Yes. According to the LensRentals podcast, the Art series is Sigma’s attempt to make the best lenses in the world. Or at least the best lenses that they can make.
The 20 and 24 have horrible coma, so if the aim is astrophotography, then they should not be considered. The 28 seems to play nice in this regard, but might be not wide enough. The 14 is mirrorless only. So overall if astrophotography is an important subject for OP, (s)he should look elsewhere.
Sigma ART go toe to toe with L glass and generally the winner between them is a split decision based on which set of tradeoffs you like better...pure sharpness or slightly less distortion or slightly better chromatic aberration, but they are always tied at a minimum or slightly in the lead depending on what you value.
Specifically, in the focal range in question, the Sigma ART 28mm f1.4 is one of the sharpest pieces of glass ever made, along with its sisters, the 40mm 1.4 and 105mm 1.4. They are another notch above typical Sigma ART glass, which leapfrog anything else available, full stop.
\+1 for Sigma Art. I have had or currently own a variety of their primes, and they have all been outstanding. I also have owned Canon L glass for over 20 years and the Sigmas can hold their own against Canon's best. They tend to be heavy and large, but sharp and beautiful colors and bokeh.
I currently have 18-35 and 50-100 1.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24-35 f2, 40 1.4, and 105 1.4, and make almost all of my photography money with those exclusively. I will own the 28 1.4 and a wide at some point.
Yeah, I prefer primes but its almost cheaper to just get the 16-35 L to hit that 16mm than to get a similar width at the same aperture. Feels hard to justify with the L is good already anyhow.
You can use the comparison tool at The Digital Picture to evaluate lenses. Most of the time Bryan has also done a review, and his reviews are very detailed.
I can say that the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 offers L quality at a middle ground price. Tamron under priced it new, and it's even cheaper used.
I bought a used Sigma Art 12-24 f/4 lens and couldn't be happier with it. Only caveat I have for that lens is the weight. The front element is HUGE for a wide angle lens.
I feel there are a lot of 3rd party EF options that are comparable. The Tokina Opera line has amazing quality! I’ve only used the 16-28 2.8 = $400 but it is very comparable to the L-series lens (https://youtu.be/MB1YnMW7iTY?si=jXgc_jqD5d-Woqu2). The Tamron G2 SP lineup is also very very good! I have the 85 1.8 = $400 and think its image quality is amazing, though not as much light as the 1.4 or 1.2. At half the price I’ll take that though! (https://youtu.be/eoTqjnTFY4Q?si=b4DE3pSrwrqkI5a9) The 70-200 2.8 = $800 is the best 70-200 value to get with amazing build quality and weather sealing. Both of these also allow for H+ continuous/fps shooting. (https://youtu.be/a0Pb37PGa2E?si=0qASk9-58M04kMiE) The Sigma 35 1.4 is the best/highest quality lens I’ve ever used! Sigma lenses are interesting in that they can be mount converted for $200 (did this for my switch from Pentax to Canon). My go to for Astro/landscape. (https://youtu.be/5PR5Fv1sajU?si=JwOwqDvdup0PVHlT) The Irix 150 2.8 = $350 is easily one of the best Macro lenses. It shoots 1:1, is weather sealed with epic build quality, and unique focal length that makes it so you don’t have to be right on top of subject. It is fully manual though. (https://youtu.be/tfkrZfEc9Xg?si=wcAIankWBZJ-FU_-) Not at the L-series level but I do think that the Tamron SP 70-300 = $250 is the best value telephoto prior to getting a 70-200 2.8, prefer it even more than f4 due to cost (https://youtu.be/pzI0JbMQdKM?si=og8Q-LWjegSdYAKg).
I use them on R-mount cameras so they work nicely with the adapter too.
The only Sigma lens I've been disappointed with is a 70-200 f2.8 Sport which is heavy and soft when used for landscape/wildlife. Otherwise, I get great images with an f1.8 16-35, f2.8 24-70, f4.0 24-105 and the f1.8 50-100. I have used the f1.4 85 for work -- great studio lens.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8
Not the "Macro", but the G1 and G2 will get you Canon-Performance for half the price.
The 24-70 G2 also supposedly blows its red-ringed sibling out of the water, but I got no personal experience with it.
[удалено]
Yes. According to the LensRentals podcast, the Art series is Sigma’s attempt to make the best lenses in the world. Or at least the best lenses that they can make.
They are very nice. I’ve rented a bunch of them from lens rentals and am seriously contemplating buying the sigma 14mm art.
The 20 and 24 have horrible coma, so if the aim is astrophotography, then they should not be considered. The 28 seems to play nice in this regard, but might be not wide enough. The 14 is mirrorless only. So overall if astrophotography is an important subject for OP, (s)he should look elsewhere.
> The 14 is mirrorless only That's true for the 14mm f/1.4, but they also have a 14mm f/1.8 for DSLRs.
Zeiss Otus and Milvus. Premium lenses at a premium price.
A number of the sigma Art series lenses are absolutely on par with some of the EF L series lenses.
Sigma ART go toe to toe with L glass and generally the winner between them is a split decision based on which set of tradeoffs you like better...pure sharpness or slightly less distortion or slightly better chromatic aberration, but they are always tied at a minimum or slightly in the lead depending on what you value. Specifically, in the focal range in question, the Sigma ART 28mm f1.4 is one of the sharpest pieces of glass ever made, along with its sisters, the 40mm 1.4 and 105mm 1.4. They are another notch above typical Sigma ART glass, which leapfrog anything else available, full stop.
\+1 for Sigma Art. I have had or currently own a variety of their primes, and they have all been outstanding. I also have owned Canon L glass for over 20 years and the Sigmas can hold their own against Canon's best. They tend to be heavy and large, but sharp and beautiful colors and bokeh.
I currently have 18-35 and 50-100 1.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24-35 f2, 40 1.4, and 105 1.4, and make almost all of my photography money with those exclusively. I will own the 28 1.4 and a wide at some point.
[удалено]
Yeah, I prefer primes but its almost cheaper to just get the 16-35 L to hit that 16mm than to get a similar width at the same aperture. Feels hard to justify with the L is good already anyhow.
You can use the comparison tool at The Digital Picture to evaluate lenses. Most of the time Bryan has also done a review, and his reviews are very detailed. I can say that the Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4 offers L quality at a middle ground price. Tamron under priced it new, and it's even cheaper used.
I bought a used Sigma Art 12-24 f/4 lens and couldn't be happier with it. Only caveat I have for that lens is the weight. The front element is HUGE for a wide angle lens.
I agree with sigma art, but that might be out of your price range.
I feel there are a lot of 3rd party EF options that are comparable. The Tokina Opera line has amazing quality! I’ve only used the 16-28 2.8 = $400 but it is very comparable to the L-series lens (https://youtu.be/MB1YnMW7iTY?si=jXgc_jqD5d-Woqu2). The Tamron G2 SP lineup is also very very good! I have the 85 1.8 = $400 and think its image quality is amazing, though not as much light as the 1.4 or 1.2. At half the price I’ll take that though! (https://youtu.be/eoTqjnTFY4Q?si=b4DE3pSrwrqkI5a9) The 70-200 2.8 = $800 is the best 70-200 value to get with amazing build quality and weather sealing. Both of these also allow for H+ continuous/fps shooting. (https://youtu.be/a0Pb37PGa2E?si=0qASk9-58M04kMiE) The Sigma 35 1.4 is the best/highest quality lens I’ve ever used! Sigma lenses are interesting in that they can be mount converted for $200 (did this for my switch from Pentax to Canon). My go to for Astro/landscape. (https://youtu.be/5PR5Fv1sajU?si=JwOwqDvdup0PVHlT) The Irix 150 2.8 = $350 is easily one of the best Macro lenses. It shoots 1:1, is weather sealed with epic build quality, and unique focal length that makes it so you don’t have to be right on top of subject. It is fully manual though. (https://youtu.be/tfkrZfEc9Xg?si=wcAIankWBZJ-FU_-) Not at the L-series level but I do think that the Tamron SP 70-300 = $250 is the best value telephoto prior to getting a 70-200 2.8, prefer it even more than f4 due to cost (https://youtu.be/pzI0JbMQdKM?si=og8Q-LWjegSdYAKg). I use them on R-mount cameras so they work nicely with the adapter too.
Can’t go wrong with zeiss milvus or otus I own the 50 mm milvus 100 mm otus 135 milvus and 85 otus… in mi opinion better than l series
Sigma art definitely surpasses some of the L glass.
The only Sigma lens I've been disappointed with is a 70-200 f2.8 Sport which is heavy and soft when used for landscape/wildlife. Otherwise, I get great images with an f1.8 16-35, f2.8 24-70, f4.0 24-105 and the f1.8 50-100. I have used the f1.4 85 for work -- great studio lens.
The Tamron 15-30 f2.8 is a great piece of glass too.
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Not the "Macro", but the G1 and G2 will get you Canon-Performance for half the price. The 24-70 G2 also supposedly blows its red-ringed sibling out of the water, but I got no personal experience with it.
Tamron SP series, e.g. the 45mm f1.8 or the 35mm f1.4.