Sigma lenses rumored for Photokina: 24mm f/1.4 Art and 14-24mm f/4 with OS

For Photokina in September Sigma is rumored to announce the previously rumored 24mm f/1.4 Art lens and a new 14-24mm f/4 with OS. The 24mm lens will be priced at $1,099 and the 14-24mm will be $1,199. The 14-24mm will have an 82mm filter ring.

After the success of the 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 Art versions, a new 24mm lens would be the next logical step. There were also rumors for a new 85mm f/1.4 lens, but I have not heard anything on that model. Sigma may also announce the future development of a new 24-70mm f/2 lens.

This entry was posted in Sigma and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Kynikos

    OK, I’ll do it: Who the hell needs OS on a 14-24?

    Flame me to a crisp…

    • jeff

      Not really a bad thing to have, it often comes handy in dark venues with my 16-35mm VR. And for wide angle shots subject motion is much less pronounced, so we can get away with usable 1/10sec shots or even slower…

      • Global

        I’d still rather this be f/2.8. The Nikon shall live on. As for handholding and walking around, 16-35 is a much better range. They should target that.

        I think Sigma is aiming at Canon with the 14-24 OS (very smart). And they are sticking a thumb in the eye of Nikon with the 24 1.4 (didn’t Nikon just sue Sigma for $15 million over VR and win big? This must be Sigma’s revenge).

        • ShakyLens

          It remains to be seen whether they can best the Nikon 24 1.4G, which is an incredible lens and by far the best in its class. It’s a very tall order.

          • SteadyLens

            I wouldn’t mind it only matching the Nikon in quality and best its price instead 🙂

          • Global

            How do you mean the best in its class? The 24mms out there aren’t all that great, but they aren’t all that modern either. The Nikon 24mm 1.4 is incredibly poor at f/1.4, pretty bad at f/1.8, and good at f/2. At f/2.8 its EXCELLENT and I think this is where “best in class” comes into play. But now we’re talking about and f/2.8 lens. This is similar to the 58mm/1.4 G by the way, which is even more soft wide open. Might be best in class. But that just means that class isn’t trying very hard.

            So if Sigma makes one that is actually sharp at f/1.4 for half the price, there is going to be a WHOLE LOT of buyers, just like the 35/1.4 and 50/1.4.

          • ShakyLens

            Can’t agree with you there. It has very high sharpness in the center of the frame at f/1.4 (see Photozone review) so I don’t know where you get ‘incredibly poor’ from.

          • Ms.KrystalMeth

            Now read this. Photozone is a flawed system. They are using Nikon D3x as their main camera. When in fact the Nikon D800/E and 810 are superior cameras. Photozone…needs to step it up.

          • Jenn

            …actually sharp at ƒ1.4 for half the price… There’s a lot more to lens design & manufacturing than a product that’s made for DxO scores !!!

          • Mike

            You must have had a bad copy of the 24. It’s very sharp wide open. The 58 is not Otus sharp but it’s not Otus priced either and it auto focuses. The 58 has some secret sauce that the new Sigma Art doesn’t have in terms of out of focus qualities. People who use the 58 love it.

          • JvC

            The 58mm isn’t kit lens sharp. I think some super zooms have it beat. It isn’t sharp anywhere wide open. Now, sharpness isn’t everything, but that “special sauce” is the rendering a blurry lens gives everything in the frame, which yes, does include the out of focus areas. I can’t believe Nikon could make a modern lens that performs that poorly and cost that much and still have people defend it. Go ahead though and spend your $1700 on that plastic piece of garbage.

          • JJcc

            It is NOT designed for people like you who have no clue about photography – why don’t you ask someone like McNally why, when & where he’d use this lens?

          • RRisk

            Except that you’re wrong. I’ve shot the 58 against the 50mm 1.4 ART and the Sigma smokes the Nikon. And at half the price even Joe would have to agree if you caught him off the record.

          • rt-photography

            mcnally gets paid well by nikon. if youre naive to think otherwise, I think you were just born.

          • Mike

            Ok. If you say so. With conviction and authority like that I know you must have extensive experience using it beyond test charts.

          • rt-photography

            WELL SAID! BRAVO! TAKE A BOW! that 58mm is the ripoff of the century. $700, fine, $1700, GTFOH nikon. plastic piece of crap. they couldnt even add a metal filter thread with that price. noct my ass.

          • Ms.KrystalMeth

            Nikon 58mm is for what the price is..a Major Flaw. It is way too soft…but excellent bokeh. But I want tack sharp. IF 58 was 58 dollars…I would buy.

          • Mike

            I was going to say you’re on crack, but I see what you’re on. ;-). 58 wide open is plenty sharp.

          • rearranged

            The 58mm 1.4 isn’t designed with sharpness in focus.

          • rearranged

            no pun was intended :3

          • Ms.KrystalMeth

            huh? isn’t all lenses suppose to be sharp? huh?

          • tedtedsen

            yes and they are to, but at different levels

          • saywhatuwill

            The 24mm f/1.4G is a fine lens. Not sure why you’re bashing it, but to each its own.

            At f/1.4 I’m able to read labels and see cup designs just fine from corner to corner. At higher magnifications I can make out the details. So, not quite sure where you’re getting your data, but real world pictures show otherwise.

          • Zos Xavius

            Not bad for 1.4. Corners are a bit meh, but to be expected. I can see the flaws on a 2000px jpeg though. The real test is how well does this image hold up in a 20″ wide print?

          • saywhatuwill

            You need to remember that the corners are usually blurred out because at f/1.4 the subject Is usually in the middle and not the corners. However, in this case It worked pretty well. I’d seriously would like to see your example of a wide angle shot at f/1.4 that’s sharp from corner to corner and I’m talking tack sharp because that sounds like what you’re talking about. I’m not talking about a 35mm lens because that’s almost like a normal lens. I’m talking a wide angle lens. I don’t think there’s any lens that can do.

          • Zos Xavius

            There’s really not. That’s what I meant about the corners being expectedly soft. Ok. Its pretty good for a WA at 1.4. Happy? 🙂

          • saywhatuwill

            I know you weren’t. I came across pretty defensively, but I actually wasn’t. If we were face to face and I was talking I would have had a smile on my face when asking to see a picture taken at f/1.4 that was sharp.

          • Vin

            Maybe Nikon will now build a 24 f1.8g for $799, rather then watch and wait. Nikon should also build a 20mm f2.4g for $850.

          • Cyrille Berger

            They don’t need to best it, just to be “nearly” as good, and at half the price, they are going to sale them.

        • jeff

          I wouldn’t mind it being f/2.8 either, but I’m pretty convinced this would exclude the possibility of it accepting filters, and it would be a big plus to be able to be used for landscape as well without resorting to expensive adapters…

          • Erin E

            This is what Sigma and the other third party lens guys should be doing, making great low cost glass.

    • KyrNicos

      I do, you are flamed…

    • B. Day

      The same people who think that sigma, after only a couple of years of actually making anything worth buying is the ‘Zeiss god reincarnate’ for the new millennium.

      • JvC

        It’s pretty easy to see photographers’ excitement. Sigma have released lenses that are as good or better than the competition in every release since the 35mm Art. Usually at a fraction of the price.

        Zeiss, one of the greatest optical companies in history put everything they had into a lens with “no compromises.” This behemoth is manual focus and costs $4,000. Sigma, the company you say deserves no credit, created a lens within 99% IQ of that lens, gave it autofocus, and priced it 1/4 of the Zeiss. If that’s not something to get excited for, I don’t know what is.

        • Sally k

          Your missing B Day’s point Zeiss has being makes lenses for a hundred years, Sigma has only made the Art series for a couple.

        • RRISK

          Absolutely on the money!

        • FredBear

          Yes but there are still reports of QC variations in the ‘Art’ series too. However, whether this is more frequent than some of the ‘big name’ brands’ (Canikon) is a moot point.
          The Bokeh on the sigma 50 Art isn’t that good either (by what I’m reading – not personal experience).

        • Except the autofocus doesn’t work… Returned my 35mm art after it turned out to be impossible to fine tune. IQ was great but focus was completely unreliable. Google problems with the sigma 35mm art and there’s a ton of people who had problems. They say the reviewers were all given hand picked lenses…

          • newoldmate

            It’s because far too many “pros” plug the lens into the usb adapter and screw with the focus settings, thinking they’re gonna improve it because they’re such pros.

          • No. Took it into the camera store and they played with it for two hours after which it was still useless. You could tune the focus right within three feet but everything else was all over the place. They tweaked it for my D800 and them it was completely beyond help on my D610.

          • Steve Griffin

            Mine works just fine. I did own one a year ago but returned it keeping my 35/1.4G because that lens was not as good. Recently, however, I bought another Sigma 35/1.4 A and it’s astonishing.

    • Mike

      If you’re shooting f/8 handheld you might.

    • Welcome to the wonderful world of cinematography, my friend. Different people have different needs. Even concert photographers would have a use for that.

      If that thing has an aperture ring (and the IQ is really good), then that’s going on my video rig for sure. I wish it went to 28mm, but oh well, can’t have everything. A cine version of that would be amazing, and if it comes with an aperture ring, then I may have Duclos or whoever modify it for me.

    • RacoonRoger

      I thought so too, until I got my 10-24 (Fuji, XT1) and got some amazing 1sec lowlight handheld shots.

      Also, anyone shooting video.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      shooting video… was my first of many thoughts

  • ShakyLens

    Very interesting! Didn’t know about the 14-24. If it bests the Nikon 16-35 VR for sharpness, it’d be difficult not to buy one! AF doesn’t matter too much at this range which is the one thing that has been a problem for me with the new Sigma lenses.

    • Cynog

      I have the Nikon 14-24, and although it’s an amazing lens, I hardly ever use it because it’s big and heavy, and that pop-eyed front element looks awfully vulnerable to me. It’s also prone to flair, which makes it a bit problematic for field work, but it’s great for interiors. Of course, it doesn’t readily take filters, either. I’ll be interested to see how good the Sigma version is and, importantly, how big it is. If it’s nearly as good as the Nikon, I’ll probably buy it. I’d have to think hard about whether to keep the Nikon, though, as it really is unbeatable for interior shots.

      • Rearranged

        Though nothing beats the canon 17mm ts e for interior shots 🙁 I would rather see the Nikon 14 24 as a sports, reportage, action and landscape lens… I used it for interiors and not having the possibility to shift the image makes rather useless to me 🙁

        • Cynog

          I don’t use the Canon system, so the 17mm is not relevant to me (but I wish Nikon made one).

    • jojo

      The Nikon 14-24 has gained a reputation as THE UWA zoom. Even some Canonites have adapted them. Most reviews rate the 14-24 as better than 16-35 (except KRockwell, I believe). Sharper @14 than Nikon prime, difficult to fit filters (some 3rd party kits), large front element prone to flare, and not as tough as you would think if you drop it. Otherwise extremely well recommended. If Sigma can compete and use 77/82mm filters they will have a winner.

  • guest

    I wish someone would make a cheap-ish, sharp, 24mm lens with AF (speaking as a Nikon user). I know Nikon has an older 24/2.8, but reviews I’ve seen are mixed. I just don’t like that, in order to get more sharpness, I have to pay a big premium that mostly goes to a feature I don’t care about (larger aperture.)

    • shaggy

      A lot of these internet reviews are total bunk, unless your shooting a D800E and making 60 inch prints it won’t matter at all.

      • rearranged

        hmmm, might be regarding sharpness, but there are also other things modern lenses shine at, like chromatic aberrations, increased contrast and flare resistance, which I find more important… Though I haven’t used the 24mm af-d, only have some experience with the 20mm 2.8 which is really old and underperforming for my needs.

    • saywhatuwill

      I used the 24mm f/2.8 AF (non-D) for decades. I found it to be sharper than sharp. However, that was with slide film. People will yammer away saying “well, it was good enough for film but it sure isn’t good enough for digital.” Well, I used it for digital on my D700 and it was fine. “Well, 12MP certainly won’t show the faults of the awful 24mm lens.” Blah, blah, blah. It’s fine. The only time it wasn’t fine was when shot wide open at f/2.8 where it displayed a lot of bat wings in the corner of night pictures (coma). Other than that it was fine.

    • Steve Griffin

      I have a 14-24 and the tamron 24-70; the Tammy is sharper at 24mm than the Nikon on my D800E although the Tamron is rubbish at 70mm – unless stopped down 1 or 2 stops – otherwise it’s great.

      • rt-photography

        what do your zooms have anything to do with him looking for 24mm 2.8 prime? he was saying he just wants a nicely priced 2.8 prime because the current 24mm AFD ins thtta stellar and in order to get a batter performer the next step up is the $2000 1.4g version which has no need for since he doesnt need wide apertures.

        • Steve Griffin

          I was thinking more about the price I suppose. The Tamron is less than 1/2 the cost of a Nikon 24mm and their 24-70.

  • Priceless

    I’m not impressed, maybe if I shot Canon well then maybe…

    I can see Canikon, Fuji, etc. firmware updates making Sigma a ‘good lens on paper’ more so then on an actual camera, happening sooner than later with the current shrinking camera market !!!

    Think about it a second, …hmm… you make lenses that ‘measure’ better on paper and undercut my R&D income by selling at half the cost of my product… I’m I really going to support your product in any way?

    • Cyrille Berger

      That is why you can update the firmware on the new Sigma lens with the usb dock. And that is why I am personally sceptical about buying a Tamron.

  • Mike

    Thanks Admin!

  • Arthur Nazarian

    No word on the 135mm I assume? 🙁

    • Spy Black

      Man, I one can only hope for a 135 f/2 Art lens…

  • Spy Black

    I wish they would also make a 24-70mm f/2.8 Art lens with OS for the same price. Their present 24-70mm leaves much to be desired.

    • I hate Hamas!

      What do you desire about it?

      • Spy Black

        Non-smeared edges, for one. Optical stabilization, for another. Overall a higher degree of sharpness.

  • McDonnie

    well mirrorless is on the rise, and DSLR’s future is sort of ambiguous now, it is really about time companies like Nikon Canon to stop holding back superb lens or they might miss the market and potential revenue completely…I think this is what Sigma is anticipating with new lens like 24-70 F2.0 and 14-24 F4.0 OS…

    • Jokowi

      24-70 F2.0 would be impossible……18-3.5 F1.8… may be 24-50 F2.0…

  • SonyNeedsa241.4

    Hope they make the 24 1.4 in Sony Alpha Mount. Sony DESPERATLY Needs a 24 1.4 !

  • Mr.Black

    That 24mm f/1.4 will be perfect for night sky landscapes on ff body. Also very usable for nightlife on APS-C. If the quality is on the same level as new art lenses it is worth buying for <1k$.

    I would like to see comparison between Sigma 14-24 f/4 and (old) Tokina 12-24 f/4.

  • Sigma could really make a big splash in the Canon world if the 14-24 is at the same level as the Art line. I’m currently looking at the 16-35 IS, but a 14-24 could help me also replace the Samyang 14mm I already have. instead of just filling a gap.

  • grapposoda

    as always — expect the expected!

  • Ms.KrystalMeth

    …mean while at Zeiss…Otus 85mm is coming. 4 grand you say..Nope! 3,999.99…lol

  • NoMeJodas

    Off topic
    @Admin is there any special reason for deactivating comments on nikonrumors for non-disqus members? Doesn’t look like the new global strategy for 2014 as comments on photo- and leicarumors are still possible.

    • The comments on NR were going out of control. I may allow guests to comment again once everything settles down. Now I have a question – why don’t you register with Disqus – there are many advantages for registered users.

      • NoMeJodas

        I see. Maybe I’m just an old stubborn guy but I’d rather to learn Chinese and participate on some forums there if this is the only way to express my mind regarding Nikon without getting tracked nowadays. Thanks for the quick answer!

        • I have a bogus email that use when I do not want to be tracked – just an idea.

  • Xam

    Gutted. Was hoping for either 85mm art or something in that vicinity. :/

  • My D810 just learned about the 14-24 and advised me that he wanted it.

  • My D810 just learned about the 14-24 and advised me that he wanted it.

  • Joseph

    Sharpness sharpness sharpness blah blah blah.
    That’s all you armchair photographers care about. And then you whine about the price to achieve that performance.

    Here’s a tip. For $500 you can get a cheap 4×5 press camera and a standard 210mm plasmat from any manufacturer and have much sharper photos with amazing bokeh. Too much work? Get over it. It’s that or spend the $7k for a D810 and Otus.

    • Andrzej Lukowiec

      Yes, yes, all we need is to achieve this amazing bokeh…

  • Mat Miller


  • Andy

    @Admin – have we heard anything else on the 14-24 from Sigma since this rumor?

    • No, nothing for now. Maybe during the CP+ show in Japan (February, 2015).

  • Back to top