Art Silva wrote:
Somebody explain the difference in what an "art" lens is compared to the images some legacy or classic lenses can give you with an adapter.

...other than the automation stuff please.

Hmmmm the word Art is a bit pretentious, especially on a tool.

I'd say the biggest difference is sharp wide open compared to older legacy lenses.
Old lenses of any particular quality were full frame designs.

My guess is that Sigma is making crop sensor high quality lenses because they are somewhat missing in Nikon and Canon lenses specifically for APS-C

It is also likely that Sigma is not making Art lenses for Fuji x series cameras because of Fuji's own line of very high quality APS-C lenses.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Hmmmm the word Art is a bit pretentious, especially on a tool.

I'd say the biggest difference is sharp wide open compared to older legacy lenses.
Old lenses of any particular quality were full frame designs.

My guess is that Sigma is making crop sensor high quality lenses because they are somewhat missing in Nikon and Canon lenses specifically for APS-C

It is also likely that Sigma is not making Art lenses for Fuji x series cameras because of Fuji's own line of very high quality APS-C lenses.

See this is where it gets a bit clouded in the term Art Lens.

If an "Art Lens" is sharp wide open then to me it is just a high quality fast lens.

An Artistic lens to me is the characteristics and imperfections and certain bokeh characteristics that come from the likes of old european makes, even some toy cameras fall into this category. I would call a lens baby an art lens before I would of the sigma, sorry.

The New Art lenses are not artistic at all in comparison, just sharp point of focus at wide open apertures.

I wish they would have picked a different term for these new offerings, it's very inaccurate imho.

F Sunny Photography wrote:
Just stick to the Fuji lenses - they punch well above their weight and price-point.

And the X cameras have built-in digital processing for the Fuji lenses, making them even better than pure optics would deliver.

The 56mm f/1.2 is world class - check out the images of Mikah in my port - 56 f/1.2 on the X-T1.

+1

Hoping I can pick up the new 56 1.2 sometime soon 

F Sunny Photography wrote:
Just stick to the Fuji lenses - they punch well above their weight and price-point.

And the X cameras have built-in digital processing for the Fuji lenses, making them even better than pure optics would deliver.

The 56mm f/1.2 is world class - check out the images of Mikah in my port - 56 f/1.2 on the X-T1.

Ahh haaa.....

I saw your photos of Mikah and next thing I know I went out and got the 56mm 1.2.....
and a camera to stick on the back.

So now I know who to blame;)

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
That 56 is incredible! Even the 35 is great though and very usable at f1.4 with sharp and contrasty details. The new 10-22 is fantastic too. Great lenses!

Yup Fuji knows a thing or two about lenses:



Not many out their making $200,000 dollar lenses

Art Silva wrote:
Somebody explain the difference in what an "art" lens is compared to the images some legacy or classic lenses can give you with an adapter.

...other than the automation stuff please.

Sigma started three new lines of lenses, Art, Sport and (Contemporary?). These lenses have the quality of the best Nikon, Canon or Sony/Zeiss, at slightly higher than normal Sigma lenses. The Sigma 35 f1.4 Art can be had for $800 with a rebate, yet it optically outperforms anything The big OEMs offer at double to triple the price. Sigma also offers a lens-mount conversion service, so for a small fee you can have you Canon-mount lens converted to Sony, or whatever.

Robb Mann wrote:
Does anyone know why Sigma does not support the Fuji Lens mount?
Seems like the Art lenses would go great with the weird Fuji sensor....

I suspect it would require substantial engineering and production efforts since the registration distances are different.

Robb Mann wrote:

Sigma started three new lines of lenses, Art, Sport and (Contemporary?). These lenses have the quality of the best Nikon, Canon or Sony/Zeiss, at slightly higher than normal Sigma lenses. The Sigma 35 f1.4 Art can be had for $800 with a rebate, yet it optically outperforms anything The big OEMs offer at double to triple the price. Sigma also offers a lens-mount conversion service, so for a small fee you can have you Canon-mount lens converted to Sony, or whatever.

Yes but that didn't answer my question.
What makes it an "Art" lens?
I saw examples from the sigma and it looked very much like something that was shot with a Nikon prime. It's very good but to me "art" lenses has character in contrast, it's bokeh and certain imperfections in its character.
The sigma to me looks like a standard well constructed sharp lens that works well at wide open... Not artistic at all, just a good lens.

Art Silva wrote:
Yes but that didn't answer my question.
What makes it an "Art" lens?
I saw examples from the sigma and it looked very much like something that was shot with a Nikon prime. It's very good but to me "art" lenses has character in contrast, it's bokeh and certain imperfections in its character.
The sigma to me looks like a standard well constructed sharp lens that works well at wide open... Not artistic at all, just a good lens.

agree
alot of people on another forum I visit
think my Noct is a dinosaur

the new Nikon 58 is superior
the Otus kills it
and now the new Sigma 50 is so much better


yada
yada
yada