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

[AvTvM]

You underestimate your brain.
I've been using a Tamron zoom, along side Canon zooms and not once have I ever zoomed (or thought of zooming) the wrong way - with either brand.

Yes, even my brain and body adapts. But it takes time. No problem, if I 'd swap my entire gear and lens set for one where ALL zoom rings CONSISTENTLY turn the other way round. I may have some minor initial misattempts, but after a day or two it would be gone. And if I have time to set all parameters at total leisure, I will also not turn zoom rings the wrong way.

But a "mix and match" lens set zoom rings does not work for me at all in "busy" suituations, when my brain is 100% focussed on getting the shots I want: desired light/exposure, desired angle and framing and most importantly "the right moment". In those situations - when it matters most - I need to have as consistent a user interface as possible on all the gear in use. Some years ago I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8. While I liked the lens and its performance, I sold it after 6 months, because I missed shots when switching between my Canon zooms and this "wrong way round zoom" in the middle of an event/concert/wedding/sports meeting. When switching lenses I inevitably turned the zoom ring the wrong way round the first one to three attempts. And I know that many other photographers are experiencing this issue exactly the same way.

Additionally and more generally I do not see why the huge Canon user base should silently put up with Sigma's and other third party lens makers decision to just stick a "Nikon-way zoom ring" on their lenses with Canon EF mount and call it a day. It is ... sloppy. Not right. And while prices are somewhat lower than Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses are not dispensed free of charge either. And if they only can or want to stick one type of zoom ring gears into their lenses, then they should be the Canon way. Simply because tehre are so many more Canon camera bodies out there than Nikons and Sonys to stick Sigma or Tamron lenses on. To me the current practice is bad business judgement and a blatant sign of disrespect from Sigma and Tamron. From what I see, Tokina seems to equip more and more of their zooms with correctly turning zoom rings - matching the convention of the respective lens mount/camera maker. That's the way it ought to be. Nothing difficult or prohibitively expensive about it. Definitely not on 999,- zoom lenses.

 

[jthomson]

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.

You underestimate your brain.

I've been using a Tamron zoom, along side Canon zooms and not once have I ever zoomed (or thought of zooming) the wrong way - with either brand.

The Backwards Brain Bicycle - Smarter Every Day 133 - YouTube

Retraining the brain is not as easy as you think. Watch the video.

As a long time user of Lotus 123 (dos 2.1 to win 95), I still have a specific problem with Excel even after using excel almost exclusively since win 98. I frequently don't start an equation with an equals sign or an operator. It is really annoying to have to go back and edit to put one in. Lotus default was to assume if it started with a number that it was an equation if it started with a letter it was text.
I just can't break the habit of going 1+2 enter
Even though I know I should go =1+2 enter. I really have to think to put in the equal sign or an operator.

I said almost exclusively because there was time when I had to use both before my work converted all of the Lotus calculation sheets we used to excel. I also very rarely had to go back and check a finished calculation that had been done in lotus before we switched to excel.

Habits can be very hard to break.

Fortunately I can handle the zoom directions without problem but I can see how it could be a real problem.

 

[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.

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.

The profile is plotted from center to corner. I naturally assumed that horizontal would be in the direction of the radius and vertical is the direction of the tangent.

 

[casperl]

You underestimate your brain.
I've been using a Tamron zoom, along side Canon zooms and not once have I ever zoomed (or thought of zooming) the wrong way - with either brand.

Additionally and more generally I do not see why the huge Canon user base should silently put up with Sigma's and other third party lens makers decision to just stick a "Nikon-way zoom ring" on their lenses with Canon EF mount and call it a day. It is ... sloppy. Not right. And while prices are somewhat lower than Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses are not dispensed free of charge either. And if they only can or want to stick one type of zoom ring gears into their lenses, then they should be the Canon way. Simply because tehre are so many more Canon camera bodies out there than Nikons and Sonys to stick Sigma or Tamron lenses on. To me the current practice is bad business judgement and a blatant sign of disrespect from Sigma and Tamron. From what I see, Tokina seems to equip more and more of their zooms with correctly turning zoom rings - matching the convention of the respective lens mount/camera maker. That's the way it ought to be. Nothing difficult or prohibitively expensive about it. Definitely not on 999,- zoom lenses.

Maybe because not all of the huge Canon users are bothered by the zoom ring direction?

 

[rado98]

Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.

 

[AvTvM]

Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.

you may have missed the image on top of the lensrentals.com blog article that has sparked this thread.
See here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/07/sigma-24-35-f2-mfr-43.jpg
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art

This image clearly shows a "wrong"/non-Canon zoom ring direction. Yes, it might be the Nikon version shown - I can't tell from this angle, whether the lens mount is Nikon or Canon. However until confirmed by Sigma, I assume the zoom ring direction not matched to Canon lens mount.

But aside from this specific lens, and more important to me is that Canon users really should not have to even think about the zoom ring. To me it would be "minimum expected standard" taht each and any third party zoom lens offered with a Canon lens mount should by default also be equipped with a zoom that works according to Canon's convention.

 

[casperl]

you may have missed the image on top of the lensrentals.com blog article that has sparked this thread.
See here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/07/sigma-24-35-f2-mfr-43.jpg
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art

This image clearly shows a "wrong"/non-Canon zoom ring direction. Yes, it might be the Nikon version shown - I can't tell from this angle, whether the lens mount is Nikon or Canon. However until confirmed by Sigma, I assume the zoom ring direction not matched to Canon lens mount.

But aside from this specific lens, and more important to me is that Canon users really should not have to even think about the zoom ring. To me it would be "minimum expected standard" taht each and any third party zoom lens offered with a Canon lens mount should by default also be equipped with a zoom that works according to Canon's convention.

To me if it is the same/similar lens spec, then yes the zoom direction could be a deciding factor since it may causes some missed shots. But usually Sigma lens cost significantly cheaper than the Canon counter part, and with the saved cost one can get another lens which means getting the Canon instead means LOTS of missed shots. For 18-35, well there is not really any alternative for a 18mm f1.8. For 24-35mm f2.0, alternative may be two f1.4/f1.8 primes on two separate bodies. I assume switch bodies will cause more missed shots then turn the zoom ring in the wrong direction, not to mentioned the missed shots by not having the focal length in the middle. It's all about compromises :

 

[Proscribo]

Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.

New Sigmas go the other way, and it's really, REALLY silly.

 

[AvTvM]

Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.

New Sigmas go the other way, and it's really, REALLY silly.

very silly. Thing is, Sigma has become totally INCONSISTENT as far as zoom ring direction is concerned. Earlier on, it was "nikon-direction" all the way (like Tamron still is). For Sigma the only constant is, that each zoom is fitted with a single zoom ring direction - absolutely irrespective of lens mount.

PS: I do believe criticizing such design flaws in internet forums will help rectify things. Google lists this thread fairly prominently, when searching for "Sigma 24-35 / 2.0" ... so it will likely not go unnoticed by Sigma representatives.

 

[Andyx01]

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?

My point is I'm sorry you don't have or apparently understand IS.

I hate to have to point it out because it should be obvious, but I'm sure you will continue to miss it otherwise - whatever you accomplished with your three attempts, you could have done at an ISO 3-4 stops better with it.

 

[LonelyBoy]

PS: I do believe criticizing such design flaws in internet forums will help rectify things. Google lists this thread fairly prominently, when searching for "Sigma 24-35 / 2.0" ... so it will likely not go unnoticed by Sigma representatives.

You're deluded if you think that Sigma (or anyone) relies on meaningless blather on the web for their decisions. Especially when you're the only one blowing up the board about this.