24-70 f/2.8 DG OS Art Next from Sigma [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

<p>We’ve been told Sigma’s next Art series lens will be a zoom and most likely a 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS Art.</p>
<p>The last Art series zoom from Sigma was the 24-105mm f/4 OS DG Art, which has been out of production for some time while Sigma put their manufacturing capacity into the new art series primes as well as the 150-600mm Sport and Contemporary lenses, we’re told production of the 24-105 f/4 DG OS Art will start again soon if it hasn’t already.</p>
<p>There was a rumor a while ago about Sigma attempting a 24-70 f/2 lens for full frame, but we haven’t heard anything about such a lens in quite some time.</p>
<p>You can read more speculation about <a href="http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/05/sigma-lens-predictions-rumor-recap/" target="_blank">Sigma’s roadmap at Sigma Rumors</a>.</p>

 

[ScottyP]

At very least a Sigma 24-70 WITH image stabilization might put downward price pressure on the expensive, non-IS Canon version.

At best it might send Canon back to the drawing board to put IS, a feature they manage to include in every kit lens without any apparent technological or cost problems, into a new ver.3.

 

[RChauhan]

Damn it! Just when I was getting ready to upgrade to the canon 24-70 II....

More confusion now as their Art lenses have really been good value for money.

 

[switters]

Sigma has its work cut out for it to improve on Canon's version of this lens, which is simply incredible. A cheapeR price and IS are the only obvious areas for improvement.

 

[candyman]

Sigma has its work cut out for it to improve on Canon's version of this lens, which is simply incredible. A cheapeR price and IS are the only obvious areas for improvement.

Yes, and Tamron already did it.

 

[painya]

Yeah but for a standard fast zoom bad autofocus would be nearly impossible to fix (different AFMA values for different mm's), and bad autofucus would be disastrous.

 

[switters]

Yeah but for a standard fast zoom bad autofocus would be nearly impossible to fix (different AFMA values for different mm's), and bad autofucus would be disastrous.

Agreed. Which is why I have zero interest in this lens. My Canon 24-70 II is probably my favorite and most-used lens. Never thought I'd say that about a zoom!

 

[LonelyBoy]

Yeah but for a standard fast zoom bad autofocus would be nearly impossible to fix (different AFMA values for different mm's), and bad autofucus would be disastrous.

The Sigma calibration dock does allow different AFMA values for different focal lengths, of course.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I've read too many stories about autofocus problems with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies and have experienced some myself.

I'd be surprised if many professional photographers would take a chance on the rumored Sigma. At F/2.8 you need consistent autofocus.

Perhaps if they price it low enough, they could sell some to consumer-level photographers.

 

[WoodyWindy]

I know this is a minor gripe, but why is it that every time there is a Sigma rumor, you pull out the Jolly Green Giant (200-500 f/2.8 ) image? It would make sense if the rumor were about a successor, or even something new in the same class, but for a 24-70?!?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Yeah but for a standard fast zoom bad autofocus would be nearly impossible to fix (different AFMA values for different mm's), and bad autofucus would be disastrous.

My 24-70mm f2.8L II is also my most used lens so I see difficult to move to Sigma this time even though they managed to improve many lenses to beat Canon, particularly in the 'Art' cathegory.
I briefly used the current Sigma 24-70mm and it was soft and miss focus frequently. If Sigma solves this problem and add OS hence it will be a though decision for people looking for a fast standard zoom lens.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

What is the source of this rumor? Sigma Rumors doesn't provide one. Petapixel wrote of this lens back in February but also had no source.

Is this wishful thinking, or is there an actual origin to this?

 

[that1guyy]

Would be interested in seeing how it compares to the Tamron, which is an excellent lens.

 

[Marsu42]

Is this wishful thinking, or is there an actual origin to this?

Read up on how many [CR3] came true, how many [CR2] ... and this is a [CR1]. Go figure :->

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Is this wishful thinking, or is there an actual origin to this?

Read up on how many [CR3] came true, how many [CR2] ... and this is a [CR1]. Go figure :->

I'm well aware that this is just CR1. I've seen more than one site report this though and none of them actually state where it came from. It's odd.

 

[Marsu42]

At very least a Sigma 24-70 WITH image stabilization might put downward price pressure on the expensive, non-IS Canon version.

No it won't, complete different target audiences, it will just put a little (more) pressure on Canon's f4 version.

Remember that f2.8 doesn't mean the Sigma would be as bright/fast than the Canon as f stop doesn't equal t stop and there will be heavy vignetting for sure with a version with IS.

Yeah but for a standard fast zoom bad autofocus would be nearly impossible to fix (different AFMA values for different mm's)

I understand their usb dock lets you give the recent Sigma lenses more than one afma value, actually that's better than with the Canon body which only lets you use one for all subject distances.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I've read too many stories about autofocus problems with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies and have experienced some myself.

I'd be surprised if many professional photographers would take a chance on the rumored Sigma. At F/2.8 you need consistent autofocus.

Perhaps if they price it low enough, they could sell some to consumer-level photographers.

Perhaps it is because more people have had no problem with their SIGMA art lenses and have not bothered to write posts on the Internets Tubes. That is the problem with making decisions based on internet postings.. you are really not getting a representative sample of the population.