Sigma announces 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art for full frame camera

Andy90 said:
Dpreview has quite a good write up about the lens

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/87...s-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-for-full-frame-camera
Click to expand...

That's not a write-up, it's a press release. :)

I'm not sure how I personally feel about this lens... I don't think it would replace my Sigma 35mm Art 1.4 which I love, and I don't think it would be useful in addition to a Nikon 24-70 which is already a spectacular lens even if the aperture is a bit lower. It is competing against the Nikon 14-24 and Tamron 15-30... and I think landscape buffs would probably prefer the extra wideness options.

However that is only my opinion and I'm sure some people will love it for those three limited focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
I have the 24 F1.4 and it's awesome, the fast aperture gives some lovely wide portrait effects. I can't see this new lens selling that well. It's too heavy, not a good zoom range and only F2.

Amp34 said:
Looks like Sigma are vying with Tokina for the worlds shortest zoom range. They have a what to beat the 11-16 though! :D
Click to expand...

Both are identical zoom ranges - 1.45x
 
Last edited:
It's easy - if you need F1.4 then you buy an F1.4 lens, if not then a F2 lens with more range is a plus for me if the IQ is the same.

Weight? Pfft... I walk around with my 3.6kg lens :P
 
Really don't see the point in this. The range is so limited, you'd be better off just choosing between 24mm and 35mm and then buying the f/1.4 prime of either.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Really don't see the point in this. The range is so limited, you'd be better off just choosing between 24mm and 35mm and then buying the f/1.4 prime of either.
Click to expand...

Why are you better off doing this? A wider aperture doesn't mean it's a better lens.

You know what lenses have a short range? The 24mm and 35mm lenses you just mentioned :P Those have precisely 0 zoom range! Even a short range is better than no range.

Everything has pros and cons.
 
Phal said:
Everything has pros and cons.
Click to expand...
The 24-35 has more cons than pros vs the 24 & 35
It's a 3rd heavier, one stop slower, a zoom with practically no zoom range and i'm guessing one third more expensive.

Get a 24 and crop or a 35 and take 2 steps back :p
 
Phal said:
Why are you better off doing this? A wider aperture doesn't mean it's a better lens.

You know what lenses have a short range? The 24mm and 35mm lenses you just mentioned :P Those have precisely 0 zoom range! Even a short range is better than no range.

Everything has pros and cons.
Click to expand...

All other things being equal, primes usually have superior image quality to zooms simply because their optics are optimised for that focal length and fewer elements are required.

There are some zooms which approach or even equal the quality of a prime (your monster being one of them) and I'll reserve judgement until I see some actual reviews but I'd be amazed if the primes didn't offer better IQ.

I just think this thing is in no-man's-land. If you're that fussed about having a wide aperture, choose between the two focal lengths and get the faster prime with likely better IQ. If you're not that bothered about having a wide aperture, drop one stop to f/2.8 and get a 16-35 or 24-70 with a much more useful range. This lens feels like it's trying to be a jack of all trades and risks doing nothing very well.

We'll see when the reviews arrive.
 
Success of this lens revolves around it's image quality and price. Having owned the 18-35mm for a while now I know they can make a good quality zoom lens and I have to assume the limited zoom range was also a compromise for image quality and a wide aperture. I had my concerns about the small zoom range and how useful it would be but those didn't last long.

It's not a 1.4 so if you want a 1.4 then obviously this isn't the lens for you :P

The possible cons for this lens are cost/weight/image quality. The limited zoom range isn't a problem if the IQ is good because then any zoom range is a plus compared to a prime (assume IQ is good).

Weight is a personal preference unless you fly a lot or have some kind of medical condition but then you're a minority anyway. It is also relative since this is a weight saving if you currently carry all 3 for some reason.

Size is similar to weight since this lens could be better or worse depending on how many lenses you currently hump around.



Everything really depends on image quality. With crap IQ then this lens is a bit of a waste of time unless it's dirt cheap. With good quality that stands up against prime lenses then it's potentially a saving on money/weight/size with the convenience of not having to switch lenses all the time.

As Vertigo says, we'll need to wait on the lens to be tested to know I guess :)
 
Bit disappointed I've been waiting to see what the new sigma approach could deliver in a 24-70mm f2.8 OS this new lens for me is to limited in the zoom range to justify the likely cost and weight. Oh well the wait for the 24-70 and 70-200 art lenses goes on.
 
SDK^ said:
I have the 24 F1.4 and it's awesome, the fast aperture gives some lovely wide portrait effects. I can't see this new lens selling that well. It's too heavy, not a good zoom range and only F2.



Both are identical zoom ranges - 1.45x
Click to expand...

Guess it depends how you measure it.:p

Either way they are both ridiculously short.
 
An f/2 zoom is an advancement any way you look at it, even if this particular lens doesn't fit into the market very well, it's an innovation that Nikon and Canon haven't been able to achieve.
 
Energize said:
An f/2 zoom is an advancement any way you look at it, even if this particular lens doesn't fit into the market very well, it's an innovation that Nikon and Canon haven't been able to achieve.
Click to expand...

or perhaps haven't tried to achieve because it won't be a big seller and has no clear market canon and Nikon between them produce very few niche lenses and those that they do tend to be very specialist and very expensive, this lens from Sigma while technical impressive is neither of those things.

I would be interesting if Sigma released a 24-70mm f2.8 OS ART on the same day which would sell the most!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom