# Ultra Wide Angle Sigma Art Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 17, 2015)

```
<p>We’re told that Sigma is working on an Art series ultra wide angle lens. It’s unknown if this would be a replacement to the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG, or an addition to the lineup. With the cost of Canon’s latest EF 11-24mm f/4L, I think it’s safe to assume there would be a market for less expensive version from Sigma with the optical performance of previous Art series lenses.</p>
<p>If true, I wouldn’t expect it to be coming in the near future.</p>
<p>On a side note, we’re told Sigma will restart production of the 24-105mm f/4 DG OS later in 2015.</p>
```


----------



## pedro (Mar 17, 2015)

ok. there is joy in the waiting. 8)


----------



## lintoni (Mar 17, 2015)

Could be interesting! Wasn't there a remark in a recent interview at DPReview saying something about them wanting to reclaim their 'title' for having the widest zoom?

*Edit*
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8641477642/cp-2015-sigma-interview


> Yes, we need to [get involved]. We're a pioneer of wide-angle zoom lenses. In the 70's we developed a 21-35mm manual lens, which I believe was the first real wide-angle zoom lens. Then we developed an 18-35mm, then a 17-35mm, then a 15-35mm, and a 12-24mm. We've always developed wide-angle zoom lenses. Canon has broken our record! We need to refresh this product line.


----------



## andrewflo (Mar 17, 2015)

Weren't there a few rumors several months back about a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS that could potentially have filter threads?

That could be a very exciting lens as well to give a huge range of option between the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, and a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS (with filter threads).


----------



## lintoni (Mar 17, 2015)

andrewflo said:


> Weren't there a few rumors several months back about a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS that could potentially have filter threads?
> 
> That could be a very exciting lens as well to give a huge range of option between the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC, and a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS (with filter threads).


In the interview I linked to, they do stress filter threads and specifically mention a 14-24...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 17, 2015)

The ultrawide FLs have become a much more difficult battleground for Sigma in the last 12 months alone. Between the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS and the 11-24 f/4L, as well as Tamron's 15-30 f/2.8, Sigma is relatively late to the party. Consider: people who really needed a landscape, interiors or event wide angle probably plunked down their money very recently already.

I agree with some comments that a _front-filterable_ UWA wider than 16mm would do well if Sigma could reasonably pull it off -- i.e. do what the 16-35 F/4L IS did to thin everything up on the front end to temper or limit mechanical/filter-related vignetting when using a Lee setup. There's opportunity there: until someone makes an outrigger and dinner plate sized filters for the the 11-24 or Tamron 15-30, good luck with ND grads or a CPL for those lenses. I'm not saying each UWA lens should be expressly made for landscapers, but a filter ring dramatically expands the potential and appeal of UWA lenses.

- A


----------



## M_S (Mar 17, 2015)

Some fast lens (2.8 or faster) without or at least dramatically reduced coma and a good portion of sharpness, I am in.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Mar 17, 2015)

You guys are only thinking full frame? Sigma's 8-16 is already in the "Art" class of optics and build quality. I have one on my T1i and it is an outrageously superb lens even at 8mm. The sharpness and microcontrast are amazing, and for focus stacking landscapes, it has nearly zero focus breathing. The FOV is around 12-13mm equivalent for full frame. 

Sigma already conquered the UUWA zoom lens segment for crop cameras long before anyone else. 

It would be interesting to see if they make the 12mm full frame version better to match the 8-16. The 8-16 is way better even for a crop lens. 

Here's a TPD comparison. Although his 8-16 looks like the lower right corner is decentered to be softer than a good copy, which I have. Even then, beats the noodles out of the 12-24.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=710&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=954&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## GuyF (Mar 17, 2015)

Ah, just when I've got a bout of upgrade fever and about to p/x my 17-40mm for the 16-35mm f4.... :-\

At least the Canon is weather sealed and won't suffer the inevitable Sigma focus inconsistancies!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 17, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> You guys are only thinking full frame? Sigma's 8-16 is already in the "Art" class of optics and build quality. I have one on my T1i and it is an outrageously superb lens even at 8mm. The sharpness and microcontrast are amazing, and for focus stacking landscapes, it has nearly zero focus breathing. The FOV is around 12-13mm equivalent for full frame.
> 
> Sigma already conquered the UUWA zoom lens segment for crop cameras long before anyone else.
> 
> ...





PhotographyFirst said:


> You guys are only thinking full frame? Sigma's 8-16 is already in the "Art" class of optics and build quality. I have one on my T1i and it is an outrageously superb lens even at 8mm. The sharpness and microcontrast are amazing, and for focus stacking landscapes, it has nearly zero focus breathing. The FOV is around 12-13mm equivalent for full frame.
> 
> Sigma already conquered the UUWA zoom lens segment for crop cameras long before anyone else.
> 
> ...


If I still had a crop body, I'd get that lens in a heartbeat. It's excellent. Also, you're right, Sigma pioneered the whole ultrawide zoom segment, and I imagine they're feeling a bit encroached by the new 11-24 f/4. The 12-24 f/4 compares pretty favorably when stopped down and is way cheaper. I still think it's a pretty niche product, though, so I'd be surprised if they gave it the Art treatment, but maybe, like Canon, they will make it a statement piece. In other industries, there's lots of evidence that it works - Dodge sold a ton of Neons and minivans when they rolled out the Viper, and Ford is even planning to produce a $400k (really) Ford GT successor. Getting people excited about a brand (or in the showroom) can really pay off if done well. I think Sigma could definitely pull off something unique as they've done before in this segment.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 17, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are only thinking full frame? (truncated)
> ...



I am not discounting that it might be a crop Art lens, but there's sooooo much more money to be made in the FF segment, i.e. if you have the money for a FF rig, you are far more likely to be able/willing to pay ~ $1k for an Art lens. 

- A


----------



## LOALTD (Mar 17, 2015)

If they could give us something like:


14mm f/2.0
10mm f/2.8


It would be a GAME CHANGER for one of my favorite types of photography (night sky).


I'd personally much rather have something wider than a 24mm in an f/2.0 or wider than 14mm in an f/2.8 than any sort of zoom.


I'm sure I'm the minority though :'(


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 17, 2015)

M_S said:


> Some fast lens (2.8 or faster) without or at least dramatically reduced coma and a good portion of sharpness, I am in.


The Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 has what you are looking for.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 17, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > Some fast lens (2.8 or faster) without or at least dramatically reduced coma and a good portion of sharpness, I am in.
> ...



Yep. LensTip just tested that lens.

Resolution data here:
http://www.lenstip.com/432.4-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87.html

See the coma samples here:
http://www.lenstip.com/432.7-Lens_review-Tamron_15-30_mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

- A


----------



## jabbott (Mar 18, 2015)

If so, I'm in this minority as well...  I would love to have an ultra wide fast-aperture prime with low coma for night sky photography. I'm not sure if it's possible to design such a lens though. For now I will keep dreaming...


LOALTD said:


> If they could give us something like:
> 
> 14mm f/2.0
> 10mm f/2.8
> ...


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2015)

The Series-1 Sigma 12-24 is a lens I pull out two or three times a year when I find myself in a tight corner. It's only useful aperture is f/11, and then it's just what you would describe as adequate. You hope to goodness the client doesn't totally love the shot and want to run a national campaign with it. If used small, the output is perfectly fine. 

The Series-II Sigma 12-24 is by all accounts a significant improvement over the original, but wide open shooting remains a no-go zone. An Art-Series Sigma 12-24 sounds like it could deliver the goods. The competition in this sector is highly viable yet highly expensive. If an Art-Series Sigma 12-24 continues the phenomenal IQ turnaround we've seen recently from Sigma, then it will be worth waiting for. 

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 18, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re told that Sigma is working on an Art series ultra wide angle lens. It’s unknown if this would be a replacement to the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG, or an addition to the lineup. With the cost of Canon’s latest EF 11-24mm f/4L, I think it’s safe to assume there would be a market for less expensive version from Sigma with the optical performance of previous Art series lenses.</p>
> <p>If true, I wouldn’t expect it to be coming in the near future.</p>
> <p>On a side note, we’re told Sigma will restart production of the 24-105mm f/4 DG OS later in 2015.</p>


Wish it is a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS (A)  and can accept filters.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 18, 2015)

There's a Nikon patent for a 10mm f/4 full frame lens.

If Sigma wants to reclaim the widest-lens-crown (and the 12-24mm was wider than the out of production 13mm Nikon prime), it might have to go as wide as 9mm.


----------



## lintoni (Mar 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I wonder what it will take for Sigma to start making all of its Art series lenses with native mount for Sony A/E mount cameras? Being able to put these guys on the A7RII would be cool!


The obvious answer would be for there to be enough demand to make it profitable for Sigma. As it is...


> DSLRs first, particularly Canon and Nikon, since most of our customers use those systems. And after that mirrorless. Sony FE-mount.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Mar 19, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> There's a Nikon patent for a 10mm f/4 full frame lens.
> 
> If Sigma wants to reclaim the widest-lens-crown (and the 12-24mm was wider than the out of production 13mm Nikon prime), it might have to go as wide as 9mm.



Going lower than 12mm is beyond where a lens is useful. I have yet to see a single 11mm Canon shot that looks good in 3:2 format. Going that wide only looks good in panoramic formats, IMO. 

Sigma just needs a 14(or12)-24 F2.8 that is cheaper and better than the Nikon and it will outsell many other lenses especially if coma is well corrected.


----------



## lintoni (Mar 19, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Wish it is a Sigma 14-24mm f/4 OSS (A)  and can accept filters.


Yes, the more I think about it, the more I would like Sigma to release such a lens... I'm looking to replace my 17-40 - a 14-24 would do very nicely, instead of replacing it (17-40) with Canon's 16-35 f/4.

An excellent 14-24 would replace both the 17-40 and the Samyang 14 in my backpack when hiking (unless I was out overnight and wanted to do some astro), hmm... come on Sigma, do it!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 19, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Going lower than 12mm is beyond where a lens is useful. I have yet to see a single 11mm Canon shot that looks good in 3:2 format. Going that wide only looks good in panoramic formats, IMO.


12mm seems a bit arbitrary and I think it's a bit premature to say that about the 11-24 given that people have only had it in their hands for 2 weeks at best. The wider the lens the more difficult the composition, so it's going to take some time for someone to really nail a shot at 11mm. When they do, I think people will see the value...and besides it's a zoom...there's no law that says it has to be used at 11mm


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 25, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...



The (U)UWA zoom lens segment is an area I’ve long been interested in. I have also written many posts about (U)UWA too. I won’t go over them all… search my profile posts if you’re really interested… lol

What I will say here though, is that the choice of UWA zooms available today is truly terrific (and also ‘simply great’) for both APS-C and FF. When I bought my first UWA zoom, there were only a few options. Now there are so many options, including ‘version 2s’ of certain lenses even!

-A, while I do agree in part with your analogy of the ‘statement piece’ approach / possible philosophy to justify an ART UWA from Sigma… also remember there are so many more people with APS-C cameras than FF still, and as such – although a higher proportion of FF photogs might buy an UWA than APS-C photogs, I’d say there is more money ‘overall’ (total volumes sold x profit per lens) in APS-C than FF.

Sticking to APS-C firstly… the Sigma 8-16mm is indeed a truly terrific lens, which I’ve had for a few years now. I upgraded from my previous UWA zoom, the Sigma 10-20mm (f/4-5.6 model). It’s noticeably sharper corner to corner than either Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 or the f/4-5.6 model). Has much lower CA, more pleasing IQ and other aspects overall. It handles flare ‘ok’ (perhaps the only ‘slight chink in its armour’). Most importantly it is able to produce significantly wider shots than any other APS-C UWA zoom lens.

There are other good / great options: Canon’s 10-22mm, Canon 10-18mm STM, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, etc. For FF there is the new and highly acclaimed 16-35mm f/4 IS. Sharp, including corner to corner, AND with IS. That’s good! I’m all for IS… also in UWAs. (I wish it was built in to my camera body – or into my Sigma 8-16mm – of course with no loss of IQ).

The Sigma 8-16mm for crop is indeed superior comparably to the FF Sigma 12-24mm v1 or v2. Of course there is copy to copy variation… but I’m generalising / averaging. So with Canon now producing the 11-24mm, that’s a new ‘level’ of commitment to the FF UWA zoom lens segment. Well done Canon. From all accounts – it is a fantastic lens (though indeed, expensive!)

I think with Canon recently producing 2 new FF UWAs and an APS-C UWA (10-18mm STM) – they are showing how they believe this market segment will continue to be a profitable one (even for the 10-18mm STM, which is – in effect, a ‘budget lens’). Again, kudos to Canon for every STM lens they have produced to date.. all very good. The EF-M 11-22mm STM also is a fantastic UWA lens, by the way, for EOS-M cameras!

Having been quite disappointed at what even ‘expensive FF UWA zooms’ have been able to produce at the edges and particularly extreme corners (even when stopped down), but seeing what my Sigma 8-16mm produces corner to corner is one (but not the only) reason I am staying with APS-C as my main camera at this stage. (Costs of other lenses, including reaching the equivalent focal length for telezooms in FF is another). I have thousands of dollars invested in glass… with the only lens that I’m still ‘seeking’ – being a fast 50mm (or thereabouts) Canon prime (but that’s another story).

Of course I’d love a Canon FF with the Canon 11-24mm… but that’s a new bucket of dollars I would have to split open! So in that sense, well done to Canon for the ‘more budget friendly’ FF 16-35mm f/4… which a lot of people have said is ‘truly great value’ (including it having IS!)



mackguyver said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > Going lower than 12mm is beyond where a lens is useful. I have yet to see a single 11mm Canon shot that looks good in 3:2 format. Going that wide only looks good in panoramic formats, IMO.
> ...



I agree with Mackguyver here… there is definitely nothing wrong with having a lens that goes wider than a previous model. (The Sigma 8-16mm lens, which only really works on APS-C DSLR bodies, has been tested to be about FF equivalent to 12.5mm). By the way, TDP’s test of the Sigma 8-16mm at 8mm f/8 appears to have an issue (shake, or another variable) – as it is noticeably not as sharp as the f/5.6 or f/11 (and it should be from most other tested Sigma 8-16 lenses at those comparable settings). Or it could be an unusual anomaly for that particular copy. Mine is truly sharp from f/5.6 to f/16 when defraction starts to make itself known.

When I obtained my first UWA lens, it took some time for me to capture quality images and photograph UWA well… but now with several years of UWA experience under my belt, I’m better (but can still learn and improve – that’s another reason I love photography).

Note – here is what I think about fisheye- that just doesn’t ‘work’ for me. There have only been a handful of fisheye photos that I have thought ‘wow… I really like that’. The ‘fisheye effect’ is off putting to me, as is vignetting, and other ‘lens effects’ that some people like / see as adding value. But there have been so many more rectilinear UWA photos that I do say ‘wow’ to! When I moved from 18mm to 10mm and then to 8mm (in APS-C lens ‘wide’ possibilities) – each time I have really appreciated what I could now achieve.

I recently took a photo of a beautiful small lake (ok, it maybe was a pond!) in New Zealand with towering mountains in the background, and I could only capture what I really wanted with my (APS-C) Sigma 8-16mm. After I took the ‘8mm’ shot, I set it at 10mm, and I couldn’t fit the entire pond and perspective / composition in that I wanted. Same with some rainbows that I have captured previously (eg needed to cut off ends, or stitch multiple images together at 10mm). 

Already in the last few weeks I’ve seen some great shots with the (FF) Canon 11-24mm at 11mm. Looking forward to more. Well done Canon!

And... Sigma… I'm looking forward to what you produce, whether it’s an ART or something else. Will only be good for us photographers (who are not 'pixel peepers' - but love sharp, contrasty, beautiful images capturing the light!)

Paul 8)


----------

