Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount tested at DxOMark

Sigma-24mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-for-Nikon-F-mount-tested-at-DxOMark Sigma-24mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-for-Nikon-F-mount-tested-at-DxOMark-2
DxOmark published their test results of the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount. Their conclusion:

Sigma is undoubtedly disrupting the market. Although we can’t really comment on the handling, AF operation, or build, the optical quality is equal, and in some cases superior, to the big brand names. That in itself wouldn’t be so disruptive if there weren’t such a price disparity. The fact that the Sigma 24mm f1.4 is available at around or more than half the price of the Nikon and Zeiss models and can compete with the more affordable options makes it all the more attractive. At just $849 currently, it is a thoroughly compelling choice, and particularly so if looking for an AF model.

The Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ED lens currently sells for $2,196.95, the price of the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art is $849.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • I’m not a fan of DxO, but I’m sure the Sigma is an excellent lens whether their “analysis” confirms it or not. And, when you consider the price difference between it and the Nikon (over 60% less!), one would be crazy to not consider the Sigma over the Nikon. I’ve been using a Sigma WA zoom for some time and it’s a solid performer at all FLs and apertures.

    • Captain Megaton

      You have to consider the resale value, the AF reliability, the build quality, and the handling. Then there are “unquantifiables” that DxO won’t pick up, like flare resistance or bokeh quality. Finally, some lenses are just nicer than they measure, DxO be damned.

      That’s not to endorse the Nikkor exactly, just that it shouldn’t be written off as overpriced necessarily.

      • Michiel953

        Indeed. I’ve had my Nikkor 24/1.4G for something like four or five years now, used on, in that order, 700, 800, 800E and 810, and is, in my eyes, a solid performer that renders pleasingly.

        • Deryk

          The only gripe I have is that I am sure the Nikon is great, but I really think at that price range–for the 24, 35, 85 Gs–they should be made of more metal. The plastic build quality is probably very similar to the Sigma. But guys, do tell me if I am wrong. This is coming from a guy that loves his Zeiss 100 and Nikkor 85mm 1.4d–all metal or mostly metal.

          • Michiel953

            I think you’ll find that they are made of (high quality, durable) plastic covered metal. They feel pretty solid to me (as they should at appr 600 grs each), and not unworthy of their price. They “wear” nicely in use as well.

            • Deryk

              Cool. However, when compared to Sigma’s plastic, what do you think?

            • preston

              I like the Nikon pro prime lens build quality and feel over the Canon, but the Sigma Art more than both of those. The Sigma’s feel solid, look beautiful, and the manual focus ring has no slack at all (unlike the Nikons).

            • Michiel953

              I have no experience with any Sigma lens, so can’t say.

          • John Willis

            I have had the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (DX lens) and now the 24mm 1.4 (since March), as well as a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII, and a couple other lower quality nikon lenses (18-200mm DX, 70-300mm VR, 35mm 1.8 DX, 50mm 1.8 G, etc) – and the Sigma Art lenses are rock solid, and made better than almost all of them. It feels the same as one of the Nikon trinity lenses (my 70-200, in this case). My 18-35 is a couple years old now, and is perfect. The dock let me update the 1.8’s firmware and adjust it’s AF for perfect focus with my old D300 because it was back-focusing slightly. The ability to manage the lenses is wonderful. The 24mm needed no adjustment on my D750 (a set I bought to replace the aging D300). There is no plastic feel, no cheap rubber, no wobble, rattle – no cheap feel or problems that all my other lenses develop (besides the 70-200). The zoom ring on the 18-35 is a little stiff, but smooth, as are the zoom rigs on both. Simple, large, and well marked AF/MF switches rather than the push-pull of the Tokina or the little switches on the Nikon. The 24 is small and heavy. The lens it reminds me of it a very old 1970’s Nikon 50mm 1.4, just bigger and heavier – dense, solid and professionally made. Since both the 70-200 and the Sigma Art lenses are made in Japan (Tochigi and Yamagata?), I know they are really made with care. As far as resale value – I don’t know. But the build quality, materials, and feel are equal to other pro Lenses, and superior to almost any cheaper lenses made by Nikon. And considering the ranges they cover, most people are not going to replace the 24mm 1.4 unless they smash their lens, because most people are not going to move up to the nikon or Zeiss (beyond the best of the best pros) once they have purchased this sigma. It is amazing!

          • akkual

            The 1.8s are plastic. But in my opinion it’s great that they are plastic. Bag of Nikon’s 1.8 line from 20-85 weight probably only about as much as my 70-200/2.8 vr2. Also, plastic gives a little bit of cushion, if you drop one, so the drop force will not be completely transferred to precious glass elements (given the doubt that in plastic ones the centering might change due to same reason). On 1.4s Nikon has metal barrels beneath the covering material as far as I know.

      • Michiel953

        Indeed. I’ve had my Nikkor 24/1.4G for something like four or five years now, used on, in that order, 700, 800, 800E and 810, and is, in my eyes, a solid performer that renders pleasingly.

      • Well, I agree, although I did say “consider”. Lenses have a “look” that is a product of a lot of factors that DxO hasn’t even thought of, let alone measure. I will say that Sigma build quality seems pretty good from every one I’ve handled. It’s hard to compare AF performance, but again, they’ve seemed OK to me. Someone else with different needs and sensitivities might differ.

        • neversink

          There are so many cases of poor build in Sigma, of AF motor dying soon after purchase. This has been a big problem with Sigma. Look up the complaints on a search engine.

  • Hmm, the Rokinon seems to rank a bit brighter on the T-stop scale, yet is more vignetted. I wonder what that looks like when photographing a neutral but light-hungry scene such as a starry night sky. 😉

    • Captain Megaton

      I doubt it would make any difference. The more relevant question is coma, which amusingly enough DxO won’t tell you anything about no matter how long you squint at the little charts.

    • Elbert Jan Achterberg

      Vignetting is easily fixed by shooting flat frames, at the cost of slightly increasing noise on the edges of the frames. The real killers for starry night skies are coma and chromatic abberation. Especially for coma (not tested by DXO) both the Samyang (Rokinon) and the Sigma outperform both Canon and Nikon. If your only use of the lens is night sky, the Samyang saves you $$ at the same optical quality

      • Yup, I’ve been using Rokinon glass instead of Canon / Nikon glass for many years now for astro-landscapes. I love the Rokinons for their low coma, but hope they have a mk2 version of the 24 and 14 up their sleeve for reducing vignetting and distortion. One can only hope…

    • Elbert Jan Achterberg

      Vignetting is easily fixed by shooting flat frames, at the cost of slightly increasing noise on the edges of the frames. The real killers for starry night skies are coma and chromatic abberation. Especially for coma (not tested by DXO) both the Samyang (Rokinon) and the Sigma outperform both Canon and Nikon. If your only use of the lens is night sky, the Samyang saves you $$ at the same optical quality

    • Elbert Jan Achterberg

      Vignetting is easily fixed by shooting flat frames, at the cost of slightly increasing noise on the edges of the frames. The real killers for starry night skies are coma and chromatic abberation. Especially for coma (not tested by DXO) both the Samyang (Rokinon) and the Sigma outperform both Canon and Nikon. If your only use of the lens is night sky, the Samyang saves you $$ at the same optical quality

  • beckyapatels

    FREELANCE AT  HOME SPECIAL REPORT………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT….sut

    ################ Jobs367.com ☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣

  • verytoxic

    Can someone explain to me what these numbers behind:
    Distortion
    Vignet
    Chromatic Abberation

    really mean?

    • Carleton Foxx

      Yes, please. I too want to know the real-world implications. How much is noticeable and what number is not worth worrying about?

  • saywhatuwill

    But what about the bokeh?

    This is from the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 at f/1.4:
    https://farm1.staticflickr.com/717/20339976633_3597e502ba_z.jpg

    • Brent Busch

      What player is that?

      • saywhatuwill

        It’s a Sony MZ-RH1 Minidisc player/recorder that has long been discontinued. It really is too bad Sony discontinued it (there was a MZ-M200 that was similar but for Mac) but time moved on and solid state was the way to go.

        • Chris

          I am so sad when talked about this one. I was walking pass a shop one day and saw this baby on sale for about $150 boxed new. But I spent the money on ER4B, something I never really liked. Thus RH1 becomes a dream that could never be fulfilled.

          • saywhatuwill

            If I saw a RH1 for sale at $150 I would have purchased it on the spot, sold it for $500 – $600 and bought my headphones and pocket the rest. Oh well, such is life, eh? It’s good you didn’t get into minidiscs. They’re addicting because you a finite amount of space to put your music and such and thus you need to be more choosey about what you put on it. Mixed “tapes” live! LOL

            • Chris

              At that time RH1 just stopped being made for 2 months. I never thought that much about this. Sad 🙁

    • Andrzej Lukowiec

      Bokeh? Where is the focus on this one? Looks FF to me 😉

  • Back to top