Sigma 35mm 1.4
I loved my Art 50mm, but it didn't produce acceptable results aberration wise until f2 to f2.8. Having the larger aperture area means little if the image quality at the widest aperture is so degraded by aberrations and artifacts that you have to stop it down. Some people want and need lenses that produce quality at this level, such as myself, and the reality is that the cost of this lens compared to many from Nikon, Canon, Sony is very competitive, I got my 40mm brand new for $1,000 and it's far better than anything manufactured by Nikon/Canon/Sony in a similar focal range. Sigma made the 40mm as a Cine lens which is marketed to everyone, they've even stated that publicly. Sigma has decided that they are going to manufacture lenses which produce extremely high image quality with minimal artifacts and aberrations, they've decided that physical characteristics of those lenses are secondary to that. Nope, I didn't miss the point, lenstip missed the point. Not addressed in any review, but important for astro is total glass aperture for collecting the most photons on same size chip same f/ratio the 50 wins by (arithmetic) almost a 1/2 inch over the 35.Įdited by Ron359, 11 March 2020 - 02:24 PM. Its up to buyers to figure out how much closer to perfection they are willing to or can afford for more bucks. Just like cars or jewelry, or art, there is always a more perfect but more expensive - better lens. They don't quite understand why Sigma bothers to make it, except some zen lens master has a goal of perfection.
![sigma 35mm 1.4 sigma 35mm 1.4](http://unbox.resourcemagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-Art-2.jpg)
If you want something slightly closer to perfection, you're going to pay a lot more for it. You may have read the review, but you miss their main point. My only complaint about the 40 Art is that it doesn't have a tripod mount. Your description is not only consistent with the images I saw from these Art lenses, but also consistent with what I read from. I'd like to get the 105mm and take that for a spin, but I have other priorities right now.Įdited by erictheastrojunkie, 11 March 2020 - 09:45 AM. It weighs a ton, but man the shots that come from it are astounding. I've used so many lenses for nightscape astro stuff, at least 60-70 at this point, I doubt I'll ever sell the Art 40mm it's that good. If you're not going to buy the Art 40mm then buy the Tamron 35mm f1.4, next in line in terms of overall image quality (for astro) is the Art 28mm. The 40mm obliterates the 35mm and I mean it's not even close, IMO the only lens that's wider than 100mm that comes close to the performance of the 40mm is the Tamron 35mm f1.4 (which I also own), the Art 85mm being close as well. I have read the review, I also own the lens, on top of that I've owned the Art 35mm (bought it twice, actually), Art 50mm, Art 24mm, Art 85mm, Art 135mm, and have used the Art 20mm and Art 28mm (and used them all quite a lot for astro). short story its just slightly better in some respects for astro, not better for 'daylight'.
![sigma 35mm 1.4 sigma 35mm 1.4](https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Art-Lens/Sigma-24-70mm-f-2.8-Art-Lens-Angle-Extended.jpg)
I think y'all ought to read the review of the sigma 40.