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.

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

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