SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art

[Luds34]

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.

+1 I loved my Tokina 11-16 and got some of my favorite shots with it. I even use to kind of refer to it as my UWA prime. However, the 1.5x zoom was much more useful then one might think. There is a world of difference between (FF equiv) 17mm and 28mm.

Same for 24mm and 35mm. I dont buy this "step back" or "step forward" argument. That may be applicable a bit when your subject is a person, but not when you're shooting a building or a landscape. Also, the FOV and perspective is quite different between 24mm and 35mm. 35mm still looks and feels quite normal to me, great for shooting people yet maintaining some context of the environment. By 24mm, things can start to give that distortion, scenes have a bit of that dramatic where the background shrinks and looks far away.

While I agree with many here that this will fit more of a niche market, those that will buy it though (event shooters) are going to love it. To be able to get a fast f/2 lens capable of 24 to 35 on one camera body, with no lens switching would be awesome. As someone already said, I could see shooting with this on one body and an 85mm on the other and be set.

For a casual shooter, such as myself, who will have the time to stop, switch lenses, get the shot, it is a tougher sell. Part of the issue for me personally, is the Sigma Arts are already pretty good size lenses. Is it worth swapping out a 35mm Art + 24mm prime for this? When they may very well be close to the same weight in the bag? For me, probably not. But back to the event shooter, I think this is an awesome lens!

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

 

[lichtmalen]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

 

[gobucks]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I think it's easy to forget how hard it is to design and make these things - as apertures and zoom ranges get wider, these lenses get exponentially more difficult to make, especially with good image quality. And it's easy to lust after an exotic lens, until you use it, and realize that hauling 1500-2000g of glass on your camera all day is miserable. There is a hige difference between "what is the best lens somebody can make" and "what is the best lens somebody can realistically make so that people will actually buy and use it".

 

[scyrene]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.

 

[d]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.

85L filter thread is 72mm I believe.

d.

 

[Lee Jay]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.

Going from 2 -> 2.8 is a full stop. That means that f/2 has twice the amount of light available as f/2.8. Therefore the front of the 24-70/2 has to have twice the area of the 24-70/2.8 (otherwise it cannot collect twice the amount of light.)

So the math is something like this:
diameter of filter for 20-70/2.8 = 82mm
radius of filter = 82mm/2 = 41mm
filter size for f/2.0 = 2*sqrt(((π*41²)*2)/π) =~ 116mm.

The math doesn't go like that at all for a wide-angle lens. You're assuming the diameter of the front element is driven by the size of the entrance pupil which is only true for a long focal length lens. For a wide lens, the front element diameter is much more driven by the angle of view. That's why the 17-40L (entrance pupil size 10mm) has the same filter size as the 24-70/2.8 (entrance pupil size 25mm) and the 70-200/2.8 (entrance pupil size 71.4mm).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wasn't basing my calculations on the size of the entrance pupil, just the fact that f/2 delivers twice the light of f/2.8 and therefore requires (at least) twice the area.

By your logic, the 16-35/2.8 should have a noticeably larger front element than the 17-40/4, since the f/2.8 lens needs to gather twice as much light.

Simple observation would reveal that doesn't seem to be the case. You might want to do some reading about optics and lens design.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wasn't basing my calculations on the size of the entrance pupil, just the fact that f/2 delivers twice the light of f/2.8 and therefore requires (at least) twice the area.

By your logic, the 16-35/2.8 should have a noticeably larger front element than the 17-40/4, since the f/2.8 lens needs to gather twice as much light.

A better comparison would be the 16-35/2.8 vs the 16-35/f4 because at least then the zoom focal lengths are the same.

A more constructive response would be to mention that the entrance pupil for 70/2.8 needs to be 25mm and that for 70/2 it needs to be 35mm.

If the ratio holds firm for entrance pupil to filter size then if the 70/2.8 is 82mm then 70/2.0 is 114.8mm.

The 85/1.2 needs a 70.8mm entrance pupil, therefore it should have a ~230mm filter size.

Incidentally, the original 24-70/2.8 took a 77mm filter. Why does the 24-70mm f/4L IS not use a 54mm filter as your ratio predicts?

I repeat, you should read about optics and lens design as it's quite apparent that your understanding of them is lacking, leading you to make illogical assumptions.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm struggling to understand the 24-35mm range.

Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.

+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.

Going from 2 -> 2.8 is a full stop. That means that f/2 has twice the amount of light available as f/2.8. Therefore the front of the 24-70/2 has to have twice the area of the 24-70/2.8 (otherwise it cannot collect twice the amount of light.)

So the math is something like this:
diameter of filter for 20-70/2.8 = 82mm
radius of filter = 82mm/2 = 41mm
filter size for f/2.0 = 2*sqrt(((π*41²)*2)/π) =~ 116mm.

Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.

I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.

Going from 2 -> 2.8 is a full stop. That means that f/2 has twice the amount of light available as f/2.8. Therefore the front of the 24-70/2 has to have twice the area of the 24-70/2.8 (otherwise it cannot collect twice the amount of light.)

So the math is something like this:
diameter of filter for 20-70/2.8 = 82mm
radius of filter = 82mm/2 = 41mm
filter size for f/2.0 = 2*sqrt(((π*41²)*2)/π) =~ 116mm.

The math doesn't go like that at all for a wide-angle lens. You're assuming the diameter of the front element is driven by the size of the entrance pupil which is only true for a long focal length lens. For a wide lens, the front element diameter is much more driven by the angle of view. That's why the 17-40L (entrance pupil size 10mm) has the same filter size as the 24-70/2.8 (entrance pupil size 25mm) and the 70-200/2.8 (entrance pupil size 71.4mm).

I wasn't basing my calculations on the size of the entrance pupil, just the fact that f/2 delivers twice the light of f/2.8 and therefore requires (at least) twice the area.

Same thing.

Do you have a better formula or method for estimation?

A 24/2 would have an entrance pupil of 12mm versus a 24/2.8's entrance pupil of about 8.6mm. I'd expect the front element size to increase by a minimum of that amount (12mm-8.6mm = 3.4mm) to go from 24/2.8 to 24/2 with about the same amount of vignetting. I'm assuming the front element size is largely driven by the angle of view with the zoom position at maximum wide angle.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.

The 24-70 doesn't need an 82mm filter – the MkII is 82mm, but the original 24-70/2.8L uses a 77mm filter.

A 24-70/2 could likely be made with an 82mm filter, but optical vignetting would be pretty strong (as it is for the 24/1.4 with a 77mm thread). I'd expect an 86mm thread.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Here is a simple answer to the question. With complex multi element lenses, its not actually simple, and the front element may be larger than the minimum possible size.

Copied from here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3754307


"As noted elsewhere in the thread, there is a relationship between the focal length, f/number and entrance pupil diameter. This is, simply, focal length/(f/number).

But you were asking about the front element. The only thing you can say about the front element is that it must be at least as large as the entrance pupil, otherwise it becomes the entrance pupil. There are, however, other constraints on the optical design that may force the front element to be much larger than the entrance pupil.

For example, for big telephotos, the front element is pretty close to the diameter of the entrance pupil. My 300mm f/4, with an entrance pupil of 75mm, has a 77mm filter thread. But my 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, with an entrance pupil of at most 5.3mm, also has a 77mm filter thread. This is because a retrofocus zoom lens has the pupil way back in the lens and the front element has to be big enough to let the pupil see the wide angle that the lens was designed for."

 

[Andyx01]

I wasn't basing my calculations on the size of the entrance pupil, just the fact that f/2 delivers twice the light of f/2.8 and therefore requires (at least) twice the area.

By your logic, the 16-35/2.8 should have a noticeably larger front element than the 17-40/4, since the f/2.8 lens needs to gather twice as much light.

A better comparison would be the 16-35/2.8 vs the 16-35/f4 because at least then the zoom focal lengths are the same.

A more constructive response would be to mention that the entrance pupil for 70/2.8 needs to be 25mm and that for 70/2 it needs to be 35mm.

If the ratio holds firm for entrance pupil to filter size then if the 70/2.8 is 82mm then 70/2.0 is 114.8mm.

The 85/1.2 needs a 70.8mm entrance pupil, therefore it should have a ~230mm filter size.

Incidentally, the original 24-70/2.8 took a 77mm filter. Why does the 24-70mm f/4L IS not use a 54mm filter as your ratio predicts?

I repeat, you should read about optics and lens design as it's quite apparent that your understanding of them is lacking, leading you to make illogical assumptions.

Why don't you provide some illumination on the subject as to how big the filter thread would be (in your estimation.)

I know this wasn't directed at me, but put an imaginary 1.6x FL reducer on an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS and you end up with 44-125mm f/1.8 EF-S lens.

Going from EF-S to EF and the lens would need to get larger obviously, but I don't think the front filter size changes much.

 

[StudentOfLight]

A 24/2 would have an entrance pupil of 12mm versus a 24/2.8's entrance pupil of about 8.6mm. I'd expect the front element size to increase by a minimum of that amount (12mm-8.6mm = 3.4mm) to go from 24/2.8 to 24/2 with about the same amount of vignetting. I'm assuming the front element size is largely driven by the angle of view with the zoom position at maximum wide angle.

This approach makes sense to me.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.

The 24-70 doesn't need an 82mm filter – the MkII is 82mm, but the original 24-70/2.8L uses a 77mm filter.

A 24-70/2 could likely be made with an 82mm filter, but optical vignetting would be pretty strong (as it is for the 24/1.4 with a 77mm thread). I'd expect an 86mm thread.

I was going to slowly drive the conversation towards this conclusion, and I wanted to bring up the 24L also. Someone stole my thunder... :'(

 

[deleteme]

I am wondering why so many people do not believe lens manufacturers when they say it is impractical to make the lenses some are demanding.
What benefit is it to them to not create an expensive, profitable lens for people who are asking for it irrespective of its weight and cost?
I am assuming that there are caveats to the demands such as "should not weigh more than 4 lbs." or "pocketable " but so far I am hearing theoretical back and forth from various sources of unverifiable qualification.
I understand the desire for the magical lens. I just don't understand the disbelief WTR to the manufacturer's inability to supply them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.

The 24-70 doesn't need an 82mm filter – the MkII is 82mm, but the original 24-70/2.8L uses a 77mm filter.

A 24-70/2 could likely be made with an 82mm filter, but optical vignetting would be pretty strong (as it is for the 24/1.4 with a 77mm thread). I'd expect an 86mm thread.

I was going to slowly drive the conversation towards this conclusion, and I wanted to bring up the 24L also. Someone stole my thunder... :'(

My bad.

Incidentally, the 70-200/2.8L IS II is cutting it pretty close in terms of vignetting. A B+W F-Pro UV filter or a Slim CPL (both 5mm mount thickness) increase optical vignetting with the lens, the XS-Pro mount (3.4mm) is ok. That's pretty rare for a telezoom...and pretty rare in general – the 16-35/2.8 II doesn't have increased vignetting with an F-Pro filter, and you can stack three F-Pro mounts on the 35/1.4L with no extra vignetting. So I think the 70-200 II might actually have benefitted from an 82mm thread.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm struggling to understand the 24-35mm range.

Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.
[/quote]

They state it in their literature. They are trying to create one lens that replaces the popular 24mm and 35mm fast primes (ok, they created what they could- this is how they are marketing it). Given how sharp the new Sigmas are wide open, it might work.

Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.

That might be a bit big to "go" anywhere