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

[East Wind Photography]

Yawn.... this lens is boring.

 

[9VIII]

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.

Along with the availability of more inexpensive lenses at 50mm and 85mm, also consider that perspective changes much more at the wide end, and on top of that, 24-35mm in terms of pure horizontal Angle of View is a difference of 20 degrees, whereas 50-85mm is actually only a difference of 16 degrees.
"Technically" 24-35mm is a wider zoom range than 50-85mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=115&LensComp=106&Units=E
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=480&LensComp=121&Units=E

Yes that word "technically" is a very big caveat, in term of multiples the change in Angle of View from 50-85mm is 1.7x, but the perspective distortion is definitely stronger on the wide end, I think you get more variety of shots with 24-35mm.

 

[aceflibble]

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

It's easy to come up with dream scenario lenses which make more sense to the consumer, but from a manufacturing perspective, the fact that they've managed to make any f/1.8 and f/2 zooms is already a helluva task.

 

[lichtmalen]

I just don't get why people keep comparing a 35mm prime to a 24 that is slightly cropped. Completely different angles of view and depth of field effects. I am eager for the new zoom as I can't reasonably place the 24 AND the 35 in my bag but still miss my 35 a little.

 

[9VIII]

If we're talking about making modern zoom lenses to complete with primes, the 50-135 range sounds like ripe pickings to me (though only at f2.8, we've pretty much established you're not going to get much of a zoom range at f2.0).

The point would be to have the widest focal range possible while avoiding the extra complication of a retrofocusing design (sub 40mm), so really 40-135 would be the best possible result (assuming that going to 200mm would also make it too large or complicated). What it should accomplish is a lens with sharpness on the same level as the 70-200, but with the extra 30mm on the wide end. I guess that might be a little niche, but if you're only going to have one high quality zoom lens, right now you're either compromising IQ to have the 24mm focal length, or eliminating most of your landscape possibilities with the 70-200 (I've actually been fairly happy framing mountains and general landscape shots with the 40mm Pancake).
Looking at headshot distortion (http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm) I also feel like 40-135 would hit all the focal lengths people commonly use for portraits, particularly that last step from 70mm to 135mm. Beyond 135mm seems to be more about background compression than the person's face.
Given that we can switch lenses and the Pancake is pocketable, maybe that's really the best option. On the other hand we also have people spending Twelve Grand just to integrate a TC into their 400mm zoom lens.
If they could get IQ up to prime-like quality I think 40-135mm would be a worthy addition between the 24-70 and 70-200.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects

 

[TAF]

A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects

That would certainly be more interesting to me.

If they could get to 150, even a variable f-stop range of 1.8 to 2.8 would be satisfactory...it would cover all the auto focus points on the 5D3

 

[RGF]

Besides for bragging rights, for me this is yawner.

F2 or F1.8 or F1.4 would be too heavy to carry with other lens (especially long glass).

I would like to see improvements in the current line, especially on the wide angles.

16-35 F2.8 III or what ever that is as good as the F4 version would be nice.

Make the 14 F2.8 equal in IQ to the Zeiss 15.

 

[ahsanford]

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

I'm not so sure that's true. The 18-35 f/1.8 has a 72mm front element, while the 24-35 f/2 has an 82mm front element. I could certainly be wrong, but I think those lenses don't share many components.

- A

 

[Etienne]

How about a small light weight 20-35 f/2.8 IS ?

 

[[email protected]]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy this lens. I love the Sigma 18-35 Art for crop, but I now have a full frame camera. I've come to really appreciate the range, even as limited as it is. The 18-35 lens was criticized for a funny range at the time it was introduced.

I've been using the 18-35 as a 28-35 lens on my 5d3, but there is more vignetting than I'd like, and THAT is a narrow zoom range.

If Sigma pulls out something close to the other Art lenses in terms of IQ (anyone see an MTF chart yet?) I'm definitely getting it.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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>

I don't see the issue here. While most offer exists the benefit goes to the photographers. It is just one more option

 

[9VIII]

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

I'm not so sure that's true. The 18-35 f/1.8 has a 72mm front element, while the 24-35 f/2 has an 82mm front element. I could certainly be wrong, but I think those lenses don't share many components.

- A

Ok, now I'm getting a little more excited. That's even wider than the 24mm f1.4 prime.
Vignetting on the 18-35 was heavy, even on crop, hopefully they paid extra attention to the problem here.
Edit: Ok I guess I thought it was bad but looking at reviews again (http://www.lenstip.com/374.8-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM__Vignetting.html) it faired well in comparisons to other zoom lenses.
To be fair, the 24mm prime has horrible vignetting as well, and so does every other 24mm lens. Somehow that focal length is just riddled with problems that no-one seems to be able to wrap their heads around.

I also found an interesting quote from the press release: http://www.sigmacanada.ca/2015/06/22/sigma-introduces-world%E2%80%99s-first-large-aperture-full-frame-wide-angle-zoom-lens-with-new-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art/

In particular, at the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths, this lens offers the performance that is equivalent to that of two prime lenses in the Art line.

That's particularly gutsy If they're saying it performs as well as their own prime lenses at those focal lengths. I'm not going to take marketing material at face value, but my fingers are crossed that they make good on their reputation.

 

[Simen1]

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

I think its a slightly reworked 18-35. I guess most of the glass is exactly the same.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A 24-85mm f2 would be a lot of fun and offer a lot of creative DOF effects

That would certainly be more interesting to me.

If they could get to 150, even a variable f-stop range of 1.8 to 2.8 would be satisfactory...it would cover all the auto focus points on the 5D3

I'm not understanding what you mean. Focal length has nothing to do with AF point coverage.
A 24-85 f2 is going to be huge, it's twice the brightness of the existing 24-70 f2.8, which will require a 4x increase in optical mass and probably weight.

 

[aceflibble]

I'd imagine the bigger factor would simply be the size of a lens. 50-85 f/2 would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive than 24-35 f/2, and the 24-35 f/2 fits nicely in Sigma's existing 18-35 f/1.8 shell.

I think its a slightly reworked 18-35. I guess most of the glass is exactly the same.

That's more what I meant. Yes, it's not a direct drop-in for the 18-35 shell, but it's very clearly based on it and is most likely using many of the same parts; everything about it up until the front few elements looks more or less the same and the cosmetic points are identical.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

While its certainly possible to make a f/2 zoom for FF cameras, making one with a 3X range is not easy to do, and a 2X range is not really very useful for general photography. Making one with less than a 2X range is just a lets make something to brag about and see if it sells.

A 24-70 f/2 IS might catch my attention, but I doubt I would want to carry it around, and I also wonder about the price. I expect to see the Chinese come up with a light weight fast zoom using plastic lenses and light construction in the next 5 years. Their industry is really cranking up, and they are not afraid to try and risk failing, or to sell a product that is not a super high resolution lens. If it sells they will build on it and eventually produce a high end one. Plastic in a $1000 lens may not be a good idea yet, but in a $100 lens, it can be tossed after 5 years.

BTW, DO lenses use plastic for the DO element, Canon DSLR's use a plastic lens to focus the on the AF sensor. There is a lot of work going on to develop plastic lenses. Canon has yet to come out with their particle dispersion element for DO lenses, but I haven't written it off because they keep churning out patents for lenses that use it. It is basically particles dispersed in a resin lens. The trick is to tell each particle to go to its proper place and to make each lens the same. If those particles are not dispersed in the right manner, then the lens will make the image horrible. Obviously, they think that its do-able.

 

[KateH]

We’re told that Sigma may have beaten Canon to the market with an f/2 zoom for full frame cameras.</p>

So... am I the only one who thinks that statement- and the title of this thread- make no sense? Is there a joke I'm missing?

The Sigma 24-35 f/2.0 was announced 9 days before this thread was started. Hate to spoil the surprise, but Sigma beat everyone to an f/2 Zoom, regardless of whether or not the other manufacturers were actively developing such a lens.

 

[Luds34]

This is not a zoom lens, it is a 24mm prime with the ability to crop a little....

Haha, I like it.

I know it's getting ragged on for being only a 1.5x zoom. But I found the limited zoom range of the Tokina 11-16 quite useful. As others have said (and similar to the Tokina's 17-28 effective FF FL) there is quite a difference in perspective from 24mm to 35mm.

 

[rrcphoto]

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>

the versatility, size and weight i'm sure play an important factor for canon - and let's face it, the 24-35/2 is pretty damned huge for what it does.