In case you missed the rumor; Sigma's new 20mm 1.4 A Lens

<p>I haven't seen an official announcement, but here's the link:<br>

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_20_14/features.html<br>

Looks to be a moose of a lens, too, at 950g.</p>

<p>The Sigma 24/1.4 Art has been available for a couple of months now. You are referring to the Sigma 20/1.4 Art that has been officially announced today:http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=548<br /> Lens info here: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_20_14/<br /> The fact that it can't take filters will be problematic for many. Rather attractive price though.</p>

<p>Yes, a typo. But the link did lead to the 20mm lens. Oops.</p>

<p>I updated the thread title from 24mm to 20mm.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that it can't take filters will be problematic for many.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably won't discourage some filter companies to come up with yet another crazily oversized filter system to fit it.</p>

<p>And you can buy a metal rear lens cap for it too, apparently!</p>

<p>for only $200 more than the nikon 20/1.8, this could be a winner. the fast aperture makes this an astrophotography contender; for me, i would be interested in the optical performance from wide open to 2.8, especially vs. the 20/1.8G. the Nikon is almost 2/3rds lighter though (and the Fuji 14/2.8 is more than 3/4ths lighter, though it gives up 2 stops in speed), so that could definitely be a factor, when you consider how this lens will be used in the field. unlike 35, 50 or even 24mm, 20 isnt really a stand-alone focal length -- you'll probably want at least one additional focal length or a zoom. i'd have to think about the overall weight if carrying this with my 35 and 85 FX kit, or as a wider option than the 24-70, which is already a beast. gotta love Sigma's ART line overall for what it's doing, though. so far there are no real dogs in the line, the price/performance ratio is pretty high, and the 20/1.4 answers what people have been asking for for a long time: fast wide primes. i would think this lens will definitely appeal to the d810 crowd who may prioritize eking out every last bit of resolution over field-carryability. If you're choosing between this and the Nikon, the Sigma's build quality suggests it's the more durable of the two by far. But the big, heavy, clunky fast primes sort of change the paradigm a bit from the light primes of the AF-D era. if you now have a bag of optically excellent primes which weigh almost as much or even more than some zooms--the nikon 18-35 is only 385g--you're moving away from the trend of smaller and lighter. </p>

<p>I'm willing to bet that while these bigger heavier fast primes from Sigma, Zeiss are made with better materials, that their profit margins are significantly higher than slightly lower quality lenses - i.e.. Nikon's 1.8s. Nikon might get some of that back just on volume but the 3rd party guys get cross-platform use.</p>

<p>I just bought a used Nikon 20mm f1.8G a couple of weeks ago. I intend to use the lens for two things: (1) tight spaces (cabs of combines, locomotives, etc.) (2) Astro/Landscape photography. The Nikon is very sharp--so far it's the sharpest ultrawide I can put on my Nikon (no data on Sigma yet.) I do like this lens. However, if the Sigma is just as sharp, performs at least decently at f1.4, and really does correct for coma well, I most likely will buy one sooner rather than later. The weight of the lens doesn't bother me at all. The lack of filter threads has no impact on my wanting the lens either. I love polarizers but they don't do so well on ultrawides most of the time anyway. No idea what filter I'd use on it. Lens will mostly be for my night shots, especially astro/landscape photography. I see a 20mm as a specialty lens and one I tend to use the least, but when you need it, you need it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, I'm pretty sure that the Sigma will have more vignetting wide open than the Nikon f/1.8, and probably less transmission through having more elements. So you're realistically looking at a half-stop more light-gathering than the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G. Would you seriously trade in your known-good Nikon for that (maybe) half a stop extra with unknown IQ?</p>

<p>well, the sigma's IQ wont be unknown forever. </p>

<p>RJ--<br>

No, I always wait to see how a lens stacks up before buying one. I usually read up and "follow" them for several months.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Sigma is killing it with the ART series. The 35/1.4 is better than the Canon IMO.<br>

Expect the 20mm to be as good. </p>

<p>Sigma continues to raise the performance bar, and competition like that is good for consumers.</p>

<p>Did I really just type that? Sigma, who'd of ever thought ...</p>

<p>15 elements! Having that much glass in a prime lens seems a bit high to me, what with all the surfaces for light to hit. I wonder how it impacts colour transmission?</p>

<p>I'll wait, as well, until some testing results are published and some real world samples are available. But if this follows suit it should be good. Sigma's philosophy with the Art lines seems to be to create a lens that covers a larger image circle than required so vignetting and sharpness in the corners are improved. The downside is, of course, big lenses. And this one is a moose. But, if you're an astro shooter and it's sharp at 1.4 it's a no brainer.<br>

We'll see...</p>