SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art

[slclick]

I'm holding out for the 29-30 f/1.9

 

[The Flasher]

Aside from its size, stylistically this would be great as a street shooters lens, forced portrait lens. Distortion, image quality, filter diameter (77mm hopefully) and the right price, would mean instant buy for me.

 

[candc]

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

In theory.

I agree with ahsanford; 24-50 f/2 would have been very interesting.

that would have been close to the sigma efs 18-35 1.8 for crops, which seemed to sell well.

its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8

 

[HighLowISO]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

I agree in principle on this. If the quality is REALLY like top primes, then I could see it replacing 2 primes for a lot of people. Sometime when going out for the day that is all you need when your trying to go with just 2-3 lenses. However; It may not have a really wide appeal though as many would just go 24-70mm, but surely SIGMA knows this so either the rumor/leak is wrong or they feel they have something really special in terms of performance and weight that warrants this lens.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Aside from its size, stylistically this would be great as a street shooters lens, forced portrait lens. Distortion, image quality, filter diameter (77mm hopefully) and the right price, would mean instant buy for me.

If the picture of this lens is true, the filter diameter is 82mm.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.

That does bring up an interesting question. Would it be a good idea to get this new lens and replace the 35mm?

If I did not already have the 35mm, I think this new zoom would be handy. But if I already have their 35mm I wonder dumping it will be a good idea.

Is there an expectation that a 24-35 Art will have the same IQ as the 35mm Art prime?

 

[LSXPhotog]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

I agree with you CR. As you know with all camera gear, people expect it to be built and tailored to their needs, and nobody else. I just responded on FB about what this lens means for me. I don't shoot at 24mm and need a 1.4 prime. I don't shoot at 35mm and need an 1.4 prime. I do, however, shoot at these lengths a lot at weddings when I'm taking dance floor shots, walking around the reception, getting group shots, etc. This lens will be great for those dark environments and I could easily see having it attached to a second body slung over the shoulder while I walk around with my 50 Art or 135L getting the beautiful details.

I like it because this now solves my need to ever buy a 24 or 35mm prime. I use 50, 85, and 135 like nobody's business, but these shorter focal lengths are for much different purposes.

I'm sure people will say just buy a 24-70 f/2.8L II, and I almost did...I even owned the original. I just know I would buy it and an stabilized version would soon follow. I plan to wait on the Canon with IS before jumping back into another $1800+ zoom....or if Sigma does something with an IS version.

To add, the look of Art glass is something to be experienced. You either love it with everything you've ever appreciated in images, or you could live without it...I'm the former. Haha

- Kevin

 

[Solar Eagle]

I'm holding out for the 29-30 f/1.9

+1 That's where I'm at.

 

[Solar Eagle]

its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8

lol, Sigma crams in as much as possible and appears to have achieved a first of its kind lens, and here is somebody saying it wouldn't be hard to do more. They have to abide by the laws of physics you know, and maintain a certain standard of image quality.

 

[rrcphoto]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

not really - it's freaking huge. the tri-elmar wasn't a gigantic 2lbs lens that this one is looking like it's going to roll in at.

this thing? game changer? no, can't see it.

 

[risc32]

its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8

lol, Sigma crams in as much as possible and appears to have achieved a first of its kind lens, and here is somebody saying it wouldn't be hard to do more. They have to abide by the laws of physics you know, and maintain a certain standard of image quality.

I'll second that. sure, how hard could it be? add this, add that.... if only these lens designing fools had stopped to think of the possibilities, or put in more effort. "hey, why don't i just work late tonight and take this lens to 20mm, that'll show 'em"

 

[Kiton]

The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.

That does bring up an interesting question. Would it be a good idea to get this new lens and replace the 35mm?

If I did not already have the 35mm, I think this new zoom would be handy. But if I already have their 35mm I wonder dumping it will be a good idea.

Is there an expectation that a 24-35 Art will have the same IQ as the 35mm Art prime?

The 35 1.4 is a great lens.

But I do not want to carry a bag full of 1.4 primes. I realize some people do, but my needs / expectations have to be balanced with what I can carry in the street for hours on end. The fact this lens takes a 82mm filter (as posted on Sigma Rumors) has taken some wind from the sails. I do not have a Sherpa. I have been using the 40mm STM during daylight hours since it was first introduced and the size, weight and discreetness of the lens is great. Often the fast primes stay in the trunk safe until nightfall.

A good day bag is a 24 or 28 (f2 where there is a massive hole in the market for the last decade) /40stm/85 1.8 and 135 f2.

Once in a while I drag along the 24mm TSE as the wide, it is very sharp, but big and heavy.

 

[LSXPhotog]

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A

I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.

not really - it's freaking huge. the tri-elmar wasn't a gigantic 2lbs lens that this one is looking like it's going to roll in at.

this thing? game changer? no, can't see it.

Not a game changer? Think about what you're proclaiming here. First, the Tri-Elmar is $5,500. Second, it's fully manual and not compatible with a full frame sensor - period. Third, it's an f/4. People are gaga over the lens because it has Lecia on it and has great image quality.

This will be about $1000-1200, fully electronic with AF while covering a full-frame image circle, and is two full stops of light faster than a Tri-Elmar. It will most likely be on par or better than the 18-35 in image quality, so it's sure to be impressive.

Not a game changer? What game do you play?

I think everyone forgets that 2.0 is a full stop faster than 2.8. Unless it's a 1.8, they don't care.
- Kevin

 

[candc]

I just went out and took a few shots with the 18-35 on the 6d. A couple at 35 and one at 28. There is some vignetting but you can remove it in post. If this rumor is true then you get 24.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Like many, 24-50 f/2 was sort of the "realistic" hope (as opposed to 24-70 f/2), but I'm still very happy with this release. I'm more of a filmmaker than a photographer these days and have been eyeballing the Sigam 18-35mm for my C100 for quite some time. However, something inside me always screams, "ONLY BUY FF COMPATIBLE LENSES!" as I do shoot with a Mark III for photography purposes. So, this sort of gives me exactly what I want. I won't be able to shoot quite as wide on my C100 with this new 24-35 compared to the 18-35, but being able to stick it on my 5D makes it exceedingly more valuable and a lot more versatile. Also, though I have the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 that I use for video, I have wanted AF primes at these FLs. This zoom lens might satisfy that need as well (I can accept f/2 in place of f/1.4....but f/2.8 is just too slow). I just hope quality wise it's as good as the 18-35; it's almost a definite buy for me if so.

 

[gobucks]

Like most people here, this seems like an odd choice to me. I'm guessing that it will be an excellent lens, but I'm not sure who it's for. How often do you really need F2 at 24mm? Astro maybe? At 35mm, I can make decent use of F2 with my 35mm IS, and sure, occasionally it'd be nice to be able to go wider for architectural shots (especially when on vacation), but it looks like it will not be a great travel lens given the size and weight (just guessing, but it's looking like another Tamron 15-30 sized behemoth), especially for such a limited zoom range. And no IS. I would imagine most pros would prefer an L or Sigma art 1.4 prime for most purposes.

I actually think it would have made more sense for them to go for a fast zoom in the normal range instead - I think something like a 35-55 F2 could be really interesting, and likely significantly smaller.

More realistically, some cheaper primes with OS to undercut Canon's 24-28-35 IS primes would make a lot of sense.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I'm not sure who it's for. How often do you really need F2 at 24mm?

Think live event photogs and run & gun filmmakers. I film weddings, and it's a CONSTANT battle between needing the speed of a prime (think dark reception venue) and the convenience of a zoom to get the shot.

 

[candc]

Like many, 24-50 f/2 was sort of the "realistic" hope (as opposed to 24-70 f/2), but I'm still very happy with this release. I'm more of a filmmaker than a photographer these days and have been eyeballing the Sigam 18-35mm for my C100 for quite some time. However, something inside me always screams, "ONLY BUY FF COMPATIBLE LENSES!" as I do shoot with a Mark III for photography purposes. So, this sort of gives me exactly what I want. I won't be able to shoot quite as wide on my C100 with this new 24-35 compared to the 18-35, but being able to stick it on my 5D makes it exceedingly more valuable and a lot more versatile. Also, though I have the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 that I use for video, I have wanted AF primes at these FLs. This zoom lens might satisfy that need as well (I can accept f/2 in place of f/1.4....but f/2.8 is just too slow). I just hope quality wise it's as good as the 18-35; it's almost a definite buy for me if so.

The c100 uses a super 35/aps-c size sensor? The 18-35 will give you the full range on that. It is ef mount not ef-s it is ff compatible but the image circle only covers the sensor on the long half. All you will gain with this new rumored lens is 24-28 on ff.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Hold on a second... Why is the zoom ring in reverse of normal Canon and Sigma? Hmmm kind of fishy.

 

[da_guy2]

I can't believe this is real. A zoom lens with less than a 2x zoom range is just silly. Either get a 24mm f1.4 and take a couple steps forward, or a 35mm f1.4 and take a few step back. There is so little difference between 24mm and 35mm it just doesn't make sense.