The new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon F mount is now in stock and shipping

Sigma 20mm f:1.4 DG HSM Art lens
The Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon mount is now in stock at B&H and Adorama. This is the fastest 20mm lens available today (or the world’s first 20mm f/1.4 lens).

Additional technical information:

Sigma 20mm f:1.4 DG HSM Art lens 3

Lens construction 15 elements in 11 groups
Minimum aperture F16
Angle of view (35mm equivalent) 94.5°
Minimum focusing distance 27.6 cm / 10.9 in.
Dimensions (diameter x length) φ90.7mm x 129.8mm / 3.6 in. x 5.1 in.
Number of diaphragm blades 9 (rounded diaphragm)
Maximum magnification ratio 1:7.1
Weight 950 g / 33.5 oz.


  • A Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) that ensures a silent, high-speed AF function. Smoother AF is achieved when the this AF algorithm is optimized
  • A nine-blade, rounded diaphragm creates an attractive blur to the out-of-focus areas of the image
  • A brass bayonet mount of highly precise and durable construction to enhance mount’s strength and long-term wear resistance

MTF chart:

Lens design:

Chromatic aberration:

Sigma 20mm f:1.4 DG HSM Art lens chromatic_aberration

Sigma 20mm f:1.4 DG HSM Art lens vignetting

Sigma 20mm f:1.4 DG HSM Art lens distortion
The full press release can be found here.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Can someone explain why anyone would want to accept the trade-offs to get that fast an aperture in this focal length?

    • julian_n

      What are the trade-offs compared to the Nikon 1.8 lens?

      • Eric Calabros

        Weight, filter

        • AYWY

          To elaborate, it’s 950g. Heavier than the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G @850g.

          It’s a similar story with all the ART lenses. Fantastic performance, but you won’t bring one out with you casually unless there is some compelling commercial incentive to take it out.

          • Pat Mann

            Sort of like an Otus, you’re saying. There’s often a tradeoff if you seek a particular quality in a lens? This, for example, is lighter, wider and less expensive than the 28mm Otus f/1.4. Perhaps it will sell more copies.

    • Aldo

      You can skip the gym with this lens

    • Captain Megaton

      Well, some people just always need to have the fastest. Also, Sigma need to have a hook to compete with the Nikkor lens. “F1.4” are the magic words for sales of prime lenses.

      (I am half-joking, in low light every little bit really does count. What you are doing with a 20mm in low light is your business~~)

      I still use a UD-Nikkor 20/3.5. Works great at f/11. The f/3.5 is basically just there to keep the viewfinder useably bright.

    • Spy Black

      Um, for the fast aperture?…

      • I know it has a fast aperture. I asked why it was worth the trade-offs. The new Nikon 20mm f/1.8 is just 2/3 stops slower, and weighs less than HALF that of the Sigma. Filters are going to be an expensive hassle. It’s bigger than a lot of fast zoom lenses. I can kind of see it for a 50mm or similar lens. But a 20mm? So, I’m interested in why someone would put up with that on a lens of this focal length.

        • Spy Black

          Perhaps thoae 2/3rds are just what they need.

        • preston

          The biggest thing for me is that is is actually sharp and contrasty at 1.4. The Nikon 1.8’s (with exception of 85mm I’d say) are designed to be usable at 1.8 but not really sharp until about 2.8. Now all of a sudden your Nikon is 2 full stops slower if you’re somebody that won’t accept semi-soft images.

  • Schtatten

    Astrophotography would be nice with this.

  • fanboy fagz

    bravo sigma for daring!

  • waterengineer

    Are there any third party reviews of this lens yet? Thanks.

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    Just what I don’t want, another two pound ingot on the front of my camera.

    • bdpq

      I guess there will always be people can’t find justification for quality over the additional weight. The world is never perfect, but a wide-angle f1.4 at this level of quality, price, and weight? I think sigma deserves an award.

  • I don’t understand why everyone bitches about Sigma’s art series lenses. The quality is supreme for the price and as consumers, we’re finally getting a viable third party option… Yes they are heavy. If you don’t like it, don’t buy them. I have a sigma 50mm f1.4 as well as the Nikon 50mm f1.4. Unlike most of the people who moan and groan about the weight, it’s actually critical to me as I generally have to ride my bike to remote locations with my gear on gnarly terrain. If I’m going to have a huge day I’ll opt for the Nikon and try to pack light. If the shoot is somewhat accessible, I pick the Sigma all day and I would never whine about the weight as the IQ is SO damn good. I would love to own the 24-35 f2 as well as this new 20mm f1.4.

    • fanboy fagz

      are people that wimpy that they cant use a lens that has some weight? what about the 24-70 AFS G or 70-200 lenses or 14-24G? no one uses those? I hate using tiny puny lenses. I have no issue with the mass and weight. I prefer it for balance.

      the 24-35 f2 ART is just an elite lens in every way. nasim reviewed it vs the nikon 24 1.4G/ 28 1.8G/ 35 1.8G and it crushes all of them. the art lenses are nothing less than stellar

      Id prefer the tamron 15-35 2.8 VC over the sigma 20mm art but im sure its even sharper than the tamron. I prefer the versatility of the zoom which is critical for weddings.

      • If you lug the 15-30 to weddings, you definitely have different preferences from many, yet on the other hand I personally know other full-time shooters who use the Tamron 15-30, or the Tokina 16-28, or the Nikon 14-24 at weddings.

        But, different strokes for different folks, that’s just the way it’s going to be. The weddings I shoot are 10-12+ hours long; this weekend I have a 16 hr job. So sue me, I prefer a lightweight kit. Wider than 24mm, there’s not much I can’t do with just the Rokinon 14 2.8. In fact if I can I leave all the fat zooms in my rolling case and just use a Sigma 35 1.4 or Nikon 85 1.8, I call that a win. The zooms only come out if the church is truly huge, or the action is truly crazy. (Hindu weddings are fun!)

    • true

      It’s the total weight. If you have camera bag (600-1200g), 2-3 sigma art lenses (each 800-900g) and a FF body (850-1100g) , you’ll be carrying alot of weight

      • Sure it adds up if you have 2-3 of them but I guess I just don’t understand the belly aching… I do 4000 foot climbs on a mountain bike with a D750, D4, 70-200, 24-70, fisheye, 50mm and 20mm. Sometimes I pack lighting, sometimes a 300mm. Plus water tools and food. Most of the people whining about the weight of this lens are just walking around and only have a couple of lenses in a bag, or even worse – they’re just in a studio.

        • You’re right, most people wandering around 100 yards from their car / home should shut up, man-up, and carry around whatever lens “gets the job done”. If you need 20mm and f/1.4, this is the only show in town.

          The Sigma 20 Art isn’t even that stellar in the corners, so you should probably just be glad it doesn’t weigh (or cost) as much as a Zeiss Otus. Or, buy the Nikon 20 1.8 G.

          Having said that, I don’t understand why everyone ELSE whines about the people who “bitch” about weight. Get over it, different people have different priorities. Sure, priorities are blown out of proportion on the internet all the time. Weight is just one of the things being brought up more often these days, because so many newer systems are coming onto the market.

          Personally, my own reasons for wanting ultra-light and compact gear are best described here:

          TLDR; I’m happy to lug ONE heavy-ass camera up a mountain, but when it comes time to lug a 2nd or 3rd or 4th setup around, you better believe I’m not doubling down on multiple 20 1.4’s or 15-30’s. Not when various other options offer significant weight and cost savings.

          • For example I bet the new Tokina 14-20 f/2 will weigh as much as, or less than, the Sigma 20 1.4 Art. Slap that (Or the Tokina 11-16 / 11-20) on a Nikon D5500, and you’ve got a shockingly lightweight 2nd / 3rd camera for nightscape / timelapse shooting. So even if I already use the Sigma 20 Art on a D750 or D810, well, you can get pretty bored pretty quick when a single timelapse angle can take 4-5 hours, or a single exposure / image takes 5-10 minutes…

            And yes, quite a few of my best images / timelapses wind up being from those 2nd / 3rd cameras that I bring on adventures, because I feel at liberty to try something more risky, go for broke, etc… Actually half of the images on my landscape photo calendar last year wound up being from beginner class APS-C bodies, despite having access to the A7R, D810, D800e, 5D3, at the same time as the various images were taken on a D5300 or whatever I was using at the time.

            But I’m rambling now…

  • Back to top