Sigma Announces Brand New 14-24mm F2.8 Art Lens

[RGF]

Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is

Does Sigma offer a service to convert between mounts? Just curious

Here you go:

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service

- A

Might cost $300 or so. Could be a toss up vs selling the old lens and buying a new in a different mount vs converting an existing lens

 

[TommyLee]

this a cruel move....

I have Canon 14 mk II .... the lines are straight and pretty sharp in middle...with chromatics
it is a nice small lens .. and keeps a 5Dx size ...smaller

then the Tamron 15-30 a bit of distortion at 15mm... but so very sharp.. towards the edges.. and stabilized..
now they torture us with this one.. I wonder how large it is

I guess..
I await the Canon 135 I.S. ... and stall on all these great options... that keep coming..

////

I didnt even know what it was like to shoot 'wide' til Canon made the 10-22 ef-s for my 20D...

all I used on a visit to chicago....

then I was hooked..

cruel.....but a lovely idea...

 

[RobbieHat]

I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?

What say you all? Let's say:

• You did not presently own any UWA zoom
• This new Sigma is on the very high level of the 16-35 f/2.8L III and the AF is spot on.
• The price / quality of the 14-24 and 16-35 lenses is the same. (price surely won't be, but let's just say so for the sake of argument)

...would you prefer 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 or would you prefer 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200, and why?

- A

As someone who owns both the 11-24 and the 16-35 I would comment horses for courses. As mainly a landscape shooter the 11-24 is invaluable and I can't think of a time I have needed faster than f4 for that range. If I need fast and wide I go with the Sigma 14 f 1.8 prime (astrophotography). If I need light and not as wide and easily filterable I go with the 16-35.

I admit I have lots of overlapping glass in this range but each serves a purpose and I often carry at least two when I go into the field. The 11-24 always requires the most consideration to bring along as it is difficult to shoot with that wide, the filtering system is a beast and it is heavy, but man, what a performer when you get something good!

Also, I shoot a lot in not ideal conditions (mist, ocean spray, fog, wind, etc.) and have never had problems with my 11-24 with WonderPana on the front. I don't shoot in pouring rain, but not sure what shot I would be seeking on those conditions regardless.

Just my response to your question. Bob

 

[JPAZ]

I, am pretty lucky. My WA array is a wonderful 14mm f/2.8 ii and a 16-35 f/4. The thought of carrying a 14-24 zoom instead of 2 lenses is appealing but not right now. Need to finish paying for what I have .

 

[YuengLinger]

Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?

 

[vangelismm]

The rumor in December wasn't about two Sigma 70-200?

 

[ahsanford]

Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?

Biggest obvious upside is that it zooms. Some vistas don't allow you to move your feet to fill the frame.

Also, it being a zoom opens up a host of other use-cases: events, sports, etc.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?

Biggest obvious upside is that it zooms. Some vistas don't allow you to move your feet to fill the frame.

Also, it being a zoom opens up a host of other use-cases: events, sports, etc.

- A

But Sigma is claiming less distortion than in the prime. How do they improve it and AF, etc at 14mm in a zoom?

 

[hendrik-sg]

funny, this one should have 0 distortion, as should have the 12-24 f4. but the 12-24 is reviewed with lot of distortion by the reviewers (Lenstip and TDP)

So, very reliable information on the sigmaa page, hopefully aat least the price is reliable

 

[ahsanford]

Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?

But Sigma is claiming less distortion than in the prime. How do they improve it and AF, etc at 14mm in a zoom?

My fault -- I only saw the "why" and not the "how" in your question. No idea how they pulled it off, or even if they did. (I seem to recall Laowa making a similar claim and reviewers didn't find it to be so distortion-free.)

- A

 

[Isaacheus]

I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?

What say you all? Let's say:

• You did not presently own any UWA zoom
• This new Sigma is on the very high level of the 16-35 f/2.8L III and the AF is spot on.
• The price / quality of the 14-24 and 16-35 lenses is the same. (price surely won't be, but let's just say so for the sake of argument)

...would you prefer 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 or would you prefer 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200, and why?

- A

Personally, if the 14-24 could be filtered (with a 100x100 or 150x100) then I'd would have looked at going this way, as the difference between 14 and 16mm can be quite noticeable, and the lack of overlap to extend the possible coverage makes sense.

Having said that, I already have the 20m art and 16-35 f4, so the 14mm art prime is more attractive to me currently. The 16-35 f4 being that much lighter than the 2.8's etc means that I can use it for video more readily, throw in the pack for hikes etc

 

[TommyLee]

I, am pretty lucky. My WA array is a wonderful 14mm f/2.8 ii and a 16-35 f/4. The thought of carrying a 14-24 zoom instead of 2 lenses is appealing but not right now. Need to finish paying for what I have .

those are wonderful optics.. you have
it seems we always end up with a lot of overlap in these ranges..

but they have certain uses..
///
I gave the 16-35, f4 as a gift to a photographer I hardly knew.. she needed it..
... and could use it properly.... beyond me..

I like the idea of ONLY a couple lenses...
a wide-zoom and the macro 100 L

like that
or 14, 35L II and 135 (canon or sigma)... or even the 100 macro L...
2.8 is min ..faster is more useful....
but those are
more than enough.. the rest is getting to the place...the moment

fast (1.4....1.8) is very nice ...especially if you are limited.. to a couple lenses
IMO

I saw a movie.... The Dark Valley (B/W) Paula Beer.. beautiful woman
the shallow depth of the focus ..and sharp shots were stunning....
completely made the art...the mood.. IMO
they may have only used a couple very fast lenses..
but it is more than i know..

I have work to do ...myself ...
those modern objects...can maybe help

the lenses now are pretty nice...
good times...

 

[Ozzy62]

Grhhhh, bought the 12-24/f4 2 month ago and now this :-(

Want someone my 12-24 - sell it ;-)

 

[YuengLinger]

Grhhhh, bought the 12-24/f4 2 month ago and now this :-(

Want someone my 12-24 - sell it ;-)

Here is a situation where resale value counts!

Rough timing.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

"Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."

Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.

 

[YuengLinger]

"Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."

Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.

Good catch! Could this also suggest either a cracking of the AF code--or some agreement between Sigma and Canon?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

"Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."

Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.

Good catch! Could this also suggest either a cracking of the AF code--or some agreement between Sigma and Canon?

I've emailed my Sigma contact to inquire further.

 

[BeenThere]

"Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."

Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.

Good catch! Could this also suggest either a cracking of the AF code--or some agreement between Sigma and Canon?

Could just mean that one doesn’t get that odd peephole effect when not turning off the lens correction function; not that the lens is actually corrected.

 

[Random Orbits]

With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.

Disagree. With the exception of their line of lenses just for mirrorless, Sigma doesn't put out glass without a strong Canon sales opportunity -- they'd be fools not to with Canon's market share. I think there are still some Canon folks who have always wanted that 14-24 Nikkor and Sigma is hoping to scoop them up.

Also, going down to 11mm is brutally heavy, expensive, exceptionally challenging to filter, and -- perhaps critically -- is f/4.

I guess that there is something magical to some folks here about 14mm + zoom + f/2.8 being all in one lens. It's not for me as I said before (the wheels come off the bus for me without a front filter ring and compatibility with 100x100 / 100x150 filters), but this was for a long time high on the list of lenses Nikon offered that Canon did not. I'm guessing that's what Sigma is banking on here.

- A
[/quote]

Sigma released the 24-105 f/4, which is priced a lot more than the Canon 24-105 f/4L. Canon's 24-105 f/4L II has a higher list price but I got my white box version for 700+, again at a significant discount to the Sigma. With white box 24-105 f/4Ls going at 500-600 when the Sigma was released at a higher launch price, how much market do you think it was going to get from Canon users? My guess is that it was aimed more at the Nikon.

Canon has the largest market share, but Sigma can capture a sizeable market share by producing lenses that can be used on several platforms. The 1.8 APS-C zooms probably fit in that niche. Canon only produces lenses for Canon and that limits the market. Canon has decided it is not worth producing EF-S f/1.8 zooms but Sigma has had success with them because it makes them for Canon and Nikon.

Canon now has better UWA zooms than Nikon. Nikon has a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 16-35 f/4, but not something that fits the same slot as the 16-35 f/2.8 III. With the 16-35 f/2.8 III, how viable is the 14-24? It has a narrower focal length range, is heavier, doesn't take filters and gets you two additional mm. At that point, it might be preferable to couple the 16-35 with a 14mm prime. The 11-24L or Sigma 12-24 are options if one wants to go wider, and the Sigma 14 prime is better for astro even if you have to stop down the aperture slightly. And there is the 15-30 VC too. So how big is the market for Canon users for a 14-24? A design like this would have been more viable 5 years ago before all the UWA zooms came to market.

 

[FramerMCB]

Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is

Does Sigma offer a service to convert between mounts? Just curious

Yes.