How many folks here using a Sigma Art Lens?

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Considering getting the Sigma 20mm ART Lens. I am wondering how well they hold up, particularly the finish. Do they scratch and chip easy? I am also wondering if the mount can be changed from Nikon to Canon in case I ever decide to switch brands?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Mount conversion: <a href="https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/faqs">https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/faqs</a></p>

<p>I have a 24/1.4 and a 35/1.4; no issue with their finishes at all. Or their performance, for that matter. The 150/2.8 OS seems to have a similar finish; no issues there as well (the older 105/2.8 gave me no problems either, but the finish was quite hard to clean and keep clean).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I have the 35 and the 50 (and the 150, which I agree

looks similar). The only issue I've had is reliability of

phase detect autofocus, especially on the 35; possibly it

has varying telecentricity like (allegedly) the 80-200 AF-D

- I just use live view if shooting wide open, and I may not

have used the dock perfectly. My 150 (not strictly an art)

had its focus mechanism come loose shortly after

purchase, but the replacement has been fine. I've been

moderately gentle with my f/1.4 primes, but I've not

managed to hurt them yet. As on many of my lenses, I

usually have the hoods reversed when I'm not shooting,

and the hoods provide a plastic flexible bumper.

 

I'm quite likely to get the 85mm at some point, if that's

any recommendation. I've not yet felt the need to

supplement my 14-24 with any wide primes.

[Matt Laur]

<p>A Sigma 35/1.4 Art series has been the default lens on my FX body since the month they started shipping that product three and a half years ago. I've used it on commercial jobs in scruffy locations, studio projects, and even as a (bit heavy!) casual walk-about lens. It also does some duty via a Metabones adapter on a Sony video rig. I've been careful enough not to knock the lens around too much, but neither do I really baby it. It still looks like new.<br /><br />Optically, it's one of my favorite lenses. </p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I only have one Sigma Art lens, the 35mm/f1.4. It is simply a great lens. My main reservation with the Art series is that those lenses are unnecessarily heavy with lots of metal in their construction. If I carry the 35mm/f1.4 by itself, the weight is a non issue. Once you have several heavy lenses together, it adds up.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>I have 2 of them myself and they are absolutely great ! <br>

30F/1.4 DX and the 35F/1.4 FX. Brilliant colors, sharpness, everything. I also have one contemporary lens that is also great.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>I have the 24, 35 and 50. They're all great lenses with heft and solid construction, and incredibly sharp. The 35 is my favorite followed by the 50. I also own a Sigma dock, which was helpful in fine tuning the AF, especially the 24mm. I already had the Nikon 20/1.8 when the 20mm ART came out; otherwise, I would have seriously considered it. I may get the 85mm ART down the road. </p>

[Gup]

<p>I have the 35mm. It's a good lens and I'm used to the weight but am always aware that it has no weather resistance.</p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>Modern Sigma lenses seem much better finished than the older versions, the only ones that I've seen with a bad paint finish have been very old pre digital lenses which had a wretched finish which went sticky with age and then partly came off when cleaned</p>

[Two23]

<p>I'm an outdoor photographer, in the Dakotas, and have Sigma ART 35mm & 50mm. I've had zero issues with the lenses and am planning to buy more. I have the lenses out in whatever weather the Northern Plains can dish out.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>Well that settles it. I will be getting the Sigma 20mm. Looks like I will have to go to a 150mm filter system, been wanting to do that for a while anyway. I am just a little worried about the 150mm square circular polarizer. Obviously you will have to turn the filter system to dial in the polarizer. If the filters are all crocked that increases the chance of vignetting. But, I could be wrong. I have never even held a square polarizing filter.</p>

<p>I appreciate the responses!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I've purchased several high-end Sigmas over the years. They all had issues, which resulted in me selling them. Now I only shoot genuine Nikkors. YMMV.</p>

[Ian Rance]

The finish melting off on older Sigma lenses and the Angry Photographers articles put me off buying any, however I did buy the Tamron 35

and am very pleased with that.

[Andrew Garrard]

The finish on the Art Sigmas (and 150mm OS) is very

different from the old "EX" finish - I can't imagine it

"melting off". (My old EX 150-500 seemed okay except

optically - though I think I spilled something goopy on it

once. I could believe that matte finish was less robust.) I

did have my issue with the 150mm, but I believe Sigma

realised that people were saying "friends don't let friends

buy Sigma" (I was literally told this around 2005) and

decided to have some quality control/customer service.

And then charge more, obviously. You can always have

an individual horror story - but then I seem to have got

on abnormally badly with an 80-200 f/2.8 and a 135mm

dc, so Nikon have their share too.

[derek_thornton1]

<p>I have had quite a few bad experiences with Nikon myself, that is why I am turning to Sigma. In fact, it is way overdue, I have been looking at sigma since the first "ART" 35mm. I have also paid a lot of attention to the Tamron 15-30mm F/2.8. The only Nikon lens I have that I have really been happy with is the 105mm f/2.8G.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I have the Sigma 50 1.4 version prior to the art series. The bokeh is why I purchased it and it is amazing. Mine looks like new after years of service. At the time I purchased, it was more expensive than the Nikon version. When I am in a Cartier-Bresson state of mind, I slap it on and go out with no other lens. Used it in one of my smaller CA studio areas because that area was too short for an 85 or 135. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>My conclusion is the same as Shun's. Good lenses, but they are larger and heavy than Nikon (and Canon) equivalents - perhaps this is a requirement for their great performance, but I am a bit sceptical. I had no AF issues when I tried them out on my Canons, but in Canon-land there is some doubt about their AF capabilities, as a perusal of the internet will show. I am not sure why someone would need an f1.4 aperture when using a 20mm lens, but that's me. You may wonder why too when you consider its 950 g weight.</p>

[bob_h]

<p>When I originally started with Nikon, it was because of the glass. Nikkor lenses have kept me happy since the mid 70's. The way I see it, there has been no need to move to Sigma, as I am happy with Nikkor lenses.</p>