SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art

[Frage]

Why people aming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think croping from a wide angle lens gives you the results of a longer focal lenght? I dont get it.

 

[Andyx01]

Why people aming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think croping from a wide angle lens gives you the results of a longer focal lenght? I dont get it.

Why people aiming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think zooms give you teh same results of a prime? I dont' get it.

 

[Andyx01]

Crop and keep the center of a prime.
Use the corners of a zoom.
50->25MP
la de da... It's just not significant enough for ME when we are talking 1.44x


2.9x (24-70) and now we are talking.

 

[LOALTD]

Just give me something ultra-wide with a faster aperture than f/2.8, please!


14 f/2?
15 f/2?
16 f/2?




These would be total game-changers for nightscape.


Seriously though, kudos to them for making a zoom that's faster than f/2.8, even if it has a limited range.

 

[ahsanford]

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

I know this comment was not aimed expressly at me, but I have been vocal that this product seems ill-fated commercially.

Please understand I love it when third parties make disruptive innovations in the EF mount ecosystem. Do you think we'd ever have seen the sharpest UWA zoom that Canon has ever made (in the 16-35 f/4L IS) get released for $1,199 if there wasn't third party competition out there? Why do you think we haven't seen the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM from Canon yet? Perhaps folks have chosen the 35 f/1.4 Art in greater numbers to Canon's 35 f/2 IS USM, and Canon doesn't want to see that happen again with their new non-L 50 offering.

So I'm not a hater one bit -- I just think this new lens is an A for technical difficulty and another A for market bravery, but only a B- for scratching the itch / meeting the unmet need. Some folks will snap that lens up and love it, while many others will feel boxed in by that limited FL range and not buy it.

And I don't think I'm on an island bemoaning that "I didn't get what I want!" here -- this thread has had its share of folks uninterested in the focal length range despite applauding Sigma for the effort.

In the end, I want Sigma to put out products that strike the fear of god into Canon's marketing/development staff. Only then will Canon's prices go down and their innovation step up.

- A

 

[East Wind Photography]

Ugh. Doomed for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.

Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.

 

[Xyclopx]

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.

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

would you buy it?

most people aren't downplaying the technological achievement here, or care all that much about a f0.2 difference. i think people are saying that it's a marvelous invention that overall is not so useful compared to what they already have or what's already available.

 

[NancyP]

To tell you the truth, the Tamron 15-30 sounds more interesting. But I am not getting either, because I have excellent 21mm lens and excellent 35mm lens, and the ever-popular SamBowRokYang 14mm. If I had not bought the 21 and 35mm lenses a while back, I would be seriously interested.

 

[ReggieABrown]

Videomakers will love this lens. If I didn't have the 16-35 f4L IS I'd pick this lens up when it come out, and I'd probably love it! I shoot both photos and videos. And maybe, just maybe, this lens isn't necessarily targeted towards photographers only.

 

[BLFPhoto]

I can see a definite use for this in my event kit. F2 is a great aperture for what I do. I use strobes and speedlights a lot and F2 will help balance the ambient quicker than f/2.8. I have the Tamron 15-30 and the 24-70 L. Both are f/2.8 and I often wish I had more aperture in order to keep the ISO out of the stratosphere when I'm balancing ambient. In that case I always go to my 35 f/1.4s (either the Canon L or the Sigma Art). But I always wish I had the 24 f/1.4 as well. With this lens, I can shoot most of a reception with it on one camera and the 85 L on the other. Having both 24 and 35 focal lengths is perfect. 35 is my most used, and most loved, but often it isn't wide enough when the dancing really starts getting crazy. I also use 24mm a lot for my sports photos. Having f/2 will help me there as well.

 

[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.

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

would you buy it?

most people aren't downplaying the technological achievement here, or care all that much about a f0.2 difference. i think people are saying that it's a marvelous invention that overall is not so useful compared to what they already have or what's already available.

Yes, I'm planning to buy it after I figure out a few modifiers I want. It will also give me the luxury of determining if it's a vignette monster. The next lens I was considering was the 34mm Art, so I'd prefer this.

 

[Lee Jay]

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

Got it in one. ;D

18-35/1.8 - 29-56 equivalent range. My 35L is more often not long enough than not wide enough. But it's not wide enough sometimes too. The 18-35 on crop is a really flexible solution. 24-35 on full-frame, not so much.

I'm getting happier and happier that I went back to all crop from crop and full-frame.

 

[Joellll]

For those who complain about the less than 2x zoom range, you seem to forget that Tokina has a 11-16mm f/2.8 that was popular among crop shooters, and it even fills the FF image plane at 16mm.

Rather than seeing it as a poor reaching zoom, perhaps considering it a zooming prime would make it more appealing? Not everyone needs a f/1.4 prime, and to The ones who are struggling between the 24mm and the 35mm, this is a great solution.

That being said, I have no need for this lens, but I'm happy to see the niches that third party companies are trying to fill.

 

[sdsr]

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.

But there's no "aside from its size" - however wonderful it proves to be, it's unavoidably big and heavy. Do street shooters like such things?

 

[Solar Eagle]

I know this comment was not aimed expressly at me, but I have been vocal that this product seems ill-fated commercially.

Yeah but if you talk like that people will believe you and it might cut into their sales, and if their sales get cut into by the community we are less likely to see other innovative ideas come out to us.

Everybody gets the best results if they enjoy all offerings, and talk about what else they would like to see and why. It doesn't help anybody to talk against what you have already been given. It makes the givers feel like shit, and wonder why they try, when the profits on these ideas are small to begin with.

 

[captainkanji]

Sounds interesting, but all I need is a decent 24mm prime and I'm set.

 

[d]

Like BLFPhoto above, I'd love one of these for shooting events. I recently did a 30th where I mainly used my 24L 1.4 II stopped down a touch, but often wanted tighter framing. If sharpness from this 24-35 is half decent wide open, I'll definitely grab one.

d.

 

[scyrene]

I respect them for creating something genuinely new and pushing the boundaries etc but I can't get excited about this. I misread the original rumour and thought it had IS - which would have been exciting, and a little frustrating, as I just got the Canon 35 f/2 IS. But no. I know everyone will say 'you don't need IS at 24mm' but since the situations I imagine a wide angle, wide aperture lens would be most useful (handheld, dim places, no flash - parties, museums, concerts, etc), IS might well be a help. For landscapes, I guess you'd be stopping down - IS would help handheld landscapes at narrower apertures (and why bother with a lens that's so wide to begin with in that case). Astro work is the only other thing I can think of - and fine, that would be on a tripod, so no IS needed. Sorry, I'm waffling.

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.

The difference between 24mm and 35mm is a bit more than one step back. I agree the zoom range is limited, but there is quite a difference between the two.

 

[RLPhoto]

Ugh. Doomed for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.

Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.

Wise words. I ended up using my 24mm 1.4 exactly this way and never found a need for a 35mm prime. Plus it's f1.4.

 

[9VIII]

Ugh. Doomed for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.

Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

Not that I completely trust them, but DXO measured the t-stop of the Sigma 18-35 as being almost exactly the same as the f-stop. This is undoubtedly a similar construction so it has a good chance of having very good light transmission.
It's surprising how many f1.4 lenses have close to 1 stop of light loss.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-24mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795
According to this I'm actually getting nearly the same light gathering using the 18-35 as I am using the 24mm Art prime lens.
(though that is only applicable to crop sensors since the 18-35 does not cover a 35mm sensor)

If the 24-35 performs well at both ends then it will be better than having two primes. If not then I wouldn't bother with it.