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

[clicstudio]

Why Can't anyone make a 24-105 2.8 Lens???? Too many 24-70 options already.

 

[Diko]

Actually I don't complain with Signa 50 even @ 1.4.

24- 105 @ 2.8 -> good point. Perhaps tech issues?

 

[bokehmon22]

I only have 2 L lens that are Canon and that's the 24-70 II and 70-200 2.8 II. They are both work horse lens and works really well. All my other lens have been third party Sigma 85 1.4 Art, Tamron 90 SP Macro, Tamron 15-30 macro and they have been providing incredible value. I wouldn't mind buying this lens if I didn't have Canon equivalent already.

 

[slclick]

As I already said speed is not good. But the 50 mm ART is nat that slow but quite good on getting most images sharp.

As for first zoom ART lense we are about to see your theory. However please do not missinterpred anymore my words in future.

Thank you in advance.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-35mm-f-2-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

ahem

 

[slclick]

So you are speaking for yourself and the many other photographers who don't care if subjects are in focus? Sigma certainly has tapped a market.

Don't quite get you? What made you believe I don't care about the focus?

When it comes to Sigma, "AF speed" is a euphemism for "AF sometimes."

Ah, there it is. I was wondering where you were headed with that. I welcome others' thoughts on this.

To me, Sigma appears to be turning a corner with AF:

• 
  The 35 f/1.4 Art (aka 'the 35L II minus the 35L II's AF') would inconsistently swing and miss in non-dock-correctable ways. That's a non-starter for me.
  
• 
  The 50 f/1.4 Art would inconsistently swing and miss in non-dock-correctable ways. Ditto: Non-starter.
  
• 
  The 85 f/1.4 Art appears to be a new animal, and AF testing of that lens has shown much stronger performance. If I was into portraiture (scripted, lit portraits are simply not my bag), I'd strongly consider one over the 85L.
  
• 
  Recent non f/1.4 Sigma lenses naturally have fared better in comparison to their wide aperture brethren. If I needed one, I'd snap up a 150-600 or 12-24 f/4 from Sigma without much concern.
  
  

I doubt Sigma will ever have the same AF speed / reliability as a contemporary Canon USM lens, but the idea that you'll miss a quarter of your wide open shots should no longer be a pain point in opting in for the newest Sigma lenses. With the 35 and 50 Art, people complained, Sigma listened, and apparently they've made positive changes.

- A

I'll say it again (187 times actually) The Sigma 24-35 Art nails focus much faster than any other Sigma FF lens. I've owned 5 different Art lenses and it's by far the most consistent and fastest. Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.

 

[cellomaster27]

I'm really really excited about this! I love my sigma 150-600mm and it focuses just as well i think as a canon lens. Maybe just slightly slower.. slightly.. but very accurate. I completely agree that the old sigma lenses are very slow and inaccurate. I'd say un-usable in most situations. You cannot put away the newer lenses that have been coming out though. I'd say to at least try it - the actual lens itself, before saying things. I agree that canon lenses are superior in AF generally speaking. But there is alot that sigma has to offer in general for a lot lot less green.

 

[ahsanford]

Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.

I know, and it's just silly: in FF alone, they've already released a 12-24 Art, 24-35 Art, and the 24-105 Art.

And they've branded their better crop-only glass as Art as well -- 30 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, and 50-100 f/1.8. That's a shrewd move as 'premium crop-only' lenses have been an abandoned market by Canon. The Art badging (plus some very sharp optics) are allowing Sigma to mop whatever of that business is out there.

- A

 

[slclick]

Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.

I know, and it's just silly: in FF alone, they've already released a 12-24 Art, 24-35 Art, and the 24-105 Art.

And they've branded their better crop-only glass as Art as well -- 30 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, and 50-100 f/1.8. That's a shrewd move as 'premium crop-only' lenses have been an abandoned market by Canon. The Art badging (plus some very sharp optics) are allowing Sigma to mop whatever of that business is out there.

- A

I agree and if I was a crop shooter (non BIF) I'd be almost a strictly Sigma glass owner.

 

[nicolas.det]

We have been using a EF 24970 F2.8 L USM II.. and its focus was never consistent... So this kind of issue can (unfortunately) also happen using Canon products..

 

[slclick]

We have been using a EF 24970 F2.8 L USM II.. and its focus was never consistent... So this kind of issue can (unfortunately) also happen using Canon products..

I think you have an exception as mine and many others say it nails it time after time. Is yours calibrated for AFMA with your body? It's true that in AI Servo it's not as near perfect as in One Shot..maybe that has been your experience?

 

[Diko]

Ok nicrle. Thanks for the link. Wasn't interested in the above mentioned zoom lenses that are ART. COOL! And even though Inwasn' aware of them - if I understand they tend to have accurate focus, right?

 

[slclick]

Ok nicrle. Thanks for the link. Wasn't interested in the above mentioned zoom lenses that are ART. COOL! And even though Inwasn' aware of them - if I understand they tend to have accurate focus, right?

I hope I didn't come across in a mean way, just trying to shed some light. Well, it's a tossup. The 24-105 is ok in One Shot, poor in AI Servo. The 12-24, which I never owned yet played with at a shop is very good. I only used it in One Shot but it did really well from MFD to about 40 feet in the camera store. The 24-35 I have had considerable experience with and I did not notice much difference between it and the 16-35 f/4L Fast, quiet, accurate. No hunting.

 

[Alex_M]

I beg to differ. Tamron 24-70 VC USD can hardly be called excellent. I owned the lens for 2 years and used it quite a lot. VC is a joke as I had to keep it switched OFF unless shooting slower than 1/60s or all images are blury. Onion ring type bokeh of the lens looks revolting to say the least. CA are very noticeable wide open.
I have upgraded to Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II few weeks ago and what a difference!! OMG! That not to say that I am not interested in Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens (The first stabilised Sigma Art Zoom lens). I will be carefully evaluating my options once we learned more about the new Sigma lens.

This will be interesting.
I'm a huge Sigma fan, but let's see this lens top Tamrons excellent 24-70/2.8 with stabilisation.

 

[Alex_M]

Thats the word: sometimes. The new Sigma 85 1.4 Art does focusing very fast and consistently for me. There is a hope that the 24-70 IS Art will follow the lead.

When it comes to Sigma, "AF speed" is a euphemism for "AF sometimes."

 

[Lee Jay]

low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds

Lost you there.

You have a 24.2MP 80D + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 set to 22mm vs 22.3MP 5DmkIII + Canon 35mm f/2. What difference does the pixel density make?

Not then.

Pixel density matters when you are focal length or magnification limited. For example, my longest lens is the Sigma 150-600C. I get more resolving power at 600mm with a crop body than with a full frame body (other than the 5Ds) because of the smaller pixels. The difference isn't 1.6x unless the lens is infinitely sharp (which is impossible) but it can easily be 1.2x to 1.4x, which is a lot.

 

[Ryananthony]

low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds

Lost you there.

You have a 24.2MP 80D + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 set to 22mm vs 22.3MP 5DmkIII + Canon 35mm f/2. What difference does the pixel density make?

Not then.

Pixel density matters when you are focal length or magnification limited. For example, my longest lens is the Sigma 150-600C. I get more resolving power at 600mm with a crop body than with a full frame body (other than the 5Ds) because of the smaller pixels. The difference isn't 1.6x unless the lens is infinitely sharp (which is impossible) but it can easily be 1.2x to 1.4x, which is a lot.

Maybe if both were shot at base ISO. But for myself, using like you, the 150-600C I greatly liked the images from my 5d3 over my previous 7d when cropped to the same framing.

 

[Antono Refa]

low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds

Lost you there.

You have a 24.2MP 80D + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 set to 22mm vs 22.3MP 5DmkIII + Canon 35mm f/2. What difference does the pixel density make?

Not then.

Pixel density matters when you are focal length or magnification limited. For example, my longest lens is the Sigma 150-600C. I get more resolving power at 600mm with a crop body than with a full frame body (other than the 5Ds) because of the smaller pixels. The difference isn't 1.6x unless the lens is infinitely sharp (which is impossible) but it can easily be 1.2x to 1.4x, which is a lot.

Yes, crop cameras have definite advantage on the supertele front.

That's where I see the 7D(mk whatever) having a comfortable spot in Canon's line of cameras, which makes me wonder why a 7Dmk3 with the 24MP sensor wasn't released yet.

 

[jebrady03]

I imagine that a LOT of people who buy this lens are going to spend a fair amount of time microadjusting the lens to 16 different focal length/distance combinations straight away, and then need to readjust a couple of months later as the lens is "broken in" and used a bit. This will be frustrating, of course. Hopefully for these folks, Sigma has fixed the tendency of their Art lenses to exhibit "drifting" (as some are calling it) in the AF over time.

Personally, after my experience with 2 Art lenses, I can't wait for Canon to release a 50mm L update so that I can sell my 50mm Art and be done with Sigma.

 

[YuengLinger]

I imagine that a LOT of people who buy this lens are going to spend a fair amount of time microadjusting the lens to 16 different focal length/distance combinations straight away, and then need to readjust a couple of months later as the lens is "broken in" and used a bit. This will be frustrating, of course. Hopefully for these folks, Sigma has fixed the tendency of their Art lenses to exhibit "drifting" (as some are calling it) in the AF over time.

Personally, after my experience with 2 Art lenses, I can't wait for Canon to release a 50mm L update so that I can sell my 50mm Art and be done with Sigma.

Apparently we have had similar experiences with the Arts, but I gave up on the 50mm after two copies, having had much better luck with the 35mm Art.

In fact, I found the 35mm Art to be pretty good when I had plenty of time to compose on a motionless subject in easy light, nailing AF on eyes most of the time. But the overall IQ, as with the 50mm Art, just didn't seem to have "zing," or "punch," or "scintillation," all subjective. So I sold my 35mm Art, got the new Canon 35mm 1.4 II, and couldn't believe how much better the AF was on the same 5DIII. Instant and reliable in backlit and lowlight situations. As for IQ, definitely worth the upgrade. A good lens vs a great lens.

My question to you, jebrady03: What would get you past your current feelings about Sigma? Reviews from who? Sample images posted where? What would entice you to give them another chance with an important lens purchase?

 

[heretikeen]

It would be cheaper than current Canon counter-part. And I doubt it to be less of a quality than it.

However my main concerns are regarding AF speeds. My bet is that Canon ones will be always hard to match again just like the 70-200 IS 2.8 II.
Not to mentioned the 24-70 2.8 IS which is rated as CR2 already. I think that the most general lense (especially well utilised from it biggest market - the wedding colleagues) it is an essential feature.

But again for most of the rest who are not concerned with AF speed the Sigma ART would be a better choice. That is at the better price offer, of course.

So you are speaking for yourself and the many other photographers who don't care if subjects are in focus? Sigma certainly has tapped a market.

You do realise that peak AF speed doesn't really concern anyone outside of sports and action photography? Or was it more importantly to fire off a snide remark than to make sense?
I've yet to have a Sigma lens that focuses too slow for me, and I'm primarily shooting concerts.