# Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?



## ahsanford (Aug 14, 2014)

Oh snap. Ultrawiders who really want 14mm on a zoom might be happy to see this rumor...

http://photorumors.com/2014/08/14/sigma-lenses-rumored-for-photokina-24mm-f1-4-art-and-14-24mm-f4-with-os/

...but I think someone will complain about not having f/2.8 before anyone can say woohoo to a 14-24 lens.

- A


----------



## daemorhedron (Aug 14, 2014)

Year of the lenses....for Sigma


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 15, 2014)

If only they could make a body worth using. The way things are going they could beat Sony to third place... If only they could make a body worth using.


----------



## Reiep (Aug 15, 2014)

If this lens is as good as the Art line, it could make a big splash in the Canon world!


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Aug 15, 2014)

Literally ordered a 12-24 MkII to update my MkI five minutes before I saw this. Not terribly bothered because 14 isn't 12. I will be very interested to see this one.


----------



## lexptr (Aug 15, 2014)

It's an interesting rumor. Lack of a good wide-angle zoom lens was one of the main things, which made me kinda unhappy with my plans to upgrade to FF. Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 is not good enough in corners and it is not supported by Ikelite's housings for underwater. But now we have 16-35 f/4 which is "just the thing!" (i.e. good enough and "ikelitable"). If this one by Sigma will be also good – it will be a year of wide-angle!


----------



## Foxdude (Aug 17, 2014)

What do you guys think, is it possible to make 14mm wide lens without that bulbous front element?
I would love this lens if it really is coming. But if it can't take filters...:/


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 28, 2014)

I'd like to think that at f/4, it would be more manageable to pull off a non-bulbous front element.

If you had your pick between f/4 non-bulbous vs. f/2.8 bulbous, which would you choose? (Entirely hypothetical, I'm aware there's no talk about a f/2.8 from Sigma).


----------



## pwp (Aug 28, 2014)

TheAshleyJones said:


> Literally ordered a 12-24 MkII to update my MkI five minutes before I saw this. Not terribly bothered because 14 isn't 12. I will be very interested to see this one.


Is the MkII 12-24 much of an improvement over the MkI? I have a MkI which I pull out just a few times a year when the 16-35 f/2.8II just doesn't cut it. It's OK at f/11 but total mush wide open.

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 28, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Oh snap. Ultrawiders who really want 14mm on a zoom might be happy to see this rumor...
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2014/08/14/sigma-lenses-rumored-for-photokina-24mm-f1-4-art-and-14-24mm-f4-with-os/
> 
> ...



I am more interested in seeing the 135mm f/1.8 DG OS, 85mm f/1.4 DG and 24mm f/1.4 DG Art lenses. These will have an enormous impact on Canon (and also Nikon). 
I had the curren Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and only sold it because I needed money and haven't purchased it again waiting to see if Sigma refresh it. Hopefully, the 135mm and 24mm will be priced well below Canon ones.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 28, 2014)

To be honest, this lens doesn't really do a lot for me. My current 16-35 f2.8 II L is 2mm less wide at the wide end but offers a more useful range (24-35mm) at the long end. So for the sake of 2mm at the wide end, I am sacrificing a very useful range at the long end. Plus it's not an f2.8 so I'm failing to see the point with this lens.


----------



## Foxdude (Aug 28, 2014)

andrewflo said:


> I'd like to think that at f/4, it would be more manageable to pull off a non-bulbous front element.
> 
> If you had your pick between f/4 non-bulbous vs. f/2.8 bulbous, which would you choose? (Entirely hypothetical, I'm aware there's no talk about a f/2.8 from Sigma).



F4 non-bulbous, without any hesitate. That lens will be used in landscapes, and there I use mostly F8-16 anyway.
But it's too late now, I recently just purchased EF 16-35 F4 IS. And I love it. It also have that extra range 24-35, which is very useful for me. Also used mostly for landscapes, so very happy with F4 to keep price/size/weight down. For low light to stop action, I use fast primes anyway.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 28, 2014)

9VIII said:


> If only they could make a body worth using. The way things are going they could beat Sony to third place... If only they could make a body worth using.



They don't need to make a camera body if they can make profits making lenses for other bodies. I think this type of specalization is a good business plan. New bodies come out all the time, why waste resources trying to catch up when more and more people buy lenses and keep them for years and years.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Dec 29, 2014)

It's a long overdue reply, but the Mark II Sigma is really optically very similar to the MkI. I prefer the look and feel of the Mk II, but so what?


----------



## beckstoy (Dec 29, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Oh snap. Ultrawiders who really want 14mm on a zoom might be happy to see this rumor...
> ...



I love Sigma's Art lenses. I'm with you on these two, although I'd prefer seeing the 85/1.4 come out first simply because the very good Canon 135 is pretty inexpensive. I'd sell my Canon copy if the Sigma Art lens is good, however.

The only other amazing 85 is Canon's, and that's $2100. Unngh...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 5, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Yes, from my long experience with Sigma...quality control and focusing accuracy is a lottery.


----------

