Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Coming in October

[Loswr]

You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like "Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close." or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.

I think you are neglecting one important point.

Canon has a multilayer interest in producing lenses. First of all they produce a revenue on their own, otherwise they wouldn't design, manufacture and sell them. Differently from kit lenses and consumer cameras, the target market of expensive lenses is more opinionated and sensitive to quality. The moment you offer them better quality at a lower price, you make them interested. More and more as time goes by and both Sigma and Tamron become established as quality manufacturers.

Second, many people are with Canon because of the lenses and their reputation to be the best. The moment this changes, a big reason for having a Canon system is gone - especially if you take into account that other manufacturers offer better sensors too. So the availability of quality lenses and cameras in different mounts is eventually going to affect camera sales too. Case in point, the latest market share data for Japan showed that Canon is still the market leader but did lose some share. Sigma btw has a quite considerable share of the lens market.

So as someone stated before, Canon executives are not likely to start pulling their hair already, but at the same time I do agree that the Canon/Nikon duopoly is over and that both companies should really rethink their strategy.

Considering the ratio of lenses to bodies sold, it is evident that the vast majority of buyers have only the lens that came with the camera. Bearing in mind that some kits include two lenses, and the Nifty-50 is the most popular lens sold on it's own, it is safe to say that the vast majority of the market is driven by the entry-level segment and in particular by camera bodies (feel free to argue that Sigma makes bodies too, we could use a good chuckle). While higher end lenses will remain a mainstay in Canon's lineup, a relatively small number of good quality third-party lenses is not going to have a major impact on Canon's (or Nikon's) bottom line.

Sigma's recent foray into the design and production of higher quality 'Global Vision' lenses is a major departure from their previous strategy. That suggests they decided they were not successful at competing with Canon/Nikon at the entry level end of the market, and have decided to try competing in a much smaller segment of the market. How successful they are this time remains to be seen, but the fact that the AF bugaboo is still rearing its ugly head for them suggests the road ahead may be bumpy.

Would you mind sharing the source for the recent market data to which you refer?

 

[privatebydesign]

You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like "Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close." or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.

I think you are neglecting one important point.

Canon has a multilayer interest in producing lenses. First of all they produce a revenue on their own, otherwise they wouldn't design, manufacture and sell them. Differently from kit lenses and consumer cameras, the target market of expensive lenses is more opinionated and sensitive to quality. The moment you offer them better quality at a lower price, you make them interested. More and more as time goes by and both Sigma and Tamron become established as quality manufacturers.

Second, many people are with Canon because of the lenses and their reputation to be the best. The moment this changes, a big reason for having a Canon system is gone - especially if you take into account that other manufacturers offer better sensors too. So the availability of quality lenses and cameras in different mounts is eventually going to affect camera sales too. Case in point, the latest market share data for Japan showed that Canon is still the market leader but did lose some share. Sigma btw has a quite considerable share of the lens market.

So as someone stated before, Canon executives are not likely to start pulling their hair already, but at the same time I do agree that the Canon/Nikon duopoly is over and that both companies should really rethink their strategy.

Firstly, that was two points, not one.

To address your first, if Canon already make a premium 24/35/50 it becomes a consumer choice, but the high end appeal for many Canon system owners is the unmatched diversity in the EF lens range, things like the 17 and 24 TS-E, the 65 MP-E etc. Now what would attract more people to Canon, yet another 24mm option or a kick ass 45 TS-E? My opinion is the 45 TS-E, we already have a choice of 24's so nobody is going to leave because there isn't one, but people might come for the new lenses that offer ever greater diversity, using that reasoning it makes more sense for Canon to ignore Sigma's latest offerings, until they want to break the communication protocols again and send this second generation of Sigma EF worshipers into the depths of despair the first generation did, and concentrate on completely different lens designs like TS-E's, small medium speed primes with IS, video orientated AF etc.

As for your second, what is the point of a lens without a body? The reputation is not for a lens, it is for the images the system can create, if they keep coming out with class leading bodies, like the 1Dx vs D4s, the 5D MkIII vs the D800 and the 6D vs the D600 (which has been banned from sale in China!) then minor differences in lens output will remain irrelevant. Things like the RT flash system will win far more new Canon converts than a few lppmm on a test chart of a new version of a lens.

But we digress, for Canon stills shooters the writing is on the wall, video and surveillance are the new darlings and progressively less and less will be spent on R&D for purely stills orientated equipment. Canon are making brand new groundbreaking world class lenses at comparative bargain prices, it is just that we are not the market for them. I have exactly the same feeling for stills orientated shooters as I had for the development of film cameras when I bought my two 1VHS's. The only recent key stills only orientated development was the RT flash system, and it is a winner against a sea of copies, clones and competing third party options.

 

[privatebydesign]

Sir, am I correct in jumping to the conclusion, that...based on your assertion, I should not buy a woman flowers if she shouts louder than I do? It almost makes sense...

Carl,

It is fairly clear nobody will stop you jumping to conclusions, and all power to you for your enthusiasm and gusto. As for your choice in women, it has been my experience that only relatively inexperienced men think they are the ones that actually make the choice.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Sigma is planning to announce a 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens at Photokina with availability coming in October of 2014.

There has been no word on the possible 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art or 135mm f/1.8DG HSM Art lenses. I think both the 85 and 135 would be more highly desired than a 24mm prime, though if it’s as good as the 35mm or 50mm, we’ll take it anyway.

I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

So I checked out the image quality charts on The Digital Picture.com, but there seems to be little improvement in MTF, going from the Canon f/2.8 to the f/2.8 IS model, see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=788&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I agree that handling, AF and IS would be improvements, but not enough to justify the added cost. And for my porposes the 24mm L II is too expensive, for such a specialty lens.

So again I feel I'm in need of a lens that doesn't exist, but may be imminent. So please let it be. Here's me hoping for the 24mm Art to be announced at Photokina in September!!!

In the mean time I think I may sell my 20mm f/1.8 - that focal length is quite close to 24mm and in my experience I don't use the lens all that much because it's too limiting (too wide) for reportage work. I often shoot with a combination of a wide prime (24 or 35mm) on my 5DMkII and a tele-zoom on the MkIII.

 

[mackguyver]

I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

Congrats and welcome to the 24mm fan club It's my favorite which might explain the four lenses I own that cover this focal length which could be just a bit excessive...

 

[jdramirez]

I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

Congrats and welcome to the 24mm fan club It's my favorite which might explain the four lenses I own that cover this focal length which could be just a bit excessive...

Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...

 

[mackguyver]

I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

Congrats and welcome to the 24mm fan club It's my favorite which might explain the four lenses I own that cover this focal length which could be just a bit excessive...

Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...

JD, I completely understand, we all have our own tastes when it comes to focal length. I have the same feeling 'could go wider' when I use 35mm and have never loved it, even though it's a classic FL for many people. For me, I feel that 24mm is the widest you can go without unrealistic perspective distortion and I like the challenge of composing this wide. The 24 primes I own (24L II & TS-E 24 II) are the two I use most for landscape and street/editorial type work.

I'm not sure if you ever saw this thread, but I discuss this a bit more there:
Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?

 

[mrsfotografie]

...
Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...

JD, I completely understand, we all have our own tastes when it comes to focal length. I have the same feeling 'could go wider' when I use 35mm and have never loved it, even though it's a classic FL for many people. For me, I feel that 24mm is the widest you can go without unrealistic perspective distortion and I like the challenge of composing this wide.
...

The way to use a 24mm is to get up close to the subject. I agree that 24mm is the widest you can go and still have relatively realistic distortion. While 24mm is not for everything, I've found that it's great for paddock photo's at the racetrack for instance. The 24mm really adds wide-angle drama without going to extremes. When you cannot or don't want to get up too close, 35mm is the better alternative.

And FWIW I never thought about the 24mm focal length much until I decided to buy a prime - that changes the game(and understanding of the focal length) entirely because in a zoom, 24mm is probably the widest you can go and in that case, yes usually the thought is 'I probably could go wider'.

 

[JumboShrimp]

Personally, I would be first in line for a 28/1.4.

 

[tron]

And I would love a f/1.4 lens wider than 24mm with very good edges/corners and no coma (for obvious reasons )

 

[wickidwombat]

I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

Congrats and welcome to the 24mm fan club It's my favorite which might explain the four lenses I own that cover this focal length which could be just a bit excessive...

Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...

I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length

 

[Sporgon]

Personally, I would be first in line for a 28/1.4.

+1

It seems strange to me how the 28mm focal length has been replaced by the 24. Back in the 'old days' a 24 was around twice as expensive as the equivalent 28, now they are much the same. I wonder if this is why there is a perception that the 24 is the 'must have' focal length.

I find 28 to be the more versatile focal length of the two; quite wide fov, but not too extreme.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length

Is that opinion based on full frame use or aps-h?

 

[beckstoy]

I need to say this, with Peace & Love:

Please, Sigma, I need your 85 1.4 Art. The 24 prime is useless to me. Peace & Love, Peace & Love! The 85 needs to be your next lens.

If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.

 

[mackguyver]

If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.

Plenty of people will there to catch it and they'll be diving for it like a spinster bridesmaid at a Valentine's Day wedding.

 

[jdramirez]

I need to say this, with Peace & Love:

Please, Sigma, I need your 85 1.4 Art. The 24 prime is useless to me. Peace & Love, Peace & Love! The 85 needs to be your next lens.

If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.

I've flirted with the 85L mkii so many times... but it is like a case of star crossed lovers... it is just not meant to be. I think the 85L could be sharper, but the bokeh is undeniably magic.

With the 50mm range... I'd be ok with swapping sides and go with sigma... but with the 85... you need to bring something special to the table.

 

[Pixel]

I'm anxiously waiting for a Sigma Art super wide i.e. 15mm 2.8 rectilinear.

 

[kkelis]

Any guessing about the pricing? Considering sigma's latest primes

 

[jdramirez]

Any guessing about the pricing? Considering sigma's latest primes

It appears sigma didn't want to eclipse the $1000 mark with their primes... so I'd guess 949.

 

[wickidwombat]

I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length

Is that opinion based on full frame use or aps-h?

full frame

i loved the 16-35 on apsh it gave 20-48mm effective focal length which was a really nice walk around IMO