Review: Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art

[Canon Rumors]

The Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art series lens is the first f/2 zoom for DSLRs, and it has certainly sparked a lot of debate about it’s usability with such a short zoom range. I think the lens is basically 3 faster primes in one lens, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm. For the people that need this range of focal lengths, this lens could be a game changer. For the rest of us? maybe not. However, it’s nice to see a lens manufacturer push into new territory.</p>
<p>Bryan over at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the lens and came away very impressed.</p>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote><p>Do wide angle focal lengths work for some of your applications? Need apertures wider than f/2.8 to stop action in low light, to allow handholding in low light and to create a stronger, subject-isolating background blur? Need a range of focal lengths available at your fingertips without a lens change? The Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art Lens could become a most-frequently-used member of your kit. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-35mm-f-2-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div></div>
<div><strong>Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art $999: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036u=http://www.adorama.com/SG2435EOS.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1162798-REG/sigma_24_35mm_f_2_dg_hsm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x657240" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1N6CjQT" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></div>

 

[Random Orbits]

From Bryan's review:

I spend a lot of time testing AF accuracy beyond using the standard calibration tool and, in most instances, found the 24-35 Art to deliver the same consistently accurate results. There were, however, a small handful of result sets that were somewhat troubling. In those scenarios, shot-to-shot variance was higher than I expected. As with all lenses, confirm that the 24-35 Art's AF system works well with your camera body before putting to serious use.

He also notes that that it has a large benefit in sharpness starting at f/2.2 at 24mm and at f/2.8 at 35mm. Taking a look at the comparison charts, the 24-70 II compares well at 24mm and loses slightly in the very corners at 35mm (but slightly better midframe). the crops also confirm that the center sharpness of the 24-35 improves stopping down. Wide open, it is not as sharp in the center as the 24-70 II. So the question is whether or not it's worth having a lens with a narrow zoom range for a fractional stop in benefit...

 

[Random Orbits]

He also notes that that it has a large benefit in sharpness starting at f/2.2 at 24mm and at f/2.8 at 35mm. Taking a look at the comparison charts, the 24-70 II compares well at 24mm and loses slightly in the very corners at 35mm (but slightly better midframe). the crops also confirm that the center sharpness of the 24-35 improves stopping down. Wide open, it is not as sharp in the center as the 24-70 II. So the question is whether or not it's worth having a lens with a narrow zoom range for a fractional stop in benefit...

Nearly every lens becomes sharper as it is stopped down. So far as I am aware, this has never stopped people using a lens wide open. In light restricted environments, every bit of advantage that you can get in terms of light captured is always accepted.

This lens has lower center sharpness than most wide open even though the outer portions are comparable/better than the competition. Take a look at TDP for yourself. And if you need every bit of advantage in terms of light captured, then a f/1.4 lens is a better option.

 

[meywd]

He also notes that that it has a large benefit in sharpness starting at f/2.2 at 24mm and at f/2.8 at 35mm. Taking a look at the comparison charts, the 24-70 II compares well at 24mm and loses slightly in the very corners at 35mm (but slightly better midframe). the crops also confirm that the center sharpness of the 24-35 improves stopping down. Wide open, it is not as sharp in the center as the 24-70 II. So the question is whether or not it's worth having a lens with a narrow zoom range for a fractional stop in benefit...

Nearly every lens becomes sharper as it is stopped down. So far as I am aware, this has never stopped people using a lens wide open. In light restricted environments, every bit of advantage that you can get in terms of light captured is always accepted.

This lens has lower center sharpness than most wide open even though the outer portions are comparable/better than the competition. Take a look at TDP for yourself. And if you need every bit of advantage in terms of light captured, then a f/1.4 lens is a better option.

its really strange how its sharper in the corner but softer in the center than the 35mm f/1.4 Art, was there an issue during the testing? I usually trust TDP comparisons, but its really strange, and if this result holds true, then getting the 35mm f1.4 Art is better, unless you really want the 24mm!

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

He also notes that that it has a large benefit in sharpness starting at f/2.2 at 24mm and at f/2.8 at 35mm. Taking a look at the comparison charts, the 24-70 II compares well at 24mm and loses slightly in the very corners at 35mm (but slightly better midframe). the crops also confirm that the center sharpness of the 24-35 improves stopping down. Wide open, it is not as sharp in the center as the 24-70 II. So the question is whether or not it's worth having a lens with a narrow zoom range for a fractional stop in benefit...

Nearly every lens becomes sharper as it is stopped down. So far as I am aware, this has never stopped people using a lens wide open. In light restricted environments, every bit of advantage that you can get in terms of light captured is always accepted.

This lens has lower center sharpness than most wide open even though the outer portions are comparable/better than the competition. Take a look at TDP for yourself. And if you need every bit of advantage in terms of light captured, then a f/1.4 lens is a better option.

its really strange how its sharper in the corner but softer in the center than the 35mm f/1.4 Art, was there an issue during the testing? I usually trust TDP comparisons, but its really strange, and if this result holds true, then getting the 35mm f1.4 Art is better, unless you really want the 24mm!

The 24-35mm wide open (f/2) has about the same center sharpness as Sigma's 35mm wide open (1.4). Of course the prime stopped down to f/2 will outperform the zoom wide open. In regards to corner sharpness, you're being mislead by the astigmatism of the 24-35 on MTF charts. Real-world sharpness in the corners is certainly not better than the prime.

Overall, this is still an extremely amazing lens, but it's certainly not for everybody. For some perspective, let's take note that the Sigma 24-35 outperforms the original Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L.

 

[mb66energy]

Not that I am interested in this special lens, because I like 50+mm much more or - if I go wide - 16mm is more to my taste.
My seldoem used stone age 2.8 24mm will deliver similar IQ on a 5D and is only one stop "smaller".

But I really appreciate that Sigma produces such an odd lens for those who like wide angles, need f/2.0 to stop motion and need only smaller zoom variability - I think of reportage in tighter spaces at low light. I am shure this lens opens the door to new FF zoom lenses with f/2.0 .

And the IQ on the 5Ds is stellar - not only for a first implementation of such a lens!

And if Sigma produces a 50-100 f/2.0 with great IQ maybe I will think about adding it to my toolset ....

 

[slclick]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/09/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-mtf-curves-and-sample-variation/

I love mine!