# Rumor: Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/rumor-sigma-16-20-f2-dg-art-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/rumor-sigma-16-20-f2-dg-art-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art for full frame


</strong>A rumor has surfaced talking about the possibility of a  Sigma 16-20 f/2 DG Art series lens for full frame cameras. We had previously <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/sigma-24-70-f2-os-hsm-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">heard about Sigma working on a 24-70 f/2 DG Art lens for full frame cameras</a>, but nothing else has been mentioned about it in a while.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>

Possibility of this? I’m not sure, that’s a very short zoom range. I think something like 16-24 would be better and put real pressure on both Canon and Nikon (the Nikon 14-24 is terrific and expensive).</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/sigma-rumor-16-20mm-f2-dg-lens-set-come-soon/" target="_blank">CW</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## kenny (Dec 19, 2013)

16-20 f/*2*??

Want.


----------



## Ricku (Dec 19, 2013)

Awesome if it is sharp across the frame!

Canon still doesn't have any tack sharp UWA-zoom lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 19, 2013)

It is almost a prime lens, but F2 looks great. : I would love a lente10-16mm (rectilinear) for APS-C. 8) C'mon Sigma.


----------



## emag (Dec 19, 2013)

That's a narrow range. f/2? Really? On an UWA? Why? I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8. Just my $.02


----------



## Zv (Dec 19, 2013)

4mm of zoom? Why bother? I guess there is quite a difference between 16mm and 20mm on FF but why not just pick one focal length and make it awesome. Like 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 would be perfect. 

Would this lens be the worlds shortest zoom if it was made??


----------



## facedodge (Dec 19, 2013)

f/2 would be good for star photogs. You can get some bokeh out of an UWA. This is 14mm at 2.8


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 19, 2013)

I love ideas like that.
4mm difference seems not to be very much, but makes a difference in wide angle.
At f2. 
Worth a look.


----------



## fox40phil (Dec 19, 2013)

would be awesome!!


----------



## Etienne (Dec 19, 2013)

Interesting, but I'd rather have a small light 16-24 2.8.
But I'd take a 24 f/2.0


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 19, 2013)

4mm of zoom?!

Then again, it's at least a stop faster than Canon's prime at those focal lengths.


----------



## tat3406 (Dec 19, 2013)

Make it prime 16mmF2 or 20mm F2, I would rather have more compact size than this small zoom range.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Dec 19, 2013)

Oh please make it 14-20 /2.8 instead!


----------



## rs (Dec 19, 2013)

Really?

I put this one down as either misinterpreted info, or wishful thinking. All previous fast zooms have not outdone primes in terms of max aperture in their equivalent range. Take 24-70/2.8's or 70-200/2.8's - plenty of faster primes covering those ranges.

The 18-35/1.8 from Sigma is a crop camera lens, covering an equivalent of 29-56/2.9 on full frame - direct equivalents are the FF 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses, which outdo it. Nothing fast exists around the 18mm mark, so it is very impressive for crop. But when compared to a FF system, just like a 24-70/2.8, its nothing special compared to FF/fast primes.

How is it possible to make a lens a whole stop faster than any prime in its range, and also make it a zoom? I know its a limited range zoom, but really?


----------



## gfoulk (Dec 19, 2013)

Want. For one reason only: 16mm f/2 would make a fantastic night sky/landscape lens (provided, of course, that it's sharp wide open.)

The zoom range is pretty silly, as this would be just as awesome as a 16mm prime.


----------



## bereninga (Dec 19, 2013)

This would be an interesting astrophotography and landscape option if the price is right for the quality! I'm glad it's f/2, but I worry about its size.


----------



## Pag (Dec 19, 2013)

This could be a great replacement for my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 now that I'm on full frame.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 19, 2013)

Zv said:


> 4mm of zoom? Why bother? I guess there is quite a difference between 16mm and 20mm on FF but why not just pick one focal length and make it awesome. Like 16mm or 17mm f/2.8 would be perfect.
> 
> Would this lens be the worlds shortest zoom if it was made??



Yeah, it might be even less, depending on how marketing "rounds" the numbers. For all we know, it could be a 17-19, lol.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 19, 2013)

Pag said:


> This could be a great replacement for my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 now that I'm on full frame.



I was about mention the Tokina, it only has 5mm of zoom so 4mm isn't completely insane. The f2 is though, and in a great way ;D


----------



## rs (Dec 19, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Pag said:
> 
> 
> > This could be a great replacement for my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 now that I'm on full frame.
> ...


Its all about the zoom ratio, not the zoom difference in mm. A 200-400 lens spans a 200mm zoom range, yet its only a 2x zoom. Compare that to a 24-105; 81mm zoom range, yet it's 4.4x.

The Tokina 11-16 has a 1.45x zoom range, compared to a more conventional 10-22 or 16-35 at 2.2x. This rumoured Sigma has about half the Tokina's zoom range at 1.25x, which can't provide a dramatic framing difference however you look at it.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 19, 2013)

emag said:


> That's a narrow range. f/2? Really? On an UWA? Why? I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8. Just my $.02


It's targeting people who work in really low-light (street/night) where the difference between f/2 and f/2.8 is whether the milky way shows up, or whether they get motion blur. Not really sure the point of a zoom, I think an 18mm f/2 would be a nice split. And obviously when you don't need to shoot at f/2, it would sharpen up nicely at f/5.6-8

But a 16-24 f/2.8 lens appeals to a different user base than 16-20 f/2. I can get primes in the f/2.8 range that wide for much cheaper than a 16-24 f/2.8 would cost. I cant get primes/zooms wider than 20mm that go <f/2, and I can't get a good prime/zoom wider than 24mm that goes below f/2.8. There's definitely a market there for it.

This could also technically be targeted at videographers, as it becomes a different focal length with all the video crop factors, and the depth of field is important. But I'm guessing that's not the main market for it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 19, 2013)

unusual zoom range


----------



## CR00 (Dec 19, 2013)

Wow. 1.25X zoom.


----------



## iowapipe (Dec 19, 2013)

bereninga said:


> This would be an interesting astrophotography and landscape option if the price is right for the quality! I'm glad it's f/2, but I worry about its size.



yep - as long as coma is minimal, astro use would be nice.


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 20, 2013)

preppyak said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > That's a narrow range. f/2? Really? On an UWA? Why? I'd be happy with a 16-24/2.8. Just my $.02
> ...



+1.

With that maximum aperture, you could forget that it's a zoom and buy it / use it just because it's a 16mm f/2. The moderate amount of zoom, provided it doesn't meaningfully reduce image quality compared with what a prime lens in that range could deliver, would be just a bonus. This seems to be the approach with Sigma's 18-35mm.

Whether or not there is any truth behind this rumour is another matter.


----------



## tron (Dec 20, 2013)

iowapipe said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > This would be an interesting astrophotography and landscape option if the price is right for the quality! I'm glad it's f/2, but I worry about its size.
> ...


+1000000


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 20, 2013)

Zoom lenses are constantly criticized for having non-useful focal lengths, offering a wide zoom range but only giving usable results within a specific part of that. Hopefully Sigma is working to address that issue, giving people top quality within a specific zoom range and not frustrating us with substandard results from unrealistic lens designs.


----------



## Radiating (Jan 16, 2014)

Man do I love Sigma. I wish they'd make this lens. 

Or like CR said, a 16-24mm f/2


----------

