FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I am giving some thought to getting the Sigma 24-70 DG HSM OS art which has not been released for sale as yet. (Mid-March I am told.) I can get a similar Nikon lens with VR. Here is my question. Is Sigma glass as good as Nikon glass?? I find that some Nikon lenses tend to have too much play in their zoom and focus rings for my liking. My Nikon 40mm is really bad. I don’t want to shell out lots of $$$ only to find out what I bought is a piece of junk. I know nothing about Sigma lenses. Perhaps it is not a good idea to buy something that is new and has no previous past history. Thanks for any advice or opinions.
~FiddleMaker

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

From everything that I've read, the Sigma Art series lenses are exceptionally good. Check DxO mark for comparisons, they may even have tested a pre-release copy of the 24-70.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Yes, good point.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I agree with ErikH, that Sigma Art lenses are likely to be very good. That said, why not wait until after the final version is released and reviewed in trade publications and online. There are likely to be comparisons published that will help you decide. Patience, grasshopper...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Sigma Art series lenses are top quality lenses and are well worth the cost. Most if not all Sigma Art series lenses rival or surpass similar lenses manufactured by the big camera makers. Unlike in the past, Sigma will not release a new lens to the market, especially their Art and Sport series, until it is ready.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

Sigma used to have a reputation of having a lot of varience with their quality control. They have recently made some big advances in that area and now produce some great lenses. I have a few Sigmas in my collection and am happy with them all. I can't give an owner's viewpoint about the 24-70 but my guess is that it will rival the newer Nikon in IQ. I personally would have no reservations about buying one.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Ralph, I am no rush. You bring up some good points. My intent is to later on replace my Nikon 28-300 with a 24-70 be it a Nikon or Sigma. Right now the 28-300 and my Nikon 16-35 are the only 2 lenses that I have for the D750 but the 28-300 is my "walk-around" lens. ~FiddleMaker

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Consider what is meant by "art lens." The great lenses of the past were all used for art, but the first that was billed as Fine Art Lens (to my knowledge) was the Schneider Fine Art Lens sold for very large format cameras (8x10 sheet film and larger). The diagram for that design looks rather like the glorious Goerz Dagor lens of reknown, only with far more coverage (image size). Dagors were very sharp, but resolution was not their forte--their contrast and richness of shadow and highlight was a revelation. You could count the threads in a tweed, while skin tones were smooth and soft. The Schneider lens (still made) costs more than any car I ever had. I suspect anybody making an "art lens" today is trying not for high resolution sharpness or bright contrast so much as a je ne sais quoi quality we call richness, depth, tonality, between softness and boldness. Art as such covers a lot of ground, and the ideal lens for a particular work will surely vary, but art lenses are aiming for something other than commercial photography such as product images and architecture for annual reports, or school pictures. I suspect they are trying for something more like impressionism (but less so)--gentle on detail, strong on color and visual texture. Three classical designs were used for spectacular art (and everything else), all designed around 1900--the Heliar, the Tessar, and the Dagor. Each had "the look" of its followers. Some artists even reach back to the 1800's for new art--lenses such as triplets (Rodenstock Geronar, their cheapest lens) or even antique Petzval lenses, or primative designs.

It might be a mistake to ask if an art lens is better than a commercial lens--better for what, or in what way? (Kodak, in its heyday, called its finest lenses "Commercial Ektar", meaning that studios would find them best for everything they do--perhaps a bridge too far, but close... they were Tessar designs.) We have to divine the meaning of "art" for lens makers' plans and creations today--but look very carefully at how they describe the lens and its purposes. It is almost certainly not simply meant to be their "best lens," but one devoted to a certain broad field of uses that is more artistic than commercial. Today we cannot tell from a diagram what a lens does--too many elements, too many shapes and configurations (all done with computers). A gallery of photos presented made with the lens is the best clue, but the artist can always go beyond that.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

WTF are you rambling on about?! Sigma makes a line or series of lenses called Art, also a series called Sport, also a series called Contemporary, and there are others. The Sigma Art series is relatively new compared to the age of the company. Sigma Art series lenses are all high quality, pro grade lenses, kind of like Canon L series lenses. The Art designation has nothing to do with what one uses the lens for, it's just the series name.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Not to get hung up on nomenclature - Sigma has differentiated their lines into a number of categories - with overlap. DC is crop, DG is full frame, DN is for mirrorless), Art are wide fixed fast max aperture lenses, and can be DG or DC. On their longer lenses and big zooms, they have Contemporary and Sport - for consumer and pro respectively. You can come across some EX lenses which was their prior designation for pro quality lenses. Yes, they do keep moving the goalposts.

From what I have seen so far, each and every Sigma Art lens is made with better materials, build quality and quality control than any other third party mfgr - and they have truly cutting edge optics as well. You really can't go wrong buying an Art lens. The current DG (non-Art) lens is pretty awful and best avoided.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

If an art lens has nothing to do with using it for art, it is misnamed. Of course, the word art is also often a misnomer.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Gene, From what the sales folks at Hunt’s Photo and Video the Sigma 24-70 DG HSM OS ART is very like Nikon’s AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR which runs around $2,400. I suspect that either one would be an improvement over my Nikon 28-300. Hunt’s told me that they expect to have the Sigma 24-70 version in house by mid-March. In the Sigma line I would only consider the ART series as I have read they are better quality lenses. ~FiddleMaker

travisdeland Loc: deland, FL

If that lens is anything like my Sig 24-105 ART lens, you'll be very impressed, and pleased. The only caveat to the ART series is the lack of weather sealing, but my 24-105 seems to do OK-it's pretty much my walk around lens on my Canon 7D2, and has endured a lot of fog, mist, rain, and dust.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

You should be fine with any of Sigma's Global Vision series of lenses, Sigma does has a past (although not the best, optics-wise, but like I said, the newer line of lenses is quite good)!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I got my just outdated Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII Mint in box off ebay for $1250.00. Now, the new Nikon 24-70 2.8 does focus one foot closer than mine but that does not concern me. Used Nikon lenses will sell higher than used Sigma lenses. Used Tamron and Sigma do not sell well. You will lose a greater percentage on them than Nikon, this has been shown on ebay time and time and time again. Besides, five years from now that Nikon will still be tight, the same cannot be said for others. I am not a Canon guy but their 70-200 2.8 is a DREAM, great build, great feel, excellent IQ, just like Nikon's. Ask yourself this question, if the Nikon and Sigma were priced the same, which would you get? I thought so. Go quality, go Nikon, go OME.