Sigma 20mm F1.4 ART review

[Nikkor]

30 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:

You guys have much more experience than me, I'd like to have your feedback. I can read than Sigma lens lack of 3D pop and depth because it contains to much glass (15 elements here). For this reason, videographer and photographer tend to prefer Carl zeiss ZE/ZF, Canon L or Leica R lenses. What's you opinion? 

Total bullshit, in every way.

[jonpais]

 

This has already been discussed in these pages. It's complete nonsense.

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

On 5/6/2016 at 6:14 PM, wolf33d said:

Yep but honestly I do not shoot video with ND anymore, it is a hassle for nothing. I think you can achieve great look without the 180 rule. 
Only interest for me in ND for video is to shoot at 1.4 in daylight which I have to agree is a pain on this lens. Other than this, I happily shoot at 1/500s if I need to, with a great look out of it. Guys like Brandon Lee and so on do not use NDs either. Its a pain in travel, and something to always look after (with focus, aperture, ...) 

The lack of ND for a 1.4 lens though.... limits the lens mainly to low light use where it should perform top. 

Don't you get strange motion with 1/500s?

[wolf33d]

2 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

Don't you get strange motion with 1/500s?

Check my latest video here shot at up to 1/2000s and tell me if you find it that strange
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19761-imagine-cuba-a7r-ii-rx100-iv-pilotfly/

 

[Nikkor]

1 minute ago, wolf33d said:

Check my latest video here shot at up to 1/2000s and tell me if you find it that strange
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/19761-imagine-cuba-a7r-ii-rx100-iv-pilotfly/

 

Well I think it still looks strange, but the slowmotion thing masks it.

[BrorSvensson]

4 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:

You guys have much more experience than me, I'd like to have your feedback. I can read than Sigma lens lack of 3D pop and depth because it contains to much glass (15 elements here). For this reason, videographer and photographer tend to prefer Carl zeiss ZE/ZF, Canon L or Leica R lenses. What's you opinion? 

you have watched to many of "The Angry photographer"s videos.

[lafilm]

A lot of people (on numerous websites) are bashing the 20mm Sigma.

Just nuts. Forget the pixel peeping and slight distortion. It's 20mm!

It was made for low light photography and it shines on a Sony A7S ii at 3:00 in the morning. 

Have fun with it!

[OliKMIA]

Yes, for the lack on ND filter thread we can still shoot without and forget about the 180 rule. Works too.
In my case I do a lot of timelapse and hyperlapse and I really need 10 stop ND filter for daylight shooting. That being said it's not a deal breaker since most ultra wide lens lack the ND filter too.

I know LEE filter makes adapter but they are crazy expensive and bulky

[TheRenaissanceMan]

10 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:

You guys have much more experience than me, I'd like to have your feedback. I can read than Sigma lens lack of 3D pop and depth because it contains to much glass (15 elements here). For this reason, videographer and photographer tend to prefer Carl zeiss ZE/ZF, Canon L or Leica R lenses. What's you opinion? 

I personally find Sigmas a little flat and sterile for narrative, but it has nothing to do with the number of elements, and they're still excellent lenses.

[douglaurent]

Owning all Sigma Art lenses, the 20/1.4 might be the weakest prime because it's not too sharp wide open in the corners.  I made landscape pics and videos where i wished i used the Milvus 21/2.8 instead.  By using ISO 12.800 without a problem on selected cameras nowadays, going to f2.8 is also less of a problem even filming at night.  My first impressions of the Batis 18mm also have been better.  Other than that, I am happy that the 20/1.4 exists.  For certain effect shots it's without alternative.

 

[Jeroen de Cloe]

This could be a solution for mounting ND filters on this lens:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/12/21/nisi-make-a-filter-solution-for-the-sigma-20mm-f1-4/

[M Carter]

On May 6, 2016 at 0:14 PM, wolf33d said:

Yep but honestly I do not shoot video with ND anymore, it is a hassle for nothing. I think you can achieve great look without the 180 rule. 
Only interest for me in ND for video is to shoot at 1.4 in daylight which I have to agree is a pain on this lens. Other than this, I happily shoot at 1/500s if I need to, with a great look out of it. Guys like Brandon Lee and so on do not use NDs either. Its a pain in travel, and something to always look after (with focus, aperture, ...) 

The lack of ND for a 1.4 lens though.... limits the lens mainly to low light use where it should perform top. 

The "180 - rule" has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's about the visual arc of the setting. It's a framing and blocking and camera-movement convention, not a frame-rate or shutter speed rule.

There are these things called "matte boxes" that allow you to set ND for whatever lens you have, and still be in complete control of f-stop and shutter speed. And they don't rely on "variable ND" (which isn't ND at all but stacked polarizers - the "amateur hour" of image control).

But go ahead and shoot everything at 1/500th and F22 and stack some polarizers on it for good measure. If someone can't see the difference between 1/48th and 1/500th, they probably can't tell the difference between polarizers and ND anyway.

Off my soapbox. (And when you get serious about this, get a matte box and a few 4x4 ND's. They're really very manageable. I still can't imagine Roger Deakins saying "I need to soften up this background - bring me two polarizers, please".)

18 minutes ago, Jeroen de Cloe said:

This could be a solution for mounting ND filters on this lens:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/12/21/nisi-make-a-filter-solution-for-the-sigma-20mm-f1-4/

So could this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=968041&gclid=CMCRpfnEzswCFZY1aQod2bgMaQ&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051678882%2C&Q=&A=details

[wolf33d]

12 hours ago, M Carter said:

 

But go ahead and shoot everything at 1/500th and F22 and stack some polarizers on it for good measure. If someone can't see the difference between 1/48th and 1/500th, they probably can't tell the difference between polarizers and ND anyway.

 

I never shot at F22, neither F16. 
I am not doing a paid project here, just a personal project for myself as a travel video. I can see the difference between 1/50 and 1/500 but I do not care since the result of my video above please me and I feel that if all would have been shot at 1/50 with a bunch of hassle ND filters to screw/change all the time then the result would have not made a difference for me to like the video more. What it would have done however is make my holiday more painful and less practical. 
So don't worry I will go ahead. 

Sometimes people focus solely on gear and theory and techniques and forget about the rest (experience of shooting and the result you want). 

 

[Cinegain]

Sure, when good is good enough for your own personal projects and travels... but on actual collaborative and paid projects it's more like...

 

And of course you want consistency, apply good practice and get the best motion picture quality...

[Alex T]

This lens sound fantastic. I've got a ZF 21mm but it's 2.8 and without AF (I shoot stills as well) so this is tempting I must admit.

[xrayspecs]

Hey Andrew, are you still planning to review the Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera?

[Grégory LEROY]

On 8/5/2016 at 3:31 PM, jonpais said:

 

This has already been discussed in these pages. It's complete nonsense.

Could you send me the link to the topic pleas? thank you.

[Grégory LEROY]

On 8/5/2016 at 1:15 AM, TheRenaissanceMan said:

I personally find Sigmas a little flat and sterile for narrative, but it has nothing to do with the number of elements, and they're still excellent lenses.

I agree with you, on Flickr, I also find Sigma Art look some kind of sanitized...But the theory too much glass = flat picture still makes sense to me

[Henry Gentles]

I think I'd rather get the Tamron 15 - 30mm with VC? There's also a filter kit which fits over the hood, can't remember who makes it atm? It is a best in class Lens according to all the Landscape Photographer reviews, even the angry photographer says so hehe!! Plus, you get some focal range! 

 

[Michael Coffee]

On 10/05/2016 at 0:42 PM, M Carter said:

The "180 - rule" has nothing to do with shutter speed. It's about the visual arc of the setting. It's a framing and blocking and camera-movement convention, not a frame-rate or shutter speed rule.

He's talking about the 180 degree shutter speed setting - not the crossing the line blocking rule...