June 20, 2018, 07:13:11 PM

Author Topic: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art  (Read 8172 times)

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2018, 11:37:52 AM »

Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.

Then who in the world is Sigma targeting with this lens? 

There would always be people who want wider & faster just because.

Nevertheless, a zoom wider than 16mm and faster than f/4 is something missing from Canon, so I'll read and watch reviews with interest.

As for "bulbous," filter challenges, etc., if that's what it takes to get rectilinear at ultra-wide, to me, a necessary compromise.  I'd just cross my fingers every I went out with it!

Like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L, which Canon makes for over 25 years? Or does it have to be a zoom because Nikon makes one?

The next step will be 'Canon lacks a lens to compete with the Voightlander 10mm f/5.6', to be followed all the way to zooms starting @ 0mm, as fisheye lenses prove there's a need for a rectilinear lens with a 180 vdeg AoV.

A zoom offers more focal lengths, in case you didn't know.

You are arguing with yourself.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2018, 11:37:52 AM »

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2018, 11:41:09 AM »
For me the EF 11~24L does the job well. I would rather have the extra 3mm (about 30%) than one stop. Nothing against Sigma and their Art series, I love the 135....

Folks were screaming for Canon to make the the 14-24 2.8 before the great trio of 16-35L x2 + 11-24L came out.  I asked them why and I got a smorgasbord of answers:

  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.

So in 2014 we got our landscape zoom update -- the 16-35 f/4L IS.  Sharp, light, well built, and it had the front filter ring so vital for landscape filtering.  IS was simply gravy for the dude who wants to shoot non-tripod-able dark interiors at reasonable ISO, handheld waterfalls, the odd video, etc. 

But the calls for a 14-24 f/2.8 persisted.  One down, but three to go:

  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.

And then in 2015 Canon put out the 11-24 f/4L.  All your focal length are belong to us.  14-24 2.8 calls still persisted, but with both the 16-35 f/4L IS and 11-24 f/4L now available, the number of folks wanting it were fewer:

  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.

And then in 2016 Canon put out the 16-35 f/2.8L III, an absolutely skull-splittingly sharp instrument for those that shoot events, sports, reportage, etc. as well as the landscaper who wanted a do-it-all tool.  We now have:

  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.

Since those three came out, very very few people have been piping up here about a 14-24 2.8.  I wonder if Sigma waited too long to offer such a lens.

- A

We gave up hope when the novelty monster 11-24 f/4 was released.  I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon.  Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 11:43:14 AM by YuengLinger »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6883
  • USM > STM
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2018, 11:48:30 AM »
As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

Yep, the one achilles heel of the 16-35 f/2.8L III (besides the realities of its size / weight / cost) is the vignetting.  It's principally @ the combination of 16mm f/2.8 -- stopping down or shooting longer makes this less of an issue, but yes, you don't want to see this in an f/2.8 lens.

But the 16mm sharpness is really good, and you still get to keep the front filter ring.  It would appear the only way to get those two things is to vignette, and to solve that, you're looking at a Tamron 15-30 bulbous front element that blows up the filter ring.  It's a tradeoff.

- A

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2018, 11:51:34 AM »
As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

Yep, the one achilles heel of the 16-35 f/2.8L III (besides the realities of its size / weight / cost) is the vignetting.  It's principally @ the combination of 16mm f/2.8 -- stopping down or shooting longer makes this less of an issue, but yes, you don't want to see this in an f/2.8 lens.

But the 16mm sharpness is really good, and you still get to keep the front filter ring.  It would appear the only way to get those two things is to vignette, and to solve that, you're looking at a Tamron 15-30 bulbous front element that blows up the filter ring.  It's a tradeoff.

- A

Good points!

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6883
  • USM > STM
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2018, 11:57:47 AM »
  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.
I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon.  Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.


What about my list above implies that I am hung up on landscapes?  I think I gave equal air to landscapes / U-UWA / all-purpose use in my post above.

I would contend that Canon has just about everyone covered here on the UWA end:

Travel:  16-35 f/4L IS
Landscapes:  16-35 f/4L IS
Video:  16-35 f/4L IS
Sports:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Events:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno:  16-35 f/2.8L III
(Environmental) portraiture:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Architecture:  11-24 f/4L (or T/S)
U-UWA lovers:  11-24 f/4L
Astro:  [crickets]

So I ask you:  what large group of shooters is being left out in the cold by Canon not offering 14mm @ f/2.8 in a zoom?

(And not wanting a big pickle jar retrofocal 50 prime is not remotely the same thing as wanting a pancake, and you know that.  :P

- A

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2018, 12:10:51 PM »
  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.
I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon.  Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.


What about my list above implies that I am hung up on landscapes?  I think I gave equal air to landscapes / U-UWA / all-purpose use in my post above.

I would contend that Canon has just about everyone covered here on the UWA end:

Travel:  16-35 f/4L IS
Landscapes:  16-35 f/4L IS
Video:  16-35 f/4L IS
Sports:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Events:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno:  16-35 f/2.8L III
(Environmental) portraiture:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Architecture:  11-24 f/4L (or T/S)
U-UWA lovers:  11-24 f/4L
Astro:  [crickets]

So I ask you:  what large group of shooters is being left out in the cold by Canon not offering 14mm @ f/2.8 in a zoom?

(And not wanting a big pickle jar retrofocal 50 prime is not remotely the same thing as wanting a pancake, and you know that.  :P

- A

Just about covered, yes!

Their current 14mm f/2.8, while attractively smaller than the Sigma 1.8, just doesn't get solid enough reviews for me to go for.

I was under the impression from earlier posts  that you were focused on landscape.  I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

One thing the 16-35mm f/2.8 III has going for it is significantly less distortion than the f/4 IS--at least from what I see on TDP comparisons.  The vignetting is a bummer and what's keeping me from trading up.

A 14-24mm f/2.8 with even less distortion and vignetting would be very welcome.  More welcome from Canon, but I hope Sigma makes a better one than Nikon's.  I'm interested!
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 12:15:29 PM by YuengLinger »

whothafunk

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2018, 12:13:40 PM »
Landscapes:  16-35 f/4L IS
Video:  16-35 f/4L IS
Sports:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Events:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno:  16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.
1Dx -- 300L f2.8 IS USM -- 70-200L f2.8 IS USM II -- 50L 1.2 USM -- 8-15L f4 Fisheye USM -- 24-70L f2.8 USM -- Tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC -- 1.4x III Extender

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2018, 12:13:40 PM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6883
  • USM > STM
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2018, 12:18:15 PM »
I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

Sure, but filtering isn't just for landscapers or protecting your front element.  Daylight event folks might need an ND as well.

- A

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1762
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2018, 12:22:30 PM »
I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

Sure, but filtering isn't just for landscapers or protecting your front element.  Daylight event folks might need an ND as well.

- A

I think this is super tiny subset.  The ND's are occasionally useful for preplanned outdoor portraits, but I'd say only very rarely for events and photojournalism.  How much more subject isolation would we get with an ND on an UWA with a max aperture of f/2.8?

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6883
  • USM > STM
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2018, 12:25:03 PM »
Landscapes:  16-35 f/4L IS
Video:  16-35 f/4L IS
Sports:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Events:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno:  16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.

I was referring to the 16-35 f/4L IS being Canon's answer for video shooters because it has IS, not that it's the best tool from all manufacturers for that job.  The Tamron might be better for that application, sure.

I would say a do-everything UWA zoom offers [fast] + [IS] + [front filterable].  And that lens does not exist:

  • Tamron gets you [fast] + [IS]
  • 16-35 f/4L IS gets you [IS] + [front-filterable]
  • 16-35 f/2.8L III gets you [fast] + [front-filterable]   (<-- most would claim this product to be the all-battlefield UWA zoom, but it lacks IS)

Choose the right tool for your needs, I guess.

- A

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2148
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2018, 04:37:19 PM »
Landscapes:  16-35 f/4L IS
Video:  16-35 f/4L IS
Sports:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Events:  16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno:  16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.

I have the Tamron and it is a great lens. At least I think so. I haven't, though, been able to get a front filter kit yet.

Even though the Tamron is a very good lens, I still wish I'd bought the Canon if for nothing else than it's purported lack of distortion (not including the projection distortion). Yes, I saved a bunch of money, but by now I wouldn't be missing that money anymore. :) I'd also be basking in a much wider FOV and no keystoning.

Both need the expensive front filter kits.

Who is Sigma targeting? The same people the rest of the makers are targeting. Also, let's not forget, Sigma has a fan base like all the other makers do.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 05:03:05 PM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

Antono Refa

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2018, 07:56:52 PM »

Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.

Then who in the world is Sigma targeting with this lens? 

There would always be people who want wider & faster just because.

Nevertheless, a zoom wider than 16mm and faster than f/4 is something missing from Canon, so I'll read and watch reviews with interest.

As for "bulbous," filter challenges, etc., if that's what it takes to get rectilinear at ultra-wide, to me, a necessary compromise.  I'd just cross my fingers every I went out with it!

Like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L, which Canon makes for over 25 years? Or does it have to be a zoom because Nikon makes one?

The next step will be 'Canon lacks a lens to compete with the Voightlander 10mm f/5.6', to be followed all the way to zooms starting @ 0mm, as fisheye lenses prove there's a need for a rectilinear lens with a 180 vdeg AoV.

A zoom offers more focal lengths

You don't say!

You are arguing with yourself.

At least I'm arguing with someone who knows what Canon has to offer.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 04:07:51 AM by Antono Refa »

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1833
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2018, 04:10:54 AM »
Looks like Nikonrumors got wind of the announcement first: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-a

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2018, 04:10:54 AM »

exkeks

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 7
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2018, 04:39:49 AM »
As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

According to DXOmark, the vignetting @16mm wide open is just about the same. So the "speed" advantage of the f/2.8 version is equally distributed.

snoke

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2018, 09:09:04 AM »
I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon.  Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Some people say lens for specific job only. Why? Good question. Is ignorant comment.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2018, 09:09:04 AM »