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

[jebrady03]

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?

Like you, I ended up with the 35mm f/1.4L II and find it to be ridiculously fantastic. VERY happy with it.

As for your question, it would take an overwhelming number and quality of reviews from not only reviewers but the photographic community at large regarding impressive and Canon-esque AF as well as NOT clinical sharpness, but impressive image quality. My guess is that your impression of Sigma's Art line lenses image quality is probably like mine; impressively sharp and clinical, but rather lifeless compared to other lenses on the market. I think content of the image matters more, of course, but given the content would be the same, I'll take the image with more zing/punch/scintillation every time. And I admit it could certainly be an inherent bias (although I don't think it is) but I feel like Canon's L glass provides that more often and consistently than Sigma's Art lenses.

I'm keeping the Sigma 50mm Art for now, because I've owned the Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 50/1.4 and both were mediocre, IMO. And the reports of focus shift when stopping down on the 50L means I simply won't even try it. So I'm stuck waiting for an update.

 

[YuengLinger]

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.

And you have the conceit to believe your experience is universal. Portrait, street, and wedding photographers also need quick, spot-on AF wide open. Even if somebody is sitting for a portrait, time is precious, expressions come and go quickly, and patience is limited. Nobody wants to wait while the photographer hunts for focus or has to take 10 shots to make sure one is in focus.

The IQ and AF of two Sigma ARTs I had every reason to want to work simply weren't good enough when a much more reliable alternative was available, albeit for a higher price. In fact, the AF on the 50mm ART was erratic and I sent back two copies after optimism turned to frustration.

I'm glad you have good luck with your Sigma products. From what I've seen of concert photography, crystal clear imagery is not the highest goal, nor are eyes in perfect focus... More about dynamics, mood, energy in very tough lighting. But I'd still rather count on Canon AF and IQ--until Sigma can match the higher standard.

Who WOULDN'T want a lens that is "just as good" at a lower price? Anybody you know?

I do, btw, have a Sigma 15mm fisheye which I like very much and would replace if something happened to it.

Last point, I'd love my Canon 24-70mm to have IS. But I'd rather have its IQ, AF, and Canon service behind it.

 

[nicolas.det]

Yep. I think it's an exception as well.. but was not nice.

The lens went like 3 times to Cannon and they never succeed to fixed it. AFMA does not help because the lens ALWAYS focus differently...

I just wanted to say that Sigma and 3rd party are not the only one concerns with AF/quality issues..

Regards

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?

 

[infared]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

 

[YuengLinger]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

 

[privatebydesign]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

 

[YuengLinger]

Inconsistency is an issue. But if a photographer is getting good results with gear, that is what matters most to that particular photographer.

This is a legitimate, relevant thread in response to the announcement of another Sigma lens. Those of us who have had bad experiences with Sigma have concerns and express them. Those who have had mostly good luck with Sigma are excited.

I don't think we have to form camps on this issue.

One thing that has become nearly impossible is finding trustworthy statistics. When I had the two bad Sigma 50mm Art lenses, I searched the Web using different search engines, terms, phrases...I could not get any sense of how common the problem is, whether Canon bodies have more problems than Nikon, etc.

So, a Sigma announcement comes. Those of us who feel like Charlie Brown, with Sigma being Lucy snatching the football at the last moment before a kick--Of course we are going to speak out. There isn't any reason to take reasonable grumbling as "snide" comments.

 

[infared]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

;D

 

[Lee Jay]

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.

I had to do that with my 18-35/1.8, but it remained stable over time.

 

[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.

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.

Well, I use it on a 7D Mark II, and it's quite a nice combo, and not just at base ISO.

 

[slclick]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

Actually for me, my highest sale was an OOF print sold to a very eccentric buyer in Australia who saw it as an eclectic piece and therefore loved it for it's soft tones and dizzying properties. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[privatebydesign]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

Actually for me, my highest sale was an OOF print sold to a very eccentric buyer in Australia who saw it as an eclectic piece and therefore loved it for it's soft tones and dizzying properties. Whatever floats your boat.

There's always an exception, and there are a billion 'art' photographers out there too. Point is soft focus is easy to achieve if you want it, however if accurate focus is needed if you didn't get it you are out of luck.

 

[slclick]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

Actually for me, my highest sale was an OOF print sold to a very eccentric buyer in Australia who saw it as an eclectic piece and therefore loved it for it's soft tones and dizzying properties. Whatever floats your boat.

There's always an exception, and there are a billion 'art' photographers out there too. Point is soft focus is easy to achieve if you want it, however if accurate focus is needed if you didn't get it you are out of luck.

Lost in a sea of a billion, great

 

[privatebydesign]

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.

Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1

I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment.

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.

Actually for me, my highest sale was an OOF print sold to a very eccentric buyer in Australia who saw it as an eclectic piece and therefore loved it for it's soft tones and dizzying properties. Whatever floats your boat.

There's always an exception, and there are a billion 'art' photographers out there too. Point is soft focus is easy to achieve if you want it, however if accurate focus is needed if you didn't get it you are out of luck.

Lost in a sea of a billion, great

Yep. If it fails to focus just desaturate, or super saturate, increase the blur and print it really big, then call it art. That is how art is made :

Maybe that is why the Sigma line is called 'Art'.............

 

[Alex_M]

Gentlemen,

Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.

 

[Antono Refa]

Gentlemen,

Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.

1) I doubt that, but even if true, that's not the whole story.

2) The risk of the lens being bricked is still there.

Yes, the USB dock helps, but it takes time to release a firmware upgrade, it might have a bug, and one would have to check all Sigma lenses are compatible before upgrading to a new camera. People could do without this hassle.

3) This quality improvement comes with significantly higher prices, while lower prices is a big part of what makes a 3rd party lens an attractive alternative to Canon lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

Gentlemen,

Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.

Ok, if we agreed that was fixed done and dusted, and I don't, shall we talk about the focus shift on the new $1,500 12-24mm?

 

[Ryananthony]

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

But for most the budget is the deciding factor. For those, the option of sigma becomes a possibility. Some will choose to "gamble" on AF accuracy, some are willing to return lenses until they get what they are after. Some NEED a lens to work out of the box. Some think they need it, but really decide they don't want to deal with it. I've been burned by a sigma 50mm. BUT I love my 150-600C

I am tempted by sigma everyday. For the price of a Canon 35 1.4ii i can almost buy the sigma 35A and the 85A together here. The prices of any new canon lens in Canada, I think is rediculous, although i understand. Eventually, when and if the Canadian dollar equals out, I wouldn't consider any other lens then canon.

 

[Alex_M]

AF was definitely fixed. Focus shift of the new 12-24 Art is a completely different issue all together. There are some serious design shortcomings in some of the latest Canon lenses as well. Extreme vignetting of the new 16-35 F2.8 L II lens comes to mind? Still, It's a pitty about that focus shift on what could be a great lens. But what do I know.

My point is: it is no longer evident that each and every future Sigma Art lens will suffer from inconsistent AF performance.

Gentlemen,

Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.

Ok, if we agreed that was fixed done and dusted, and I don't, shall we talk about the focus shift on the new $1,500 12-24mm?

 

[Lee Jay]

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

I have two Sigma lenses and neither was purchased because the Canon option was more expensive. Both were bought because the Canon option was non-existant - just like the Canon 24-70/2.8 L IS.