# Sigma Announces Brand New 14-24mm F2.8 Art Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 9, 2018)

```
<p><strong>February 9, 2018 –</strong> Sigma Corporation today announced the brand new 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art wide aperture zoom lens. In addition to the new Global Vision full-frame lens model, Sigma also announced a new front conversion service for the 14-24mm F2.8.</p>
<p><strong>Outstanding Art Lens Performance</strong>

Designed for 50-megapixel plus cameras, the 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art achieves the legendary Art lens sharpness with three FLD glass elements, three SLD glass elements, and three aspherical lens elements, including one 80mm high precision molded glass aspherical element. With near zero distortion (less than 1%) and minimal transverse chromatic aberration, flare and ghosting, the new Sigma 14-24mm offers constant F2.8 brightness throughout the zoom range and delivers optimal image quality at every focal length and shooting distance. The high-speed, high-accuracy autofocus allows photographers to capture incredible, in-the-moment images.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder: <a href="https://bhpho.to/2GbvTPO">Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>Rugged Design</strong>

In addition to outstanding optical performance, the 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art features the Sports line level dust- and splash-proof design with special sealing at the mount connection, manual focus ring, zoom ring and cover connection, allowing for the lens to be used during varying weather conditions.</p>
<p><strong>Versatile Camera System Mount Support</strong>

The new Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art lens supports Canon, Nikon and Sigma mounts and works with Sigma’s MC-11 Sony E-mount converter. The Nikon mount features brand new electromagnetic diaphragm, whereas the Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function.</p>
<p>Pricing and availability for the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art lens will be announced later.</p>
<p><strong>Front Mount Conversion Service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art</strong>

Addressing the rising popularity of multi-camera productions, especially using ultra wide-angle lenses in shooting virtual reality (VR) content, Sigma has introduced its Front Conversion Service. Converting the petal-type hood of the 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art to an exclusive round component allows for the lens to be used in various VR scenarios without the risk of interfering with other lenses in the VR rig or undesired shadows in the content.</p>
<p>The availability of this fee-based service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art will be announced at a later date.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder: <a href="https://bhpho.to/2GbvTPO">Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-33532 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1696952709.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1696952709-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1696952709-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/1696952709-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2735715451.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2735715451-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2735715451-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2735715451-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5633285609.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5633285609-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5633285609-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5633285609-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## slclick (Feb 9, 2018)

A few were asking how this will differentiate from the others and for one, weather sealing sounds like an answer.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 9, 2018)

slclick said:


> A few were asking how this will differentiate from the others and for one, weather sealing sounds like an answer.



Yes, absolutely. Remember how Canon’s 11-24 with its massive bulbous front element was marketed as “the same level of weather sealing “ as the 16-35 2.8. Which of course is not sealed without a front filter.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Feb 9, 2018)

I had already decided on a Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as soon as I get the money (waiting on a sale to KEH). But this lens adds another option. I wonder if the price will be comparable (I think Tamron is 1200 US).


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 9, 2018)

4 Year U.S.A. Warranty is pretty cool. The vignetting is not very good wide open, I guess that's the nature of the beast.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-a


----------



## RGF (Feb 9, 2018)

Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is

Does Sigma offer a service to convert between mounts? Just curious


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

slclick said:


> A few were asking how this will differentiate from the others and for one, weather sealing sounds like an answer.



But you can't front filter it and the front element is not listed in the things they sealed, so... 

(Just curious, one of the sealed items is 'the cover connection' -- what exactly is that? Is that what they are calling the hood?)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

RGF said:


> Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is
> 
> Does Sigma offer a service to convert between mounts? Just curious



Here you go:

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/service-support/mount-conversion-service

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> (Just curious, one of the sealed items is 'the cover connection' -- what exactly is that? Is that what they are calling the hood?)



I'd assume that the lens cover attachment has an O-ring to keep water/dust off the surface of the front element when the cover is on.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

You think Sigma would have done the (pre-) legwork needed to confirm that the outer barrel works with the Lee SW 150 II front filter setup.

(Surely Lee will support this lens, but they take their sweet time declaring something is compatible. Sigma stating that it is already good to go with the Lee system would be a nice selling point for the lens.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > (Just curious, one of the sealed items is 'the cover connection' -- what exactly is that? Is that what they are calling the hood?)
> ...



So the front element is still SOL for sealing while the cover is off and the lens is in use?

- A


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 9, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I had already decided on a Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as soon as I get the money (waiting on a sale to KEH). But this lens adds another option. I wonder if the price will be comparable (I think Tamron is 1200 US).



I have the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. It's a great lens. I needed IS (VC) and made the decision based on the f2.8. This 14-24 should be a nice lens and should be cheaper than $1200 to be successful, especially without OS (IS).


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

I'm also curious how this thing zooms/focuses length-wise. 

The Nikkor 14-24, both of the 16-35 Ls, etc. zoom entirely inside the length of the outer lens barrel -- so there are no telescoping-beyond-the-barrel bits like with the 24-something zooms. But the front element absolutely moves inside of the barrel (from TDP, mouse over the zoom options without the hood on). So I've usually found these a step up w.r.t. 24-somethings because they don't have that exposed telescoping neck behind the front element, but they are not truly 'canned' zooms like (say) the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

And these UWA zooms (at least for me) are far more likely to get into bad weather, sand, splash from the surf, etc. as (a) I'd use them for landscapes and (b) the U-UWA focal lengths scream for foreground elements in the composition, which means I'd often use a low vantage point -- closer to sand, waves, etc.

But this might not matter for what you shoot -- an f/2.8 zoom can do a great many things other than landscapes.

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > I'd assume that the lens cover attachment has an O-ring to keep water/dust off the surface of the front element when the cover is on.
> ...



No idea. I just meant that the outer surface of the front element is exposed (duh!) regardless of any internal sealing, so it helps if the lens cover is watertight.


----------



## sanj (Feb 9, 2018)

Sigma is on a roll. Good for photography.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> No idea. I just meant that the outer surface of the front element is exposed (duh!) regardless of any internal sealing, so it helps if the lens cover is watertight.



Sure, but I always thought the weak link w.r.t. sealing with the front element was the filter threads. (True?)

If a lens like this doesn't have filter threads, why not gasket the periphery of the front element and declare that path of ingress as being sealed?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?

What say you all? Let's say:


You did not presently own any UWA zoom
This new Sigma is on the very high level of the 16-35 f/2.8L III and the AF is spot on.
The price / quality of the 14-24 and 16-35 lenses is the same. (price surely won't be, but let's just say so for the sake of argument)

...would you prefer 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 or would you prefer 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200, and why? 

- A


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?
> 
> What say you all? Let's say:
> 
> ...



My Tokina 16-28 is on permanent loan to a nephew, so I guess I qualify. I have nothing between my 14 and 24mm primes and I like 14mm wideness. So 14-24 is more desirable to me. The purported low distortion is (potentially) icing on the cake.

JR


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?
> 
> What say you all? Let's say:
> 
> ...



16-35/24-70/70-200 because they all can take filters easily. My most used focal length is 35mm, so having two lenses getting me to that focal length means significantly fewer lens changes. That... and the 16-35 is lighter/smaller than the 14-24. The 11-24 and 12-24s have been around for years now, but I'm guessing the 16-35 is a more popular lens choice. With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> 16-35/24-70/70-200 because they all can take filters easily. My most used focal length is 35mm, so having two lenses getting me to that focal length means significantly fewer lens changes.



100% agree. 



Random Orbits said:


> With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.



Disagree. With the exception of their line of lenses just for mirrorless, Sigma doesn't put out glass without a strong Canon sales opportunity -- they'd be fools not to with Canon's market share. I think there are still some Canon folks who have always wanted that 14-24 Nikkor and Sigma is hoping to scoop them up.

Also, going down to 11mm is brutally heavy, expensive, exceptionally challenging to filter, and -- perhaps critically -- is f/4.

I guess that there is something magical to some folks here about 14mm + zoom + f/2.8 being all in one lens. It's not for me as I said before (the wheels come off the bus for me without a front filter ring and compatibility with 100x100 / 100x150 filters), but this was for a long time high on the list of lenses Nikon offered that Canon did not. I'm guessing that's what Sigma is banking on here.

- A


----------



## RGF (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is
> ...



Might cost $300 or so. Could be a toss up vs selling the old lens and buying a new in a different mount vs converting an existing lens


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 9, 2018)

this a cruel move....

I have Canon 14 mk II .... the lines are straight and pretty sharp in middle...with chromatics
it is a nice small lens .. and keeps a 5Dx size ...smaller

then the Tamron 15-30 a bit of distortion at 15mm... but so very sharp.. towards the edges.. and stabilized..
now they torture us with this one.. I wonder how large it is

I guess..
I await the Canon 135 I.S. ... and stall on all these great options... that keep coming..

////

I didnt even know what it was like to shoot 'wide' til Canon made the 10-22 ef-s for my 20D...

all I used on a visit to chicago....

then I was hooked..

cruel.....but a lovely idea...


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?
> 
> What say you all? Let's say:
> 
> ...



As someone who owns both the 11-24 and the 16-35 I would comment horses for courses. As mainly a landscape shooter the 11-24 is invaluable and I can't think of a time I have needed faster than f4 for that range. If I need fast and wide I go with the Sigma 14 f 1.8 prime (astrophotography). If I need light and not as wide and easily filterable I go with the 16-35. 

I admit I have lots of overlapping glass in this range but each serves a purpose and I often carry at least two when I go into the field. The 11-24 always requires the most consideration to bring along as it is difficult to shoot with that wide, the filtering system is a beast and it is heavy, but man, what a performer when you get something good! 

Also, I shoot a lot in not ideal conditions (mist, ocean spray, fog, wind, etc.) and have never had problems with my 11-24 with WonderPana on the front. I don't shoot in pouring rain, but not sure what shot I would be seeking on those conditions regardless. 

Just my response to your question. Bob


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 9, 2018)

I, am pretty lucky. My WA array is a wonderful 14mm f/2.8 ii and a 16-35 f/4. The thought of carrying a 14-24 zoom instead of 2 lenses is appealing but not right now. Need to finish paying for what I have  .


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 9, 2018)

Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?


----------



## vangelismm (Feb 9, 2018)

The rumor in December wasn't about two Sigma 70-200?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?



Biggest obvious upside is that it zooms. Some vistas don't allow you to move your feet to fill the frame.

Also, it being a zoom opens up a host of other use-cases: events, sports, etc.

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?
> ...



But Sigma is claiming less distortion than in the prime. How do they improve it and AF, etc at 14mm in a zoom?


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 9, 2018)

funny, this one should have 0 distortion, as should have the 12-24 f4. but the 12-24 is reviewed with lot of distortion by the reviewers (Lenstip and TDP)

So, very reliable information on the sigmaa page, hopefully aat least the price is reliable


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Curious how and why this lens is better at 14mm than the prime f/1.8. Especially distortion?
> ...



My fault -- I only saw the "why" and not the "how" in your question. No idea how they pulled it off, or even if they did. (I seem to recall Laowa making a similar claim and reviewers didn't find it to be so distortion-free.)

- A


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I also wonder if zoom range obsessives -- the folks who have always been miffed about 16-35 and 24-70 overlap -- would jump on this as a new 'zoom trinity' of 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 like the Nikon camp?
> 
> What say you all? Let's say:
> 
> ...



Personally, if the 14-24 could be filtered (with a 100x100 or 150x100) then I'd would have looked at going this way, as the difference between 14 and 16mm can be quite noticeable, and the lack of overlap to extend the possible coverage makes sense.

Having said that, I already have the 20m art and 16-35 f4, so the 14mm art prime is more attractive to me currently. The 16-35 f4 being that much lighter than the 2.8's etc means that I can use it for video more readily, throw in the pack for hikes etc


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 10, 2018)

JPAZ said:


> I, am pretty lucky. My WA array is a wonderful 14mm f/2.8 ii and a 16-35 f/4. The thought of carrying a 14-24 zoom instead of 2 lenses is appealing but not right now. Need to finish paying for what I have  .




those are wonderful optics.. you have
it seems we always end up with a lot of overlap in these ranges..

but they have certain uses..
///
I gave the 16-35, f4 as a gift to a photographer I hardly knew.. she needed it..
... and could use it properly.... beyond me..

I like the idea of ONLY a couple lenses...
a wide-zoom and the macro 100 L

like that
or 14, 35L II and 135 (canon or sigma)... or even the 100 macro L...
2.8 is min ..faster is more useful....
but those are
more than enough.. the rest is getting to the place...the moment

fast (1.4....1.8) is very nice ...especially if you are limited.. to a couple lenses
IMO

I saw a movie.... The Dark Valley (B/W) Paula Beer.. beautiful woman
the shallow depth of the focus ..and sharp shots were stunning.... 
completely made the art...the mood.. IMO
they may have only used a couple very fast lenses..
but it is more than i know..

I have work to do ...myself ...
those modern objects...can maybe help

the lenses now are pretty nice...
good times...


----------



## Ozzy62 (Feb 10, 2018)

Grhhhh, bought the 12-24/f4 2 month ago and now this :-(

Want someone my 12-24 - sell it ;-)


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2018)

Ozzy62 said:


> Grhhhh, bought the 12-24/f4 2 month ago and now this :-(
> 
> Want someone my 12-24 - sell it ;-)



Here is a situation where resale value counts! 

Rough timing.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 10, 2018)

"Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."

Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2018)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> "Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."
> 
> Did anyone else catch this? If so, this would be the first third party lens I've seen that is supported by in-camera profiling.



Good catch! Could this also suggest either a cracking of the AF code--or some agreement between Sigma and Canon?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > "Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."
> ...



I've emailed my Sigma contact to inquire further.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 11, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > "Canon mount is compatible with the Canon Lens Aberration Correction function."
> ...


Could just mean that one doesn’t get that odd peephole effect when not turning off the lens correction function; not that the lens is actually corrected.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 12, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.



Disagree. With the exception of their line of lenses just for mirrorless, Sigma doesn't put out glass without a strong Canon sales opportunity -- they'd be fools not to with Canon's market share. I think there are still some Canon folks who have always wanted that 14-24 Nikkor and Sigma is hoping to scoop them up.

Also, going down to 11mm is brutally heavy, expensive, exceptionally challenging to filter, and -- perhaps critically -- is f/4.

I guess that there is something magical to some folks here about 14mm + zoom + f/2.8 being all in one lens. It's not for me as I said before (the wheels come off the bus for me without a front filter ring and compatibility with 100x100 / 100x150 filters), but this was for a long time high on the list of lenses Nikon offered that Canon did not. I'm guessing that's what Sigma is banking on here.

- A
[/quote]

Sigma released the 24-105 f/4, which is priced a lot more than the Canon 24-105 f/4L. Canon's 24-105 f/4L II has a higher list price but I got my white box version for 700+, again at a significant discount to the Sigma. With white box 24-105 f/4Ls going at 500-600 when the Sigma was released at a higher launch price, how much market do you think it was going to get from Canon users? My guess is that it was aimed more at the Nikon.

Canon has the largest market share, but Sigma can capture a sizeable market share by producing lenses that can be used on several platforms. The 1.8 APS-C zooms probably fit in that niche. Canon only produces lenses for Canon and that limits the market. Canon has decided it is not worth producing EF-S f/1.8 zooms but Sigma has had success with them because it makes them for Canon and Nikon.

Canon now has better UWA zooms than Nikon. Nikon has a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 16-35 f/4, but not something that fits the same slot as the 16-35 f/2.8 III. With the 16-35 f/2.8 III, how viable is the 14-24? It has a narrower focal length range, is heavier, doesn't take filters and gets you two additional mm. At that point, it might be preferable to couple the 16-35 with a 14mm prime. The 11-24L or Sigma 12-24 are options if one wants to go wider, and the Sigma 14 prime is better for astro even if you have to stop down the aperture slightly. And there is the 15-30 VC too. So how big is the market for Canon users for a 14-24? A design like this would have been more viable 5 years ago before all the UWA zooms came to market.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 12, 2018)

RGF said:


> Very interested, but will wait to see just how go it is
> 
> Does Sigma offer a service to convert between mounts? Just curious



Yes.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 13, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.



Nikon already makes a 14-24mm f/2.8, Canon doesn't. It makes more sense to compete in a segment in which there isn't a direct competitor.

Both Canon's 11-24mm and Sigma's 12-24mm are f/4, so the new lens has a one f/stop advantage. This should help AF (most, if not all, current DSLRs models have at least one AF point that works only with f/2.8 & faster max aperture) and usage scenarios like astrophotography.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > With the 11-24/12-24s , the 14-24 seems superfluous, but it looks to be aimed directly at Nikon.
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 13, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Canon now has better UWA zooms than Nikon. Nikon has a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 16-35 f/4, but not something that fits the same slot as the 16-35 f/2.8 III. With the 16-35 f/2.8 III, how viable is the 14-24? It has a narrower focal length range, is heavier, doesn't take filters and gets you two additional mm. At that point, it might be preferable to couple the 16-35 with a 14mm prime.



If the 14-24mm would have low coma, it would be preferred for astrophotography.

If one would like an ultra-wide lens to go along a 24-70mm f/2.8, buying the one 14-24mm f/2.8 would make more sense than buying the two 14mm + 16-35mm.

So, though I agree with your logic, I think some photographers might have a different view.



Random Orbits said:


> the Sigma 14 prime is better for astro even if you have to stop down the aperture slightly. And there is the 15-30 VC too.



Wouldn't that depend on the 14-24mm's image quality?

According to photozone, the 14mm f/1.8 has strong barrel distortion (the 14-24mm is supposed to have <1% vs 3.43% here), isn't sharp wide open @ ~f/2 on high resolution sensors (again, the 14-24mm is supposed to be better here), and apparently doesn't excel in the coma department on FF sensors.

In other words, it seems Sigma thinks those two lenses have distinct & separate target audiences.



Random Orbits said:


> So how big is the market for Canon users for a 14-24? A design like this would have been more viable 5 years ago before all the UWA zooms came to market.



That is an excellent question / point. When the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 came out, I was somewhat envious. Then a photography shop employee I appreciate* for his advice told me a lot of copies of this lens got quickly into the used market (the shop traded in used photography equipment), as people were disappointed with it. Apparently the lens didn't serve their needs as well as the hoped.


* I take his opinion seriously as he cared more about the customers' interests than his employer's. I would often come in looking for an expensive item, and receive his good advise to buy a cheaper item, or none at all. That cost him dearly when the shop closed one year ago. I've met most other employees behind the counters of other photography shops, AFAIK he's still looking for a job.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 14, 2018)

think it would compete directly at Nikon's 14-24mm f/2,8 and fill the void of Canon's arsenal.

Would Canon's body able to detect this 2,8 like the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 Art when mounted and provide on-board corrections??


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 14, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> think it would compete directly at Nikon's 14-24mm f/2,8 and fill the void of Canon's arsenal.
> 
> Would Canon's body able to detect this 2,8 like the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 Art when mounted and provide on-board corrections??



Interesting.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 21, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Interesting.



Wonder did Canon and Sigma sign some kind of Understanding Agreement....

:


----------



## pixel8foto (Feb 23, 2018)

***NEW FEATURE ALERT***

"high-accuracy autofocus".

***NEW FEATURE ALERT***


----------



## RGF (Feb 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> 4 Year U.S.A. Warranty is pretty cool. The vignetting is not very good wide open, I guess that's the nature of the beast.
> 
> https://www.sigmaphoto.com/14-24mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-a



is the vignetting worse than the Nikon 14-24 or Canon 16-35 F2.8 wide open?


----------



## mjg79 (Mar 4, 2018)

RGF said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > 4 Year U.S.A. Warranty is pretty cool. The vignetting is not very good wide open, I guess that's the nature of the beast.
> ...



Have we seen any more sample photos coming out? I can't find any and I'm interested in this lens.

As for the question - there's no way it will be worse than the 16-35 2.8 L III - that despite being in almost all other regards perfect is, sadly, is one of the worst lenses out there for vignetting, worse even than the notorious-for-vignetting Zeiss 18/3.5 and Zeiss 25/2 ZE lenses. 

I had saved up enough money to buy the L III but just can't stomach the price given the more than four stops of vignette so this lens is of interest. The inability to filter it with normal filters is a huge pain but that's the case with the Tamron and the Nikon models.

How it compares to the Nikon 14-24 will be interesting as that lens is outstanding and Sigma has also gone for the bulbous front element that seems to allow for well corrected corners while avoiding vignetting (well I say that but Sony's 16-35/2.8GM matches the L III for sharpness with almost exactly half the vignette so there's obviously other ways around this or maybe that's the shorter flange distance helping). I used to use an adapter Nikon 14-24 on a 5DII but got tired of using an adapted lens and needing an adapter for filters and have been on the 16-35L IS and was hoping to upgrade to the 2.8L III to have a lens that could also do astro work. The vignette really hurts that so I am holding off. The Sigma might be the one to tick all the boxes except for filters. If it doesn't impress I think I'll get the Tamron though I've had bad luck in the past with them, it's getting so cheap online now it seems worth a try.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 4, 2018)

Here is vignette graph for the new Sigma

https://pull01-sigmaphoto.netdna-ssl.com/media/wysiwyg/vignetting.jpg

For the Nikon, pz measures 1.6 stops at 14mm, and 1.2 stops at 24mm. (Wide open)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 18, 2018)

I can verify that all of the lens corrections do in fact work...quite beautifully, actually. It made me aware of just how much "tweaking" Canon lenses benefit from in camera.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Apr 24, 2018)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I can verify that all of the lens corrections do in fact work...quite beautifully, actually. It made me aware of just how much "tweaking" Canon lenses benefit from in camera.



wow...

Think Sigma did really has some kind of agreement with Canon to include the lens profile in the body.


----------

