Did Sigma Beat Canon to an f/2 Zoom? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
<p>We’ve been told over the years that Canon was working on a zoom lens faster than f/2.8, but nothing had ever come of it. We’re now being told that Canon has been working on a wide angle L zoom lens which is “faster than f/2.8″, but the exact speed could not be confirmed.</p>
<p>I’ve never doubted that Canon has been trying such a thing, they’re making a lot of “look-what-we-can-do” lenses, such as the EF 8-15 f/4L fisheye, EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x, TS-E 17mm f/4L and the EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>Canon won’t be constrained from a marketing standpoint when it comes to pricing for such a lens, so they may be able to make something a bit more versatile than Sigma. Although, usability, size and weight cannot be ignored in such a lens design.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

 

[coldsweat]

This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly.

It really needs to be approx 24-50mm (i.e. similar to the APS-C Sigma 18-35/f1.8) that would be an immediate purchase!

 

[Dylan777]

A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting

 

[rs]

This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly.

It really needs to be approx 24-50mm (i.e. similar to the APS-C Sigma 18-35/1.8) that would be an immediate purchase!

I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product - many zoom owners will already have the 24-35 range covered by two lenses in their kit bag already.

 

[surapon]

A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting

+100 for me, Sir, Dear Dylan777, But must be F= 1.8 or 1,4.
Surapon

 

[BeenThere]

Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?

It would be a holy trinity of zoom lenses.
If the image quality is similar to the known Sigma 18-35mm Art, I'd be tempted to buy it.

 

[nebugeater]

If you can not walk in and buy it or order it on line and actually get delivery no one has beat anyone.

 

[aceflibble]

I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product

I think they did exactly the right kind of market research for it.
"What's selling these days?"
"Whatever new gimmick hasn't been done before."
"How come?"
"People love to brag online about how big their aperture is and how many megapixels they have."

The fact that the zoom range is useless is irrelevant. They made a zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. That's all that matters. They did it, they got in first, they get the bragging rights, they get the sales from all the spec-sheet nerds.

 

[George D.]

Rather looks like f/1.4 "to replace your EF 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L,... in one lens". For f/2 doesn't compete price-wise. For the moment I wonder how Sigma 24-35/2 at f/2.8 performs against Canon 24-70/2.8L II, this would be a good starting point.

 

[9VIII]

How often have people said "why bother with the last 10mm if it looks like crap?"
This is new territory. Maybe using that extra short range allows for a lens that maintains premium IQ across a wider range than any other lens out there.
Given that I still don't own any wide angle primes, this lens could still work for me.
Most 24mm prime lenses aren't terribly impressive compared to the IQ you get on 35mm or 50mm primes. There is that 14mm Fuji lens though. Basically the only distortion free wide angle prime on the market. But that's only on Fuji and it's f2.8.

If the 24-35 is stellar all around then I would probably prefer it to using a prime, but there's no doubting that the limited range sets the bar high.

 

[Corneria]

Why do most people immediately 'know' that something is wrong? Sigma released something unique, and why not? That you personally don't like is something else, but it doesn't mean Sigma did something wrong.

Personally if I had to choose between the Canon 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS and 35/2.0 IS, I would surely buy this Sigma. Why? Because I don't care about IS and I would happily have the usability of three lenses in one. Moreover, it's even faster and cheaper! (I just ignore that it's unknown whether the Sigma is at sharp).

But absolutely speaking, I don't care about this lens. I have the 35mm Art and I adore it. I'd rather buy a 24/1.4 than this zoom lens, as I am just fond of fast glass.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't judge something that you don't care about. Sigma released the first Full Frame f/2 lens, just be happy that the lens line-up is expanding.

That being said, I am still waiting on a Sigma 135/1.8!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sigma beat Canon with an f/1.8 zoom for APS-C. Canon still doesn't have one.

I'm not sure why this is an issue? Choice is good!

 

[TeT]

This lens may be useful to some (I guess 0.01% of photographers), but 24-35 zoom range is as good as useless - may just as well use 24mm prime & crop slightly.

It really needs to be approx 24-50mm (i.e. similar to the APS-C Sigma 18-35/1.8) that would be an immediate purchase!

I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product - many zoom owners will already have the 24-35 range covered by two lenses in their kit bag already.

I felt that the Canon 20-35mm 2.8 L zoom was a good tool when I was using primes and in situations where changing lenses in that range was not an option.

A high IQ f/2 in the 20-35 range would probably sell enough to justify making it;

+1 on the 24-35 being redundant... even at f/2

also....I did not realize that it was a race to the f2 zoom promiseland... I always figured it was just a questionable proposition and now looks like Sigma just stuck a small toe in the water, one that they could likely afford to lose if it got bit off...

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I hope Canon is able to release something that competes. I'll be curious whether they charge $3,000 or price it reasonably. If the latter, thanks Sigma!

 

[davidcl0nel]

I use the 35 IS and I like it very much. It is versatile and very very sharp, that I even crop 50mm part of the image without real loss. And the IS helps a lot in low light / night photography.
If Canon has a 24 2.0 IS thats propably what I also would buy. 2.8 is ok, but not as great... Both lenses would be a very good part. Maybe even a 20 2.8 IS - there 2.8 should be ok. 24 with 2.8 I can reach with an zoom lens...
If both ranges (and I think it is) of this Sigma are very good, this could be a good replacement for two of these lenses. Two, not three. Yes 28mm is in this range too, but 28 is not much from 24... so this isn't an argument.
And maybe maybe this is only a start to show, what is possible.
An 85-135 f/2 would be a ideal portrait zoom....

 

[rs]

I can't help but feel that Sigma didn't do much market research before developing this product

I think they did exactly the right kind of market research for it.
"What's selling these days?"
"Whatever new gimmick hasn't been done before."
"How come?"
"People love to brag online about how big their aperture is and how many megapixels they have."

The fact that the zoom range is useless is irrelevant. They made a zoom with a constant f/2 aperture. That's all that matters. They did it, they got in first, they get the bragging rights, they get the sales from all the spec-sheet nerds.

I agree that an f2 FF zoom is quite a headline. However, if you are going to stick to a short zoom ratio to keep size/weight/cost realistic, why not go for a range like 50-85/2 instead? 50mm and 85mm primes are very popular, and easier/cheaper to make faster than 35 and 24mm primes too, suggesting a zoom of that range could be simpler to produce. Currently if you want to cover that range with zooms, you're either at f4 or slower with one lens or have to carry two around to get f2.8. This would have bought something unique in terms of both aperture and range to the table. I suspect it would appeal to a wider audience.

 

[preppyak]

why not go for a range like 50-85/2 instead? 50mm and 85mm primes are very popular, and easier/cheaper to make faster than 35 and 24mm primes too, suggesting a zoom of that range could be simpler to produce.

Problem here is that there are cheap sub-f/2 primes in that range, in a way that isnt true for the 24mm and 35mm on the Canon side.

I can own an 85mm f/1.8 (quite a nice lens), or a 100mm f/2, and/or the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, and have that combo for $600 or less. Which makes a 50-85mm f/2 hard to price at $1500. Heck, makes it hard to price above $1000.

I think thats gonna be the problem with all of these potential f/2 zooms unless they cover a broader range. 35mm f/2 in a zoom isnt as interesting when it exists as an IS prime for ~$500. And 50mm f/2 isnt that interesting when I can own f/1.4 for ~$300.

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon offers it:

24-35 f/2L USM would be $1500+

24-50 f/2L USM would surely be north of $2k

And I don't want to know how expensive (or massive) a 24-70 f/2L USM would be. We're in Otus pricing at that point.

- A

 

[Simen1]

A race to 24-70 f2 sounds much more interesting

Such a wide zoom range would probably be a f/2,5.

Could be the first of a fast zoom trinity. 24-35mm, 35-70mm, and 70-120mm, all f/2?

Its a reason Sigma choose wide angle for the first f/1,8 APS-C zoom and now the first f/2 FF zoom. Thats the range where the lenses would be as small as possible. Skew that to more tele and you will get a heavier and larger lens. Especially the 70-120 f/2 must be huge. The manufacturing cost will increase with weight so it might be very expensive too. If Sigma charges 999$ for the 20-35 f/2, Canon might charge the double for the same spec with an L and a red ring. A 70-120 f/2 would probably be twice the price of a 20-35, pushing Canons option up to the Otus price range.

____

I already have my f/1,8 zoom on APS-C and plan to use it on full frame later this year. I even get image stabilization when using it. Yes, i'm a Pentaxian with a FF on the to buy list. The Sigma 18-35 f/1,8 is useful on FF even if i would do a 1,3x crop with chooseable aspect ratio in the wide end.