SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art

[Vern]

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

+1 That's where I'm at.

only if it is TS w IS!

I will give this one a look - per some other comments, f2 blur/speed for indoor/low light photos might be fun & useful.

 

[TommyLee]

not very much difference ....short range coverage...

I mean you can lean back that much ....without moving your feet...

so at 35mm f1.4...set to f2..... and leaning back ....you have it covered...plus the 1.4 @ f2 is well sharpened....

......seemed like was stated...a vanity piece.....yawn..
////////////

I find thesigma 35mm f1.4..... wonderful..

lean ( or step) forward or back for 50mm or 24mm....

and if I want REALLY wider
... I bring the little 14mm f2.8 II canon... then get long and heavy if I need to...

/////
I understand that some folks want all those 'primes' in between..

me...
I like as few lenses as possible

a 14, 35 and 100 macro (or a 135 w/ 1.4TC) ...could travel ..very.well...
imo

frankly...I would like to see SOMEONE make a perfect 135 f2 with I.S. and would take a 1.4x TC

 

[mangobutter]

This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.

This lens likely won't even transmit at F2. it'll probably test closer to a 2.3-2.4. If it transmits at F2, job well done sigma.

 

[verysimplejason]

It should have been a 20mm F2 or 18mm F2 (ART)... I'd gladly drop my 17-40mm F4L and 28mm F1.8 for any of those lenses.

 

[dadgummit]

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 agree 100%

If it were f1.4 that would be big. If it were 24-70 f2 that would be big. 24-50 would be cool. 24-35 at a slow f2... I would just grab Canon's excellent 35 f2 IS which is smaller, cheaper and probably much lighter and call it a day. I never grab both a 35 AND 24mm prime for the same shoot. I would much rather they produce a 24-70 f2.8 VC Art than this lens.

 

[ahsanford]

This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.

But I ask you this -- of the following lenses...

• 24-35mm f/2 that weighs 2 pounds for $1299 (that's a total guess, I don't think price has been listed.)
  
• 24-50mm f/2 that weighs 3 pounds for $2k
• 24-70mm f/2 that weighs 4 pounds for $3k

...which would make the Sigma the most money? Surely not the first one, I would contend. The first is niche, the second is temptingly sexy, and the third is a land-grab for professionals (provided the performance is there).

People who carry around a 70-200 f/2.8 all day don't think 3.75 pounds is such a bother for what they get in return. This forum is full of folks who proclaim the 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy, but 'you get used to it -- and I wouldn't use anything else'. This could have been that similar lens for standard FLs.

Again, I'm geeked Sigma is shaking things up again, but I feel like they slightly laid up when they could have really gone for it.

- A

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.

But I ask you this -- of the following lenses...

• 24-35mm f/2 that weighs 2 pounds for $1299 (that's a total guess, I don't think price has been listed.)
  
• 24-50mm f/2 that weighs 3 pounds for $2k
• 24-70mm f/2 that weighs 4 pounds for $3k

...which would make the Sigma the most money? Surely not the first one, I would contend. The first is niche, the second is temptingly sexy, and the third is a land-grab for professionals (provided the performance is there).

People who carry around a 70-200 f/2.8 all day don't think 3.75 pounds is such a bother for what they get in return. This forum is full of folks who proclaim the 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy, but 'you get used to it -- and I wouldn't use anything else'. This could have been that similar lens for standard FLs.

Again, I'm geeked Sigma is shaking things up again, but I feel like they slightly laid up when they could have really gone for it.

- A

I would read the last part of his statement again. What makes people think a 24-70 f2 is even possible? Or even a 24-50? Sigma released something that's never been done before and they're laying down? Ridiculous.

We're use to a ~2x zoom range at f/2.8, but enjoy a 4x zoom range at f/4. Did Canon "lay down" with their 24-70 2.8 because they didn't make a 24-105 f2.8? Of course not. So why is a ~1.5x zoom at f/2 not to be expected? It's f/2! Personally, I'd happily replace my 24 and 35 primes with this. This lens needs to be viewed as 2 primes in one and not some sort of utility zoom.

 

[ahsanford]

I would read the last part of his statement again. What makes people think a 24-70 f2 is even possible? Or even a 24-50? Sigma released something that's never been done before and they're laying down? Ridiculous.

We're use to a ~2x zoom range at f/2.8, but enjoy a 4x zoom range at f/4. Did Canon "lay down" with their 24-70 2.8 because they didn't make a 24-105 f2.8? Of course not. So why is a ~1.5x zoom at f/2 not to be expected? It's f/2! Personally, I'd happily replace my 24 and 35 primes with this. This lens needs to be viewed as 2 primes in one and not some sort of utility zoom.

If they can make a 200-500 f/2.8 (which they sell today), a 24-70 f/2 is absolutely possible. But we all know that lens would be enormous and heavy.

But think of it like a continuum from a tradeoff perspective:

• 24-28 f/2 would be thought of as a bit of a joke. Such a lens only would only serve Sigma's PR purposes of saying that they pulled off a zoom at f/2. Such a lens would not sell well at all.
• 24-35 f/2 replaces 2-3 primes (depending on what's in your bag) and is a tempting product. People who own all three 24/28/35 primes will have a serious look at this lens.
• 24-50 f/2 brackets 3 staple primes 24/35/50 into one lens. The value proposition of this lens really turns from 'good for Sigma, but that's not for me' to 'Holy cow, take my money' at this point.
• 24-70 f/2 would probably exhaust amateurs' backs but pros might gobble this up as a staple workhorse lens. Sure, it will be a howitzer pickle jar, but some folks would gladly take that for such a useful FL range.

As you go from top to bottom on that list, this becomes less of a vanity project and more of a game-changing development. I argue that they didn't go far enough down the list, but that doesn't mean this lens won't be loved by many or that it's not impressive technically.

Again, I can't state this enough -- I'm not bashing Sigma at all here. I'm just stating that the market appeal of this lens will be limited.

- A

 

[Maximilian]

Hi ahsanford!

You say

24-70 f/2 would probably exhaust amateurs' backs but pros might gobble this up as a staple workhorse lens. Sure, it will be a howitzer pickle jar, but some folks would gladly take that for such a useful FL range.

and

24-70mm f/2 that weighs 4 pounds for $3k

But i say that I don't believe that 4 pounds are enough and even if it stays below $3k I am not sure that this would become a workhorse lens for pros.
Of course I am courious as you are how such a lens would perform and what dimensions it would have and
you are right when you say that it is possible to build such a lens, but what would have been the reason not to do so yet?

Conclusion:
Because the companies came to the point that it'll be too big and too expensive. Even for the pros.
Otherwise it would have become a product long ago.
But maybe I'm wrong and we both will get the chance to put our hands on such a lens and can decide on our own

 

[ahsanford]

Conclusion:
Because the companies came to the point that it'll be too big and too expensive. Even for the pros.
Otherwise it would have become a product long ago.
But maybe I'm wrong and we both will get the chance to put our hands on such a lens and can decide on our own

A+. I think that's exactly what happened. Sigma's engineers ran the numbers and said 24-35 is the best that can be done without it becoming too massive and unwieldy.

I just wish we could have had a chance to suffer through that learning process, say with a 24-50 f/2.
If it was as sharp as a similar stopped down 24 and 50 Art, I would have gladly ponied up $1,500-2,000 for that.

- A

 

[Arkarch]

I could find a spot for this.

I currently have the Zeiss 21/2.8, 50/2, and 100/2 + a TSE-24/3.5 My hole has been the 28 to 35 length - where certainly the Sigma 35/1.4 Art is a leading choice - and likely my next lens.

Would have been better 20 or 21 to 35. But this would mostly cover my mid-wide end. Landscapes a great choice for my shooting style (a tend not to go wider than 21); and even more useful perhaps - tight turn pan shots at the track - with f/2 very useful for lower light like short or dirt tracks or even a road course hairpin on a rainy day.

Not immediate purchase by any stretch - probably 4th on the list; maybe. see the reviews and in particular the bokeh.

 

[Proscribo]

If they can make a 200-500 f/2.8 (which they sell today), a 24-70 f/2 is absolutely possible. But we all know that lens would be enormous and heavy.

I have this feeling that making a bright telezoom is a bit easier than making a bright wide->teleish zoom, so those things aren't really comparable?

Sure it would indeed possible to make one, I mean, why not. But question is, would it be much bigger than people have thought, or would the image quality suffer A LOT.

 

[IMG_0001]

The way I see it, this lens main clients may come from event type photographers where the 16-35 f2.8 is well regarded and the 17-40 is the 'cheapskate'. I guess the trade-off of some 50% on the wide end against a full stop of light gathering might be acceptable. Otherwise, may-be for video...

Otherwise, I guess that someone who only occasionally shoots wide might prefer this over a set of primes to retain some versatility combined with the possibilities provided by large apertures.

I admit it is not a one lens solution, but I find it somewhat appealing still.

 

[max]

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 am a wedding photographer and would have loved to change the 24 1.4L and 35 1.4L for this... only if this was a bit longer! 45mm would have done the deal.

the 24-70 would have been huge.

and the 18-35 is almost 28-55... which I would have taken too.

This?? no way...

 

[9VIII]

The 18-35 is amazing because it gets you most of the "normal" focal length range with full frame equivalent light gathering, it's an equalizer, kind of the "ultimate kit lens". The 28-56mm equivalent range isn't far off what you get on normal lenses.
24-35mm is more specialized, it's probably going to be used mostly at either end of the zoom range. So the question is: How does it perform at 24mm and 35mm?
If it's sharp, low vignetting and low distortion, fantastic, they've made good high value zoom lens. If it performs poorly at one end then it's not much better than cropping off a good wide angle prime.

 

[Andyx01]

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

To each their own I guess - I completely agree with this statement.

The APS-C 18-35 f/1.8 was great, I even suggested it to a co-worker who purchased it.

18mm f/1.8 what else does that?

18-35 = 2.0x zooom
24-35 = 1.46x zoom

EF 24-35 f/2 Kinda ticks my 'meh' box....

EF 24-50 f/2 ? Now we are at least back to a 2.0x zoom.... But... Probably stil not so much....

EF 24-70 f/2 ? Hands down, I would buy this if it performed and wasn't a tank....

 

[gobucks]

I wonder if this will provoke Canon into revisiting their 20-35/3.5-4.5 and coming up with a new optical formula that provides better IQ?

24-35 isn't wide enough for me but 20-35 is.

But what about the 16-35/f4 and 16-35/f2.8?

I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure the 20-35 is a product of it's time - about the best Canon could do for an "ultrawide zoom" at the time. A modern 20-35 F2 would require a complete redesign, and would likely be even bigger than the sigma. The old 20-35s would likely have more in common with the current 17-40 and 16-35 lenses than with a new 20-35 f2.

In general, I kinda doubt that the extremely narrow focal range, ultra fast aperture zoom market is gonna be a big hit. The sheer size and likely expense of making an F2 zoom will make them unappealing to most people. a zoom range of one or two primes apart doesnt really change perspective a lot, so zooming with your feet, or just cropping, with a prime seems like a better option than lugging this beast along.

I think releasing some small 24-35 F2 primes with OS would be smarter. In particular, A 24mm F2 OS would really move units.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Anyone that is saying f/2 is too slow and they only care about f/1.8, come on...you're talking about a 1/3 of stop difference on a wide angle lens that will only show a correlating improvement of 1/3 stop shutter speed or ISO.

f/2 is one full stop faster than f/2.8. This means that it lets in DOUBLE the light of an f/2.8 zoom lens. Getting this to cover the image circle of a full frame sensor is unheard of for a reason. To cry foul in the somewhat restrictive focal length, you must not appreciate the engineering inside to the lens that makes this possible - or that it's wide angle to boot. These same people are quick to talk trash about an f/4 lens and only buy an f/2.8, but think f/2.0 isn't worth it?

Lens Aperture Consumer Reactions:

5.6 - "Too slow! NEXT!"
5.0
4.5
4.0 - "Why so slow?"
3.5
3.2
2.8 - "This is the best thing ever!"
2.5
2.2
2.0 - "Not fast enough!"
1.8 - "Now we're getting warmer!"
1.6
1.4 - "That's what I'm talking about!"
1.2 - "Take my money!!!"

Do people just want a lens with an aperture that starts with an f/1.X? Or, are they more interested in the practical improvements found in faster lenses. (I can tell you that the bokeh difference between 1.8 and 2.0 is negligible even on an 85mm...imagine how miniscule it will be on a 24-35.)

Nobody on this planet has ever made a zoom lens covering a 35mm sensor that allows twice as much light as an f/2.8 lens and released it to the public. It just happened. For someone like myself that uses 50, 85, and 135 primes for artistic and portrait work, the need for a 24, 28, and 35mm prime has been of little use. This now brings me that flexibility and can be taken out at any low light event and let in DOUBLE the light any other zoom offers.

So haters can lean back with your 35mm f/1.4 and enjoy yourself if that makes you happy. I'm pleased with this one and still impatiently awaiting Sigmas 85mm f/1.4 Art. haha

 

[Solar Eagle]

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.

I wonder, do you actually take photo's, or just talk on the internet? I guess for you its different but my 35mm is not a substitute for 24mm. Try taking a step back when shooting the Milky Way and tell me how much difference it makes. Or try taking a step back when shooting inside a display case - suddenly the lens is no longer inside the case.

 

[Andyx01]

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.

I wonder, do you actually take photo's, or just talk on the internet? I guess for you its different but my 35mm is not a substitute for 24mm. Try taking a step back when shooting the Milky Way and tell me how much difference it makes. Or try taking a step back when shooting inside a display case - suddenly the lens is no longer inside the case.

;D

Personally I'd just shoot 24mm f/1.4 on a 5Ds-r and crop

24mm * 1.44 = 35mm
50MP / 1.44^2 = 25MP
f/1.4 * 1.44 = f/2