Sigma to Announce 24-70mm f/2.8 Art Ahead of CP+ Next Month? [CR2]

[picturefan]

I think if budget wasn't an option, everyone would choose the Canon lens.

Of course, budget is one main reason for a lens, not really depending if you're doing photo as hobbyist, semipro or pro. But more than that, 3rd party lenses are becoming more and more attractive since quality improved very much (sigma global vision or tammy, see 24-70 VC).
I think, for me and many others, the advantage of tammy over sigma is that they're builing the more sturdy lenses, especially for oudoor conditions. So Sigma Art was never an option - no weather sealing.
My request for the new 24-70 OS: weather sealing!!!! so not only wedding photographers will be able to enjoy the (probably) high image quality and viability of OS.

 

[Alex_M]

Sigma 85 Art and 12-24 Art lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. Therefore your request was granted. It's a safe bet: Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens will be released with weather sealing of some sort

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/features/


Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction

The lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops.

My request for the new 24-70 OS: weather sealing!!!! so not only wedding photographers will be able to enjoy the (probably) high image quality and viability of OS.

 

[nicolas.det]

I wish it to be (a least a little) weathersealed !

 

[picturefan]

Sigma 85 Art and 12-24 Art lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. Therefore your request was granted. It's a safe bet: Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens will be released with weather sealing of some sort

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/features/


Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction

The lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops.

More than the rubber sealing at the mount, real weather sealing on the other lens parts is also needed, especially in a zoom-lens.
Besides, the new siggy 85 isn't that handy to carry around, but I guess it's a fine portrait lens. Also some say it is likely to have lots of flare.

Outside, in rain, snow, dust and wind, only full weather sealing allows me to use a lens in interesting light conditions and so on...

 

[photojoern.de]

I do not anticipate any reason to move off my EF 24-70 II, which is ridiculously good.

Same applies to me - as of now. We will yet hve to see how the optical quality is. And the Autofocus. The bar is set very high with the 24-70 L II from Canon. But: we have seen a very decent 85mm Art lens from Sigma which shows optical performance comparable to the stellar 100mm f2.8 IS Macro Canon and the 70-200 II L IS f2.8. I am really curious to see what will happen, how good this lens is really.
In any case, this lens will hopefully be very good and thus prevent Canon form rising prices or launching a 24-70 III f2.8 with IS at sky high prices (e.g. 2500 USD or higher).

 

[slclick]

I do not anticipate any reason to move off my EF 24-70 II, which is ridiculously good.

Same applies to me - as of now. We will yet hve to see how the optical quality is. And the Autofocus. The bar is set very high with the 24-70 L II from Canon. But: we have seen a very decent 85mm Art lens from Sigma which shows optical performance comparable to the stellar 100mm f2.8 IS Macro Canon and the 70-200 II L IS f2.8. I am really curious to see what will happen, how good this lens is really.
In any case, this lens will hopefully be very good and thus prevent Canon form rising prices or launching a 24-70 III f2.8 with IS at sky high prices (e.g. 2500 USD or higher).

I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.

 

[Alex_M]

Sigma 85 Art is an ultimalte portrait lens. It does not have lots of flare. Not sure who told you so but it is incorrect:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=453&Lens=397

Besides, the new siggy 85 isn't that handy to carry around, but I guess it's a fine portrait lens. Also some say it is likely to have lots of flare...

 

[photojoern.de]

I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.

Well, an IS would certainly be a huge improvement. If Canon had their 24-70 f2.8 II with IS and otherwise the same superior optical performance, I would immediately jump on it. Especially if you own a 5 DS R, an image stabilization is a huge benefit. With the 24-70 f2.8, I can hardly use slower shutter speed than 1/100th of a second if I want crisp sharp photos hand held. An IS would allow many more handheld low light photos where I would then be able to use 1/30th of a second.

 

[vscd]

I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.

Well, an IS would certainly be a huge improvement. If Canon had their 24-70 f2.8 II with IS and otherwise the same superior optical performance, I would immediately jump on it. Especially if you own a 5 DS R, an image stabilization is a huge benefit. With the 24-70 f2.8, I can hardly use slower shutter speed than 1/100th of a second if I want crisp sharp photos hand held. An IS would allow many more handheld low light photos where I would then be able to use 1/30th of a second.

What I didn't find out... do you have 5DSR with the old 24-70L 2.8?

 

[slclick]

I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.

Well, an IS would certainly be a huge improvement. If Canon had their 24-70 f2.8 II with IS and otherwise the same superior optical performance, I would immediately jump on it. Especially if you own a 5 DS R, an image stabilization is a huge benefit. With the 24-70 f2.8, I can hardly use slower shutter speed than 1/100th of a second if I want crisp sharp photos hand held. An IS would allow many more handheld low light photos where I would then be able to use 1/30th of a second.

What I didn't find out... do you have 5DSR with the old 24-70L 2.8?

My question as well. As an owner of both, I get it for the version one but the Mark 2? I can handhold to the corresponding FL/SS no problems. True it's on a 22MP sensor.....

 

[[email protected]]

To be clear, I'm not one of the Canon-only crowd when it comes to lenses. I own a few Sigmas and Tamrons that are either unique in their range; better than Canon's (50mm anyone?); or just 1/3 the cost in a range I don't use frequently.

That said, Point 1: Aside from getting to use these great third party lenses, they also serve the function of lighting little fires under Canon's lens development department, which is probably the biggest benefit we all share from the competition.

Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.

 

[ahsanford]

Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.

I'm just not quite sure why Sigma would go after Canon's more wildly successful zooms: the 24-70 2.8 (rumored) and the 70-200 2.8 (no rumor, but perhaps someday?).

Both are very sharp, and though Sigma can even outresolve those if they commit to it, the AF on those two Canon lenses (speed, consistency, etc.), build quality and handling is simply phenomenal. These are staple first-choice tools for working professionals. Besides sharpness, Sigma can only really offer a less expensive instrument, or in the case of a 24-70, they could offer IS.

Surely, continuing to pick off much lower hanging fruit would continue their longer-term 'hearts and minds' campaign of improving over time. Make a killer 135 prime, 200 prime, inexpensive 400 5.6 with IS, the great coma-free + fast + wide astro lens that no one seems to be able to make, etc.

I fully recognize the market-size advantage of a pro zoom, but should this 24-70 2.8 IS materialize, Sigma would be picking a fight where Canon is the most determined to succeed. Doesn't seem wise to me.

- A

 

[kphoto99]

Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.

I'm just not quite sure why Sigma would go after Canon's more wildly successful zooms: the 24-70 2.8 (rumored) and the 70-200 2.8 (no rumor, but perhaps someday?).

Both are very sharp, and though Sigma can even outresolve those if they commit to it, the AF on those two Canon lenses (speed, consistency, etc.), build quality and handling is simply phenomenal. These are staple first-choice tools for working professionals. Besides sharpness, Sigma can only really offer a less expensive instrument, or in the case of a 24-70, they could offer IS.

Surely, continuing to pick off much lower hanging fruit would continue their longer-term 'hearts and minds' campaign of improving over time. Make a killer 135 prime, 200 prime, inexpensive 400 5.6 with IS, the great coma-free + fast + wide astro lens that no one seems to be able to make, etc.

I fully recognize the market-size advantage of a pro zoom, but should this 24-70 2.8 IS materialize, Sigma would be picking a fight where Canon is the most determined to succeed. Doesn't seem wise to me.

- A

Don't forget that Sigma offers lenses in other then Canon mount.

 

[ahsanford]

Don't forget that Sigma offers lenses in other then Canon mount.

The same applies to Nikon, of course.

Sigma could win some points with the Sony crowd if FTM mechanical focusing is retained in the Sony mount variants. Those Sony G Master lenses are focus by wire, which -- at those prices -- boggles my mind.

- A

 

[picturefan]

Sigma 85 Art is an ultimalte portrait lens. It does not have lots of flare. Not sure who told you so but it is incorrect:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=453&Lens=397

Besides, the new siggy 85 isn't that handy to carry around, but I guess it's a fine portrait lens. Also some say it is likely to have lots of flare...

Saw some pics with bothersome flares, the sun was directly in the pictures corner. That's the only "flare-test" of the lens i have seen. I thought a prime should do better. But maybe in other situations it also performs better. Other pics I have seen proove that it's a very good performer.



Besides IS and weather-sealing, there are two more things I rally appreciate in new (e.g. the mkII) lenses: good flare resistance and the short MFD (especially for outdoor). That offers a lot of new possibilities and you don't have to carry a thousand "special" lenses.

 

[NancyP]

The reason why Sigma goes after the f/2.8 workhorse zooms is that many amateur users (that's most of the camera-owning population) would like a good f/2.8 normal zoom with IS at $1,000.00 rather than at $2,000.00 or more (the non-IS OEM f/2.8 24-70 is ~1,900.00).

I really like my Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I don't have a normal zoom. If the Sigma is sharp and has reasonable AF accuracy, I might consider it - the OEM 24-70 f/2.8 IS is not even rumored yet.

 

[bsbeamer]

I will be curious to see what the prices are like. I need IS/VC/some kind of stabilization for my work and the Tamron VC 24-70 was really the only one that fit what I was looking for. Have to admit that I really do not like the lack of optimization available in-body for the Tamron and many other third party lenses. Not so much for photo usage (can be worked around when shooting RAW), but mainly for video usage. Vignette correction in post-production is not usually a 1-2 click and done process. This correction is baked into the recorded file when using Canon lenses, if enabled. Unfortunately, the same issue would likely happen with this Sigma. Only hope would be less native vignetting and aberrations... or Canon could make a 24-70 with IS and I'd probably pre-order.

 

[cellomaster27]

Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.

I'm just not quite sure why Sigma would go after Canon's more wildly successful zooms: the 24-70 2.8 (rumored) and the 70-200 2.8 (no rumor, but perhaps someday?).

Both are very sharp, and though Sigma can even outresolve those if they commit to it, the AF on those two Canon lenses (speed, consistency, etc.), build quality and handling is simply phenomenal. These are staple first-choice tools for working professionals. Besides sharpness, Sigma can only really offer a less expensive instrument, or in the case of a 24-70, they could offer IS.

Surely, continuing to pick off much lower hanging fruit would continue their longer-term 'hearts and minds' campaign of improving over time. Make a killer 135 prime, 200 prime, inexpensive 400 5.6 with IS, the great coma-free + fast + wide astro lens that no one seems to be able to make, etc.

I fully recognize the market-size advantage of a pro zoom, but should this 24-70 2.8 IS materialize, Sigma would be picking a fight where Canon is the most determined to succeed. Doesn't seem wise to me.

- A

Don't forget that Sigma offers lenses in other then Canon mount.

Having used the atrocious sigma 24-70mm 2.8 years ago, even if sigma isn't competing with canon, they need to refresh this lens. I tried using the sigma 35 1.4 and that lens is killer. I'm not too sure why people talk about AF inconsistency with the sigmas so much - in reference to their global vision lenses (contemporary, art, sport). I did bash on sigma a ton before, but that's their old lineup - they are atrocious. With the newer lineup, there might be a LITTLE more hunting but if you're generous with your skills as a photographer, those decrease dramatically. I feel that with some of my canon lenses, I can be a little careless and it's forgiving. Absolutely love my 150-600. The price point, build, IQ, etc.. bang for your buck and more. I'm excited to see sigma coming out with an update that has been long in waiting - regardless of the specs and details.