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

[ahsanford]

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.

It's a little murky here, but I believe the implied point was that the Sigma 24-35 f/2 was rushed forward entirely to steal thunder from Canon's plans to offer a faster-than-f/2.8.

Some are reading that Sigma is only doing the 24-35 f/2 to be able to moon Canon and scream "First!".

Others are interpreting this that Sigma focused on a limited FL range zoom just for this first lens to be able to claim 'first' but they actually have something more ambitious coming down the road.

I don't particularly care either way, but I love Sigma rocking the boat as hard as they can. That's good for all of us.

- A

 

[meywd]

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.

What should be taken from the rumor - which is a CR1 - is that canon may already started working on a f/2 zoom lens, and that they still didn't finish which may be caused by not finding a market to it.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.
...

Are you calling the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 just something for Leica to brag about?
Or is that "not a zoom lens"?

The page at BHP says it's not a zoom lens. That's really beside the point, though - I think the meaning of the statement was "making [an f/2 zoom lens for FF cameras] with less than 2X range is..."

I could be wrong, though.

 

[Loswr]

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.
...

Are you calling the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 just something for Leica to brag about?
Or is that "not a zoom lens"?

Your reading and comprehension skills are as astute as ever. It's neither a zoom lens nor f/2.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.
...

Are you calling the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 just something for Leica to brag about?
Or is that "not a zoom lens"?

The page at BHP says it's not a zoom lens. That's really beside the point, though - I think the meaning of the statement was "making [an f/2 zoom lens for FF cameras] with less than 2X range is..."

I could be wrong, though.

So the Leica 28-35-50/f4 for full frame Leica cameras would also just be for bragging rights?

Did you note how I said that the statement meant "an f/2 zoom lens for full frame cameras"? The 28-35-50 is, once again, neither a zoom lens nor f/2.

 

[Monchoon]

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.
...

Are you calling the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 just something for Leica to brag about?
Or is that "not a zoom lens"?

The page at BHP says it's not a zoom lens. That's really beside the point, though - I think the meaning of the statement was "making [an f/2 zoom lens for FF cameras] with less than 2X range is..."

I could be wrong, though.

So the Leica 28-35-50/f4 for full frame Leica cameras would also just be for bragging rights?

So how does the Leica fair at say 30mm at F2?

 

[Mr Bean]

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.

I don't see it as this. Canon's work on new lenses (like the ones mentioned) remind me of Nikon, back in the 70's and early 80's, where they created some rather exotic lenses, because they could (Nikon's 8mm fisheye and 300mm f2 come to mind).

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.

I don't see it as this. Canon's work on new lenses (like the ones mentioned) remind me of Nikon, back in the 70's and early 80's, where they created some rather exotic lenses, because they could (Nikon's 8mm fisheye and 300mm f2 come to mind).

It's not innovation though; just remember that. Anything Canon does can't possibly be innovative.

 

[Proscribo]

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.

I don't see it as this. Canon's work on new lenses (like the ones mentioned) remind me of Nikon, back in the 70's and early 80's, where they created some rather exotic lenses, because they could (Nikon's 8mm fisheye and 300mm f2 come to mind).

It's not innovation though; just remember that. Anything Canon does can't possibly be innovative.

Indeed, even if they broke the laws of physics and created something light and smallish 16-400mm f/2.8 lens with awesome IQ it wouldn't be innovative. God damn Canon get your s*** together and give us DR and start to innovate!

Sorry, I had to. :-[

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

I don't see it as this. Canon's work on new lenses (like the ones mentioned) remind me of Nikon, back in the 70's and early 80's, where they created some rather exotic lenses, because they could (Nikon's 8mm fisheye and 300mm f2 come to mind).

It's not innovation though; just remember that. Anything Canon does can't possibly be innovative.

Indeed, even if they broke the laws of physics and created something light and smallish 16-400mm f/2.8 lens with awesome IQ it wouldn't be innovative. God damn Canon get your s*** together and give us DR and start to innovate!

Sorry, I had to. :-[

But Canon already gave us Dramatic Resolution...

 

[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

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.

Focal length, no, f stop, yes.

If you have a 5D3, look in the manual for the required f stop for each focus point. That should answer your question as to what I was referring to.

Would the lens be large? Yes...

 

[Loswr]

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.

Is the 24-70/2.8 twice the weight of the 24-70/4?