First Impressions: Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art by LensRentals.com

[Canon Rumors]

Roger at LensRentals.com has completed his initial testing of the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art series lens and has come away pretty impressed.</p>
<p>From LensRentals.com:</p>
<blockquote><p>Some people are going to be a bit disappointed (I admit I am a bit myself) because they really wanted a zoom that was every bit as good as their prime lenses. What we actually have is a zoom that’s as good at f/2.0 in the center as their prime lenses, but like almost every other zoom isn’t quite as good as a prime off-axis. When even the best optical engineers (and lately Sigma seems to have some of the best optical engineers) design a wide-aperture zoom lens, some compromises have to be made. In this case there’s a lot of astigmatism away from center. There’s good news for you who are disappointed now: Computer image analysis (like Imatest and DxO) don’t show astigmatism directly so this lens will probably look better with those test results than it does on the optical bench. <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art" target="_blank">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>In Stock: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1162798-REG/sigma_24_35mm_f_2_dg_hsm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?

Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.

 

[sdsr]

Lenstip is more than a little impressed:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=447

 

[Mr Bean]

So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?

Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.

Stopping down won't eliminate astigmatism.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?

Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.

Stopping down won't eliminate astigmatism.

And, you did not by a f/2 zoom to use it at f/8. Virtually any lens looks good at f/8.

 

[AvTvM]

Will not buy this zoom or any other as long as the zoom ring does not turn in the Canon direction. No matter how good and or cheap they are. Using different lenses with inconsistent zoom ring direction looses me shots in fast reaction situations, when i switch lenses/bodies. No go.

Zoom ring direction needs to be linked to the lens mount the lens is sold with. If Sigma and other third party kens makers only want to make one zoom ring + gear variation, they should at least be smart enough to keep it in sync with the clear market leader and the largest installed base of camera bodies = Canon, not Nikon.

Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?

Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.

Yeah...that's why we pay the big bucks for fast lenses....so we can stop them down to the same brightness of the lesser and cheaper models...nice thinking.

 

[sanj]

So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?

Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.

Yeah...that's why we pay the big bucks for fast lenses....so we can stop them down to the same brightness of the lesser and cheaper models...nice thinking.

$999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness.

Edit: At full open....

 

[kubelik]

$999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness.

Edit: At full open....

sanj, precisely. People are thinking of this lens as a 24-70 L replacement or competitor, whereas it's clearly priced as a midrange lens. if you look at it, it essentially replaces the Canon 35 f/2 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and 24 f/2.8 IS, for $1K instead of ~$1.5K. those lenses also are midrange lenses, and have pretty steep corner sharpness fall-off and bad vignetting as well.

if I didn't already have the 35 f/2 IS, and if it wasn't my high-portability lens, I'd definitely be getting the 24-35 f/2. as it stands, I still would love to own it, and I'll be evaluating my lens lineup over the next few months to see if there's some way that I can sell/swap other stuff to make it fit.

 

[chmteacher]

The front page should have included the two sentences that followed:

"But the glass here is definitely way more than half full. We have, for the first time, a modern zoom lens that reaches f/2.0 aperture and is wickedly sharp. That's an amazing thing all by itself and this is a unique optic. What is really amazing to me is that it sells for $1,000."

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.

Wow, I never knew that zoom direction would be so important. There are only two directions to choose from.

Are you one of those people that only wants the toilet paper put on one specific way? ;D

I think there are many reasons why I would or would not buy a specific lens. I just never considered zoom ring direction to be one of them.

 

[Andyx01]

I'm sorry - did I miss something? Is the 24-35 image stablized? :

$999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness.

Edit: At full open....

sanj, precisely. People are thinking of this lens as a 24-70 L replacement or competitor, whereas it's clearly priced as a midrange lens. if you look at it, it essentially replaces the Canon 35 f/2 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and 24 f/2.8 IS, for $1K instead of ~$1.5K. those lenses also are midrange lenses, and have pretty steep corner sharpness fall-off and bad vignetting as well.

if I didn't already have the 35 f/2 IS, and if it wasn't my high-portability lens, I'd definitely be getting the 24-35 f/2. as it stands, I still would love to own it, and I'll be evaluating my lens lineup over the next few months to see if there's some way that I can sell/swap other stuff to make it fit.

 

[Andyx01]

35 @ f/2.0 (IS) 1/5th sec or so (handheld).

Sorry Sigma.

 

[StudentOfLight]

If DxO doesn't measure astigmatism, it is not important for image quality :

They do measure astigmatism just look at the lens' sharpness profile measurements - there are two line graphs: one for radial and the other for tangential.

 

[RogerCicala]

If DxO doesn't measure astigmatism, it is not important for image quality :

They do measure astigmatism just look at the lens' sharpness profile measurements - there are two line graphs: one for radial and the other for tangential.

They measure horizontal and vertical (actually nearly horizontal and nearly vertical), which is very different from radial and tangential. They might (or might not) be affected by astigmatism but are certainly affected by a host of other things. Unfortunately, no tests done using target analysis (DxO or Imatest) can measure astigmatism.

 

[AvTvM]

Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.

Wow, I never knew that zoom direction would be so important. There are only two directions to choose from.

Are you one of those people that only wants the toilet paper put on one specific way? ;D

I think there are many reasons why I would or would not buy a specific lens. I just never considered zoom ring direction to be one of them.

Yes it seriously is a big issue for me. Of course It depends what you are shooting. If it is landscape from a tripod with lots of time to set things up, zoom ring direction does not matter.
But if i am at a concert and switch from 70-200 to wide angle zoom, and in the middle of things i inadvertently twist the zom ring in the wrong direction, i will miss a shot or two. I am not willing to put up with this just because Sigma is not willing or unable to match zoom ring direction wiht the respective lens mount.

If they are able and willing to equip their lenses with either Canon, Nikon or Sony mounts, and manage to reverse-engineer the respective camera makers AF system standards - more or less - they should go all the way and also put as simple a thing as the zoom ring turning direction right. I also see it as a clear sign of disrespect towards Canon owners. Why should we as clear majority of camera owners buy lenses that work "the Nikon way"? I at least will not throw money at Sigma or Tamron zoom lenses, until they finally take the right attitude and produce correct products. If they want my business, they need to earm it. Half-assed products won't cut it.

 

[whothafunk]

35 @ f/2.0 (IS) 1/5th sec or so (handheld).

Sorry Sigma.

I handheld my Canon 8-15 f4 fisheye on my trip at around 9.30 PM when only just a few seconds of visible light was available, when it was dark and out of 3 shots of burst, 2 were sharp. and 8-15 doesnt have an IS as well.

and that happened on MULTIPLE occasions since i was on my trip, sleeping outdoors every day and did a shot of my "bedroom".

so whats your point?

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Looking forward to buying this lens. Hoping Sigma compliments it with an 85-135mm f/2. Only two lenses I would need for weddings.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Lenstip is more than a little impressed:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=447

It isn't a bad lens at all, just not as good as a prime

 

[dak723]

Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.

Wow, I never knew that zoom direction would be so important. There are only two directions to choose from.

Are you one of those people that only wants the toilet paper put on one specific way? ;D

I think there are many reasons why I would or would not buy a specific lens. I just never considered zoom ring direction to be one of them.

Having recently tried out some of the new Sony cameras and lenses, I agree that zoom direction is important if you are used to the Canon way. Having owned Canon and Olympus cameras and lenses for 35 years, I automatically turn in the correct direction and found it very annoying that my initial movement was in the wrong direction with every shot using the Sony. Not sure if it would be a complete deal-breaker for me if I were to change systems completely. In that case, I think I would eventually re-learn my automatic response. But otherwise, it is a big reason not to get this lens or others that go the "wrong" way.