# SIGMA Announces the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 18, 2015)

```
Leaked photos of a brand new Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM have hit the web. This would be a full frame lens and a game changer at f/2. We’d heard rumors that Sigma was working on a 24-70 f/2 Art lens, but I guess this is what was actually in development.</p>
<p>The announcement is expected soon, along with specifications.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#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-21168 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_002.jpg'><img width="150" height="97" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_002-150x97.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="sigma_24-35f2_002" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_001.jpg'><img width="150" height="94" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sigma_24-35f2_001-150x94.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="sigma_24-35f2_001" /></a>
			</dt></dl>
			<br style='clear: both' />
		</div>
```


----------



## drs (Jun 18, 2015)

This sounds exciting. If the quality is on par with the F/1.4 art primes, I'm in. Can't wait.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 18, 2015)

Interesting, but not much of a zoom range. I'll stick with my primes and 24-70 zoom.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 18, 2015)

I dunno. Yeah it's niche for Sigma, but I'm curious to see what the interest is in such a small focal range. I guess this is the FF version of their 18-35, more or less. I'm sure it's great optically, but I'm not thinking there will be a huge demand for this. Landscapers perhaps but it doesn't seem to get wide enough for a zoom. I wonder if the smarter play wouldn't have been to go right for Canon's throat and make a 20 or even 16-35 f2.8 that just smokes their current one like the 16-35 f4 did. Time will tell. Now hurry up the damn 85mm ART! LOL


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.

24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)

24-35 f/2 = seems like a vanity piece for Sigma to say 'First ever!', drop the mic, and move on. Meh.

I think this lens will not fare well commercially at such a limited FL range.

- A


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 18, 2015)

This lens, like any other, is bound to have some ardent lovers, but I'm eager to see what they will use it for.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 18, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> 
> 24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)
> 
> ...



I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens. 

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.
> 
> This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.



I hear you and I appreciate the value proposition of the lens, but the number of people who amass all three of those primes is pretty small. So it might be a dynamite lens, but I still contend its appeal will be limited.

Now if that limited focal range multiplier (roughly 1.4) was on the _wider_ side, say a (roughly) 16-24 f/2, people would go bonkers for this, I think. 16 and 24 are far more different to my eyes than 24 to 35 is.

- A


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 18, 2015)

Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.


----------



## Kiton (Jun 18, 2015)

Posted by: Canon Rumors
« on: Today at 03:02:15 PM »


I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.

This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



100 %

This lens shows great promise.
To compare it to 1.4 primes is apples vs grapefruit.
This will be on my urgent to get list. Having 2 of the Art lenses now, I trust Sigma that this will be a great piece of glass. The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.

Now, if they can bring a nice 85mm f2 to market I would be the happiest street shooter around!


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 18, 2015)

Well, that is a disappointment. I guess I will look to the Canon ... Ich.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 18, 2015)

I think this is quite interesting. It goes from very wide to almost normal at f/2.
Among other things, it would allow you to fine-tune your framing in tight quarters (you can't always put your tripod or camera in the exact spot you want). Especially useful in video where cropping later is not always an option, while also giving an extra stop over 2.8 zooms.


----------



## drs (Jun 18, 2015)

To specify my excitement, yes, a 24-70, F/2.8 is nice and certainly one of my most uses lenses when I have to travel "light". 

The lens in discussion here seems an ideal fit for fast pacing indoor filming. Whereby light is an issue, hence the 2.0 and not 2.8. There I look forward to. If time permits, I rather use primes with f/1.4 of course. However, the small range allows for hope that little compromises are included, e.g., CA, distortion, etc.

For still images, there are cheaper and/or better options, of course they are, as mentioned above.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.
> This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.



+1 if the IQ is top its going to be difficult for quite a few people to justify getting a plain 35mm. Very few wide pictures use the full frame anyway, so many will be happy with the ability to zoom.

Plain 35mm will be a specialty lens type for those who absolutely want to have the widest aperture possible such as f/1.4 (as I do). Just like 50mm have become a rare choice after the standard zooms improved a lot.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jun 18, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree, as someone pointed out on Facebook.... it's sort of like a Tri-Elmar from Leica.. it's a 24 f/2, 28 f/2 and 35 f/2 in one lens.
> ...


i think the key difference here is that canon already has a full-frame zoom lens with better-than-prime performance in the 24-70 2.8 ii. to me, and maybe others would disagree, there isn't a huge difference between f2 and f2.8, and you lose half the zoom range with this lens.

i personally have the 35 art, and i have not used it even once since getting the 24-70. i used to use it when i needed the very best IQ possible, but since the 24-70 is about the same or even better, the only reason to use it then would be for the 1.4. and this new 24-35 doesn't do 1.4, so...

but then again, there's the 200L f2 vs the 70-200 2.8 is ii, and people still go for the f2 at triple the price, so what do I know.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 18, 2015)

If only there were a body with IS we could mount this on...  


I mainly shoot primes, and I think this is actually a pretty useful focal range. (my current favorite is the 28mm f/2.8 IS, it's on my camera 80% of the time)


I also do a lot of nightscapes and very low-light hand held shooting on alpine climbs.


They have my attention!


----------



## Kiton (Jun 18, 2015)

"
but then again, there's the 200L f2 vs the 70-200 2.8 is ii, and people still go for the f2 at triple the price, so what do I know. "




I hated the 200 f2, ditched it in record speed. I am with you on that lens.
I do love the 135 f2, but not the 200.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.



In theory. 

I agree with ahsanford; 24-50 f/2 would have been very interesting.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jun 18, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > This is a pretty big deal in lens design for full frame DSLRs.
> ...


that would have been close to the sigma efs 18-35 1.8 for crops, which seemed to sell well.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 18, 2015)

This is not a very interesting range of zoom.
But the thought of replacing primes 24, 28, 35mm F2 opening looks great.

Canon offers 24mm F2.8 IS great, but is not able to F2.
Canon offers 28mm F1.8 but image quality is mediocre.
Canon offers 35mm F2 IS great, but is not always enough wide angle.


----------



## slclick (Jun 18, 2015)

I'm holding out for the 29-30 f/1.9


----------



## The Flasher (Jun 18, 2015)

Aside from its size, stylistically this would be great as a street shooters lens, forced portrait lens. Distortion, image quality, filter diameter (77mm hopefully) and the right price, would mean instant buy for me.


----------



## candc (Jun 18, 2015)

Xyclopx said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8


----------



## HighLowISO (Jun 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> ...


I agree in principle on this. If the quality is REALLY like top primes, then I could see it replacing 2 primes for a lot of people. Sometime when going out for the day that is all you need when your trying to go with just 2-3 lenses. However; It may not have a really wide appeal though as many would just go 24-70mm, but surely SIGMA knows this so either the rumor/leak is wrong or they feel they have something really special in terms of performance and weight that warrants this lens.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 19, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> Aside from its size, stylistically this would be great as a street shooters lens, forced portrait lens. Distortion, image quality, filter diameter (77mm hopefully) and the right price, would mean instant buy for me.


If the picture of this lens is true, the filter diameter is 82mm.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 19, 2015)

Kiton said:


> The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.



That does bring up an interesting question. Would it be a good idea to get this new lens and replace the 35mm?

If I did not already have the 35mm, I think this new zoom would be handy. But if I already have their 35mm I wonder dumping it will be a good idea.

Is there an expectation that a 24-35 Art will have the same IQ as the 35mm Art prime?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> ...



I agree with you CR. As you know with all camera gear, people expect it to be built and tailored to their needs, and nobody else. I just responded on FB about what this lens means for me. I don't shoot at 24mm and need a 1.4 prime. I don't shoot at 35mm and need an 1.4 prime. I do, however, shoot at these lengths a lot at weddings when I'm taking dance floor shots, walking around the reception, getting group shots, etc. This lens will be great for those dark environments and I could easily see having it attached to a second body slung over the shoulder while I walk around with my 50 Art or 135L getting the beautiful details.

I like it because this now solves my need to ever buy a 24 or 35mm prime. I use 50, 85, and 135 like nobody's business, but these shorter focal lengths are for much different purposes.

I'm sure people will say just buy a 24-70 f/2.8L II, and I almost did...I even owned the original. I just know I would buy it and an stabilized version would soon follow. I plan to wait on the Canon with IS before jumping back into another $1800+ zoom....or if Sigma does something with an IS version.

To add, the look of Art glass is something to be experienced. You either love it with everything you've ever appreciated in images, or you could live without it...I'm the former. Haha

- Kevin


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 19, 2015)

slclick said:


> I'm holding out for the 29-30 f/1.9



+1 That's where I'm at.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 19, 2015)

candc said:


> its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8



lol, Sigma crams in as much as possible and appears to have achieved a first of its kind lens, and here is somebody saying it wouldn't be hard to do more. They have to abide by the laws of physics you know, and maintain a certain standard of image quality.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> ...



not really - it's freaking huge. the tri-elmar wasn't a gigantic 2lbs lens that this one is looking like it's going to roll in at.

this thing? game changer? no, can't see it.


----------



## risc32 (Jun 19, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > its hard to believe that this is the best sigma could do with this lens. it shouldn't be that hard to make a lens with a bit more range than 24-35 keep in mind that the 18-35 works on ff from 28-35 and its 1.8
> ...



I'll second that. sure, how hard could it be? add this, add that.... if only these lens designing fools had stopped to think of the possibilities, or put in more effort. "hey, why don't i just work late tonight and take this lens to 20mm, that'll show 'em"


----------



## Kiton (Jun 19, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Kiton said:
> 
> 
> > The 35 1.4 will be sold off as soon as this arrives.
> ...




The 35 1.4 is a great lens. 

But I do not want to carry a bag full of 1.4 primes. I realize some people do, but my needs / expectations have to be balanced with what I can carry in the street for hours on end. The fact this lens takes a 82mm filter (as posted on Sigma Rumors) has taken some wind from the sails. I do not have a Sherpa. I have been using the 40mm STM during daylight hours since it was first introduced and the size, weight and discreetness of the lens is great. Often the fast primes stay in the trunk safe until nightfall.

A good day bag is a 24 or 28 (f2 where there is a massive hole in the market for the last decade) /40stm/85 1.8 and 135 f2.

Once in a while I drag along the 24mm TSE as the wide, it is very sharp, but big and heavy.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 19, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Not a game changer? Think about what you're proclaiming here. First, the Tri-Elmar is $5,500. Second, it's fully manual and not compatible with a full frame sensor - period. Third, it's an f/4. People are gaga over the lens because it has Lecia on it and has great image quality.

This will be about $1000-1200, fully electronic with AF while covering a full-frame image circle, and is two full stops of light faster than a Tri-Elmar. It will most likely be on par or better than the 18-35 in image quality, so it's sure to be impressive.

Not a game changer? What game do you play?

I think everyone forgets that 2.0 is a full stop faster than 2.8. Unless it's a 1.8, they don't care.
- Kevin


----------



## candc (Jun 19, 2015)

I just went out and took a few shots with the 18-35 on the 6d. A couple at 35 and one at 28. There is some vignetting but you can remove it in post. If this rumor is true then you get 24.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 19, 2015)

Like many, 24-50 f/2 was sort of the "realistic" hope (as opposed to 24-70 f/2), but I'm still very happy with this release. I'm more of a filmmaker than a photographer these days and have been eyeballing the Sigam 18-35mm for my C100 for quite some time. However, something inside me always screams, "ONLY BUY FF COMPATIBLE LENSES!" as I do shoot with a Mark III for photography purposes. So, this sort of gives me exactly what I want. I won't be able to shoot quite as wide on my C100 with this new 24-35 compared to the 18-35, but being able to stick it on my 5D makes it exceedingly more valuable and a lot more versatile. Also, though I have the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 that I use for video, I have wanted AF primes at these FLs. This zoom lens might satisfy that need as well (I can accept f/2 in place of f/1.4....but f/2.8 is just too slow). I just hope quality wise it's as good as the 18-35; it's almost a definite buy for me if so.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 19, 2015)

Like most people here, this seems like an odd choice to me. I'm guessing that it will be an excellent lens, but I'm not sure who it's for. How often do you really need F2 at 24mm? Astro maybe? At 35mm, I can make decent use of F2 with my 35mm IS, and sure, occasionally it'd be nice to be able to go wider for architectural shots (especially when on vacation), but it looks like it will not be a great travel lens given the size and weight (just guessing, but it's looking like another Tamron 15-30 sized behemoth), especially for such a limited zoom range. And no IS. I would imagine most pros would prefer an L or Sigma art 1.4 prime for most purposes.

I actually think it would have made more sense for them to go for a fast zoom in the normal range instead - I think something like a 35-55 F2 could be really interesting, and likely significantly smaller.

More realistically, some cheaper primes with OS to undercut Canon's 24-28-35 IS primes would make a lot of sense.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 19, 2015)

gobucks said:


> I'm not sure who it's for. How often do you really need F2 at 24mm?



Think live event photogs and run & gun filmmakers. I film weddings, and it's a CONSTANT battle between needing the speed of a prime (think dark reception venue) and the convenience of a zoom to get the shot.


----------



## candc (Jun 19, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Like many, 24-50 f/2 was sort of the "realistic" hope (as opposed to 24-70 f/2), but I'm still very happy with this release. I'm more of a filmmaker than a photographer these days and have been eyeballing the Sigam 18-35mm for my C100 for quite some time. However, something inside me always screams, "ONLY BUY FF COMPATIBLE LENSES!" as I do shoot with a Mark III for photography purposes. So, this sort of gives me exactly what I want. I won't be able to shoot quite as wide on my C100 with this new 24-35 compared to the 18-35, but being able to stick it on my 5D makes it exceedingly more valuable and a lot more versatile. Also, though I have the Rokinon 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 that I use for video, I have wanted AF primes at these FLs. This zoom lens might satisfy that need as well (I can accept f/2 in place of f/1.4....but f/2.8 is just too slow). I just hope quality wise it's as good as the 18-35; it's almost a definite buy for me if so.



The c100 uses a super 35/aps-c size sensor? The 18-35 will give you the full range on that. It is ef mount not ef-s it is ff compatible but the image circle only covers the sensor on the long half. All you will gain with this new rumored lens is 24-28 on ff.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 19, 2015)

Hold on a second... Why is the zoom ring in reverse of normal Canon and Sigma? Hmmm kind of fishy.


----------



## da_guy2 (Jun 19, 2015)

I can't believe this is real. A zoom lens with less than a 2x zoom range is just silly. Either get a 24mm f1.4 and take a couple steps forward, or a 35mm f1.4 and take a few step back. There is so little difference between 24mm and 35mm it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 19, 2015)

I am still hoping for f2.0 upgrade for 17-50mm crop zoom lens from Sigma/Canon. Sigma went with 18-35 f1.8 instead and Canon is not bothered to upgrade any crop zoom lens other than kit lens.


----------



## Zv (Jun 19, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> gobucks said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure who it's for. How often do you really need F2 at 24mm?
> ...



What convenience is there for only going from 24-35? That's not a one lens solution. You'll still need to change lenses or have a second body on hand. A 24-70 would require less lens changing or swapping. That's valuable time where you might miss the shot.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 19, 2015)

My 2 cents on this.

I owned and liked the 35 Art very much. I then decided to get the 50. Wow, that's even better. When the 24 came I wanted that for starscapes and stuff. So I got the 24 but couldn't really justify having 24, 35 and 50, mainly because of 24 and 35 being so close to each other.

So I sold the 35. And I miss it.

Still, the combination 24/50 makes more sense in my camera bag, but I want the 35 back, somehow. As I can't use the 24 at f/1.4 anyway for starscapes because of coma in the corners, this 24-35/2 somehow comes in as the perfect compromise now. I lose f/1.4 but I (probably) save money compared to having 24 and 35 primes and I don't have to justify owning both primes.

I for one find this lens very interesting and will definitely give it a go when it comes and probably even consider buying it itf it's not too far away from the MSRP of 24 and 35. Of course if it's way over 1000€ I can get 24 and 35 used for almost the same price so that wouldn't make sense but let it be say 999€ MSRP which is more like 849€ street price, count me in.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 19, 2015)

gobucks said:


> I think something like a 35-55 F2 could be really interesting, and likely significantly smaller.



I think there will be more short range fast zooms rivaling prime optics. The days of prime image quality in a zoom are here.


----------



## xps (Jun 19, 2015)

It is optically not easy to make an *f2* lens over an big zoom range in wideangle & normal focal length.
When we visited Zeiss some weeks ago, the guide told us, that it is much more difficult to creat an perfect and bright wideangel & normal fl zoomrange than an telezoom.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 19, 2015)

Xyclopx said:


> i think the key difference here is that canon already has a full-frame zoom lens with better-than-prime performance in the 24-70 2.8 ii.



I agree that the real challenge Sigma will face is that this lens joins an already crowded field of competing zooms. 

However, the argument I went against was that it would do poorly because of exiting high-end primes.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 19, 2015)

It's official now.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a?link=jun-m-24-35


----------



## xps (Jun 19, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> It's official now.
> 
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a?link=jun-m-24-35



Thanks. Interesting lens. 

Anmerkung:
Danke für den 5DS & 5DIII Bildervergleich. Ist der Kontrast bei voller 50 MP Anzahl sichtbar größer als bei der MKIII?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2015)

Congrats to Sigma for finding and filling a new niche.
I hope they'll succeed with this lens. F2 FF zoom sounds great.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 19, 2015)

They might release a wide-angle Art zoom to complement this. 14-22 maybe?


----------



## Zv (Jun 19, 2015)

Can't decide between 24mm and 35mm? Now you don't have to! Thanks Sigma, how would we have overcome this dilemma without your ingenuity? 

But wait there's more! You also get 28mm as an added bonus, though not quite as prime quality as the other two, apparently! 

I await the next Art zoom incarnation with such massive focal length range as this. Perhaps a 36-55 f/2? And then we will only ever need to carry two large lenses! Hooray! 

End of sarcasm. 

But seriously it is quite an impressive beast and they now have bragging rights. Tip o the hat to you Sigma!


----------



## Brea (Jun 19, 2015)

Ugh I'm so frustrated Sigma wanted to release this.
Right now I have the
CANON 24MM 1.4L (Version 1, lacks sharpness at 1.4, mostly use at F2 but still lacking for me somehow)
SIGMA 35MM 1.4L

I would get this lens so I wouldn't have to switch so much since I use 35 more and hate switching to 24 for a bit and then back to 35. Should I sell these lenses before this comes out? It's such a hassle to resell these lenses since there's so much in the used market.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 19, 2015)

Brea said:


> Ugh I'm so frustrated Sigma wanted to release this.
> Right now I have the
> CANON 24MM 1.4L (Version 1, lacks sharpness at 1.4, mostly use at F2 but still lacking for me somehow)
> SIGMA 35MM 1.4L
> ...



I was just weeks away from buying the 35 Art, so I'm happy this lens cane out. If you use the 35 more and the 24 so seldom, just keep them. This lens is more for someone who switches back and forth like myself. I use this range a lot at a wedding.


----------



## Kiton (Jun 19, 2015)

Thank you for that link ichtmalen.

940 grams! Ouch, but if it means I can carry this and an 85mm most days, I am in.




http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a?link=jun-m-24-35


----------



## Sith Zombie (Jun 19, 2015)

Awesome, was planning to get a 24mm and 35mm prime soon but I think this'll be the better option for me depending on price and performance of course! Still looking at the canon 16-35 though....we'll see.


----------



## Coolhandchuck (Jun 19, 2015)

I am a portrait photographer and it would nice if Sigma were to release a proper portrait Art lens.


----------



## seamonster (Jun 19, 2015)

Indeed. What I really want is a 50-135mm f/2 lens for portraits


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 19, 2015)

Not interested. Zoom range is too short and it's too slow. When I want speed, I want f/1.8 or faster. 

Still waiting on that 135mm f/1.8 IS sigma.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 19, 2015)

My 2 cents:

1) At the long end, I already have the EF 35mm f/2 IS

2) I never liked 28mm.

3) At the wide end, I could get EF 24mm f/2.8 IS or EF 24mm f/1.4 - a 24-35mm f/2 Art wouldn't cost a lot less than the later.

So for my money, I would go for one of the EF 24mm lenses.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 19, 2015)

I know Sigma wanted a lens that was unique...but come on... 24-35 f2? WTH? I'm sure it has a wonderful optical performance, but what a bizarre focal range... I don't understand who this lens has wide appeal to. It's not really wide enough for serious landscapers. Astro maybe, but wouldn't astro people prefer the 24mm 1.4 prime? 

I think Sigma should have put the effort into getting the 85mm ART and 24-70 ART out on the market instead. I'll be surprised if they sell a lot of these


----------



## Vern (Jun 19, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm holding out for the 29-30 f/1.9
> ...



only if it is TS w IS! 

I will give this one a look - per some other comments, f2 blur/speed for indoor/low light photos might be fun & useful.


----------



## TommyLee (Jun 19, 2015)

not very much difference ....short range coverage...

I mean you can lean back that much ....without moving your feet...

so at 35mm f1.4...set to f2..... and leaning back ....you have it covered...plus the 1.4 @ f2 is well sharpened....

......seemed like was stated...a vanity piece.....yawn..
////////////

I find thesigma 35mm f1.4..... wonderful.. 

lean ( or step) forward or back for 50mm or 24mm....

and if I want REALLY wider
... I bring the little 14mm f2.8 II canon... then get long and heavy if I need to...

/////
I understand that some folks want all those 'primes' in between..

me...
I like as few lenses as possible

a 14, 35 and 100 macro (or a 135 w/ 1.4TC) ...could travel ..very.well...
imo

frankly...I would like to see SOMEONE make a perfect 135 f2 with I.S. and would take a 1.4x TC


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 19, 2015)

This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.

This lens likely won't even transmit at F2. it'll probably test closer to a 2.3-2.4. If it transmits at F2, job well done sigma.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 19, 2015)

It should have been a 20mm F2 or 18mm F2 (ART)... I'd gladly drop my 17-40mm F4L and 28mm F1.8 for any of those lenses.


----------



## dadgummit (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> 
> 24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)
> 
> ...



I agree 100%

If it were f1.4 that would be big. If it were 24-70 f2 that would be big. 24-50 would be cool. 24-35 at a slow f2... I would just grab Canon's excellent 35 f2 IS which is smaller, cheaper and probably much lighter and call it a day. I never grab both a 35 AND 24mm prime for the same shoot. I would much rather they produce a 24-70 f2.8 VC Art than this lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2015)

mangobutter said:


> This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.



But I ask you this -- of the following lenses...


24-35mm f/2 that weighs 2 pounds for $1299 (that's a total guess, I don't think price has been listed.)

24-50mm f/2 that weighs 3 pounds for $2k
24-70mm f/2 that weighs 4 pounds for $3k

...which would make the Sigma the most money? Surely not the first one, I would contend. The first is niche, the second is temptingly sexy, and the third is a land-grab for professionals (provided the performance is there).

People who carry around a 70-200 f/2.8 all day don't think 3.75 pounds is such a bother for what they get in return. This forum is full of folks who proclaim the 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy, but 'you get used to it -- and I wouldn't use anything else'. This could have been that similar lens for standard FLs.

Again, I'm geeked Sigma is shaking things up again, but I feel like they slightly laid up when they could have really gone for it.

- A


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> mangobutter said:
> 
> 
> > This is obviously more or less a street photographer or dimly lit event type of lens where 24, 28, and 35mm are useful. As said, astro would be great too. A 24-70 F/2 lens would be extremely big, heavy, and expensive. I don't know why people just think you can hodgepodge any combination of lens specs together willy nilly. That's not how this works.
> ...



I would read the last part of his statement again. What makes people think a 24-70 f2 is even possible? Or even a 24-50? Sigma released something that's never been done before and they're laying down? Ridiculous.

We're use to a ~2x zoom range at f/2.8, but enjoy a 4x zoom range at f/4. Did Canon "lay down" with their 24-70 2.8 because they didn't make a 24-105 f2.8? Of course not. So why is a ~1.5x zoom at f/2 not to be expected? It's f/2! Personally, I'd happily replace my 24 and 35 primes with this. This lens needs to be viewed as 2 primes in one and not some sort of utility zoom.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I would read the last part of his statement again. What makes people think a 24-70 f2 is even possible? Or even a 24-50? Sigma released something that's never been done before and they're laying down? Ridiculous.
> 
> We're use to a ~2x zoom range at f/2.8, but enjoy a 4x zoom range at f/4. Did Canon "lay down" with their 24-70 2.8 because they didn't make a 24-105 f2.8? Of course not. So why is a ~1.5x zoom at f/2 not to be expected? It's f/2! Personally, I'd happily replace my 24 and 35 primes with this. This lens needs to be viewed as 2 primes in one and not some sort of utility zoom.



If they can make a 200-500 f/2.8 (which they sell today), a 24-70 f/2 is absolutely possible. But we all know that lens would be enormous and heavy. 

But think of it like a continuum from a tradeoff perspective:


24-28 f/2 would be thought of as a bit of a joke. Such a lens only would only serve Sigma's PR purposes of saying that they pulled off a zoom at f/2. Such a lens would not sell well at all.
24-35 f/2 replaces 2-3 primes (depending on what's in your bag) and is a tempting product. People who own all three 24/28/35 primes will have a serious look at this lens.
24-50 f/2 brackets 3 *staple* primes 24/35/50 into one lens. The value proposition of this lens really turns from 'good for Sigma, but that's not for me' to 'Holy cow, take my money' at this point.
24-70 f/2 would probably exhaust amateurs' backs but pros might gobble this up as a staple workhorse lens. Sure, it will be a howitzer pickle jar, but some folks would gladly take that for such a useful FL range.

As you go from top to bottom on that list, this becomes less of a vanity project and more of a game-changing development. I argue that they didn't go far enough down the list, but that doesn't mean this lens won't be loved by many or that it's not impressive technically.

Again, I can't state this enough -- I'm not bashing Sigma at all here. I'm just stating that the market appeal of this lens will be limited.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 19, 2015)

Hi ahsanford!

You say 


ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 would probably exhaust amateurs' backs but pros might gobble this up as a staple workhorse lens. Sure, it will be a howitzer pickle jar, but some folks would gladly take that for such a useful FL range.


and


> 24-70mm f/2 that weighs 4 pounds for $3k


But i say that I don't believe that 4 pounds are enough and even if it stays below $3k I am not sure that this would become a workhorse lens for pros.
Of course I am courious as you are how such a lens would perform and what dimensions it would have and
you are right when you say that it is possible to build such a lens, but what would have been the reason not to do so yet?

Conclusion:
Because the companies came to the point that it'll be too big and too expensive. Even for the pros. 
Otherwise it would have become a product long ago.
But maybe I'm wrong and we both will get the chance to put our hands on such a lens and can decide on our own


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Conclusion:
> Because the companies came to the point that it'll be too big and too expensive. Even for the pros.
> Otherwise it would have become a product long ago.
> But maybe I'm wrong and we both will get the chance to put our hands on such a lens and can decide on our own



A+. I think that's exactly what happened. Sigma's engineers ran the numbers and said 24-35 is the best that can be done without it becoming too massive and unwieldy.

I just wish _we_ could have had a chance to suffer through that learning process, say with a 24-50 f/2. 
If it was as sharp as a similar stopped down 24 and 50 Art, I would have gladly ponied up $1,500-2,000 for that.

- A


----------



## Arkarch (Jun 19, 2015)

I could find a spot for this.

I currently have the Zeiss 21/2.8, 50/2, and 100/2 + a TSE-24/3.5 My hole has been the 28 to 35 length - where certainly the Sigma 35/1.4 Art is a leading choice - and likely my next lens.

Would have been better 20 or 21 to 35. But this would mostly cover my mid-wide end. Landscapes a great choice for my shooting style (a tend not to go wider than 21); and even more useful perhaps - tight turn pan shots at the track - with f/2 very useful for lower light like short or dirt tracks or even a road course hairpin on a rainy day.

Not immediate purchase by any stretch - probably 4th on the list; maybe. see the reviews and in particular the bokeh.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> If they can make a 200-500 f/2.8 (which they sell today), a 24-70 f/2 is absolutely possible. But we all know that lens would be enormous and heavy.


I have this feeling that making a bright telezoom is a bit easier than making a bright wide->teleish zoom, so those things aren't really comparable?

Sure it would indeed possible to make one, I mean, why not. But question is, would it be much bigger than people have thought, or would the image quality suffer A LOT.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jun 19, 2015)

The way I see it, this lens main clients may come from event type photographers where the 16-35 f2.8 is well regarded and the 17-40 is the 'cheapskate'. I guess the trade-off of some 50% on the wide end against a full stop of light gathering might be acceptable. Otherwise, may-be for video...

Otherwise, I guess that someone who only occasionally shoots wide might prefer this over a set of primes to retain some versatility combined with the possibilities provided by large apertures.

I admit it is not a one lens solution, but I find it somewhat appealing still.


----------



## max (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> 
> 24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)
> 
> ...



I am a wedding photographer and would have loved to change the 24 1.4L and 35 1.4L for this... only if this was a bit longer! 45mm would have done the deal.

the 24-70 would have been huge.

and the 18-35 is almost 28-55... which I would have taken too.

This?? no way...


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 19, 2015)

The 18-35 is amazing because it gets you most of the "normal" focal length range with full frame equivalent light gathering, it's an equalizer, kind of the "ultimate kit lens". The 28-56mm equivalent range isn't far off what you get on normal lenses.
24-35mm is more specialized, it's probably going to be used mostly at either end of the zoom range. So the question is: How does it perform at 24mm and 35mm?
If it's sharp, low vignetting and low distortion, fantastic, they've made good high value zoom lens. If it performs poorly at one end then it's not much better than cropping off a good wide angle prime.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 19, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> 
> 24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)
> 
> ...



To each their own I guess - I completely agree with this statement.

The APS-C 18-35 f/1.8 was great, I even suggested it to a co-worker who purchased it.

18mm f/1.8 what else does that?

18-35 = 2.0x zooom
24-35 = 1.46x zoom

EF 24-35 f/2 Kinda ticks my 'meh' box....

EF 24-50 f/2 ? Now we are at least back to a 2.0x zoom.... But... Probably stil not so much....

EF 24-70 f/2 ? Hands down, I would buy this if it performed and wasn't a tank....


----------



## gobucks (Jun 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if this will provoke Canon into revisiting their 20-35/3.5-4.5 and coming up with a new optical formula that provides better IQ?
> 
> 24-35 isn't wide enough for me but 20-35 is.
> 
> But what about the 16-35/f4 and 16-35/f2.8?



I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure the 20-35 is a product of it's time - about the best Canon could do for an "ultrawide zoom" at the time. A modern 20-35 F2 would require a complete redesign, and would likely be even bigger than the sigma. The old 20-35s would likely have more in common with the current 17-40 and 16-35 lenses than with a new 20-35 f2.

In general, I kinda doubt that the extremely narrow focal range, ultra fast aperture zoom market is gonna be a big hit. The sheer size and likely expense of making an F2 zoom will make them unappealing to most people. a zoom range of one or two primes apart doesnt really change perspective a lot, so zooming with your feet, or just cropping, with a prime seems like a better option than lugging this beast along.

I think releasing some small 24-35 F2 primes with OS would be smarter. In particular, A 24mm F2 OS would really move units.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 19, 2015)

Anyone that is saying f/2 is too slow and they only care about f/1.8, come on...you're talking about a 1/3 of stop difference on a wide angle lens that will only show a correlating improvement of 1/3 stop shutter speed or ISO.

f/2 is one full stop faster than f/2.8. This means that it lets in DOUBLE the light of an f/2.8 zoom lens. Getting this to cover the image circle of a full frame sensor is unheard of for a reason. To cry foul in the somewhat restrictive focal length, you must not appreciate the engineering inside to the lens that makes this possible - or that it's wide angle to boot. These same people are quick to talk trash about an f/4 lens and only buy an f/2.8, but think f/2.0 isn't worth it?

Lens Aperture Consumer Reactions:

5.6 - "Too slow! NEXT!"
5.0
4.5
4.0 - "Why so slow?"
3.5
3.2
2.8 - "This is the best thing ever!"
2.5
2.2
2.0 - "Not fast enough!"
1.8 - "Now we're getting warmer!"
1.6
1.4 - "That's what I'm talking about!"
1.2 - "Take my money!!!"

Do people just want a lens with an aperture that starts with an f/1.X? Or, are they more interested in the practical improvements found in faster lenses. (I can tell you that the bokeh difference between 1.8 and 2.0 is negligible even on an 85mm...imagine how miniscule it will be on a 24-35.)

Nobody on this planet has ever made a zoom lens covering a 35mm sensor that allows twice as much light as an f/2.8 lens and released it to the public. It just happened. For someone like myself that uses 50, 85, and 135 primes for artistic and portrait work, the need for a 24, 28, and 35mm prime has been of little use. This now brings me that flexibility and can be taken out at any low light event and let in DOUBLE the light any other zoom offers.

So haters can lean back with your 35mm f/1.4 and enjoy yourself if that makes you happy. I'm pleased with this one and still impatiently awaiting Sigmas 85mm f/1.4 Art. haha


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 19, 2015)

da_guy2 said:


> I can't believe this is real. A zoom lens with less than a 2x zoom range is just silly. Either get a 24mm f1.4 and take a couple steps forward, or a 35mm f1.4 and take a few step back. There is so little difference between 24mm and 35mm it just doesn't make sense.



I wonder, do you actually take photo's, or just talk on the internet? I guess for you its different but my 35mm is not a substitute for 24mm. Try taking a step back when shooting the Milky Way and tell me how much difference it makes. Or try taking a step back when shooting inside a display case - suddenly the lens is no longer inside the case.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 19, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> da_guy2 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe this is real. A zoom lens with less than a 2x zoom range is just silly. Either get a 24mm f1.4 and take a couple steps forward, or a 35mm f1.4 and take a few step back. There is so little difference between 24mm and 35mm it just doesn't make sense.
> ...


 ;D

Personally I'd just shoot 24mm f/1.4 on a 5Ds-r and crop 

24mm * 1.44 = 35mm
50MP / 1.44^2 = 25MP
f/1.4 * 1.44 = f/2


----------



## Frage (Jun 19, 2015)

Why people aming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think croping from a wide angle lens gives you the results of a longer focal lenght? I dont get it.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 19, 2015)

Frage said:


> Why people aming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think croping from a wide angle lens gives you the results of a longer focal lenght? I dont get it.



Why people aiming to buy an almost 4000k camera still think zooms give you teh same results of a prime? I dont' get it.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 19, 2015)

Crop and keep the center of a prime.
Use the corners of a zoom.
50->25MP
la de da... It's just not significant enough for ME when we are talking 1.44x


2.9x (24-70) and now we are talking.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 19, 2015)

Just give me something ultra-wide with a faster aperture than f/2.8, please!


14 f/2?
15 f/2?
16 f/2?




These would be total game-changers for nightscape.


Seriously though, kudos to them for making a zoom that's faster than f/2.8, even if it has a limited range.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> So haters can lean back with your 35mm f/1.4 and enjoy yourself if that makes you happy. I'm pleased with this one and still impatiently awaiting Sigmas 85mm f/1.4 Art. haha



I know this comment was not aimed expressly at me, but I have been vocal that this product seems ill-fated commercially. 

Please understand *I love it* when third parties make disruptive innovations in the EF mount ecosystem. Do you think we'd ever have seen the sharpest UWA zoom that Canon has ever made (in the 16-35 f/4L IS) get released for $1,199 if there wasn't third party competition out there? Why do you think we haven't seen the 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM from Canon yet? Perhaps folks have chosen the 35 f/1.4 Art in greater numbers to Canon's 35 f/2 IS USM, and Canon doesn't want to see that happen again with their new non-L 50 offering.

So I'm not a hater one bit -- I just think this new lens is an A for technical difficulty and another A for market bravery, but only a B- for scratching the itch / meeting the unmet need. Some folks will snap that lens up and love it, while many others will feel boxed in by that limited FL range and not buy it. 

And I don't think I'm on an island bemoaning that "I didn't get what I want!" here -- this thread has had its share of folks uninterested in the focal length range despite applauding Sigma for the effort.

In the end, I want Sigma to put out products that strike the fear of god into Canon's marketing/development staff. Only then will Canon's prices go down and their innovation step up.

- A


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 19, 2015)

Ugh. ******* for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.

Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.


----------



## Xyclopx (Jun 19, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Anyone that is saying f/2 is too slow and they only care about f/1.8, come on...you're talking about a 1/3 of stop difference on a wide angle lens that will only show a correlating improvement of 1/3 stop shutter speed or ISO.
> 
> Do people just want a lens with an aperture that starts with an f/1.X? Or, are they more interested in the practical improvements found in faster lenses. (I can tell you that the bokeh difference between 1.8 and 2.0 is negligible even on an 85mm...imagine how miniscule it will be on a 24-35.)
> 
> ...


would you buy it?

most people aren't downplaying the technological achievement here, or care all that much about a f0.2 difference. i think people are saying that it's a marvelous invention that overall is not so useful compared to what they already have or what's already available.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 19, 2015)

To tell you the truth, the Tamron 15-30 sounds more interesting. But I am not getting either, because I have excellent 21mm lens and excellent 35mm lens, and the ever-popular SamBowRokYang 14mm. If I had not bought the 21 and 35mm lenses a while back, I would be seriously interested.


----------



## ReggieABrown (Jun 20, 2015)

Videomakers will love this lens. If I didn't have the 16-35 f4L IS I'd pick this lens up when it come out, and I'd probably love it! I shoot both photos and videos. And maybe, just maybe, this lens isn't necessarily targeted towards photographers only.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Jun 20, 2015)

I can see a definite use for this in my event kit. F2 is a great aperture for what I do. I use strobes and speedlights a lot and F2 will help balance the ambient quicker than f/2.8. I have the Tamron 15-30 and the 24-70 L. Both are f/2.8 and I often wish I had more aperture in order to keep the ISO out of the stratosphere when I'm balancing ambient. In that case I always go to my 35 f/1.4s (either the Canon L or the Sigma Art). But I always wish I had the 24 f/1.4 as well. With this lens, I can shoot most of a reception with it on one camera and the 85 L on the other. Having both 24 and 35 focal lengths is perfect. 35 is my most used, and most loved, but often it isn't wide enough when the dancing really starts getting crazy. I also use 24mm a lot for my sports photos. Having f/2 will help me there as well.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 20, 2015)

Xyclopx said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that is saying f/2 is too slow and they only care about f/1.8, come on...you're talking about a 1/3 of stop difference on a wide angle lens that will only show a correlating improvement of 1/3 stop shutter speed or ISO.
> ...



Yes, I'm planning to buy it after I figure out a few modifiers I want. It will also give me the luxury of determining if it's a vignette monster. The next lens I was considering was the 34mm Art, so I'd prefer this.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> 24-70 f/2 = a really big deal. Would be a landmark lens provided the IQ is there and it's not +3 pounds over a 24-70 f/2.8.
> 
> 24-50 f/2 = a clever hybrid of primes vs. zooms that some would certainly buy. (I would.)
> 
> ...



Got it in one. ;D

18-35/1.8 - 29-56 equivalent range. My 35L is more often not long enough than not wide enough. But it's not wide enough sometimes too. The 18-35 on crop is a really flexible solution. 24-35 on full-frame, not so much.

I'm getting happier and happier that I went back to all crop from crop and full-frame.


----------



## Joellll (Jun 20, 2015)

For those who complain about the less than 2x zoom range, you seem to forget that Tokina has a 11-16mm f/2.8 that was popular among crop shooters, and it even fills the FF image plane at 16mm.

Rather than seeing it as a poor reaching zoom, perhaps considering it a zooming prime would make it more appealing? Not everyone needs a f/1.4 prime, and to The ones who are struggling between the 24mm and the 35mm, this is a great solution.

That being said, I have no need for this lens, but I'm happy to see the niches that third party companies are trying to fill.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 20, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> Aside from its size, stylistically this would be great as a street shooters lens, forced portrait lens. Distortion, image quality, filter diameter (77mm hopefully) and the right price, would mean instant buy for me.



But there's no "aside from its size" - however wonderful it proves to be, it's unavoidably big and heavy. Do street shooters like such things?


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I know this comment was not aimed expressly at me, but I have been vocal that this product seems ill-fated commercially.



Yeah but if you talk like that people will believe you and it might cut into their sales, and if their sales get cut into by the community we are less likely to see other innovative ideas come out to us. 

Everybody gets the best results if they enjoy all offerings, and talk about what else they would like to see and why. It doesn't help anybody to talk against what you have already been given. It makes the givers feel like shit, and wonder why they try, when the profits on these ideas are small to begin with.


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 20, 2015)

Sounds interesting, but all I need is a decent 24mm prime and I'm set.


----------



## d (Jun 20, 2015)

Like BLFPhoto above, I'd love one of these for shooting events. I recently did a 30th where I mainly used my 24L 1.4 II stopped down a touch, but often wanted tighter framing. If sharpness from this 24-35 is half decent wide open, I'll definitely grab one.

d.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2015)

I respect them for creating something genuinely new and pushing the boundaries etc but I can't get excited about this. I misread the original rumour and thought it had IS - which would have been exciting, and a little frustrating, as I just got the Canon 35 f/2 IS. But no. I know everyone will say 'you don't need IS at 24mm' but since the situations I imagine a wide angle, wide aperture lens would be most useful (handheld, dim places, no flash - parties, museums, concerts, etc), IS might well be a help. For landscapes, I guess you'd be stopping down - IS would help handheld landscapes at narrower apertures (and why bother with a lens that's so wide to begin with in that case). Astro work is the only other thing I can think of - and fine, that would be on a tripod, so no IS needed. Sorry, I'm waffling.



da_guy2 said:


> I can't believe this is real. A zoom lens with less than a 2x zoom range is just silly. Either get a 24mm f1.4 and take a couple steps forward, or a 35mm f1.4 and take a few step back. There is so little difference between 24mm and 35mm it just doesn't make sense.



The difference between 24mm and 35mm is a bit more than one step back. I agree the zoom range is limited, but there is quite a difference between the two.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Ugh. ******* for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.
> 
> Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.


Wise words. I ended up using my 24mm 1.4 exactly this way and never found a need for a 35mm prime. Plus it's f1.4.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 20, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Ugh. ******* for failure. F2 is a focal ratio...does not mean much. By the time you add up the loss from extra lens elements and cheap coatings you will likely have an equivalent light transmission of an f 2.8 or higher prime.
> 
> Since the zoom is so narrow you might as well use a 24mm f1.4 prime and either crop or take a step forward and shoot.



http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

Not that I completely trust them, but DXO measured the t-stop of the Sigma 18-35 as being almost exactly the same as the f-stop. This is undoubtedly a similar construction so it has a good chance of having very good light transmission.
It's surprising how many f1.4 lenses have close to 1 stop of light loss.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-24mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795
According to this I'm actually getting nearly the same light gathering using the 18-35 as I am using the 24mm Art prime lens.
(though that is only applicable to crop sensors since the 18-35 does not cover a 35mm sensor)

If the 24-35 performs well at both ends then it will be better than having two primes. If not then I wouldn't bother with it.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 20, 2015)

Joellll said:


> For those who complain about the less than 2x zoom range, you seem to forget that Tokina has a 11-16mm f/2.8 that was popular among crop shooters, and it even fills the FF image plane at 16mm.
> 
> Rather than seeing it as a poor reaching zoom, perhaps considering it a zooming prime would make it more appealing? Not everyone needs a f/1.4 prime, and to The ones who are struggling between the 24mm and the 35mm, this is a great solution.
> 
> That being said, I have no need for this lens, but I'm happy to see the niches that third party companies are trying to fill.



+1 I loved my Tokina 11-16 and got some of my favorite shots with it. I even use to kind of refer to it as my UWA prime. However, the 1.5x zoom was much more useful then one might think. There is a world of difference between (FF equiv) 17mm and 28mm.

Same for 24mm and 35mm. I dont buy this "step back" or "step forward" argument. That may be applicable a bit when your subject is a person, but not when you're shooting a building or a landscape. Also, the FOV and perspective is quite different between 24mm and 35mm. 35mm still looks and feels quite normal to me, great for shooting people yet maintaining some context of the environment. By 24mm, things can start to give that distortion, scenes have a bit of that dramatic where the background shrinks and looks far away.

While I agree with many here that this will fit more of a niche market, those that will buy it though (event shooters) are going to love it. To be able to get a fast f/2 lens capable of 24 to 35 on one camera body, with no lens switching would be awesome. As someone already said, I could see shooting with this on one body and an 85mm on the other and be set.

For a casual shooter, such as myself, who will have the time to stop, switch lenses, get the shot, it is a tougher sell. Part of the issue for me personally, is the Sigma Arts are already pretty good size lenses. Is it worth swapping out a 35mm Art + 24mm prime for this? When they may very well be close to the same weight in the bag? For me, probably not. But back to the event shooter, I think this is an awesome lens!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 20, 2015)

cliffwang said:


> Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.


+1, 24-70mm f2 OS lens will kill many others


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 21, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting lens. Where is 24-70 /f2.0 OS Art? Please also release the Sony mount as well.
> ...



You do realize that a 24-70 f/2 OS is absolutely ridiculous and in no way to happen? That thing would be at least 10 inches long and 3kg heavy and sport a filter thread of 120mm upwards... Or something like that. No way anyone will ever build that.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 21, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > cliffwang said:
> ...



I think it's easy to forget how hard it is to design and make these things - as apertures and zoom ranges get wider, these lenses get exponentially more difficult to make, especially with good image quality. And it's easy to lust after an exotic lens, until you use it, and realize that hauling 1500-2000g of glass on your camera all day is miserable. There is a hige difference between "what is the best lens somebody can make" and "what is the best lens somebody can realistically make so that people will actually buy and use it".


----------



## scyrene (Jun 21, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > cliffwang said:
> ...



I agree it's not going to happen, but where do you get that filter size from? The 85L 1.2 only has a 77mm filter size, at a longer focal length and wider aperture than this would be.


----------



## d (Jun 21, 2015)

scyrene said:


> lichtmalen said:
> 
> 
> > Hjalmarg1 said:
> ...



85L filter thread is 72mm I believe.

d.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > lichtmalen said:
> ...



The math doesn't go like that at all for a wide-angle lens. You're assuming the diameter of the front element is driven by the size of the entrance pupil which is only true for a long focal length lens. For a wide lens, the front element diameter is much more driven by the angle of view. That's why the 17-40L (entrance pupil size 10mm) has the same filter size as the 24-70/2.8 (entrance pupil size 25mm) and the 70-200/2.8 (entrance pupil size 71.4mm).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> *I wasn't basing my calculations on the size of the entrance pupil,* just the fact that f/2 delivers twice the light of f/2.8 and therefore requires (at least) twice the area.



By your logic, the 16-35/2.8 should have a noticeably larger front element than the 17-40/4, since the f/2.8 lens needs to gather twice as much light. 







Simple observation would reveal that doesn't seem to be the case. You might want to do some reading about optics and lens design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The 85/1.2 needs a 70.8mm entrance pupil, therefore it should have a ~230mm filter size. 

Incidentally, the original 24-70/2.8 took a 77mm filter. Why does the 24-70mm f/4L IS not use a 54mm filter as your ratio predicts?

I repeat, you should read about optics and lens design as it's quite apparent that your understanding of them is lacking, leading you to make illogical assumptions.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

I'm struggling to understand the 24-35mm range. 

Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > lichtmalen said:
> ...


Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Same thing.



> Do you have a better formula or method for estimation?



A 24/2 would have an entrance pupil of 12mm versus a 24/2.8's entrance pupil of about 8.6mm. I'd expect the front element size to increase by a minimum of that amount (12mm-8.6mm = 3.4mm) to go from 24/2.8 to 24/2 with about the same amount of vignetting. I'm assuming the front element size is largely driven by the angle of view with the zoom position at maximum wide angle.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.



The 24-70 doesn't _need_ an 82mm filter – the MkII is 82mm, but the original 24-70/2.8L uses a 77mm filter. 

A 24-70/2 could likely be made with an 82mm filter, but optical vignetting would be pretty strong (as it is for the 24/1.4 with a 77mm thread). I'd expect an 86mm thread.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 22, 2015)

Here is a simple answer to the question. With complex multi element lenses, its not actually simple, and the front element may be larger than the minimum possible size.

Copied from here: 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3754307


"As noted elsewhere in the thread, there is a relationship between the focal length, f/number and entrance pupil diameter. This is, simply, focal length/(f/number).

But you were asking about the front element. The only thing you can say about the front element is that it must be at least as large as the entrance pupil, otherwise it becomes the entrance pupil. There are, however, other constraints on the optical design that may force the front element to be much larger than the entrance pupil.

For example, for big telephotos, the front element is pretty close to the diameter of the entrance pupil. My 300mm f/4, with an entrance pupil of 75mm, has a 77mm filter thread. But my 10-24 f/3.5-4.5, with an entrance pupil of at most 5.3mm, also has a 77mm filter thread. This is because a retrofocus zoom lens has the pupil way back in the lens and the front element has to be big enough to let the pupil see the wide angle that the lens was designed for."


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 22, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I know this wasn't directed at me, but put an imaginary 1.6x FL reducer on an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS and you end up with 44-125mm f/1.8 EF-S lens.

Going from EF-S to EF and the lens would need to get larger obviously, but I don't think the front filter size changes much.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> A 24/2 would have an entrance pupil of 12mm versus a 24/2.8's entrance pupil of about 8.6mm. I'd expect the front element size to increase by a minimum of that amount (12mm-8.6mm = 3.4mm) to go from 24/2.8 to 24/2 with about the same amount of vignetting. I'm assuming the front element size is largely driven by the angle of view with the zoom position at maximum wide angle.



This approach makes sense to me.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the 24-70mm need an 82mm filter for the angle-of-view at the wide-end of the zoom range. The 70-200mm f/2.8 does not need 82mm filters to cover 70/2.8 or 200/2.8 despite being an optically outstanding lens.
> ...


I was going to slowly drive the conversation towards this conclusion, and I wanted to bring up the 24L also. Someone stole my thunder... :'(


----------



## deleteme (Jun 22, 2015)

I am wondering why so many people do not believe lens manufacturers when they say it is impractical to make the lenses some are demanding.
What benefit is it to them to not create an expensive, profitable lens for people who are asking for it irrespective of its weight and cost?
I am assuming that there are caveats to the demands such as "should not weigh more than 4 lbs." or "pocketable " but so far I am hearing theoretical back and forth from various sources of unverifiable qualification.
I understand the desire for the magical lens. I just don't understand the disbelief WTR to the manufacturer's inability to supply them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



My bad. 

Incidentally, the 70-200/2.8L IS II is cutting it pretty close in terms of vignetting. A B+W F-Pro UV filter or a Slim CPL (both 5mm mount thickness) increase optical vignetting with the lens, the XS-Pro mount (3.4mm) is ok. That's pretty rare for a telezoom...and pretty rare in general – the 16-35/2.8 II doesn't have increased vignetting with an F-Pro filter, and you can stack three F-Pro mounts on the 35/1.4L with no extra vignetting. So I think the 70-200 II might actually have benefitted from an 82mm thread.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 23, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I'm struggling to understand the 24-35mm range.


Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.
[/quote]

They state it in their literature. They are trying to create one lens that replaces the popular 24mm and 35mm fast primes (ok, they created what they could- this is how they are marketing it). Given how sharp the new Sigmas are wide open, it might work.



StudentOfLight said:


> Call me when they release a 35-85mm f/2. For me this range is perfect for portraiture and with the wide f/2 aperture to give some decent background blur... Just pair it with a 135L or 200 f/2 L and you're good to go.



That might be a bit big to "go" anywhere


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 23, 2015)

gimme price now.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 23, 2015)

lichtmalen said:


> gimme price now.



Any guess? They didn't exactly inflate the price on their other industry first, the crop 18-35 f/1.8 lens.

But you'd expect they'd charge more in a FF mount, esp. compared to their f/1.4 Art glass. 

How does $1,299 sound? 

- A


----------



## Andyx01 (Jun 23, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> I am wondering why so many people do not believe lens manufacturers when they say it is impractical to make the lenses some are demanding.
> What benefit is it to them to not create an expensive, profitable lens for people who are asking for it irrespective of its weight and cost?
> I am assuming that there are caveats to the demands such as "should not weigh more than 4 lbs." or "pocketable " but so far I am hearing theoretical back and forth from various sources of unverifiable qualification.
> I understand the desire for the magical lens. I just don't understand the disbelief WTR to the manufacturer's inability to supply them.



Can you show me where a lens manufacturer denotes a certain lens is impractical? (Did someone on the internet tell you a lens manufacturer said this?)

I can't tell you how many times I've read quotes like: "Sony will never make a full frame back illuminated sensor because (barf more words here)"

And what do you know? Sony makes one now. :


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 23, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Can you show me where a lens manufacturer denotes a certain lens is impractical? (Did someone on the internet tell you a lens manufacturer said this?)



It's rarely impossible, but it often can be impractical. But there _are_ people who handhold a 200 f/2 IS USM, or people who want to hike with 600 primes, etc. 

The real question is: _*what is the practicality tipping point*_ for where something audacious/difficult/unique/industry-first-ish becomes *so* audacious/difficult/unique/industry-first-ish that the realities of making it -- the weight, size, cost, complexity, etc. -- are so great that a company will not meet its goals by offering it?

My argument is that tipping point for Sigma must have been 'Anything longer than 24-35.' They must have looked at a longer zoom range and realized how big/massive/IQ-challenging a 24-50 f/2 or 16-35 f/2 would have been and recognized how little appeal that would have commercially. They then reined in their audaciousness and simply 'settled' for an impressive industry-first that may not have the reach everyone wants. 

Is Sigma worth applauding for offering this? Absolutely.

Will I buy it? Not a chance.

The moral of the story, as always? Blame marketing. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> Can you show me where a lens manufacturer denotes a certain lens is impractical? (Did someone on the internet tell you a lens manufacturer said this?)



My wife's sister's cousin's friend Bob went to this photo expo in Deluth, and he heard it there. Once I seed the story to a couple of rumor sites, it will have independent confirmation and will therefore be Truth.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> My argument is that tipping point for Sigma must have been 'Anything longer than 24-35.'



Don't you read CR forums?? Obviously, Sigma is just ripping off their customers, which will become evident next year when they release the 24-70mm f/2 OS.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me where a lens manufacturer denotes a certain lens is impractical? (Did someone on the internet tell you a lens manufacturer said this?)
> ...



Post of the day.


----------



## yedijaluhur (Jun 24, 2015)

i though this will fill the gap in my bag.

right now i have:
- 16-35 F4 IS (very great lens for wider view, architecture, etc)
- tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC (which is not so great lens, miss & soft focus sometimes, focus slow for servo)
- 70-200 F2.8 IS II (one of my fav lens, great in all aspect)
- Sigma 50 Art (i personally think the best AF 50mm available on market)

i just confused of buying 24 F1.4 or 35 F1.4 and sigma release 24-35 F2.
it will replace my need for bright wide angle rather than buying 24 & 35 (i'm a bit budget here)
*dont mind the tamron


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 24, 2015)

yedijaluhur said:


> i though this will fill the gap in my bag.
> 
> right now i have:
> - 16-35 F4 IS (very great lens for wider view, architecture, etc)
> ...



I'd be more tempted to go with the f/1.4s. Gaining one stop often is not enough of a benefit to switch lenses (vs. f/2.8), but two is! I tend to use fast 50 and 35mm primes indoors. The 24 and 85 significantly less use, but it comes down to which focal lengths you prefer.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yeah I'm getting confused now. I still think my original comparison was valuable. I don't know much about lens design, but surely if a longer and wider lens takes a filter of size Xmm, then a shorter and narrower one will take a smaller one? Ultrawides and fisheyes I guess are a different matter.


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 25, 2015)

idontcareaboutyourimaginationlenses iwanttoknowtheprice
;D


----------



## bsbeamer (Jun 25, 2015)

If anyone has a gap in their kit for this lens that they're looking to fill rather soon, B&H has the Canon 20-35mm F2.8 L for $480:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801228283-USE/canon_c219512_zoom_wide_angle_20_35mm.html


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 25, 2015)

bsbeamer said:


> If anyone has a gap in their kit for this lens that they're looking to fill rather soon, B&H has the Canon 20-35mm F2.8 L for $480:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801228283-USE/canon_c219512_zoom_wide_angle_20_35mm.html



Who cares about f/2.8? f/2 is the new thing here.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 26, 2015)

bsbeamer said:


> If anyone has a gap in their kit for this lens that they're looking to fill rather soon, B&H has the Canon 20-35mm F2.8 L for $480:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801228283-USE/canon_c219512_zoom_wide_angle_20_35mm.html



It's still a fine lens in the centre but has chronic loss of resolution around the edges on FF by to days standards. Maybe still a viable lens for crop.


----------



## slclick (Jun 27, 2015)

F/2 is a wonderful and very open aperture, it may not suit all shooting styles but boy, what a lot of whining


----------



## meywd (Jun 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > F/2 is a wonderful and very open aperture, it may not suit all shooting styles but boy, what a lot of whining
> ...



we will never know......


----------



## scyrene (Jun 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > F/2 is a wonderful and very open aperture, it may not suit all shooting styles but boy, what a lot of whining
> ...



Probably more


----------



## lichtmalen (Jun 29, 2015)

Still waiting for some information on the lens like price and availabilty.


----------

