Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 DC DN Art Specifications

102 comments

1. Even though the zoom ain't the replacement for my EF-S 15-85mm that I'm (also) eagerly waiting for, it looks like I should start saving for two new lenses 🙂

   • Reply

   • 0

2. There hasn’t been a lens like this that I can remember,

   
   Well, the Sigma 18–35mm/1.8 A would have a word 😉 Seems reasonably likely that this is an upgraded version with a few mm of extra zoom range.

   • Reply

   • 0
3. If it's not bigger than RF 28-70 f2.8, I will upgrade my 18-50 into this...

   • Reply

   • 0
4. Both lenses are impressive! I would personally like to see the R7 Mark II on the market before I invest in Canon's APS-C format. Right now my only APS-C Canon camera is the R10 and it's essentially the continuation of the "Canon SL" line in size. But man, if this camera had IBIS I would take it everywhere I went.

   • Reply

   • 0
5. 12mm f1.4 - decently sharp even for the R7 when wide open, low coma, not too much vignetting - take my money!

   • Reply

   • 0
6. The lenses look very interesting, but not sufficiently so to tempt me to buy an APS-C R body to use them.
   
   To those who understand equivalence, the advantages of APS-C remain lower cost and size/weight. The FFeq of 17-40/1.8 is 27-64/2.9, so my RF 24-105/2.8 is ‘better’. Likewise, 12/1.4 is equivalent to 19/2.2 and the extra 1-1/3 stops of my 20/1.4 is worth more than the 0.5 mm difference (to me, based on DxO correction of barrel distortion).

   • Reply

   • 0
7. These make me so happy, Canon APS-C will have much better options compared to EOS-M. Sigma is making every photographer happy

   • Reply

   • 0
8. All the sudden the R10/ R7 seem to be interesting again 🤣 Seriously, happy for the APS-C shooters, but I think these lenses are not for me.

   • Reply

   • 0

9. The lenses look very interesting, but not sufficiently so to tempt me to buy an APS-C R body to use them.
   
   To those who understand equivalence, the advantages of APS-C remain lower cost and size/weight. The FFeq of 17-40/1.8 is 27-64/2.9, so my RF 24-105/2.8 is ‘better’. Likewise, 12/1.4 is equivalent to 19/2.2 and the extra 1-1/3 stops of my 20/1.4 is worth more than the 0.5 mm difference (to me, based on DxO correction of barrel distortion).

   I've been wondering why Sigma doesn't go all out and produce f/1.0 aps-c lenses. Maybe the possible designs would be too expensive, heavy or poor quality for their customer base?

   • Reply

   • 0
10. The old Sigma EF 18-35mm already looks and works great on the R7 (after a lens firmware update to fix the IBIS), so I'm excited to see what 12 year of technological improvements yield. I expect at minimum weight, bulk, and volume reduction (the autofocus sounds like a geiger counter) which alone would be worth an upgrade.

    • Reply

    • 0

11. All the sudden the R10/ R7 seem to be interesting again 🤣 Seriously, happy for the APS-C shooters, but I think these lenses are not for me.

    With the Sigma RF-S announcement last year, all Canon RF-S cameras make better sense than most of their competition. Fuji can't do AF-C well in 2025, Nikon Z DX still lacks decent f2.8 zooms, and Sony only cares about the videographers/vlog market.

    • Reply

    • 0

12. The lenses look very interesting, but not sufficiently so to tempt me to buy an APS-C R body to use them.
    
    To those who understand equivalence, the advantages of APS-C remain lower cost and size/weight. The FFeq of 17-40/1.8 is 27-64/2.9, so my RF 24-105/2.8 is ‘better’. Likewise, 12/1.4 is equivalent to 19/2.2 and the extra 1-1/3 stops of my 20/1.4 is worth more than the 0.5 mm difference (to me, based on DxO correction of barrel distortion).

    You beat me to the equivalence. I think the comparison will be weight and price vs the RF 28-70 2.8, not the 24-105 2.8. The specs are much closer to the 'enthusiast' RF 2.8 zoom, which weighs 495g, compared to .. 810 g for the older 18-35 f1.8. If it's 400 g or less, and $800 or less, then this is an amazing lens and makes me less grumpy about my M6ll eventually breaking down. If it's as heavy as the older f1.8 zoom then even on a light RF-S body it will be heavier than an R8 28-70 2.8 combo, and not tempting, for me at least.

    • Reply

    • 0

13. I think the comparison will be weight and price vs the RF 28-70 2.8, not the 24-105 2.8. The specs are much closer to the 'enthusiast' RF 2.8 zoom

    Agreed. I was just making it all about me. 😏

    • Reply

    • 0

14. These make me so happy, Canon APS-C will have much better options compared to EOS-M. Sigma is making every photographer happy

    We still need the EF-M 22mm f/2 ported over (or another similar bright pancake prime if Canon couldn't make it work on RF mount) and an EF-S 15-85mm type lens as someone else mentioned (preferably a constant f/2.8 or at least f/4), and also a proper m6ii/m200 successor to take full advantage of that compact 22mm f/2 equivalent. Lets hope the R50V was just the entry level first of several more slim pocketable bodies.

    • Reply

    • 0
15. This is great, but it depends on the price and quality to determine if it's worth it or better just go full frame and get something like the R6 Mark II or R8 + 28-70 2.8. This Sigma 17-40 will need to be under $800 (unlikely) and much lighter than the older 18-35 for me to consider it.

    • Reply

    • 0
16. I don’t care about APS-C lenses. I want third party full frame lenses. I kid you not, I’m closer now than ever to switching!

    • Reply

    • 0
17. I guess this is what Canon allows Sigma to do. So now I am (and have been waiting for years) for a proper 24mm to Xmm equivalent zoom. F4 would be fine, I would prefer that over F2.8 for weight reasons.
    
    As for the lenses rumored, I'm not excited at all, I use my FF cameras and lenses for that kind of work, but I'm glad people are happy

    • Reply

    • 0

18. I've been wondering why Sigma doesn't go all out and produce f/1.0 aps-c lenses. Maybe the possible designs would be too expensive, heavy or poor quality for their customer base?

    An APS-f f/1 will be close the same size as the equivalent FF f/1.4. If you slap a speed booster on a FF f/1.4, you get .7x FL f/1 lens. Given that 1.4 is less than 1.6, the speed booster is theoretically capable of a bit more illumination area than Canon APS-c, but not all that much. Bottom line, if you want to catch that many photons, it makes sense to go to FF.

    • Reply

    • 0
19. Cool!
    Both, APS-C RF 17-40mm f/1.8 and RF 12mm f/1.4, sound really great.
    Having the 18-50/2.8, I expect image and built quality at the same level as the already released Sigma RF lenses.
    Especially the f/1.8 zoom will be interesting.

    • Reply

    • 0