs.
Mark Harris ·
hahaha nailed it…so much whining about a heavier lens. The IQ is well worth the extra weight. Some people just need to be shooting with cellphones
CTK ·
What does that extra corner sharpness do for your wide open portraits?
Michael Clark ·
It usually makes the out of focus areas look a lot “rougher” or “busier” than a lens with mild field curvature that allows the out of focus areas to be “smoother.”
i_felonious ·
for milky ways it means everything
Michael Clark ·
It seems almost all new lenses these days are created solely for the purpose of producing great MTF figures and great scores reproducing flat test charts at relatively short distances.
They’re almost all sacrifices at the altar of the gods of the flat test chart.
Never mind that the flat field correction needed to get those scores suck the soul right out of many lenses’ rendering character.
It’s one thing if such a lens is designed to do macro or to image documents or to do 2D art reproduction.
It’s another to base how good a lens intended for things such as portraiture or sports/action is on how well it performs on the edge of a test chart (or performs at the edges on a test bench) when focused optimally for the center of the lens.
CTK ·
Well humans are stupid and are too dependent on numbers. For landscape or document copying work I get it… but then you are stopping the lens down anyway. But I agree that there should be more lenses focused on actual subjects rather than SEO friendly MTF figures.
As for 40s I think I may grab the CV 40 1.2… not technically perfect wide open but it renders great and is supposedly a joy to use.
i_felonious ·
i do milkyway landscapes and shoot only wide open
Mark Harris ·
“soul of a lens”??? lol the retarded thing mediocre photographers say because they cannot create images themselves and need lenses with FLAWS..yes FLAWS not character to give their images something different.
Michael Clark ·
It’s a figure of speech, Mark.
The real foolishness is basing a lens’ measured performance for doing one thing when the intended usage of the lens is something totally different.
You wouldn’t pick a vehicle needed to haul heavy freight efficiently based on how fast it can go 0-60. You’d probably look at things such as ton*miles per gallon of fuel.
Why would anyone think that how a lens renders a flat test chart at short distance should be the sole determining factor for selecting a lens intended to image the three dimensional world at much greater distances?
Peter Koperdan ·
Well, great microcontrast is a desirable feature. Current 36+ Mpix cameras can definitely capture that image quality. It depends what you want for your photography..
Busha Busha ·
I would gladly trade 0.1-0.2 at the edges for 500-600g of weight. It almost feels like this lens was created for the sole purpose of producing great MTF figures. I was so bummed when the specs for the 40 came out as 40mm is my favorite FL.
Meh ·
Get to the gym.
Busha Busha ·
I go 4 times a week and am probably stronger than you.... which is why I don't need to take pride in carrying a 3lb lens.
Meh ·
If you were truly as strong as me, you wouldn’t cry like a baby about a lens weighing a measly 3 lbs.
Mark Harris ·
hahaha nailed it...so much whining about a heavier lens. The IQ is well worth the extra weight. Some people just need to be shooting with cellphones
Busha Busha ·
What does that extra corner sharpness do for your wide open portraits?
Michael Clark ·
It usually makes the out of focus areas look a lot "rougher" or "busier" than a lens with mild field curvature that allows the out of focus areas to be "smoother."
Michael Clark ·
It seems almost all new lenses these days are created solely for the purpose of producing great MTF figures and great scores reproducing flat test charts at relatively short distances.
They're almost all sacrifices at the altar of the gods of the flat test chart.
Never mind that the flat field correction needed to get those scores suck the soul right out of many lenses' rendering character.
It's one thing if such a lens is designed to do macro or to image documents or to do 2D art reproduction.
It's another to base how good a lens intended for things such as portraiture or sports/action is on how well it performs on the edge of a test chart (or performs at the edges on a test bench) when focused optimally for the center of the lens.
Busha Busha ·
Well humans are stupid and are too dependent on numbers. For landscape or document copying work I get it... but then you are stopping the lens down anyway. But I agree that there should be more lenses focused on actual subjects rather than SEO friendly MTF figures.
As for 40s I think I may grab the CV 40 1.2... not technically perfect wide open but it renders great and is supposedly a joy to use.
Mark Harris ·
"soul of a lens"??? lol the retarded thing mediocre photographers say because they cannot create images themselves and need lenses with FLAWS..yes FLAWS not character to give their images something different.
Michael Clark ·
It's a figure of speech, Mark.
The real foolishness is basing a lens' measured performance for doing one thing when the intended usage of the lens is something totally different.
You wouldn't pick a vehicle needed to haul heavy freight efficiently based on how fast it can go 0-60. You'd probably look at things such as ton*miles per gallon of fuel.
Why would anyone think that how a lens renders a flat test chart at short distance should be the sole determining factor for selecting a lens intended to image the three dimensional world at much greater distances?
oratrix magna ·
Hi, do you have any indication on field’s curvature?
many many thanks
Roger Cicala ·
We do test for field curvature, but these posts are long enough. I might do a similar thing for field curvature some day.
Matti6950 . ·
My gut says the 40mm art is one of the best field curvature corrected lenses in history. Namely the extreme sharpness in corner at F1.4, wouldn’t be possible without it, and also the amount of glass inside with a very similar but small bend, suggest they really went far for flat field.
Michael Clark ·
Does your gut say anything about how all of that flat field correction affects the out of focus areas of images taken of a 3D world?
oratrix magna ·
A little anticipation? I have had bad experiences in the past and I would not make another mistake. thanks
Michael Clark ·
You say “field curvature” like it is a bad thing! Sure, it’s not optimal for shooting flat test charts at relatively short distances. On the other hand, how many people use lenses primarily to shoot flat test charts (or test them on optical benches)? There are always trade offs with lens design. The same flat field correction that allows “wall to wall” acutance when shooting a 2D subject can also make the bokeh look like garbage when shooting a 3D world.
oratrix magna ·
Hi, do you have any indication on field's curvature?
many many thanks
Roger Cicala ·
We do test for field curvature, but these posts are long enough. I might do a similar thing for field curvature some day.
Matti6950 . ·
My gut says the 40mm art is one of the best field curvature corrected lenses in history. Namely the extreme sharpness in corner at F1.4, wouldn't be possible without it, and also the amount of glass inside with a very similar but small bend, suggest they really went far for flat field.
Michael Clark ·
You say "field curvature" like it is a bad thing! Sure, it's not optimal for shooting flat test charts at relatively short distances. On the other hand, how many people use lenses primarily to shoot flat test charts (or test them on optical benches)? There are always trade offs with lens design. The same flat field correction that allows "wall to wall" acutance when shooting a 2D subject can also make the bokeh look like garbage when shooting a 3D world.
Patrick Cligny ·
Very interesting… The improvements on quality level are very impressive.
I would like to see the comparison of the 28mm Art with the Nikon 28mm/1.4E ED.
Any chance to see that in the future ?
Regards
Roger Cicala ·
It’s coming.
Patrick Cligny ·
Very interesting... The improvements on quality level are very impressive.
I would like to see the comparison of the 28mm Art with the Nikon 28mm/1.4E ED.
Any chance to see that in the future ?
Regards
Roger Cicala ·
It's coming.
Lee ·
Y’all, correct me if I’m wrong: I thought the divergence of the saggital and tangential lines indicated the amount of chromatic abberation? If that’s the case Roger’s tested Tamron 45s were quite good on CA whereas my copy is very poor :'(
Roger Cicala ·
We should call it ‘astigmatism-like’ separation on MTF. It usually is caused by astigmatism, but lateral chromatic aberration can also cause it. If we really want to differentiate it we can use the bench to give a numeric lateral chromatic aberration number, or redo MTF with monochromatic light. But time takes time – to do every test we could would take a full day per copy.
Lee ·
Y'all, correct me if I'm wrong: I thought the divergence of the saggital and tangential lines indicated the amount of chromatic abberation? If that's the case Roger's tested Tamron 45s were quite good on CA whereas my copy is very poor :'(
Roger Cicala ·
We should call it 'astigmatism-like' separation on MTF. It usually is caused by astigmatism, but lateral chromatic aberration can also cause it. If we really want to differentiate it we can use the bench to give a numeric lateral chromatic aberration number, or redo MTF with monochromatic light. But time takes time - to do every test we could would take a full day per copy.
shing ·
I am using 40mm art on my gfx 50R via adapter. it works wonderful with some v at edge
Fink ·
You want some TransLation fun? Find yourself a Honda Motorcycle manual from the ‘You Meet The Nicest People On A Honda’ days…….I’d say pre-1970.
Fink ·
You want some TransLation fun? Find yourself a Honda Motorcycle manual from the 'You Meet The Nicest People On A Honda' days.......I'd say pre-1970.
Troy Phillips ·
I have the Sigma Art 40mm and have been shooting it for live music photography and videography. I like it . I have the 28mm Art on its way from B&H as I write this . Not 100% sure I want the 105mm Art . It’s definitely a Sigmonster and the 40 is a handful for live music photography. But so is the Tamron 15-30 . I don’t recommend that lens for live music photography for its super slow af and I misses a lot too.