Well at least according to w ..... looks interesting.
Well at least according to w ..... looks interesting.
Last edited by Swissblad; 19th June 2015 at 03:58.
It is already showing up on commercial camera store sites, so it would appear to be far more than a rumor.
Well done to Sigma for innovating in this way: limited range, but 'core wide angle' territory amply covered, with f2 and hopefully impressive quality.
I'm hoping the rumored 24-70 Art is in the not too distant future.
www.douglaswoodphotography.com1 Member(s) liked this post
I would have preffered a 28-50mm f2 or even a 24-40mm f2 instead. They say this lens is supposed to be what the 18-35mm f1.8 is for APS-C sensors, but it's not the same.
the 82mm filter does put me off abit to be honest =(
Keep It Simple.
XQ2 / A7r / 15mm / 25mm / 28-35-50mm
EOS M3 / 18-35mm
Very interesting lens for me this. Will be interesting to see the weight and price. 82mm filter is no surprise. I have a feeling that 82 is becoming the new 77 for me.
The limited 24-35mm zoom range is disappointing. It would only [potentially] displace the 24mm and 35mm Art lenses in my bag. I would have preferred a 24-50mm or 24-70mm and probably will pass on this one. The 24mm, 35mm and 50mm Art primes are excellent lenses, having replaced their Nikon equivalents [in my kit]. I'm OK with the 82mm filter size though.
Joe Colson Photography
24-35 is indeed very limiting. Wonder why in this case use a zoom instead of 2 1.4 primes.
Needs to be at least 24-50 to become interesting for me.
Life is an ever changing journey
Interesting, if slightly eccentric, zoom range. It might be attractive for the committed wide-angle editorial photographer who doesn't want to keep switching between fast 24 and 35 lenses and doesn't want the wasted focal length, loss of aperture and added weight of the standard 24-70 F2.8 zoom.
I own (and buy) very few SLR lenses. This new 24-35 zoom lens would be useful as a landscape lens but F2 would be overkill. A 16-35/F4 or even 18-28/F4 ART lens would be more interesting to me (for occasional commercial applications).
I'm with Peter -- I'd rather carry two fast primes than this zoom even though it covers 3 focals and is relatively fast. If it were a 21-35 or 24-50 at f2, it might be more compelling for me, but a really good f2.8 zoom at ~ 18-40 would knock my sox off.
While I agree that more zoom would be useful, particularly 21-35mm in my case, this looks like an interesting lens for many applications. I do a lot of industrial photography, and light is often lacking. One stop can mean the difference between a great and a good photo if there's a need to make a very large print. The weight isn't much more than the Sigma 24 and 35mm lenses combined, and it would save me the time of changing lenses, time that isn't always available, or using a second body.
The biggest competitor for me would be the Tamron 15-30mm, which is almost as long and much wider, but it's a stop slower, heavier, larger and can't use ordinary filters. The latter is a big deal in an industrial environment to protect the lens. The Tamron also has OIS, but that's of limited use when there's movement, and there mostly is.
The deciding factor will obviously be image quality. Buying this lens might mean swapping the Zeiss 21mm for the 18mm... if I have the guts to sell the 21 I look forward to see samples and reviews.
Now, how about an 85-135mm f/2.0 portrait monster
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=611052 Member(s) liked this post
Let me just say this about zooms in general... I like them for their versatility; and when they cover a very narrow range, they aren't really very versatile. Next, when they're fast, f2.8 (and now 2) is about as fast as it gets, and f1.4 is a lot faster than 2 or 2.8 when it comes to focus isolation characteristics, and especially so in wides. Thirdly, fast zooms are relative tanks, and from a pure handling standpoint, I prefer primes for my fast glass for this reason. Also, there is the "look," "drawing" or "mojo" component, and zooms rarely have it. (Of course the Sigma ART lenses are already so clean, their "mojo" is mostly in their oof character surrounding that very clean rendering...) So in conclusion speaking for myself, when it comes to zooms I am okay with slower apertures to get the more versatile ranges.
Note this doesn't mean I'm not attracted to fast zooms, I always seem to be. But at the same time I've learned that I rarely use them if I have faster primes in those focals already, so I will not be clamoring for this new Sigma.
Did some sizing and it seems this lens is about the same size as the 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8, which explains the 82mm filter I suppose.
Zoom ranges are 2.1x, 2.9x and 1.45x respectively, so the fast aperture is there due to the very limited zoom range, if you can call it a zoom.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post
I hoped for 28/1.4 Art... Can't wait to see how it performs in the middle of its zoom range.
A f2 zoom has one huge advantage for photographers who need to work at pace and that it is... a zoom (that offers a stop more than the regular mid range examples)! You can do so much more at f2 than you could have a few years ago due to amazing high ISO. For PJs and documentary shooters, this lens can sit on one body with a 50mm prime, or 85mm portrait lens on the other and get 98% of everything done. We already have the primes, but this gives people another option and way of working. Personally, if this lens is very good, I would take it over the two primes any day of the week for documentary work.
My Pentax 28-45 for the 645 is a great example of what happens when you limit the focal range of zooms: you get amazing image quality that rivals primes, but offers more flexibility in exchange for greater bulk. We all have different needs but I think this lens will appeal to quite a few people like me who do 90% of their shooting in this range.
Interestingly, one of the most loved WA zooms for the DX format is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I've never owned it, since I went to m4/3 around the time it was launched, but this one is obviously comparable, although much faster, relative to the sensor size it's designed for, and not as wide.
21-28mm would probably have been more useful for me, or at least closer to what I'm used to, but it does cover two primes, without being much larger than either, and it does save a lot of lens changes. If I was going to make an ultra efficient AF setup for travel, this lens and a 70-200 f/4 would probably cover most bases. I would carry a 50mm prime as well though. Add a 15 or 18mm when it's needed, and it's complete.
Even a 35-50mm would have been better IMO
Maybe I'm in the minority but I think this may be a great lens if it performs up to the standards of the other Sigma Art lenses. I believe that a 21-35/2 would be more desirable but harder to correct for.
Priolite Ambassador | Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
http://www.iiinelsonimages.com1 Member(s) liked this post
Some samples are up on Sigma's blog.
A review from LensTip: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?tes...wu&test_ob=447
anyone here shooting this yet? curious.