SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
lichtmalen said:
Any guess? They didn't exactly inflate the price on their other industry first, the crop 18-35 f/1.8 lens.
But you'd expect they'd charge more in a FF mount, esp. compared to their f/1.4 Art glass.
How does $1,299 sound?
- A
Upvote
0
Normalnorm said: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.
Can you show me where a lens manufacturer denotes a certain lens is impractical? (Did someone on the internet tell you a lens manufacturer said this?)
I can't tell you how many times I've read quotes like: "Sony will never make a full frame back illuminated sensor because (barf more words here)"
And what do you know? Sony makes one now. :
Upvote
0
Andyx01 said:
It's rarely impossible, but it often can be impractical. But there are people who handhold a 200 f/2 IS USM, or people who want to hike with 600 primes, etc.
The real question is: what is the practicality tipping point for where something audacious/difficult/unique/industry-first-ish becomes so audacious/difficult/unique/industry-first-ish that the realities of making it -- the weight, size, cost, complexity, etc. -- are so great that a company will not meet its goals by offering it?
My argument is that tipping point for Sigma must have been 'Anything longer than 24-35.' They must have looked at a longer zoom range and realized how big/massive/IQ-challenging a 24-50 f/2 or 16-35 f/2 would have been and recognized how little appeal that would have commercially. They then reined in their audaciousness and simply 'settled' for an impressive industry-first that may not have the reach everyone wants.
Is Sigma worth applauding for offering this? Absolutely.
Will I buy it? Not a chance.
The moral of the story, as always? Blame marketing.
- A
Upvote
0
i though this will fill the gap in my bag.
right now i have:
- 16-35 F4 IS (very great lens for wider view, architecture, etc)
- tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which is not so great lens, miss & soft focus sometimes, focus slow for servo)
- 70-200 F2.8 IS II (one of my fav lens, great in all aspect)
- Sigma 50 Art (i personally think the best AF 50mm available on market)
i just confused of buying 24 F1.4 or 35 F1.4 and sigma release 24-35 F2.
it will replace my need for bright wide angle rather than buying 24 & 35 (i'm a bit budget here)
*dont mind the tamron
right now i have:
- 16-35 F4 IS (very great lens for wider view, architecture, etc)
- tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which is not so great lens, miss & soft focus sometimes, focus slow for servo)
- 70-200 F2.8 IS II (one of my fav lens, great in all aspect)
- Sigma 50 Art (i personally think the best AF 50mm available on market)
i just confused of buying 24 F1.4 or 35 F1.4 and sigma release 24-35 F2.
it will replace my need for bright wide angle rather than buying 24 & 35 (i'm a bit budget here)
*dont mind the tamron
Upvote
0
yedijaluhur said:
I'd be more tempted to go with the f/1.4s. Gaining one stop often is not enough of a benefit to switch lenses (vs. f/2.8), but two is! I tend to use fast 50 and 35mm primes indoors. The 24 and 85 significantly less use, but it comes down to which focal lengths you prefer.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:dilbert said:
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.
Yeah I'm getting confused now. I still think my original comparison was valuable. I don't know much about lens design, but surely if a longer and wider lens takes a filter of size Xmm, then a shorter and narrower one will take a smaller one? Ultrawides and fisheyes I guess are a different matter.
Upvote
0
bsbeamer said:
It's still a fine lens in the centre but has chronic loss of resolution around the edges on FF by to days standards. Maybe still a viable lens for crop.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
