# Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 29, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/sigma-24-70-f2-os-hsm-coming-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/sigma-24-70-f2-os-hsm-coming-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>More magic from Sigma coming?

</strong>The last year or two from Sigma has been a pretty good one. A lot of <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">highly regarded lenses have been released that come in at pretty great prices</a> compared to the competitors.</p>
<p>We’re told Sigma is working on a 24-70 f/2 OS HSM for full frame cameras. We’re told they want to give a full frame zoom option faster than f/2.8 that rivals the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967344-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">APS-C 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM</a>. There was no word on what pricing would be, but it would definitely come in under the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 24-74 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<p>We’re told this could be a Photokina 2014 lens. Next year is going to be a big one for Canon & Sigma by all indications.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## niklasR (Jul 29, 2013)

f/2? OS? *dream* Let's hope it beats Canon's 24-70/2.8 I, and I shall start saving!


----------



## Invertalon (Jul 29, 2013)

That will be one very hefty beast, I would imagine! 

Either way, Sigma is doing such a great job at being innovative beyond what the large companies are doing and being successful at it. Good for them!


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 30, 2013)

Do it Sigma. Keep it coming...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm gonna buy Sigma stock. Nice to see a company not coming out with completely unnecessary lenses...*cough* 24-70 f/4 *cough*


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 30, 2013)

Before reading this post about a potenial FF f/2 zoom from Sigma, I had just submitted a post in this thread http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16124.15 where I said I would be keen to see a manufacturer build a FF zoom lens faster than f/2.8 - for example I said even with limited zoom range, and 24-35mm f/1.8 with great IQ.

I wrote that - as I have been very impressed with Sigma producing the APS-C 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM- and know that something 'equivalent' for FF could be done.

However the specs of a FF 24-70mm f/2 lens would be huge (large, heavy, possibly expensive) - but I believe Sigma might be able to pull it off...! *Yay * to improvements and advances.

Paul

PS edit: OS would be AWESOME.. and if HSM is spot on - even MORE kudos to Sigma. I'd love a wide to normal OS (IS) 'fast' zoom!


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 30, 2013)

Want.


----------



## dslrdummy (Jul 30, 2013)

Would gladly sell my 24-105 to get it. Given their recent lenses, it is bound to be sharp and solidly built but also heavy.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 30, 2013)

PLEASE, dear God, don't be a fake rumor!

This lens would be awesome if Sigma can keep the quality similar with their amazing 35mm.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

Wow, this may be the first 24-70 lens ill own.


----------



## silvestography (Jul 30, 2013)

And here I am, just having bought the Tamron 24-70 VC not a year ago...

In all seriousness, if they could make this thing in a not-too-huge package below the $1500 pricepoint, I'd go for it, especially with all the killer lenses sigma's been putting out recently.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 30, 2013)

Holy cow! How is Sigma doing all these great lenses, and all of a sudden? What are they suddenly doing right that is making such a dramatic difference?

And unlike some leading OEM's who rhyme with "Kanon", Sigma seems to release these great new lenses pretty quickly. If it is real, I don't get the feeling we will have to wait for years to see it. 

Serious kudos to Sigma.


----------



## westr70 (Jul 30, 2013)

Yum. I was saving for the 24-70 but I'll wait and see what this one is all about first. Go Sigma.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2013)

Would be interesting to know the filter thread size.

Scaling up the 18-35/1.8 would get us to 130mm!


----------



## distant.star (Jul 30, 2013)

.
If they make this in a f/2.8 and it performs as well as their new 35mm, I'll take it.

Using that 35 since last April, if I were in the business for money, I'd be making it with that lens!!


----------



## drjlo (Jul 30, 2013)

Let's all hope the Sigma is reasonably sharp at f/2 and doesn't have big AF issues. Otherwise, I'm in


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 30, 2013)

silvestography said:


> And here I am, just having bought the Tamron 24-70 VC not a year ago...
> 
> In all seriousness, if they could make this thing in a not-too-huge package below the $1500 pricepoint, I'd go for it, especially with all the killer lenses sigma's been putting out recently.



I bought one in January and love it. If/when this Sigma comes out and is reviewed I'll strongly consider it. Until then, I am very happy to use the Tamron.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 30, 2013)

While f/2 would be awesome, it'd need to have some pretty good sharpness wide open even in the corners. If it can about match the Tamron 24-70 even in the corners at f/2 that'd be a huge accomplishment. Very exciting what the 3rd party manufacturers are doing in lenses/speedlights/etc these days!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2013)

Crikey, this thing will weigh 5 pounds. 

But it might be 5 pounds of awesome.

- A


----------



## Tom W (Jul 30, 2013)

Now that would be an interesting prospect. If it's a good quality lens.

I expect that it will be quite large though.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 30, 2013)

If its the same price as the Tamron and performs as well if not better I'm down.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 30, 2013)

If true, can't wait to see how it performs against the canon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'm gonna buy Sigma stock. Nice to see a company not coming out with completely unnecessary lenses...*cough* 24-70 f/4 *cough*



24-70 f/4 IS = better than 24-105, has IS, costs less than f/2.8 II = not so crazy?

As for this Sigma, it sounds cool, but I'm sure it will be a bit of a beast and I don't anticipate selling a 24-70 2.8 II or f/4 IS for such a lens myself. It's interesting though.


----------



## enraginangel (Jul 30, 2013)

I was going to get a Tamron once I had the money, but I'm going to wait for this. I know I'd be happy with the Tamron, but I have 2 other Sigma lenses and I'm quite comfortable with their products.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 30, 2013)

I was going to sell two 24-105's... and then save up a few bucks for a 24-70mm f/2.8L mkii... but this is interesting... really interesting. At the very least, maybe it causes the 24-70 to go down in price a bit. That would be a great side effect.


----------



## OmarSV11 (Jul 30, 2013)

Erm... Bring the 70-200 f/2 too and damn I'll buy those two preciousssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


----------



## KyleSTL (Jul 30, 2013)

OmarSV11 said:


> Erm... Bring the 70-200 f/2 too and damn I'll buy those two preciousssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss


Doable, I guess, big and heavy for sure, and a filter size of 105mm+. Similar to size/weight of 120-300mm f/2.8 or 200-400mm f/4. Betting now the price will not be less than Canon 70-200mm II if it ever materializes.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna buy Sigma stock. Nice to see a company not coming out with completely unnecessary lenses...*cough* 24-70 f/4 *cough*
> ...




+ 1 

Add macro, sharper and lighter to the mix. The new f/4 IS just irritates some and delights others. I love mine, and gladly gave up my f/2.8 Mk I once I used it. 

- A


----------



## blacksap (Jul 30, 2013)

If true and has a competitive price (below $1,500) and has the sharpness and quality of the A series lenses that had been released, I think it will be a must have. 

Whats up with the picture on the site post, that gigantic thing... thats not the lens we´re talking about right???


----------



## Wahoowa (Jul 30, 2013)

Yeah, it's gonna weigh quite a bit.


----------



## roadrunner (Jul 30, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Crikey, this thing will weigh 5 pounds.
> 
> But it might be 5 pounds of awesome.
> 
> - A



I'm not trolling here, this is a serious question... but is weight even really that big of a deal? As long as the size is not so huge that I can still fit it in my camera bag and ThinkTank Airport Security case, weight has never really been something that bothered me.

I find that after 12 hours of shooting a wedding, my neck, back, and shoulders are going to hurt no matter what I am carrying. Nevermind the fact that the 70-200 F2.8 II is probably quite a bit heavier than this will be anyways. Just curious to see how important weight is to most people when making a purchase, as it really doesn't affect my personal gear choice for a long day of shooting.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 30, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Crikey, this thing will weigh 5 pounds.
> ...



I'm a big guy, and when I'm in shape, which may or may not be the case, I can usually work out with 40 lbs dumbells for bicep curls, and up to 60 lbs for chest... 

So the weight doesn't really affect me all that much, but if you have an extra lbs or two hanging from your neck over 8+ hours, it can start to give you a cramp... and your wrists and forearms can start to ache... mine too... but I just ignore the pain.

For an hour... most people can deal... but over the course of a day... then that starts to wear on you.

As an example... when I played football, I would be in incredible shape before camp started... but wearing the helmet for two a day practices cause a pretty severe ache in my neck and shoulders.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm so interested in the next _FF_ lens in the _Art_ line from these people, I can get excited over a CR1.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 30, 2013)

blacksap said:


> If true and has a competitive price (below $1,500) and has the sharpness and quality of the A series lenses that had been released, I think it will be a must have.
> 
> Whats up with the picture on the site post, that gigantic thing... thats not the lens we´re talking about right???



I'm pretty sure that the one you're thinking about is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ

...only $26K!


----------



## Etienne (Jul 30, 2013)

I'd rather have a small, light 24-35 f/1.8 (or even f/2), or a really sharp contrasty 18-28 f/2.8.
A 24-70 f/2 would be big and heavy. My bag is already too heavy


----------



## PVS (Jul 30, 2013)

Even the mods got so excited that they forgot this should go in 3rd party section, heh.


----------



## roadrunner (Jul 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I'm a big guy, and when I'm in shape, which may or may not be the case, I can usually work out with 40 lbs dumbells for bicep curls, and up to 60 lbs for chest...
> 
> So the weight doesn't really affect me all that much, but if you have an extra lbs or two hanging from your neck over 8+ hours, it can start to give you a cramp... and your wrists and forearms can start to ache... mine too... but I just ignore the pain.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's just that different fram of mind then. I don't mind hurting, if it's the right tool for the job. I'm definitely not a big guy (5'10" 150lbs) and I find I hurt whether I am carrying two bodies with primes, or my 70-200 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8. I figure If I am going to hurt either way, I may as well hurt while having the best gear readily accessible.

I suppose I could see weight being very important for those that do a lot of hiking with their gear though.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 30, 2013)

I am pro options... and this is another option! great... but i will contain my excitement until it is announced and reviewed! Until then, i will plod along with my 24-105, which i would probably keep even if i did buy the sigma 24-70 based on the fact it has weather sealing...


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 30, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a big guy, and when I'm in shape, which may or may not be the case, I can usually work out with 40 lbs dumbells for bicep curls, and up to 60 lbs for chest...
> ...



I'm a pack mule for out family, but if you and the family ever go to Disney World/Land, it is hard to take just one lens, but with cold water in the bag, souvenirs, those stupid pins, your phone, your daughter's camera that she decides she no longer want to carry, a bag of sugared nuts, etc... it all starts to get heavy. I didn't have my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii the last time I went, but I might be hard pressed to have to CARRY ALL THAT plus a few lenses. So I will have to plan accordingly.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 30, 2013)

Dear Sigma, get in the business of cheap and fast and sharp telephoto primes. Love, grumbaki.

PS: I hug your 35 as often as i can.


----------



## roadrunner (Jul 30, 2013)

jdramirez, thanks for another point of view. I can certainly understand that point. I find when I am attending family functions or going on personal trips, I only take one lens, and then size is important. I guess I should have clarified that my choices do differ depending on whether it is just for fun or for profissional use.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Thanks jdramirez for what you wrote - I appreciate the personal touch and 'hands on description' - that you've given, and what works for you (as roadrunner has also posted)

I'm a slightly smaller than average man (171cm, 62kg)- reasonable level of fitness / stamina, but I'm not big / muscly by any stretch of the imagination.

Over the years I've taken tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of photos - many at camps, and on outings, etc. When I started with my first DSLR (about 8 years ago, with a 350D). The 350D with 28-135mm lens which I used most of the time (or even the 18-55mm kit lens) was of course 'huge' compared to my previous Fuji P&S.

Now I own a 7D also, and that's my go-to camera for most things - along with my 15-85mm lens. I can (and often do) use the camera for many hours at a time. I recently bought my fiancee a Sony RX-100 - a great P&S camera - larger sensor than others in its class, with good optics.

As much as I enjoy photography, I certainly appreciate times when am at an event, or walking, or sight-seeing and I do NOT have 1.5 kg of camera & lens dangling from my neck (or being held in my hand). That's the main reason I got my fiancee a true pocketable P&S, because I know she'll appreciate the smaller size of that camera.

So...... back to the original topic: rumour of Sigma producing a 24-70mm f/2 for FF. I believe laws of optics determine that the lens would need to weigh substantially more than any existing current 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. Therefore a 24-70mm f/2 might not be an ideal 'light / travel companion' to eg a Canon 6D as your travel lens. 

That's where I see the 24-70mm f/4 L IS (or the 24-105mm f/4 L IS) fitting in - ie for those doing a lot of travelling, and where IS is more convenient than a tripod. (And that's the same reason why I on occasion even use my 18-55mm on my 350D as my 'long bushwalk / travel combination' - where weight is really a serious consideration, even though the grip on the 350D isn't as comfortable as that on a 7D).

Again, back to a rumoured 24-70mm f/2.... For those interested in the ability to control DOF and/or shooting in low light- a 24-70mm f/2 would have an envious amount of flexibility, particularly if it was available with OS/IS. And if it has superb high quality optics - that would be the dream lens for many on a FF. Roll on Sigma!

Regards

Paul


----------



## JayY (Jul 30, 2013)

Let's hope that this lens will be part of their Art line. I'm really confused at how Sigma is managing to pull off what they have done recently. Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss charge top dollar for their best lenses and they are presumably already pushing the state of the art. I would expect these companies to pull out all the stops to design the sharpest lens possible using the best design and manufacturing techniques. Yet Sigma comes along and produces a set of lenses that are significantly sharper than these guys. WTF ? How is this possible ? If lens design were a sport I would suspect that Sigma is cheating.


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 30, 2013)

JayY said:


> I would expect these companies to pull out all the stops to design the _cheapest_ lens possible using the _easiest_ design and manufacturing techniques.



Fixed.


----------



## infared (Jul 30, 2013)

This is intriguing news! I would love to see more fast Art-Line Primes (like a killer 50mm)...but hey, this could be entertaining. I own the Canon 24-70mm II ...and I doubt that a Sigma f/2 IS lens could come close to the sharpness of the Canon II...but they are on a roll lately, so who knows. The new Sigma 35mm is fantastic..I own one and love it! This rumored new Sigma would have to be somewhat bigger than the Canon, too.... I would imagine.

This sounds like a much more sensible rumor regarding the recent Sigma Liberation-Teaser Ads that are running. I am also reading speculative rumors that Sigma is supposedly releasing a MFT mirrorless camera...That one is total bunk....
..this rumor here makes much more sense...and based on Sigma's teaser ads, the new zoom would have to be reasonably priced..or there is no "liberation" from the Canon system.


----------



## RGF (Jul 30, 2013)

Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?

Or is the desire for better AF or ?

This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4). Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 30, 2013)

RGF said:


> Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?
> 
> Or is the desire for better AF or ?
> 
> This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4). Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.



Good point... And in part i agree, but if it is sharp wide open, it will cramp into some prime lens sales, especially for video guys... if it close to the IQ of the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses, it is going to be very appealing. I agree completely with the sharpness at mud apertures!

as for the weight, IQ, size etc... we will have to wait!  The more options the better really!


----------



## Radiating (Jul 30, 2013)

If Sigma releases a lens like this and it was as good as their recent offerings it would be a dream come true.


----------



## roadrunner (Jul 30, 2013)

RGF said:


> Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?
> 
> Or is the desire for better AF or ?
> 
> This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4). Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.



I shoot weddings, so every single wedding. No matter how much light you have at a wedding, it's never enough. Shooting at F2.0 and having IS would be great.

That, and I love the look of shallow DOF primes, and I shoot quite often at F1.4 with my 35mm and 50mm, so I would love to get a zoom lens down to 1.8 or 2.0.


----------



## ecka (Jul 30, 2013)

Sigma 24-70 f/2 OS HSM - great! It could be THE lens for videographers. Now let's think about it realistically:
very BIG, very HEAVY, not weather-sealed (most likely);
much more expensive than 24-70/2.8L'II, could be $3k+ (just look at the 120-300/2.8 ).


----------



## vscd (Jul 30, 2013)

>This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4). Unless the IQ is 
>significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.

Could be, but doesn't have to. The aperture is the proportion from focal length to aperturesize. So, let's calculate it for f2 to f2.8 --> 25 mm rises to 35mm... so, this is no big deal. This centimetre can be done within nearly the same size. Don't compare it to a 200mm lense, the difference is there much bigger.

One or two years ago, I would have been thinking "nice try, sigma"... but after recent releases I assume they can make it quite small and light. Even with OS.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 30, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told this could be a Photokina 2014 lens



Boys and girls(any?), this is a *[CR1]* wild guess and be explicit: This lens would only be _announced_ in end of *September, 2014*, more than a year from now... 

... and by then it won't be in mass production but available in limited quantities, after all they're producing it not only for the Canon mount and new lenses always take time to be available everywhere.



silvestography said:


> And here I am, just having bought the Tamron 24-70 VC not a year ago...



The date and a high demand make very suspicious if the *price* could really be less than Canon's mk2, after all the Canon's price will have dropped in the meantime and even more facing real competition if the Sigma's af is better than Tamron.

Plus _of course_ this _will_ be *large and heavy*, it's not like Canon wouldn't be able to build something like this, they just gave in to pro photographers' demand with their mk2 to *reduce* weight rather than to build an impractical dream lens for moving about and handholding a long time: [CR1] doesn't change the laws of physics...


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jul 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told this could be a Photokina 2014 lens
> ...



But isn't that the purpose of having a rumors forum? To make redundant yet professional sounding statements about related products in speculation?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 30, 2013)

Radiating said:


> If Sigma releases a lens like this and it was as good as their recent offerings it would be a dream come true.



As long as it's sharp wide open and AF's well, then it'll be a game changer.
I just wonder how big and large it'll be. The front element would probably need to be twice the area of the current f2.8 version....that'll be a big lump of glass!


----------



## thewaywewalk (Jul 30, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'm gonna buy Sigma stock.



Sorry for little offtopic...
I got curious and was looking for a chart, but under what name is Sigma noted at the stock market? I haven't found anything related to photograhy.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 30, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> But isn't that the purpose of having a rumors forum? To make redundant yet professional sounding statements about related products in speculation?



Absolutely :-> and as it happens I just wrote the same thing in another thread.

It's just that if it's about a product I might actually want to buy and lay off other purchases for it (i.e. the Tamron 24-70), I'm also interested in the likelihood of a [CR] actually becoming true. And this Sigma 24-70/2 about to be "THE" lens somehow reminds me of the many threads about the Canon mk2 which was also to be "THE" lens... but I'm also feeling free to speculate about where the trade-offs were made, i.e. price, weight, size or iq.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 30, 2013)

RGF said:


> Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?
> 
> Or is the desire for better AF or ?
> 
> This will be a large 24-70 lens (just like the 70-200 F2.8 is larger than the 70-200 F4). Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.



You forgot, with OS.  Seems good to me if at least its weight, IQ and price is near that of Tamron's 2.8 version. With the USB dock, this might be a better alternative than the Tamron.


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2013)

I do not believe they will make a FF 24-70 f/2 lens. I mean technically they can but then how will it weigh and how big will it be?
It would be silly to use such a lens.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 30, 2013)

tron said:


> I do not believe they will make a FF 24-70 f/2 lens. I mean technically they can but then how will it weigh and how big will it be?
> It would be silly to use such a lens.



Technically, they can reduce the weight. Sigma might just do that. It's a new tech. They can also sacrifice the materials used a little bit to reduce weight. I don't know but right now, I'd like to see the lens first before any conclusions. Sigma has a habit of breaking stereotypes nowadays.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 30, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Seems good to me if at least its weight, IQ and price is near that of Tamron's 2.8 version.



Probably, if the fairy queen sprinkles the lens and your camera with magic dust :->



verysimplejason said:


> Technically, they can reduce the weight. Sigma might just do that. It's a new tech.



Ugh, did I miss something, where does it say that? I know there's a lot of potential in DO lenses, but all I heard about that was for tele focal lengths and not for standard/wide-angle.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 30, 2013)

thewaywewalk said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna buy Sigma stock.
> ...



Sigma is a privately held company. There is no public trading of their stock. It is owned by the founder's family. 

A few more lenses like these last 4 or 5 and it would seem like a very good moment for them to go public at a successful IPO though. Selling 20 or 30% of their stock would give them money for even more R&D to make more products and to advertise more.


----------



## vscd (Jul 30, 2013)

>The front element would probably need to be twice the area of the current f2.8 version....
>that'll be a big lump of glass!

@GMCPhotographics
Interesting sentence, how do you justify this? For example the Canon 24-70 f2.8 and the 
Canon 24-70 f4 have the same filtersize. Now surprise me. ???


----------



## garyknrd (Jul 30, 2013)

Sigma is trying to put the smack down on Nikon , Canon. Interesting times ahead. Even if just a CR1 rumor.


----------



## lol (Jul 30, 2013)

I find this lens a bit hard to believe, although of course I hope it is true! For a given quality and build level, there is a trade off between aperture and zoom range... to go a whole stop further at the same range as other lenses in its class without sacrificing quality is a big task. To me, it would be more believable if the zoom range was shorter at f/2. Perhaps a 2x zoom range, but I'll leave it to others to speculate what they may choose as the actual focal length range in that case.

Sigma, if you do it, please get the zoom ring the right way around.


----------



## padmasana (Jul 30, 2013)

I've been content to keep shooting primes in the 24-70 range (two Sigmas and one Canon) while waiting for Sigma to show its hand with regard to this zoom. A stabilized 2.8 from Canon might have moved me but that didn't happen. With all of Sigma's recent success, it just seemed a matter of time until they moved in this direction.


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 30, 2013)

I'm not so excited by this rumor. A lens like that, to have an IQ and an AF speed comparable to the Canon f/2.8, should be extremely big, heavy and expensive. I can't imagine Sigma producing a "monster" like that. Not even Canon, BTW. So we'd probably end up with yet another super fast lens that you can't use WO and that has an IQ far from stellar. What's more, I never liked Sigma lenses. All the samples I worked with didn't handle flare & ghosting well enough. I actually keep the 105 Macro in my equipment because of that, I like the effect. Maybe I always had bad copies, but I find it hard to believe.
I'd be much more interested in Canon producing a 24-105 (or even just a 24-85) f/2,8 with IS. Until then, the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is a good option, though I abhor the positioning of the focus ring... why the hell they put it there???


----------



## Zv (Jul 30, 2013)

It seems a bit unbelieveable but then again so did the 18-35 f/1.8 at the time. I reckon they'll pull it off and surprise us. They seem to be on a mission! I would like to see a few more primes or updates to their existing primes such as the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. 

Some really exciting prospects for the next few months anyway, from Sigma and Canon. And hope Tamron can get in on some prime action. Though I'm not a fan of their lens design. They look a bit dated and ugly compared with the Sigma Art aka lens porn!


----------



## AJ (Jul 30, 2013)

Very unlikely. But it'd be cool if they could pull it off. With a matching 70-200/2 OS.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 30, 2013)

The next trend will be hiring Sherpas to carry your camera gear on family vacations.


----------



## lol (Jul 30, 2013)

Maybe for the class of lens it is, it would be considered heavy. But it would still be nothing compared to something like a 300/2.8, and I have carried those around for days. Hand held too. No 'pods.


----------



## DzPhotography (Jul 30, 2013)

If it's sharp wide open (comparable to 18-35 f/1.8), I need to have one...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 30, 2013)

I don't understand why so many people complain about weight. Everyone's muscles must be so poorly neglected. 

Realistically this thing will probably be in at 1 kg or slightly over. Not a big deal.


----------



## JayY (Jul 30, 2013)

I would much rather have them reduce the zoom range to 24-50. That would allow them more freedom to have top notch image quality while reducing the weight. The 24-50 would give you 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm. Replacing these three useful primes would be great. 70mm is not that useful. There's a reason why you don't have a 70mm prime lens. It's close to the portrait range but not quite there. Might as well change to an 85mm prime or that 70-200. If you look at all the existing 24-70 lenses on the market they are stronger at the wide angle than the tele. Manufacturers seem to know that the 24-50 is the useful range and have optimized the lens in that region while sacrificing the 70mm end. Might as well just leave the 70mm off so you can really optimize the 24-50mm range.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jul 30, 2013)

JayY said:


> 70mm is not that useful. There's a reason why you don't have a 70mm prime lens. It's close to the portrait range but not quite there.



I totally agree on the weight issue. But I'm highly skeptical of the idea that 85mm is infinitely more useful or practical than 70mm. It may be that people have unwittingly gravitated toward a convention. But I can't imagine there is anything inherently better about 50mm or 85mm, except that they are evenly spaced from other lenses in a lineup, and photographers have based their shooting around these ultimately arbitrary lengths.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 30, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> OmarSV11 said:
> 
> 
> > Erm... Bring the 70-200 f/2 too and damn I'll buy those two preciousssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
> ...



Less than the 70-200/2.8? The 200/2 is $5k+ so a 70-200/2 would be more costly and very heavy.


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 30, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> JayY said:
> 
> 
> > 70mm is not that useful. There's a reason why you don't have a 70mm prime lens. It's close to the portrait range but not quite there.
> ...



85mm instead of just 70mm makes not a big difference, but enough, to me, to make sense. At 85mm you have that little bit shallower dof and that little extra reach (along with a "flatter" perspective) that can come in handy in a walkaround lens. That's actually what I miss most using my 24-70/2,8.
A 24-50mm, in my opinion, wouldn't be much popular, unless it is very fast and has an outstanding IQ. I once had a Pentax 24-50/4, but I always preferred to carry around three primes, which were much faster and had a much better IQ, since I had anyway to switch lens quite often, with such a small focal range zoom.


----------



## theyapici (Jul 31, 2013)

l thlnk its amazing but i have 24 70 L II


----------



## KyleSTL (Jul 31, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > OmarSV11 said:
> ...


Sorry, I should have been more clear, I know what I said was a huge understatement. I was trying to show that if this lens ends up becoming a reality, AND costs less than the Canon 2.8 lens it will be awesome, but the idea that an equivalent telephoto f/2 lens for the same relatively bargain price does not seem feasible.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 31, 2013)

I think Sigma has hired a witch. I think witchcraft is the only explanation for being able to bend light this well.


----------



## blacksap (Jul 31, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I think Sigma has hired a witch. I think witchcraft is the only explanation for being able to bend light this well.



witches the illuminati and probably some reptilians are behind this.


----------



## BRNexus6 (Jul 31, 2013)

24-70mm 2.8 lenses are already huge as it is. A 24-70mm 2.0 would be stupid big for a general all-purpose lens.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 31, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> A 24-50mm, in my opinion, wouldn't be much popular, unless it is very fast and has an outstanding IQ. I once had a Pentax 24-50/4, but I always preferred to carry around three primes, which were much faster and had a much better IQ, since I had anyway to switch lens quite often, with such a small focal range zoom.



To be fair that's pretty much what they've come up with for ASPC users, a 28-55mm lens with excellent image quality wide open.

What I would question though is whether the appeal on FF would be as great, for one thing I'd say this range is better catered for with primes already and for another f/2 on FF is going to be a shallower DOF than f/1.8 on ASPC for the equivalent angle of view. Personally speaking I'd be interested in such a lens as I like to take landscape shots with shallow DOF but I think something like a 35-70mm f/2 might have a wider audience.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 31, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> but the idea that an equivalent telephoto f/2 lens for the same relatively bargain price does not seem feasible.



"Feasibility" in this case is relative to supply/production cost (no one knows for sure) but also demand, and looking at all the drooling CR members in this thread Sigma would be Nikon-crazy to sell something unique like this for anything less than $3000 if the iq & af is really good.


----------



## luciolepri (Jul 31, 2013)

moreorless said:


> luciolepri said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-50mm, in my opinion, wouldn't be much popular, unless it is very fast and has an outstanding IQ. I once had a Pentax 24-50/4, but I always preferred to carry around three primes, which were much faster and had a much better IQ, since I had anyway to switch lens quite often, with such a small focal range zoom.
> ...



APS-C users are for sure more willing to buy such a short range zoom, to get a more "FF style" look in terms of dof. FF users... whole different story. What's more, a zoom like that for a FF, to have a good IQ, would still have to be quite big and expensive, I guess that few people would prefer it over a 24-70/2,8. Definetely, not people who are looking for a walkaround lens. Even people who shoot landscapes would probably prefer a 16-35/2,8...


----------



## Grumbaki (Aug 1, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > luciolepri said:
> ...



I'd kill for a (very) fast 35-85. Much better than 24-50 imho as 35 can already do pretty good lanscape but 50 is out of the butter zone for portraits.


----------



## Zv (Aug 1, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> luciolepri said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



+1 another vote for the 35-85 f/2.


----------



## vscd (Aug 1, 2013)

The size mostly depends on the longer focal range, so a 24-70 would be smaller than a 35-85, I guess. I'm still not convinced that a 24-70 f2 would be too big. A 35mm aperture-caliber is nothing impossible... a simple 50 f1.4 has a bigger apperture. Maybe the OS/IS would make some differences and that could be the reason why canon choosed to make a 24-70LII without IS.

I think Sigma could make it without getting bigger than the current 24-70II, new patents and engineers arrived... and everything seemed impossible until someone actually made it.

18-35 f1.8? No way... no one can make this!


----------



## jhanken (Aug 1, 2013)

Canonwatch has what is purported to be a leaked image, would seem this beast is getting a bit less mythical.

http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-first-picture-of-sigma-24-70mm-f2-lens-leaked/


----------



## ecka (Aug 1, 2013)

jhanken said:


> Canonwatch has what is purported to be a leaked image, would seem this beast is getting a bit less mythical.
> 
> http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-first-picture-of-sigma-24-70mm-f2-lens-leaked/



Looks fake to me.
120-300/2.8 and 18-35/1.8 photoshopped hybrid.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 1, 2013)

jhanken said:


> Canonwatch has what is purported to be a leaked image, would seem this beast is getting a bit less mythical.
> 
> http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-first-picture-of-sigma-24-70mm-f2-lens-leaked/



It will be heavy, It will be big but at that point who cares? F/2.8 lenses are already heavy enough, might as well make them F/2.


----------



## tron (Aug 1, 2013)

Zv said:


> It seems a bit unbelieveable but then again so did the 18-35 f/1.8 at the time.


That is for APS-C models so it has much less glass than it would have if it was an FF lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

The first pic of this new lens has been posted on CW. May very well be fake.

Link to pic and Photoshop-nanigans is here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16218.0

- A


----------



## JR (Aug 1, 2013)

I think the new series of Sigma lens are amazing and they are so sharp it is scary! However not sure if I was the only one experiencing this but after buying the Sigma 35mm 1.4 (their new one) I ended up returning it and taking the older Canon 35mm L 1.4 instead. While the Canon is less sharp, I was always finding exposure to be weird with the sigma . With the Canon 35mm however my exposure was always on the notch.

Anyone else experience "exposure" challenge with the new series of sigma lenses?


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

Given that Sigma probably wants the price for this f/2 lens to come in under the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii, (and they might also want to keep the weight as low as they can)...it's possible that it will not have stabilization.

I think either way it has the promise of being a terrific lens. Like others, I was planning on buying the Tamron at some point, but now it looks like there will be even more choices.


----------



## PVS (Aug 5, 2013)

> Q: The 28-70 mm f/2.8 class lenses have been superseded by 24-70 mm f/2.8 instruments. Taking into the account the success of the Sigma 18-35 mm are you already thinking about a full frame construction of that type or rather about e.g. a 28-70 mm f/2.0 or a 28-50 mm f/2.0 model?
> A: We don’t have a very concrete idea at the moment, yet we will keep on considering designing large aperture zoom lenses.



from http://www.lenstip.com/136.1-article-Interview_with_constructor_of_Sigma_lenses.html


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 5, 2013)

JR said:


> I think the new series of Sigma lens are amazing and they are so sharp it is scary! However not sure if I was the only one experiencing this but after buying the Sigma 35mm 1.4 (their new one) I ended up returning it and taking the older Canon 35mm L 1.4 instead. While the Canon is less sharp, I was always finding exposure to be weird with the sigma . With the Canon 35mm however my exposure was always on the notch.
> 
> Anyone else experience "exposure" challenge with the new series of sigma lenses?




not me...
sorry you had a bad experience...and your 35L is likely pretty good...however

me
I sold my 35L - actually in anticipation of a coming 35L II...I was not using it as much as I thought..maybe because wide open was not quite 'there'...liked it but was preparing for a coming Zeiss killer....

I did like to use the shorter 35L hood also on the 135L .........made a nice small kit...with just a little lens bag....and they shared filters too......but the CA and sharpness was one notch low...

but then ....Canon ran into the closet and shuddered...(it seems to me) ...with their current, unreleased - 35L II at the appearance of the sigma 35 1.4...and its loved performance .....so I tried it...

it is a couple clicks off perfect (MAed to my 5D3)...and sharper wideopen than the canon was at f2 or f2.8
solid exposure, colors...very low CA/fringing....almost as fast to focus if not the same...and accurate 
(I give credit to the 5D3 there)
if Canon puts OUT their revamped-but-struggling 35L II-b, then I will try it....
of course it will be $2000 or so....ha!

also canon better get busy replacing the 180mm macro with a f2.8 I.S. or maybe f4 I.S ...or I will just relent and dive into Sigma again...

well, 
while I am on the subject...the 24-70 f2 rumor (with or without I.S.) may also take some of my money...

/////////
I am glad your 35L pleases you ......mine did not - fully ..... to answer your question

I love Canon but they need to get their board and engineers awakened... 
just how I see it

I recommend the sigma 35 ..... maybe try another one

TOM


----------



## vscd (Aug 6, 2013)

I second that. Canon should get the engineering staff to start again working on great ideas. Normally 3rd Party Manufacturers should *see up* to the L-Line or Canons homebrewstuff, but at the moment we can just pray that new lenses will match the latest ones from Sigma. How's that coming?

However, we shouldn't forget that there are some points missing on the Sigma 35mm. The lense is not weathersealed which will keep it out for professional outdoor-use. The old Canon 35L isn't either, but the new one could be sealed. The Sigma is even a really heavy one, which is not the best spec for streetphotographie, so maybe the Canon 35 f2 IS is far more usefull if you don't need the Extra-Stop of light. In fact, on FF the DOF is quite good with f2, too... and I never heard anyone complaining about the qualities of the 35mm f2 IS. 

Which leads us to the Sigma 24-70 f2 OS... I would love to see the results and I'm considering to buy it for a reasonable price, but I don't think it will be too much spread on professional photographs if it's not sealed, again.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 6, 2013)

vscd said:


> I second that. Canon should get the engineering staff to start again working on great ideas.



It seems to me it's not about ideas, but about laws of physics - the innovative 200-400L is heavy for a reason, the same reason why they left IS out of the 24-70L2. And they are innovative with IS primes and hybrid af on the 24-70/4, while your request for just "updating" the traditional 35L with better iq contradicts the great ideas you seem to want.

One real innovation though will be the new line of DO lenses, there have been lots of patents on CR, but who knows when these will be released - probably only when they sold a non-DO prime to everyone so people have a reason to upgrade


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I second that. Canon should get the engineering staff to start again working on great ideas.
> ...



If Canon released a new line of DO lenses, I bet you would see a lot of people in forums like this, complaining that they don't have enough contrast...and wishing they would make a counterpart that did not use diffractive optics. There's no shortage of people who like to complain.


----------



## tron (Aug 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...


More than 10 years have passed since the Canon introduced a DO lens. They should be able to make DO lenses with enough contrast by now... ;D


----------



## davidahn (Aug 8, 2013)

RGF said:


> Just wondering, how often do you (the readers) shot at 2.8 and want something faster?
> 
> ...This will be a large 24-70 lens... Unless the IQ is significantly better than Canon's at mid apertures, I will skip this lens.



Yes, I shoot faster than f/2.8 (f/1.4-2.0) ALL THE TIME. So if this lens is real, I WANT IT:
1. I'm tired of swapping primes, and my 14 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 aren't enough, need 24mm too, OR... a 24-70 zoom.
2. I hate flash photography, and for available light indoor or night photography, I need a fast lens AND OS.
3. I'd GLADLY give up a stop of aperture (vs. f/1.4 primes) for 3-4 stops of OS; I was going to give up 2 stops with the Tamron 24-70. Zoom + OS = slam dunk. If the Sigma doesn't have OS, I will probably opt for the Tamron for the VC.

Many mention weight concerns. But if I can carry one 40 oz lens (1.1 kg) instead of 70 oz of primes (21, 23, 26 oz for 24, 35, 85mm f/1.4 primes), save minutes of lens swapping, and avoid missed shots swapping lenses, I'd do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## vscd (Aug 8, 2013)

>More than 10 years have passed since the Canon introduced a DO lens. They should be able to make DO lenses 
>with enough contrast by now... 

Or maybe DO was the wrong way. Physics don't change, even after 10 years


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

tron said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



They should also be able to make 1.6x sensors at least on par with those found in Nikon, but apparently they can't.


----------



## Pi (Aug 14, 2013)

JR said:


> Anyone else experience "exposure" challenge with the new series of sigma lenses?



I did but not with the new ones - with the Sigma 15 (produced last year). The exposure was at least one stop brighter and inconsistent with my 5D2. I always thought that this was some oddity of the fisheye design that Canon knew how to deal with but Sigma did not.


----------



## tron (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


True, that's why we wish improvements on this forum


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 14, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> They should also be able to make 1.6x sensors at least on par with those found in Nikon, but apparently they can't.



Wrong thread :-o but anyway:

"Apparently" - but appearances can be deceiving. The other possibility and the one I believe is that Canon doesn't want to because they'd have to invest more ¥¥¥ than they'd get a return of invest. 

True, Sony has some important patents, but with the new 20mp crop Canon chose to go for other features like live view / video af and keep using their older sensor fabs/process. Why? Because *even* if the 70d sensor would be on par with the d7100 Nikon would still keep the more aggressive marketing and specs like af points, so why would Canon even want to try to match them here? They seem to be doing alright just the way they are, crop is "good enough" for mass production, ff for iq/low light.


----------



## Pi (Aug 14, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > They should also be able to make 1.6x sensors at least on par with those found in Nikon, but apparently they can't.
> ...



I am not sure how the low DR affects their sales - but this is something that becomes known to the "general public" as well, you can find it in the Amazon reviews, etc. Even the vague mentioning of the Canon sensors being inferior to Nikon ones has its effect. 

Yes, it is the wrong thread...


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 14, 2013)

Crazy time for Canon to be sticking to the high price AND NO REBATE for its 24-70mm 2.8 II. 

My version I of the Canon needs replacement, now nine years old. Hope the Sigma comes out soon.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> They should also be able to make 1.6x sensors at least on par with those found in Nikon, but apparently they can't.



Nikon Crop sensors are slightly larger. Canon APS-C is 1.6x crop, Nikon APS-C is 1.5x crop. So for camera bodies with the same resolution the Nikon should be able to offer slightly better IQ.


----------



## vscd (Dec 9, 2013)

> Crazy time for Canon to be sticking to the high price AND NO REBATE for its 24-70mm 2.8 II.



No Rebate? 250€ here...

http://www.canon.de/For_Home/promotions/cash_back/


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

StudentOfLight said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > They should also be able to make 1.6x sensors at least on par with those found in Nikon, but apparently they can't.
> ...



True, but it's not the slight size advantage that is making the difference, it's the construction of the sensor itself.

And I'm sorry I somehow had posted this in the wrong thread!!!

As for the Sigma 24-70 f/2, apparently that was a pipedream...bigtime!


----------



## Jibz (Dec 12, 2013)

Hey SIGMA, what's up ?

Could you please come with this 24-70 f/2 OS soon ? 
I'm waiting for you.

A huge SIGMA 35 fan.


----------

