Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]

[preppyak]

That's a narrow range. f/2? Really? On an UWA? Why? I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8. Just my $.02

It's targeting people who work in really low-light (street/night) where the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is whether the milky way shows up, or whether they get motion blur. Not really sure the point of a zoom, I think an 18mm f/2 would be a nice split. And obviously when you don't need to shoot at f/2, it would sharpen up nicely at f/5.6-8

But a 16-24 f/2.8 lens appeals to a different user base than 16-20 f/2. I can get primes in the f/2.8 range that wide for much cheaper than a 16-24 f/2.8 would cost. I cant get primes/zooms wider than 20mm that go <f/2, and I can't get a good prime/zoom wider than 24mm that goes below f/2.8. There's definitely a market there for it.

This could also technically be targeted at videographers, as it becomes a different focal length with all the video crop factors, and the depth of field is important. But I'm guessing that's not the main market for it.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

unusual zoom range

 

[CR00]

Wow. 1.25X zoom.

 

[iowapipe]

This would be an interesting astrophotography and landscape option if the price is right for the quality! I'm glad it's f/2, but I worry about its size.

yep - as long as coma is minimal, astro use would be nice.

 

[AdamJ]

That's a narrow range. f/2? Really? On an UWA? Why? I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8. Just my $.02

It's targeting people who work in really low-light (street/night) where the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is whether the milky way shows up, or whether they get motion blur. Not really sure the point of a zoom, I think an 18mm f/2 would be a nice split. And obviously when you don't need to shoot at f/2, it would sharpen up nicely at f/5.6-8

But a 16-24 f/2.8 lens appeals to a different user base than 16-20 f/2. I can get primes in the f/2.8 range that wide for much cheaper than a 16-24 f/2.8 would cost. I cant get primes/zooms wider than 20mm that go <f/2, and I can't get a good prime/zoom wider than 24mm that goes below f/2.8. There's definitely a market there for it.

This could also technically be targeted at videographers, as it becomes a different focal length with all the video crop factors, and the depth of field is important. But I'm guessing that's not the main market for it.

+1.

With that maximum aperture, you could forget that it's a zoom and buy it / use it just because it's a 16mm f/2. The moderate amount of zoom, provided it doesn't meaningfully reduce image quality compared with what a prime lens in that range could deliver, would be just a bonus. This seems to be the approach with Sigma's 18-35mm.

Whether or not there is any truth behind this rumour is another matter.

 

[tron]

This would be an interesting astrophotography and landscape option if the price is right for the quality! I'm glad it's f/2, but I worry about its size.

yep - as long as coma is minimal, astro use would be nice.

+1000000

 

[9VIII]

Zoom lenses are constantly criticized for having non-useful focal lengths, offering a wide zoom range but only giving usable results within a specific part of that. Hopefully Sigma is working to address that issue, giving people top quality within a specific zoom range and not frustrating us with substandard results from unrealistic lens designs.

 

[Radiating]

Man do I love Sigma. I wish they'd make this lens.

Or like CR said, a 16-24mm f/2