- Sigma ART Lenses - Lineup, Rumours and Opinions
Sigma's ART Series of lenses has been making a stir recently, so I thought I'd write an article about what Sigma has to offer, why photographers have been paying attention to their ART lenses and what Sigma might be coming out with in the near future.
Sigma currently have three prime lenses and one zoom lens as part of their ART series of lenses for full-frame DSLR cameras. For now, I'll be ignoring the APS-C ART lenses, I'll add some information on them at the end of this article. These lenses are:
Of course, rumour has it that Sigma will be releasing more ART lenses in the near future. From this list, some obvious gaps are a 'portrait prime' such as a 135mm or 85mm and a fast mid-zoom such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, which is exactly what the rumours are suggesting. In fact, sometimes these rumours aren't really rumours at all, it doesn't take a genius to look at the lenses Sigma current have and deduce that the ones they'll be announcing soon are the ones that they don't currently have yet. It's a matter of putting two and two together, really.
Sigma currently have three prime lenses and one zoom lens as part of their ART series of lenses for full-frame DSLR cameras. For now, I'll be ignoring the APS-C ART lenses, I'll add some information on them at the end of this article. These lenses are:
- Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART
- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART
- Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS ART
Of course, rumour has it that Sigma will be releasing more ART lenses in the near future. From this list, some obvious gaps are a 'portrait prime' such as a 135mm or 85mm and a fast mid-zoom such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, which is exactly what the rumours are suggesting. In fact, sometimes these rumours aren't really rumours at all, it doesn't take a genius to look at the lenses Sigma current have and deduce that the ones they'll be announcing soon are the ones that they don't currently have yet. It's a matter of putting two and two together, really.
Why These Lenses?
Sigma is a modern day success story. Just a couple of years ago, Sigma lenses were second-class, plasticky cheap lenses that people bought on a budget and sold as soon as they could in order to get Canon and Nikon (or other first-party) lenses. They've recently turned that around with their ART lineup, along with several other solid offerings, such as the 120-300mm f/2.8 SPORT lens.
Why SIgma has been so successful is because they've picked their battles well. Their first ART lens was the 35mm f/1.4. Canon's 35mm f/1.4 lens is an old design - dating back to 1998. Nikon's is even older, despite being released quite recently, the Nikon lens still uses the same optical formula as the old manual focus Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AI-S, which is an ancient lens. Both Canon and Nikon are charging over $1,500 for old designs. Given the advances in technology, it makes sense that Sigma can offer a much better 35mm f/1.4 lens. Knowing Canon and Nikon, they basically have a price duopoly on professional lenses, so Sigma comes and offers it for far cheaper. That's a winning strategy.
They repeated the same strategy with the 24-105mm f/4 OS ART. Canon's 24-105mm f/4 IS is also an old lens, that one dating back to 2005. Again, almost a decade later, Sigma can do better with the advances in technology available. Nikon's similar 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens, but again, doesn't quite stack up in terms of sharpness and is significantly more expensive than both the Canon and SIgma zooms. Thus, again, another example of Sigma choosing their battles wisely and targeting an older, out-dated lens to pick on and do better than.
The 50mm f/1.4 is a different story and, personally, I feel that this was the lens where Sigma had to be brave. In the Nikon world, the 50mm f/1.4G was good, but never great. In fact, the newer and cheaper 50mm f/1.8G is sharper. This is something important to note, despite how expensive lenses may be, modern lenses are generally always better than older lenses, this is true for primes, but especially true for zooms. Sigma rode off their great reputation and success with their 35mm f/1.4 and targeted a hole in the market. There was simple no 50mm lens on the market for either Nikon, nor Canon for that matter, that was up to the standard of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. They charged a fair price for it and it sold like hotcakes. Sure, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is a great lens, but let's be honest, you're paying for f/1.2, it's no sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.4, which costs a quarter as much.
Now, this is where Sigma's difficulties start. They decided to go with the 24mm f/1.4 next, but seeing the reviews and tests of the 24mm f/1.4 ART, it doesn't blow away the competition the way the 35mm and 50mm lenses did. This is to be expected, it's tough building a 24mm lens, but on top of that, both Nikon and Canon's 24mm f/1.4 lenses are modern, they're not ancient designs like their 35mm lenses. Canon's came out in 2008 and Nikon's in 2010. This really shows. The Sigma wins on price, but that's really the only area it can win on. It's not to say that the 24mm f/1.4 ART is a bad lens, it's not, but it doesn't have the advantage that the other Sigma lenses have.
This is really important to understanding Sigma's future direction.
Why SIgma has been so successful is because they've picked their battles well. Their first ART lens was the 35mm f/1.4. Canon's 35mm f/1.4 lens is an old design - dating back to 1998. Nikon's is even older, despite being released quite recently, the Nikon lens still uses the same optical formula as the old manual focus Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AI-S, which is an ancient lens. Both Canon and Nikon are charging over $1,500 for old designs. Given the advances in technology, it makes sense that Sigma can offer a much better 35mm f/1.4 lens. Knowing Canon and Nikon, they basically have a price duopoly on professional lenses, so Sigma comes and offers it for far cheaper. That's a winning strategy.
They repeated the same strategy with the 24-105mm f/4 OS ART. Canon's 24-105mm f/4 IS is also an old lens, that one dating back to 2005. Again, almost a decade later, Sigma can do better with the advances in technology available. Nikon's similar 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens, but again, doesn't quite stack up in terms of sharpness and is significantly more expensive than both the Canon and SIgma zooms. Thus, again, another example of Sigma choosing their battles wisely and targeting an older, out-dated lens to pick on and do better than.
The 50mm f/1.4 is a different story and, personally, I feel that this was the lens where Sigma had to be brave. In the Nikon world, the 50mm f/1.4G was good, but never great. In fact, the newer and cheaper 50mm f/1.8G is sharper. This is something important to note, despite how expensive lenses may be, modern lenses are generally always better than older lenses, this is true for primes, but especially true for zooms. Sigma rode off their great reputation and success with their 35mm f/1.4 and targeted a hole in the market. There was simple no 50mm lens on the market for either Nikon, nor Canon for that matter, that was up to the standard of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. They charged a fair price for it and it sold like hotcakes. Sure, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is a great lens, but let's be honest, you're paying for f/1.2, it's no sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.4, which costs a quarter as much.
Now, this is where Sigma's difficulties start. They decided to go with the 24mm f/1.4 next, but seeing the reviews and tests of the 24mm f/1.4 ART, it doesn't blow away the competition the way the 35mm and 50mm lenses did. This is to be expected, it's tough building a 24mm lens, but on top of that, both Nikon and Canon's 24mm f/1.4 lenses are modern, they're not ancient designs like their 35mm lenses. Canon's came out in 2008 and Nikon's in 2010. This really shows. The Sigma wins on price, but that's really the only area it can win on. It's not to say that the 24mm f/1.4 ART is a bad lens, it's not, but it doesn't have the advantage that the other Sigma lenses have.
This is really important to understanding Sigma's future direction.
Sigma's Future Direction
So back to the drawing board. There are a couple of lenses that Sigma is still missing. Here are some options of what Sigma might want to release in the near future.
Of these lenses, I believe the 85mm f/1.4 ART is the most logical, as in it fills the greatest gap in the lineup, but at the same time, I also feel it is the most unlikely. This is the problem with an 85mm f/1.4 ART from Sigma. Nikon and Canon's 85mm lenses are excellent. Nikon's 85mm f/1.4G is a very modern lens and is actually, according to multiple sources, one of the sharpest lenses on the Nikon system. This already makes it hard to beat. Canon's 85mm f/1.2 is also a legendary lens. Realistically, these lenses set the upper limit in terms of price. Even if Sigma manages to oust them in performance, the Sigma will have to be cheaper. It won't be easy to beat these 85mm lenses as it was to beat the 35mm lenses.
But, that's not the only problem. The 85mm category is unique in that we will expect Nikon and Canon lenses to undercut Sigma, but still offer almost as good quality. Canon and Nikon both have excellent 85mm f/1.8 lenses that come in at around the $400 mark. This is significant because the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 isn't all that much (it's less than a stop) and these lenses are so cheap and so sharp that people might actually prefer to go for them rather than the Sigma. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is often claimed to be sharper than the f/1.4G version! This all ends up adding up to the Sigma being a bit of a tough sell.
Again, the 24-70mm f/2.8 category is also tough. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a superb lens. Unlike neglected primes, both Canon and Nikon know the importance of zooms, as everyone buys zooms these days. Nikon is also rumoured to be coming up with their 24-70mm f/2.8G successor some time in the near future. On top of that, Sigma also has competition in Tamron, who have a great 24-70mm f/2.8 VC which beats out the Nikon in sharpness and rivals the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II. So not only does the SIgma have to compete with the name-brands, but it'll also have to compete with the Tamron, which is (to say the least) excellent, excellent value.
Perhaps, then, a 135mm f/2 or a macro lens might be a more viable alternative. But neither of those options really make sense. 135mm f/2, although a popular portrait lens, just isn't a popular lens. It is an area where Sigma can shine though, given that the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC is now decades old. The macro option doesn't make much sense either as there's no real need for a macro lens at the moment, with both Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro and Canon's 105mm f/2.8L Macro lenses offering great image quality at very affordable price points.
So that's it, it's a tough call, but who knows where Sigma is going to go next. Perhaps my predictions might be wrong, but at least that's my analysis of the situation. I would love to see a Sigma 135mm f/2 ART lens, that's something I would genuinely consider buying!
- Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART
- Sigma 105mm or 135mm f/2 ART
- Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 ART
- Macro Lens
Of these lenses, I believe the 85mm f/1.4 ART is the most logical, as in it fills the greatest gap in the lineup, but at the same time, I also feel it is the most unlikely. This is the problem with an 85mm f/1.4 ART from Sigma. Nikon and Canon's 85mm lenses are excellent. Nikon's 85mm f/1.4G is a very modern lens and is actually, according to multiple sources, one of the sharpest lenses on the Nikon system. This already makes it hard to beat. Canon's 85mm f/1.2 is also a legendary lens. Realistically, these lenses set the upper limit in terms of price. Even if Sigma manages to oust them in performance, the Sigma will have to be cheaper. It won't be easy to beat these 85mm lenses as it was to beat the 35mm lenses.
But, that's not the only problem. The 85mm category is unique in that we will expect Nikon and Canon lenses to undercut Sigma, but still offer almost as good quality. Canon and Nikon both have excellent 85mm f/1.8 lenses that come in at around the $400 mark. This is significant because the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 isn't all that much (it's less than a stop) and these lenses are so cheap and so sharp that people might actually prefer to go for them rather than the Sigma. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is often claimed to be sharper than the f/1.4G version! This all ends up adding up to the Sigma being a bit of a tough sell.
Again, the 24-70mm f/2.8 category is also tough. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a superb lens. Unlike neglected primes, both Canon and Nikon know the importance of zooms, as everyone buys zooms these days. Nikon is also rumoured to be coming up with their 24-70mm f/2.8G successor some time in the near future. On top of that, Sigma also has competition in Tamron, who have a great 24-70mm f/2.8 VC which beats out the Nikon in sharpness and rivals the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II. So not only does the SIgma have to compete with the name-brands, but it'll also have to compete with the Tamron, which is (to say the least) excellent, excellent value.
Perhaps, then, a 135mm f/2 or a macro lens might be a more viable alternative. But neither of those options really make sense. 135mm f/2, although a popular portrait lens, just isn't a popular lens. It is an area where Sigma can shine though, given that the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC is now decades old. The macro option doesn't make much sense either as there's no real need for a macro lens at the moment, with both Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro and Canon's 105mm f/2.8L Macro lenses offering great image quality at very affordable price points.
So that's it, it's a tough call, but who knows where Sigma is going to go next. Perhaps my predictions might be wrong, but at least that's my analysis of the situation. I would love to see a Sigma 135mm f/2 ART lens, that's something I would genuinely consider buying!