# Sigma 16-20mm f/2 Coming?



## MrPeevee (Dec 19, 2013)

This appears to be an interesting lens, hope the rumor is true!

http://www.canonwatch.com/sigma-rumor-16-20mm-f2-dg-lens-set-come-soon/


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2013)

If corner sharpness is better than the 16-35Lll than I will scoop one up. Once again, just vapor at the moment but thanks for sharing! Also that being said, I am having a bit more confidence in Sigma rumors than Canon as of late so.......


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 19, 2013)

Interesting, but with such a narrow zoom range, why not just make it a 16 f/2?


----------



## MrPeevee (Dec 19, 2013)

slclick said:


> Also that being said, I am having a bit more confidence in Sigma rumors than Canon as of late so.......



Lol, you are so right!


----------



## twdi (Dec 19, 2013)

slclick said:


> Is corner sharpness is better than the 16-35Lll than I will scoop one up.



Is the 16-35L II therefor disappointing? 
I'm looking at the moment for an UWA for my 5DmkII and I'm doubting between 17-40 and this 16-35


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2013)

twdi said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > If corner sharpness is better than the 16-35Lll than I will scoop one up.
> ...



Oh boy that's a whole other debate....have fun. Both are very good lenses, the differences are minor but to some those minor things make or break it for their needs and styles. (Low light for one) We are all waiting for the UWA holy grail for zooms from Canon (or anyone for that matter) Nikon can't take screw on filters on the 14-24 and that's a huge minus for most landscape shooters who don't care to use a Lee type system. Corner sharpness and distortion are the two other culprits. Still, I have owned both of those lenses in the past and they both deliver...to a point. Maybe rent first? Or wait.


----------



## Jerm (Dec 19, 2013)

Even if it is just vapor, and a small range, and its like sigmas other recent releases, I'd seriously consider it.


----------



## goldencode (Dec 19, 2013)

That is a narrow zoom range


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 19, 2013)

This is again a rumor, and no way to verify anything, so perhaps it is indeed a 16-24mm lens.
But Tokina made an 11-16mm F/2.8 while many scoffed at their decision for creating a lens with such a short zoom range, quite a few users ended up really liking it and finding it useful. Though that lens translates to a 17-24 anyways... which is again what we're wanting


----------



## rpiotr01 (Dec 19, 2013)

Field of view changes a lot on the wide end of the spectrum so i don't have a problem with the zoom range. The f2 I'm not sure I get.


----------



## TLN (Dec 19, 2013)

Something like 14-24 will be great. Probably don't need to zoom more then 30, as most people have or will get a Sigma 35. It looks like a great lens and I can say a must-have (even with 35L i own.).


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 19, 2013)

Very interesting specs!


----------



## BL (Dec 19, 2013)

not missing the 24mm reach since there are soooo many options that cover that

but how hot would a 15-20 or at 14-20 constant f2 rumor have been?


----------



## rbrockman (Dec 19, 2013)

If the construction and optical performance is near that of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 - sign me up on the waiting list!


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2013)

Hmm. I think I might prefer the Tokina 16-28 f2.8.

Go read Roger Cicala's take: "If you don’t have a full-frame wide angle you can’t go wrong here. Just buy it if you can. Don’t worry about us, we will rent all we can get, I’m sure."


----------



## Loren E (Dec 19, 2013)

The last three Sigma rumors I read about have been for this 16-20 F2, a 24-70 F2 OS, and a 135 F2 OS. How sweet of a trio would those three lenses make! 

For a while I tried covering my focal ranges with F2.8 zooms but found that F2.8 is just too far from F1.4 for some of my low light and portrait work, yet it is hard to justify owning F2.8 zooms in addition to fast primes that overlap the focal length like the 24 F1.4L, 50 F1.2L, and 85 F1.2L. I ended up going with the fast F1.x primes for low light and f4 zooms for travel. F2 zooms however might make me really reconsider having those primes and instead sell the fast primes and F4 zooms and just simplify down to two F2 zooms. I like that idea a lot. Sure F2 zooms would be big and heavy but I'd have half as many lenses and switch them half as often. I love the idea of a 16-20 F2 on the 5d mkIII and 24-70 F2 on the 7D, with the 135 F2 in the bag for when longer reach or shallower DOF are needed. I'd be all on board with some F2 zooms and wouldn't mind the short 16-20 focal length if IQ was good! OS would be sweet as well - I enjoyed it on the nikon 16-35 when I didn't have a tripod and needed to stop down!


----------



## ceaiu (Dec 20, 2013)

I found that, way before I was interested in photography, there were lenses like 20-35mm f2.8 and 35-70mm f2.8. Short ranges by today's standards. Instead of making them faster, they've made them wider (evolving into 16-35mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8).
I can see Sigma going back and changing this trend with those short range but fast zooms (18-35/1.8 and this rumored 16-20/2).
I still can't believe the 24-70mm f2 rumor. Maybe the "source" whispered something like "standard zoom lens at f2" and it was interpreted as 24-70/2. But (historically) standard zoom can also mean 35-70mm or 28-70mm.
PS: I'd like to see a 35-70mm f1.8 for APS-C.


----------



## fussy III (Dec 21, 2013)

Dream lens! Nevermind the short zoomrange. It is exactly the range I use most oftenly for reportage/documentary photography and I always was yearning for shallow depth (which makes it neccassary to get close).
The 24/1.4 just wasn't wide enough, the Sigma 20/1.8 had difficult bokeh, was loud focusing and had terrible FF corner sharpness, the 10-22 or the 16-35 are versatile but do not offer a decent effect of shallowness. I'd buy the lens immediatly if it did cost less than 1.500 USD. If bokeh is pleasing and if corner sharpness is excellent (makes the lens a winner for landscapes), I'd even be willing to pay 1.000 more. Not writing this to show off, I just really want to encourage Sigma to make this lens as good as it gets.


----------



## PVS (Mar 12, 2014)

I've been looking for UWA options for 5dmk3 and couple of weeks ago I tried Tokina 16-28 and 16-35L mk2 side by side - to my surprise L was noticeably better in corners at widest range while Tokina had more consistency throughout whole range, with a bit of smeary extreme corners @28. Tokina was also quite slower in terms of AF and coatings seemed on the cold side. To my surprise L lens was pitiful near 35 range, just unacceptable, probably due to non-existed field flatness. Might be also decentered copy though corners were even. My guess there's a lot of copy variation with most UWA zooms due to complexity of designing these, or maybe I got spoiled by 24-70L mk2 and Sigma 35/1.4, before I got these 2 lenses I've been shooting primes only for 2 decades (mostly mf minolta mc/md & nikkor ai on film and 5dc). If this rumor turns out to be true I'd gladly settle with shorter range in trade of better IQ.


----------

