Sigma 24mm 1.8: Gear

So, I haven’t really spent a lot of time reviewing gear here, especially because a lot of the people that read the blog are folks interested in viewing more of my wedding work. I would like to share my thoughts with my readers about some of the gear that I use as I hope that it communicates that I take my craft very seriously. This also might be useful for those who browse my work that are photographers (and I know that you read this because I am sure that most brides are not checking my gear page and I get plenty of hits there!). So…without further ado.

Today several packages arrived for me. Last weekend was very expensive, and the parcels I received were the fruit of that online shopping.

Some background. About a month ago I ordered a lens that I have been waiting for that would fill in a very important hole in my lens arsenal. I ordered the Nikon 24mm 1.4 AFS. This was a much anticipated lens, and from everything I have read and seen of it online, this was a game changer. Super sharp at 1.4, contrasty with great color reproduction. So, despite the fact that Adorama said it was back-ordered, I added it to my cart and away we went. And then I waited. And, I waited. And waited some more. Now, yes this is a new lens, and yes, only a small-ish number of people have it, but I figured that I would have it in time for my summer of weddings. After about a month of waiting I finally emailed Adorama, who told me that there was no ETA from the manufacturer. No. End. In. Sight.

Coincident with this discovery was the notion that I could spend 1/5th the price for the Nikon ($2200) and get a third party lens that was “just as good.” Yuck!!!! I have had one third party lens (a Tamron if you must know) and while it served me well for what I used it for, it was not sharp when I needed it to be (at 2.8, which of course is why you get it, for “low light”). Needless to say, I have been reluctant to get a third party since that lens.

This instinct is compounded by the fact that I got one of Nikon’s new lenses, the 50mm 1.4 AFS (you know, the one that all the forums say is terrible and plasticy and can’t focus worth beans). This was the lens that changed my photography. Yeah, I know what you are thinking, its the photographer that does it, and sure I have grown and grown in my craft, but this lens marks a definitive change in my work and a move to what I would consider real professional pieces. I think there is a balance between the gear that one has and the skill with which one uses it. You can imagine my excitement to add another fast AFS prime to my bag. You can imagine my frustration at not getting it in time to really start using it. Enter the Sigma 24mm 1.8. Now the sigma is 2/3 of a stop slower/darker (it only opens up to f/1.8 instead of f/1.4, which is a real detractor. The question is, is the Nikon worth $2k more for those two little clicks on the dial? I would say yes. Undeniably. It was worth it in my 50mm f/1.4. In fact, I really have a hard time with my 35mm f/2 because its a lot slower than I wish it were. The problem then? Why don’t I just wait and get the Nikon that I want so badly?

No. End. In. Sight.

In the end, after confirming with Adorama that they had no timetable from Nikon to get the lens in, that I would [take a gamble] make a savvy business decision and order the Sigma.

It came. Today.

(Sigma 24mm 1.8: Shot at ISO 400, 1/100th, f/2.8, distance to subject: 349.99mm)

I had read a really helpful review of the Nikon, and a comparison review of the Sigma about a week ago, and determined from the reading that I really wanted the Nikon. I still do. A lot. But…I am really pleased with this lens.

(Sigma 24mm 1.8: Shot at ISO 400, 1/100th, f/2.8, distance to subject: 220mm)

So, on to the review. First of all, everyone complains about how “janky” the Sigma is. No it’s not metal, but I don’t care about that. I am a wedding photographer. I don’t want the extra weight. I want light, fast, quiet, and sharp wide open, not loud, slow, and bulky. The main lens that I shoot with is the Nikon 50mm 1.4 which is much maligned among the “serious shooters” in the forums. For what I do, it’s incredible. INCREDIBLE! [digression over]. So… the Sigma is plastic. The lens hood doesn’t have the same lock that I have come to expect from my Nikon gear. Weird. Second, it has got gold highlights. Oh well.
(Sigma 24mm 1.8: Shot at ISO 200, 1/100th, f/4, distance to subject: 180mm)

Pluses. Its macro. Yeah, its 24mm (extremely wide angle) but you can shoot really really close to your subject (think like 3 inches). This is huge for a wedding photographer who takes lots of pictures of details.

(Sigma 24mm 1.8: Shot at ISO 400, 1/50th, f/1.8, distance to subject: 560 mm)

Second, 1.8 is better than 2, and at this point I am pleased with the sharpness wide open. I haven’t done tons of shooting with it, but from what I took this afternoon, it looks sharp enough for my purposes. It looks really nice at 2.8, and when you are really close, the background is really soft. Its not a Nikon, and at 100% its not as crisp as my 50mm, but again, it still looks really good.

Third, the Bokeh is really nice. Could it be creamier? Yes! Does it produce pleasing out of focus areas? Subjective…but I like them.
(Sigma 24mm 1.8: Shot at ISO 400, 1/400th, f/2, distance to subject: 220mm)

Overall impression: my plan was to buy this lens and push it to its limits, while I waited for the Nikon lens to actually grace us mortals with its presence. Now that it’s in my hands though…I am forced to admit that this third party lens is really nice. Nice enough that I may not be adding a Nikon 24mm 1.4 lens to my bag anytime soon…even when it is in stock.

Please feel free to write with questions/comments. I plan to post a follow up to this once I have played with it in more situations. I am also eager to see how it responds when I purposefully aim it at the sun!