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

[a1ex2001]

Now that I would buy in a heartbeat...

I'm not definite I would buy it I'm liking having smaller primes on the camera hence my quest for a 35mm f2 IS but I would definitely be interested I miss having an f2.8 standard zoom since I chopped in my Tamron 28-75mm for the canon 24-105mm f4 L

 

[Richdog]

I'm not definite I would buy it I'm liking having smaller primes on the camera hence my quest for a 35mm f2 IS but I would definitely be interested I miss having an f2.8 standard zoom since I chopped in my Tamron 28-75mm for the canon 24-105mm f4 L

Why do you need IS on a fast prime? It would just add uneccessary bulk. The 35mm 1.4 Art is already amazing as it is.

A 24-70 is pretty essential imo as a versatile short-mid range lens, and if Sigma can nail the new one then they have a winner.

 

[a1ex2001]

Why do you need IS on a fast prime? It would just add uneccessary bulk. The 35mm 1.4 Art is already amazing as it is.

A 24-70 is pretty essential imo as a versatile short-mid range lens, and if Sigma can nail the new one then they have a winner.

The Canon 35mm F2 IS is a lot smaller than the sigma art hence why I want it! I have the canon 35mm f2 at the minute and love the results it's just the AF that annoys me now I have a few USM/STM lenses the IS is just a bonus that while everyone says it's pointless on short lenses I find it ups my hand held keeper ratio a little! I have considered the Sigma art lens as the results are beautiful but it is a big bit of kit for a 35mm and I'm not sure the extra stop is worth the weight!

 

[An Exception]

Why do you need IS on a fast prime? It would just add uneccessary bulk. The 35mm 1.4 Art is already amazing as it is.

A 24-70 is pretty essential imo as a versatile short-mid range lens, and if Sigma can nail the new one then they have a winner.

That should be obvious.

 

[Energize]

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 don't think that's the case because big sellers like the 18-35mm f/1.8 haven't been produced by the likes of Canikon either which suggests a lack of technical ability to produce such lenses.

 

[Richdog]

I don't think that's the case because big sellers like the 18-35mm f/1.8 haven't been produced by the likes of Canikon either which suggests a lack of technical ability to produce such lenses.

I would be very surprised (not saying it isn't possible, but...) if the two biggest first-party lens manufacturers in the world had less technical ability than a third-party manufacturer.

 

[a1ex2001]

I don't think that's the case because big sellers like the 18-35mm f/1.8 haven't been produced by the likes of Canikon either which suggests a lack of technical ability to produce such lenses.

Is it really a big seller? I know it's quite popular with the enthusiast market but I doubt in real terms the sales are huge, I could well be wrong but anecdotally I see a lot of SLR's out and about and have never seen one.

I would be very surprised (not saying it isn't possible, but...) if the two biggest first-party lens manufacturers in the world had less technical ability than a third-party manufacturer.

Totally agree the idea than Canon/Nikon can't do it seems pretty laughable but again I could be wrong!

 

[Richdog]

Totally agree the idea than Canon/Nikon can't do it seems pretty laughable but again I could be wrong!

I think it must be more to do with Canon and Nikon releasing lenses that fit in very specific spec slots between other lenses (or act as direct replacements to update existing lenses), and that won't detract from sales in other carefully calculated areas... whereas Sigma have to differentiate themselves more so they release lenses that create more buzz maybe don't worry about the delicate balance in their own product lines as their sales are just not so reliable and consistent as the first party guys.

 

[An Exception]

Or could it be that Sigma are just getting that good at lens design these days.
Also for the folks mentioning sales. Sigma lenses are sold across 3/4 mounts, not just a single mount like the 1st party lenses. This means in theory R&D expenses are proportionately lower compared to 1st party designs. This affords Sigma the ability to offer lower pricing while maintaining margin. This would also allow Sigma at some point to design specialist lenses and greatly undercut Canon and Nikon.

 

[a1ex2001]

Or could it be that Sigma are just getting that good at lens design these days.
Also for the folks mentioning sales. Sigma lenses are sold across 3/4 mounts, not just a single mount like the 1st party lenses. This means in theory R&D expenses are proportionately lower compared to 1st party designs. This affords Sigma the ability to offer lower pricing while maintaining margin. This would also allow Sigma at some point to design specialist lenses and greatly undercut Canon and Nikon.

but do you really believe that Canon and Nikon couldn't design an F2 lens with such a limited zoom range if they so wanted? I don't disagree that sigma has the potential for higher sales I would however be surprised if the 18-35mm is one of the best sellers for them.

or me there are far more obvious gaps in particularly Canon's line up that you would think they wanted to close with sigma for example the ancient 50mm f1.4 which is horribly outclassed these days and other than f1.4 offers nothing over the new f1.8 STM lens. The also lack a fast normal lens for a crop sensor which has always surprised me given how well the Nikon offering sells!

 

[Raymond Lin]

Sigma wouldn't care if it takes away sale from their own lenses in the same focal range. That's the worry for 1st party, not to have that much overlap. Sigma is more concern about getting more market share, so this lens basically hits 2 lens' sales with 1 stone, in theory.

 

[An Exception]

but do you really believe that Canon and Nikon couldn't design an F2 lens with such a limited zoom range if they so wanted? I don't disagree that sigma has the potential for higher sales I would however be surprised if the 18-35mm is one of the best sellers for them.

Neither of us actually know. While technically they likely could make such a lens, actually being any good or not is a different matter.
I believe Sigma's 35mm release is what caused the delay and redesign of Canon's planned 35L mkii that was going to be released back in 2013. Clearly Sigma now seems to have a certain 'expertise', considering how their 35mm was the best on the market at the time.

http://www.dailycameranews.com/tag/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii/

 

[Energize]

I would be very surprised (not saying it isn't possible, but...) if the two biggest first-party lens manufacturers in the world had less technical ability than a third-party manufacturer.

The optical quality of the Sigma Art lenses is unequivocally superior to the comparable Canikon lenses, so all signs point to it.

 

[a1ex2001]

The optical quality of the Sigma Art lenses is unequivocally superior to the comparable Canikon lenses, so all signs point to it.

Granted the 35mm and 50mm lenses in the art range are exceptional and the 18-35mm f1.8 is very good but the 24-105mm is nothing special only matching the ancient Canon design and the 30mm f1.4 is no better than the existing Nikon design.

Basically Sigma have created two outstanding primes that are better than some very old Canon and Nikon designs the difference isn't night and day and I'm sure when the big names respond we will be impressed they were essentially easy pickings. Notice that Sigma haven't gone head to head with canon's 24-70mm f2.8 mkii even though their existing offering is ancient and total rubbish and the 70-200mm f2.8mkii if they deliver a clear advantage against such modern quality kit then I will be very impressed.

 

[SDK^]

Granted the 35mm and 50mm lenses in the art range are exceptional.

Basically Sigma have created two outstanding primes that are better than some very old Canon and Nikon designs

You've forgot the Sigma 24 F1.4 A which kicks down the Canon 24mm F1.4 II lens (2008).

 

[a1ex2001]

You've forgot the Sigma 24 F1.4 A which kicks down the Canon 24mm F1.4 II lens (2008).

Haven't read any reviews from the sites I trust yet will look forward to seeing just how much better it is if as you say it gives the canon mkii a significant kicking then that is an achievement.

EDIT - Quick look at a few reviews doesn't really show the sigma as significantly better, little sharper in the centre of the frame, but the canon is still very good and the same edge problems as all the other lenses in this category. I'm not knocking the sigma lenses they are outstanding performers but I don't think they are in anyway out of reach of the OEM's the more current the OEM lens the less the gap.

 

[SDK^]

I hired the Canon 24 F1.4 L II for three days and I own the Sigma 24 F1.4.
The Sigma is the better lens - sharper wide open and with a lot less vignetting and CA. The Sigma has sharper center and edge image quality wide open than the Canon does at F2. Looking at images taken at F1.4 on the Canon is similar to looking through a tunnel

 

[Energize]

dp

 

[Energize]

Granted the 35mm and 50mm lenses in the art range are exceptional and the 18-35mm f1.8 is very good but the 24-105mm is nothing special only matching the ancient Canon design and the 30mm f1.4 is no better than the existing Nikon design.

There is nothing to compare to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, ignoring that, that's that's not really in the same market segment as the 24, 35, 50, 18-35 and 24-35 they have in their lineup.

The price difference between some of these lenses is shocking as well. Sigma are able to offer their 35mm design for less than half the price of Nikon's product, could say a lot about their design and manufacturing abilities.

24-35mm is the typical focal length range I use indoors and at a stop faster than the 24-70mm would have a significant advantage over it in that scenario.

 

[a1ex2001]

There is nothing to compare to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, ignoring that, that's that's not really in the same market segment as the 24, 35, 50, 18-35 and 24-35 they have in their lineup.

The price difference between some of these lenses is shocking as well. Sigma are able to offer their 35mm design for less than half the price of Nikon's product, could say a lot about their design and manufacturing abilities.

24-35mm is the typical focal length range I use indoors and at a stop faster than the 24-70mm would have a significant advantage over it in that scenario.

The price difference is an interesting one i'm not sure that the final sticker price has much to do with manufacturing costs it probably has a lot more to do with margin and I suspect canon and nikons is a lot higher. i'm surprised the sigma 35mm and 50mm art lenses don't cost more as they are of such high quality I don't think pricing the closer to the oem's would effect sales wher as I can't see how they expect the 24-105mm art to sell as in many cases the canon l is cheaper just as good and guaranteed to remain compatible with the eos system.