SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Leaked photos of a brand new Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM have hit the web. This would be a full frame lens and a game changer at f/2. We’d heard rumors that Sigma was working on a 24-70 f/2 Art lens, but I guess this is what was actually in development.</p>
<p>The announcement is expected soon, along with specifications.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-21168 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_002.jpg'><img width="150" height="97" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_002-150x97.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="sigma_24-35f2_002" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_001.jpg'><img width="150" height="94" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_001-150x94.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="sigma_24-35f2_001" /></a>
			</dt></dl>
			<br style='clear: both' />
		</div>

 

[drs]

This sounds exciting. If the quality is on par with the F/1.4 art primes, I'm in. Can't wait.

 

[bholliman]

Interesting, but not much of a zoom range. I'll stick with my primes and 24-70 zoom.

 

[PureClassA]

I dunno. Yeah it's niche for Sigma, but I'm curious to see what the interest is in such a small focal range. I guess this is the FF version of their 18-35, more or less. I'm sure it's great optically, but I'm not thinking there will be a huge demand for this. Landscapers perhaps but it doesn't seem to get wide enough for a zoom. I wonder if the smarter play wouldn't have been to go right for Canon's throat and make a 20 or even 16-35 f2.8 that just smokes their current one like the 16-35 f4 did. Time will tell. Now hurry up the damn 85mm ART! LOL

 

[ahsanford]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

 

[IglooEater]

This lens, like any other, is bound to have some ardent lovers, but I'm eager to see what they will use it for.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

I hear you and I appreciate the value proposition of the lens, but the number of people who amass all three of those primes is pretty small. So it might be a dynamite lens, but I still contend its appeal will be limited.

Now if that limited focal range multiplier (roughly 1.4) was on the wider side, say a (roughly) 16-24 f/2, people would go bonkers for this, I think. 16 and 24 are far more different to my eyes than 24 to 35 is.

- A

 

[cliffwang]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

 

[Kiton]

Posted by: Canon Rumors
« on: Today at 03:02:15 PM »


I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



100 %

This lens shows great promise.
To compare it to 1.4 primes is apples vs grapefruit.
This will be on my urgent to get list. Having 2 of the Art lenses now, I trust Sigma that this will be a great piece of glass. The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.

Now, if they can bring a nice 85mm f2 to market I would be the happiest street shooter around!

 

[jdramirez]

Well, that is a disappointment. I guess I will look to the Canon ... Ich.

 

[Etienne]

I think this is quite interesting. It goes from very wide to almost normal at f/2.
Among other things, it would allow you to fine-tune your framing in tight quarters (you can't always put your tripod or camera in the exact spot you want). Especially useful in video where cropping later is not always an option, while also giving an extra stop over 2.8 zooms.

 

[drs]

To specify my excitement, yes, a 24-70, F/2.8 is nice and certainly one of my most uses lenses when I have to travel "light".

The lens in discussion here seems an ideal fit for fast pacing indoor filming. Whereby light is an issue, hence the 2.0 and not 2.8. There I look forward to. If time permits, I rather use primes with f/1.4 of course. However, the small range allows for hope that little compromises are included, e.g., CA, distortion, etc.

For still images, there are cheaper and/or better options, of course they are, as mentioned above.

 

[Maiaibing]

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.
This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

+1 if the IQ is top its going to be difficult for quite a few people to justify getting a plain 35mm. Very few wide pictures use the full frame anyway, so many will be happy with the ability to zoom.

Plain 35mm will be a specialty lens type for those who absolutely want to have the widest aperture possible such as f/1.4 (as I do). Just like 50mm have become a rare choice after the standard zooms improved a lot.

 

[Xyclopx]

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.
This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

+1 if the IQ is top its going to be difficult for quite a few people to justify getting a plain 35mm. Very few wide pictures use the full frame anyway, so many will be happy with the ability to zoom.

Plain 35mm will be a specialty lens type for those who absolutely want to have the widest aperture possible such as f/1.4 (as I do). Just like 50mm have become a rare choice after the standard zooms improved a lot.

i think the key difference here is that canon already has a full-frame zoom lens with better-than-prime performance in the 24-70 2.8 ii. to me, and maybe others would disagree, there isn't a huge difference between f2 and f2.8, and you lose half the zoom range with this lens.

i personally have the 35 art, and i have not used it even once since getting the 24-70. i used to use it when i needed the very best IQ possible, but since the 24-70 is about the same or even better, the only reason to use it then would be for the 1.4. and this new 24-35 doesn't do 1.4, so...

but then again, there's the 200L f2 vs the 70-200 2.8 is ii, and people still go for the f2 at triple the price, so what do I know.

 

[LOALTD]

If only there were a body with IS we could mount this on...


I mainly shoot primes, and I think this is actually a pretty useful focal range. (my current favorite is the 28mm f/2.8 IS, it's on my camera 80% of the time)


I also do a lot of nightscapes and very low-light hand held shooting on alpine climbs.


They have my attention!

 

[Kiton]

"
but then again, there's the 200L f2 vs the 70-200 2.8 is ii, and people still go for the f2 at triple the price, so what do I know. "




I hated the 200 f2, ditched it in record speed. I am with you on that lens.
I do love the 135 f2, but not the 200.

 

[Sporgon]

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

In theory.

I agree with ahsanford; 24-50 f/2 would have been very interesting.

 

[Xyclopx]

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

In theory.

I agree with ahsanford; 24-50 f/2 would have been very interesting.

that would have been close to the sigma efs 18-35 1.8 for crops, which seemed to sell well.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

This is not a very interesting range of zoom.
But the thought of replacing primes 24, 28, 35mm F2 opening looks great.

Canon offers 24mm F2.8 IS great, but is not able to F2.
Canon offers 28mm F1.8 but image quality is mediocre.
Canon offers 35mm F2 IS great, but is not always enough wide angle.