Sigma FF 14mm f1.8 ART!

[Darren Streibig]

Just saw this announced! Any thoughts from the local lens gurus about this? I would think this wide in FF at F1.8 would cause some serious vignetting? Great option for Helium users though I would think.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1321306-REG/sigma_14mm_f_1_8_dg_hsm.html

 

[Jaimy Soares]

And this one!

Let's hope they will make a "cinevised"version of the 24-70

http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sigma_24-70mm_f2.8_canon_mount&aff_id=101

 

[David Battistella]

Maybe for weapon VV users, but Helium 8K is a smaller frame size than dragon at 6k.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Just saw this announced! Any thoughts from the local lens gurus about this? I would think this wide in FF at F1.8 would cause some serious vignetting? Great option for Helium users though I would think.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1321306-REG/sigma_14mm_f_1_8_dg_hsm.html

with a .7x speedbooster a 10mm f1.2 S35!! Smoking!!!!

 

[Darren Streibig]

Maybe for weapon VV users, but Helium 8K is a smaller frame size than dragon at 6k.

I like to shoot the 6k option on helium if slow motion is needed, plus all my deliverable is 4k so getting something a little wider than my 18mm/more low light friendly than my 14mm 2.8 will be a welcomed addition I think

 

[Lee Saxon]

I would think this wide in FF at F1.8 would cause some serious vignetting?

Well, it all depends on the compromises in design. It's not an unavoidable fact of a given focal length and/or aperture. I mean theoretically they could build a 14 f/0.95 that didn't vignette (it just might be the size of the Sigma 200-500 2.8 APO and cost half a million dollars). If this lens is around the size of the Zeiss 15/2.8 or Nikon 14-24 then yeah I'd expect pretty serious vignetting and/or curvature of field as the compromise that allowed them to reach f/1.8. But we haven't seen it on a camera yet; it could be massive. They reached an extremely high performance level with their recent 85 Art by making it massive (slightly larger than Otus 85), so we know they're not afraid to go in that direction.

Or were you just referring to Weapon VV being slightly wider than the FF35 frame?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well, it all depends on the compromises in design. It's not an unavoidable fact of a given focal length and/or aperture. I mean theoretically they could build a 14 f/0.95 that didn't vignette (it just might be the size of the Sigma 200-500 2.8 APO and cost half a million dollars). If this lens is around the size of the Zeiss 15/2.8 or Nikon 14-24 then yeah I'd expect pretty serious vignetting and/or curvature of field as the compromise that allowed them to reach f/1.8. But we haven't seen it on a camera yet; it could be massive. They reached an extremely high performance level with their recent 85 Art by making it massive (slightly larger than Otus 85), so we know they're not afraid to go in that direction.

Or were you just referring to Weapon VV being slightly wider than the FF35 frame?

On Dragon 6K or Helium 8K this is probably great though. In lowlight, you may not notice the vignetting anyway.

That this lens is full frame gives me lots of hope.

 

[Sergio Perez]

While Sigma lenses are incredibly sharp, in my own findings I find that they are also very contrasty. I've shot a project where I used the Sigma 20 1.4 vs the Canon 14 2.8L and I lose a lot of contrast detail , almost as if I lost Dynamic Range, with the Sigma vs the Canon. Anyone with a similar experience?

 

[Dan Kanes]

Sigmas do have strong contrast.

 

[David Battistella]

I like to shoot the 6k option on helium if slow motion is needed, plus all my deliverable is 4k so getting something a little wider than my 18mm/more low light friendly than my 14mm 2.8 will be a welcomed addition I think

I'm totally with you! I see your point. Just pointing out that the VV users will be very happy with the fast FF coverage this lens will give them. VV landscapes with this will be pretty great.


David

 

[David Battistella]

Sigmas do have strong contrast.

Yup. fairly neutral color, flat (in terms of perceived depth), contrasty image.

David

 

[Nick Morrison]

While Sigma lenses are incredibly sharp, in my own findings I find that they are also very contrasty. I've shot a project where I used the Sigma 20 1.4 vs the Canon 14 2.8L and I lose a lot of contrast detail , almost as if I lost Dynamic Range, with the Sigma vs the Canon. Anyone with a similar experience?

Hyper strong contrast does do that

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Zeiss Master Prime 12mm does S35 at T1.3. With a 1.2x Veydra multiplier, that's a 14.5mm T1.6 at full DRAGON/Helium scale. You can look at the size/weight of the 12mm T1.3 to get an idea of how the 14mm f1.8 Sigma compares.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

While Sigma lenses are incredibly sharp, in my own findings I find that they are also very contrasty. I've shot a project where I used the Sigma 20 1.4 vs the Canon 14 2.8L and I lose a lot of contrast detail , almost as if I lost Dynamic Range, with the Sigma vs the Canon. Anyone with a similar experience?

Actually I had a similar experience in a couple of projects but I used lowcon/diffusion filters to balance it...

Same thing happens with most modern lenses more or less btw...

 

[Dan Kanes]

Yup. fairly neutral color, flat (in terms of perceived depth), contrasty image.

David

90% agree - but I have gotten some good 3D pop with my 18-35 arts many times - a lot depends on camera position / distance to subject and focal length on the zoom but generally while having strong general contrast textural microcontrast also feels good on this lens to me. Like others I generally enjoy some diffusion when used with it too.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I think it's fascinating how "high contrast" is a compliment on still photography forums and a criticism on motion forums because you need so much flexibility to grade it within an inch of its life. You guys ever think you're doing too much? Like, most still photographers would think something was wrong with their monitors if their photos were as dusky bluegreen as most action movies.

 

[Justin McAleece]

Am I the only one who almost always adds a vignette in post anyway?

 

[Sergio Perez]

Yup. fairly neutral color, flat (in terms of perceived depth), contrasty image.

David

I own the Sigma 20 1.4, 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 and all feel similar in this. While on the 50 its not much of a problem because I generally use it for portraits and shooting Medium close ups to close up shots, the 20 , specially when shooting scenery, performs in terms of getting a more 3 dimensional picture, much worse than my canons.

I'm a big, big fan of the new Canon 11 F4 L Zoom. Its just gorgeous in every aspect. If it was just a stop faster it would be my go to ultra wide angle for all situations. This Sigma sounds great, however, for High Speed Helium shooting or Night Shooting.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

I think it's fascinating how "high contrast" is a compliment on still photography forums and a criticism on motion forums because you need so much flexibility to grade it within an inch of its life. You guys ever think you're doing too much? Like, most still photographers would think something was wrong with their monitors if their photos were as dusky bluegreen as most action movies.

Most still photographers come from a world where the finished product is a piece of paper, not a monitor. The contrast ratios available from a piece of paper are not as large (generally) as come from a light-emitting subject. (To see this, consider the difference between a Chroma Du Monde chart that is only reflective vs a Xyla chart, which has a built-in light source.) The genius of the Zone System is not that it encouraged photographers to shoot with the maximum possible contrast their equipment could produce, but that it understood the maximum possible contrast of the presentation format, and then explained how one could best work within those limitations.

There are obviously also questions of overall aesthetics, but one should not discount how the presentation affects the aesthetics.

 

[Darren Streibig]

Well, it all depends on the compromises in design. It's not an unavoidable fact of a given focal length and/or aperture. I mean theoretically they could build a 14 f/0.95 that didn't vignette (it just might be the size of the Sigma 200-500 2.8 APO and cost half a million dollars). If this lens is around the size of the Zeiss 15/2.8 or Nikon 14-24 then yeah I'd expect pretty serious vignetting and/or curvature of field as the compromise that allowed them to reach f/1.8. But we haven't seen it on a camera yet; it could be massive. They reached an extremely high performance level with their recent 85 Art by making it massive (slightly larger than Otus 85), so we know they're not afraid to go in that direction.

Or were you just referring to Weapon VV being slightly wider than the FF35 frame?

I agree, hopefully its a good balance. I don't mind it since its correctable if needed. And no I was thinking in FF terms.