The Hidden Superiority of the Sigma Art Series: A Professional's Notes

I started photography in 2009 with Nikon. A year later I switched to Canon and didn't leave the 5D family for a long time. 5D Mark I, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III. In those years Canon was the de facto standard for full frame, and I was inside that standard. Not just body, on the lens side I had also gone deep into the Canon ecosystem. In my bag were 8 Canon L Series prime lenses. 85mm f/1.2L, 50mm f/1.2L, 24mm f/1.4L, 135mm f/2L and the others. They were all Canon's best work. I used them all for years. But one lens was missing: 35mm.

To fill the 35mm gap I bought the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art around 2014. Just to try. It was Canon EF mount, working with my 5D Mark III. The result surprised me. Sigma's sharpness, color rendition, mechanical feel were at the same level as the Canon L despite costing half the price. Better in some places. Bokeh character, contrast transition, center sharpness wide open. I loved that lens so much that life continued this way after.

While the 5D Mark III was still in my bag, I bought the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art. EF mount, came out in late 2015, immediately landed in my hand. Then I bought the 85mm f/1.4 Art, again EF mount. At that time the Sigma Art series only had these three primes. I had tested them all on day one. Sigmas were sitting next to the Canon Ls in my bag. And gradually I started using Sigma more. The Canon Ls weren't bad. The Sigma Art was smarter.

Then I switched to mirrorless. I went to Sony E-mount, even tried Panasonic S1H for a while. Body changed, brand changed, system changed. Sigma never changed. The only thing that changed was that the Sigmas in my bag multiplied even more.

Currently in my bag are these. Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art (not the new DG DN, the old Art version, the reason coming shortly), Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art (new generation designed for mirrorless), Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro. What I plan to buy soon: 14mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2. I'll experience those too.

Let's get to the real question. Are G Master lenses good? They're good. But "good" isn't required to be a "smart" choice.

I tried the 85mm G Master. Slow, makes faulty focus, unnecessarily heavy. Compared to the Sigma 85mm Art the difference is obvious. Sigma is faster, sharper, doesn't make mistakes. I haven't experienced AF accuracy problems on any Sigma lens I've owned. Not one. With the Sony G Master 85mm, on the other hand, there were moments during the shoot when I thought "why is this lens taking so long."

The only exception is 24mm. The Sony G Master 24mm is a tick above the new Sigma version. But I still use the old Sigma 24mm Art, and the reason is this: It has obvious chromatic aberration. To some this is a flaw. To me it's character. I love this lens because it has no sterility. The visual language it creates has an attitude. The G Master is cleaner, more flawless. True. But flawlessness is not always superiority. Sometimes that chromatic aberration gives the lens character. I prefer the lens that carries character.

Let me also say something about body quality. Sony G Masters are quality, true. But when you pick up a Sigma Art, you notice the difference. Like a tank. The premium feel is higher than G Master. Metal outer shell, mechanical feel, weight distribution. Sigma is ahead of Sony on this.

So where is G Master superior? In a single scenario. If you're using a flagship body like the Sony A1 or A9 series and shooting 30 frames per second, the G Master's AF protocol is fully optimized for that speed. Sigma might struggle a bit at that speed. But this only concerns sports photographers. In all practices up to 10 frames per second, Sigma is flawless.

Getting hung up on these numbers isn't right for people like us who build scenes. If you're chasing cats, dogs, birds, footballers, fine, if you're a journalist, fine. But we're not journalists, we're artists. We place the model, set the light, then we press the shutter. We don't need 30 frames per second, we need one right frame every 30 seconds.

24mm gives a dramatic width. I use it even in close portraits, I love the perspective tension it creates. 85mm is my separating lens. Whenever I want to lift the subject from the background and throw it to the foreground, I reach for it. When I carry the two together, I'm carrying two different visual languages in my bag. One that compresses, the other that separates.

I have no concern about Sigma's future. Quite the opposite. They keep going forward. The new 28-45mm f/1.8 zoom is very interesting to me. I'm thinking of adding it to my bag. Let me say this: I've used prime lenses since I started photography. I've never used a zoom lens. But the 28-45 f/1.8 offers such a smart angular distribution that it's like carrying two prime lenses in your bag. On top of that a sharp, light-gathering, internal-zoom lens. Sigma is breaking the rules again.

Finally let me say this. Sometimes when I go to agency work, I encounter sentences like "why don't you use G Master?" To those who say this sentence I just smile. I don't answer. Because there's nothing to answer. My friend, what's it to you what brand or model my equipment is? If you could make this choice, you'd be shooting yourself, you wouldn't be calling me.

Choosing a lens is not a matter of prestige. It's a matter of intelligence. I don't look at brand, I look at caliber. I take the lens that carries character, comes at the right price, gives me my own voice in my hand. In my 17-year photography history I've used Nikon, used Canon's L Series in the deepest way, used Panasonic, now I'm on Sony. But on the lens side I've stayed with Sigma for 10 years. There's a reason for this.

The ordinary chases brand. The rebellious knows its lens.