Guess the embargo just lifted! Looking forward to seeing how it compares to the G. Edit: After watching a good chunk, don't think anyone is going to be swapping their 20/1.8G for this lens. At $200 more to get the Sony I think most new buyers will opt for the G, too.
The 20mm f/1.8G is my favorite lens for the system, and it's honestly not close for me. I agree that nobody's trading that for this lens. That said, the Sony G lens is pretty unique in the camera world, the Sigma won't stay $699 forever, there are Panasonic shooters out there, and I'd imagine when Sigma starts making RF and Z mount glass, they'll sell a bunch of these.
Wow the Sigma image really pops compared to a flat dull look in the side by side . The barrel distortion can work for me in many situations that I shoot and combine that with the vignette and I love it . I have the Sony 20mm f/1.8 and absolutely love love love it . It’s way better than it build quality says it should be . I find that with the Sony G Master plastic lenses too. Just subpar to my Sigmas and even higher end Nikons . Tamron for the most part has the lower quality builds too. I’d love to have the Tamron 35mm f/1/4 in f mount though. Some lenses have special characteristics and we have to learn to use each lens to its strengths. I have many lenses purchased for their possibly faults . I use these optical flaws to create character to photos . It’s tough just grabbing lenses and heading out guessing at what you think you may need them for . But if you know the situation you can dial in beforehand the look you have in mind . I shoot many old Nikkor lenses from the 1960’s 70’s and 80’s for their optical strengths and faults on Sony and Nikon alike . Photo character can define a shot many times better that perfection. Not that I have bought many Sigma Art lenses in the past for this perfection. Sculpt the art through light and form ! Peace Y’all
It's true that you can use optical imperfections in positive ways, but my job is to inform potential buyers about those imperfections and let them decided for themselves.
I am a huge fan of Sigma's recent offering but for this particular one my money will go to the Sony 20 1.8G for sure. massive massive distortion and Vignette, it makes the Tamron 20 all of a sudden looks like not that bad of a lens.
Thanks to guys like you I manage to buy that Sigma for half the price of used Sony. That barrel distortion is barely noticeable in real life not to mention vignette whitch I forgot that its here. Im starting to think that Sigma send Dustin really bad copy of that lens. Design, character, build quality - waaay ahead of Sony whitch was immediately returned after comparison. No way its worth duble price of that Sigma.
Fine review as ever Dustin, a great lens for general photography and your examples show this off so well, however as you outlined the waveform distortion would be a killer for interior/commercial work so personally i would give it a miss
could you recommend something. I am looking for a prime lens for interior and commercial use, around 20mm. I was thinking about loxia but maybe you know some alternatives (for sony a7 rlll)
@@mikoajdabrowski4538 Yes, the Zeiss Loxia 21mm would be an excellent choice for commercial and general work, there is a 20mm Tamron f2.8, however, I think that suffers from similar wave distortion as the Sigma does. So if it was me, it would be a choice between the Zeiss or the Sony lens
My favorite reviewer! I have the Sony 20mm f1.8 and I think the price difference is worth it when you consider the strengths of the Sony lens and that you'll probably own it for a long time.
Thanks Dustin, I am really so torn between this and the Sony, I only occasionally want to do a bit of astro and this looks fine for that despite the small aperture difference. I know it's meaningless, but it's such a beautiful looking lens! I really value size and weight so have no interest in the 1.4. Great review as always, I always appreciate your take and will certainly be stopping by your site for the extra images.
Great honest review! That's why we like your videos. This seems to be a great lens for the L mount and a good lens for E mount (because of the competition).
between laowa 100mm .8 and tt artisan 100mm .8 tilt shift... do you think the tilt shift and creamy bokeh is enough reasons to give up on the higher contrast and sharpness of laowa ? or it's just a gimmick? sorry for my random comment under this video but i'm just binge watching your videos and shopping so i just asked :)
Both are good lenses. I love the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8. It's bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but it is also has such an incredible focal range and good performance across it.
If I were to choose one between Sigma 20mm vs 24mm DG DN f2 L mount based on IQ only, what would you recommend ? Always appreciate your excellent review.
Great Review! I know you already have really much to do. But would you like to review Leica bodys and lenses at some day? Especially with your love for great optics and build quality it looks like a really nice match!
Great video. Exactly what I was looking for to learn more about this lens. I already have the Art 20mm f1.4, but I hate that I can’t use traditional filters. I do however love the separation I can achieve at f1.4. How does this 20mm compare to Sigma’s 20mm Art f1.4 overall? Is it equal beyond the f1.4/f2 factor? A smaller lens and one that can use a filter is pretty important, too, but I don’t know if I’m ready to give up the f1.4. I’ve thought about getting the Sony 20mm f1.8 for the traditional filter ring, but I like having matching lenses for saving time in post, and all my other current lenses are sigma. Thanks!
Both lenses have their strengths, obviously. This lens is a little more practical for many, but if you are enjoying the shallow DOF of the F1.4, you won't get that to the same degree with this lens.
Very nice review (honest)…I was waiting for Sigma announcement today and you were right there 👍. I will get the Sigma 24mm f/2 (i) as suggested earlier for my SL2S and leave the extra wide duties to the Voigtlander Ultra Wide 15mm (III) Aspherical that I already own and continue to be very impressive and actually prefer manual mode for this focal length. Be safe, Cheers..
This is always the issue with compact wides - geometric variance + vignette. On the other hand the older geometrically accurate lenses like zeiss flektagon - mir (77mm) just don't cut it with modern high res sensors. The sony has resolved this - optically - mfd -bokeh & relative size & build. Also there are both the tamron prime & various zoom options for sony. For the L mount the sigma has no real competition & for the FP line its form factor fits in perfectly. Personally this lens does not work for me despite loving the I series. I already have the tamron 17-28 which gives flexibility & range + the 24 prime which gives the macro+ sharpness (distortion easy to correct) and if I had to add a prime it would be the sony. However its always nice to have the lens ecosystem extending & evolving
Nice bengal cat! Great review, I've tried out the high quality Sony 20mm 1,8 G but I didn't really like the focal length so I'll skip this one too. I think I'm going to buy the 24mm 1,4 GM instead, to complement my 16-35mm f4.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I really like 24mm on my wide angle zoom so that's why I would like the gm prime. Recently got myself a used 35mm f1,4 zeiss in great condition for just 5400sek (~550usd). I use it more now than my 55mm f1,8 zeiss. Considering selling it for an 85mm. If you could only have three primes Dustin, which would you choose?
@@DustinAbbottTWI They sound like solid choices! If I could choose, even though I haven't tried them all. I would go with Sony 24mm F1.4 GM, Sony 50mm F1.2 GM, Sigma 85mm F1.4 DN ART.
This seems like a cool lens, but I'm with you that Sigma went a little too far for size. Many of us agree that the best crop WA ever is the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, and that lens is actually bigger and heavier, and has a larger 67mm filter thread and front element than the new Sigma 20mm and 24mm f/2 FF lenses. The 16mm f/1.4 basically needs no correction and is very inexpensive for its performance, and the size is still manageable. Honestly, if they just put 1.5x teleconverters on the f/1.4 APS-C mirrorless trio and called it a f/2 FF mirrorless trio and sold them for $500 each, we'd buy it. I like the I series lenses in theory, but in practice, I feel like they left some performance on the table for portability and aesthetics. We don't need ART-level build, but I feel like older Sigma Contemporary lenses sacrificed a bit less optically. It's tricky, though, because I only got the 28-70mm f/2.8 for its tiny size, but that's because f/2.8 zooms are normally large, so the tiny size gives it a daily carry quality for me that f/2.8 lenses normally don't have. However, in a world where Sony's own 20mm & 24mm offer more performance and are only a little bit bigger, I'm not sure Sigma WAs needed to sacrifice so much, when they're still decently large and far from cheap. Thanks for the review! I'll be sure to use your affiliate link when I buy the Tamron 35-150mm, and I'm glad to know my RU-vid Premium money goes to excellent creators like you.
Honestly, with modern Sony FF bodies having such high resolution, the A7 IV, A1, and A7R IV have usable very crop stills resolutions of 14.7 MP, 21 MP, and 26 MP, and they all gain advantage in crop mode for 4K video (A7 IV gains 60 fps, A1 gains full readout, A7R IV gains more detail, all improve with rolling shutter). I want a 40-45mm type casual walk-around prime for my A7 IV, and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is $269, even cheaper than a Samyang 45mm f/1.8, and I'm feeling like I'm convincing myself that this is a good idea, heh.
Honestly I'm OK with their optical quality, this one have been the weakest one for sure. I just find their prices a bit high... This one and the 24mm f3.5 do need some serious discounts! 3.5 is a bit too dark for that focal. But if sigma adds a 135mm 2.8 or even a 200mm f4 to these series I would buy them both without watching a single review!
@@networm64 For sure, at this price, it needs to offer something more than average quality optics and good build quality. If it was much more compact or much cheaper, then I think it's a very different conversation.
Looks like a neat good lens right up there with my Z 20mm f1.8 S>> a superb magnification for Full frame and Astro. I Like the Aperture Ring on this lens although I am sad that it has all that distortion and other aberations which my Z Lens doesnt have .. Maybe Sigma should build it as an Art /Mirrorless Level lens ??
No disrespect to Dustin (great review and great detail as all of his videos) but this is exactly the wrong kind of review for this lens. It is technically amazing. Super sharp with great contrast, fast and very accurate focusing, it's super convenient (light and small) and built like a tank. If you look at the actual images he is producing they're technically great and really beautiful. The distortion is exactly what people should expect with a lens this wide and in all of the images, I've seen it is not distracting. The vignette adds to the character for me (super nice at 7:50 and 8:10), also it clears up when you stop down the aperture (What would be one be shooting wide open with a 20mm besides portraiture when the vignette can be an obvious stylistic choice or corrected). I can see this lens being great for portrait, street, and landscape photography. I bet you could pull off real estate photos too, you would just need to shoot mostly with a 1 point perspective and watch your leading lines when you don't. Seriously look at the image at 9:08 and tell me it's not better than 95% of real estate listings and Dustin isn't even trying. I don't think it's perfect for astrophotography but even then the sample image Dustin provides is great. Is the sony 1.8 better? Agurably yes and it's more expensive and less sharp in the corners with more coma. But even side to side with the sony you would be hard-pressed to find a difference in quality to a point that I bet no one could tell from shot to shot. If you are getting 95%+ of the sony lens for 75% of the price I don't see what the hold up is. Seriously go watch the sony review, it's the same review minus the in-camera correction profile accuracy but Dustin seems way more negative about the sigma. Would an average photographer pick up this lens and love it? Yes. Would a discerning photographer pick this lens up and love it? Also, yes. The only place that this lens isn't the right answer for someone looking for a 20mm is someone who needs the most technically perfect shoot directly out of the camera which isn't the sony 1.8 either.
While I can appreciate your affection for the lens (I'm glad you like it), you're defending lens flaws because you happen to like the effect. That's fine, and things like lens flare, for example, can have artistic merit. My job is to highlight those strengths and weaknesses so people can make an informed decision. Heavy vignette and high distortion are not net positives even if you happen to enjoy the effect for your own photography.
at 17:35 - those 5 people using sigma fp-l type body 😁🤣😂🙃. Yes exactly what is sigma doing with that product .. why does it exist and who actually buys those?.
Fairly disappointing they built up this announcement to waste 40 mins on a mediocre lens. I think people will still buy the Sony 20mm 1.8 instead. Also, no Canon RF announcements at all... sad.
The Samyang RF 85mm f1.4 AF was discontinued ... that might be a sign that Canon is NOT allowing third party to release RF lenses with AF, maybe because they might not be allowed to reverse engineer the protocols.
you used to be my goto guy for decisions on buying a lens. you are now biased and not honest. you downplay negativities of lenses or dont mention it. thats so your sponsor (strong with tamron and sigma) relationships stay strong. so youre trying to keep everyone happy and not telling the truth. christopher frost is the same. youre both out. I prefer to get reviews from people like laing and lenstip who say it as it is. dont try to say nice words to hide bad flaws.
Hmmm, you don't seem to actually cite what I allegedly am covering up or downplaying. I'm certainly not sponsored by either Sigma or Tamron, but if my co-conspirator is Chris Frost, I'm in very good company.
@@DustinAbbottTWI you used to do reviews with an unbiased pov. you may not be sponsored, as you say, who knows, but the way you downplay negativity of the gear says youve completely changed. it happens alot to people who started with good intentions. I mention frost because he says tamron sigma loaned them the lens but its a totally independant review as he says. thats being sponsored. youre being given the lens to use. im sure there are terms of that. its not like buying the lens, testing, then returning where there are no "favors" done. you used to be my goto guy. came back after a year..my goto guy is lentip from poland. guy doesnt play anything down.
