UPDATE: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,460
1,901
USA
ahsanford said:
YuengLinger said:
ahsanford said:
  • We don't have a UWA landscape zoom that is that sharp.
  • We don't have an UWA zoom that goes down to 14mm.
  • We don't have a great do-it-all UWA zoom.
  • We don't have a great astro zoom.
I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon. Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Then again, what you most want is a 50mm IS the size of a pancake.

What about my list above implies that I am hung up on landscapes? I think I gave equal air to landscapes / U-UWA / all-purpose use in my post above.

I would contend that Canon has just about everyone covered here on the UWA end:

Travel: 16-35 f/4L IS
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
(Environmental) portraiture: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Architecture: 11-24 f/4L (or T/S)
U-UWA lovers: 11-24 f/4L
Astro: [crickets]

So I ask you: what large group of shooters is being left out in the cold by Canon not offering 14mm @ f/2.8 in a zoom?

(And not wanting a big pickle jar retrofocal 50 prime is not remotely the same thing as wanting a pancake, and you know that. :p)

- A

Just about covered, yes!

Their current 14mm f/2.8, while attractively smaller than the Sigma 1.8, just doesn't get solid enough reviews for me to go for.

I was under the impression from earlier posts that you were focused on landscape. I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

One thing the 16-35mm f/2.8 III has going for it is significantly less distortion than the f/4 IS--at least from what I see on TDP comparisons. The vignetting is a bummer and what's keeping me from trading up.

A 14-24mm f/2.8 with even less distortion and vignetting would be very welcome. More welcome from Canon, but I hope Sigma makes a better one than Nikon's. I'm interested!
 

whothafunk

EOS RP
Apr 17, 2013
267
12
ahsanford said:
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
YuengLinger said:
I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

Sure, but filtering isn't just for landscapers or protecting your front element. Daylight event folks might need an ND as well.

- A
 

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,460
1,901
USA
ahsanford said:
YuengLinger said:
I think the filter issue is more of a concern for landscape than people photography, though running around without a UV bothers some more than others.

Sure, but filtering isn't just for landscapers or protecting your front element. Daylight event folks might need an ND as well.

- A

I think this is super tiny subset. The ND's are occasionally useful for preplanned outdoor portraits, but I'd say only very rarely for events and photojournalism. How much more subject isolation would we get with an ND on an UWA with a max aperture of f/2.8?
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
whothafunk said:
ahsanford said:
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.

I was referring to the 16-35 f/4L IS being Canon's answer for video shooters because it has IS, not that it's the best tool from all manufacturers for that job. The Tamron might be better for that application, sure.

I would say a do-everything UWA zoom offers [fast] + [IS] + [front filterable]. And that lens does not exist:

  • Tamron gets you [fast] + [IS]
  • 16-35 f/4L IS gets you [IS] + [front-filterable]
  • 16-35 f/2.8L III gets you [fast] + [front-filterable] (<-- most would claim this product to be the all-battlefield UWA zoom, but it lacks IS)

Choose the right tool for your needs, I guess.

- A
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,562
3,957
Irving, Texas
whothafunk said:
ahsanford said:
Landscapes: 16-35 f/4L IS
Video: 16-35 f/4L IS
Sports: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Events: 16-35 f/2.8L III
Reportage / photojourno: 16-35 f/2.8L III
For video (GH5 and 1DX2), we're using Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS and it's an awesome, awesome lens. 16-35 f4 IS? Why..?

Tamron has just about everything you would want (wide, fast, IS, sharp, $$$), minus the bulbous front element. I use it for sports and photo journalism, it doesn't miss a hit.

I have the Tamron and it is a great lens. At least I think so. I haven't, though, been able to get a front filter kit yet.

Even though the Tamron is a very good lens, I still wish I'd bought the Canon if for nothing else than it's purported lack of distortion (not including the projection distortion). Yes, I saved a bunch of money, but by now I wouldn't be missing that money anymore. :) I'd also be basking in a much wider FOV and no keystoning.

Both need the expensive front filter kits.

Who is Sigma targeting? The same people the rest of the makers are targeting. Also, let's not forget, Sigma has a fan base like all the other makers do.
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,292
425
Re: Next From Sigma? 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art

YuengLinger said:
Antono Refa said:
YuengLinger said:
Antono Refa said:
Canon has 16-35mm f/4L for those who want IS & reasonably sized filters, 16-35mm f/2.8L for those who want wide & fast, and 11-24mm f/4L for those who want even wider.

Then who in the world is Sigma targeting with this lens?

There would always be people who want wider & faster just because.

YuengLinger said:
Nevertheless, a zoom wider than 16mm and faster than f/4 is something missing from Canon, so I'll read and watch reviews with interest.

As for "bulbous," filter challenges, etc., if that's what it takes to get rectilinear at ultra-wide, to me, a necessary compromise. I'd just cross my fingers every I went out with it!

Like the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L, which Canon makes for over 25 years? Or does it have to be a zoom because Nikon makes one?

The next step will be 'Canon lacks a lens to compete with the Voightlander 10mm f/5.6', to be followed all the way to zooms starting @ 0mm, as fisheye lenses prove there's a need for a rectilinear lens with a 180 vdeg AoV.

A zoom offers more focal lengths

You don't say!

YuengLinger said:
You are arguing with yourself.

At least I'm arguing with someone who knows what Canon has to offer.
 

9VIII

EOS 5D Mark IV
Feb 8, 2013
1,843
0
Looks like Nikonrumors got wind of the announcement first: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-a
 

exkeks

I'm New Here
Sep 14, 2017
12
3
hendrik-sg said:
As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

According to DXOmark, the vignetting @16mm wide open is just about the same. So the "speed" advantage of the f/2.8 version is equally distributed.
 

snoke

EOS RP
Jul 20, 2017
306
47
YuengLinger said:
I've seen many examples of photojournalistic and event photos from the Nikon. Not sure why you are so hung up with UWA being for landscape only...

Some people say lens for specific job only. Why? Good question. Is ignorant comment.
 

snoke

EOS RP
Jul 20, 2017
306
47
Sigma claim low "less than 1%" distortion. Amazing. Beat 16-35/2.8.

11mm field of view = 117.1 degrees
12mm field of view = 112.6 degrees
14mm field of view = 104.3 degrees
16mm field of view = 96.7 degrees

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html
 

hendrik-sg

EOS RP
Apr 21, 2011
247
25
exkeks said:
hendrik-sg said:
As far as the Canon 16-35 competition shows, the 2.8 Version has so terrible vignetting that it is faster than the 4.0 IS only in the frame center. So if there is only the background blur as advantage, i would take the IS version for half the price anytime.

According to DXOmark, the vignetting @16mm wide open is just about the same. So the "speed" advantage of the f/2.8 version is equally distributed.

This statement is interesting, i could not yet check it. My information was from Lenstip and TDP. More confusing is, that it seems not to be easy to even measure vignetting, even by routined reviewers. Same confusion about distorsion (for the 11-24 this time) which looks completely different at lenstip than at other reviewers.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Vignetting data from LensTip (all values = wide open at widest FL on a FF sensor):

Canon 16-35 f/4L IS = -2.17 EV
Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III = -4.07 EV -- healthy discussion on that here
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC = -1.79 EV

And in that discussion link the III vignetting data is corroborated elsewhere. It's a function of focus distance, but largely you need to crank up the corners quite a bit in post to get back what the lens can't reel in, especially if you are shooting at 16 f/2.8.

So hendrik's comment that 'you lose your speed / you only get the true speed of the lens in the center' is not unfounded. I think it's a bit harsh to imply Canon isn't really giving you an f/2.8 lens here so much as (possibly) recognize that the world's sharpest UWA zoom did not come for free -- 16mm vignetting appears to be the cost.

One also might wonder if the magical combination of [sharp] + [has filter ring] + [f/2.8] + [low vignetting] might have been possible if Canon had jumped to a larger yet filter ring / front element diameter, say 86mm or higher. I don't think they would have dramatically improved vignetting without moving to a more bulbous front element, but a larger outer diameter might have helped.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
NancyP said:
Astro-landscape photographers may be interested.

Yep, but Sigma -- for all it's butt-kicking on resolution -- has had limited success fighting coma.

I don't shoot astro, but it would appear from the posters here that coma performance is as vital as resolution with an astro lens.

And this has not been the strong suit of the wide/fast Art lenses:

Sigma 14 f/1.8 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/506.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 20 f/1.4 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/430.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sigma 24-35 f/2 Art: https://www.lenstip.com/447.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_24-35_mm_f_2.0_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A