# Sigma to Announce 24-70mm f/2.8 Art Ahead of CP+ Next Month? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 6, 2017)

```
We’re told that Sigma is aiming to announce a 24-70mm f/2.8 OS Art series lens ahead of CP+ in Yokohama, Japan, which starts on February 23, 2017.</p>
<p>We’ve seen one patent for a new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-sigma-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm-art/">back in March of 2016</a>.</p>
<p>We’re also told that Sigma hopes to have the lens at retailers before the summer and that the announcement could be pushed until after CP+ if they can’t meet that target.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

CR guy: Your title was only so interesting, but your first post to this thread has OS in it! 

Very cool to see. 

- A


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 6, 2017)

About time. To bad for Sigma I do not buy their lenses anymore. This is the lens they should have released instead of the 24-35mm f/2 which was a stupid focal length.


----------



## heretikeen (Jan 6, 2017)

This will be interesting.
I'm a huge Sigma fan, but let's see this lens top Tamrons excellent 24-70/2.8 with stabilisation.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2017)

Canon engineers are furiously updating firmware so that this lens won't AF properly on Canon bodies... :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon engineers are furiously updating firmware so that this lens won't AF properly on Canon bodies... :



They won't need to. Not because of Sigma's error, but every Canon camera focuses differently, and has a database in the camera to tweak it for each Canon lens on that camera. Third party lenses have a uphill battle to get there lenses focusing well on Canon cameras, they tell the camera that they are a Canon lens, but they do not act the same as a Canon lens on each and every camera, so some camera - lens combinations will work better than others.

They will probably set it up to do as best it can on a 5D MK IV but owners of other Canon models may not get the peak performance. It might even struggle on the 5D MK III since it has a different AF system.

Those who are able to use DPAF will see very accurate AF performance, since the camera uses contrast detect as a final step to get very accurate focus. Speed may suffer, but accuracy will be excellent.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 6, 2017)

No freaking way! I'm excited!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2017)

Jopa said:


> No freaking way! I'm excited!!!



As opposed to my thoughts, no freaking way I am excited. Just one exclamation point makes all the difference!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 6, 2017)

I might well have been interested before I switched from full-frame to crop. One of the reasons I did is because the Canon 24-70/2.8 II doesn't have IS so it has limited advantages over the far-cheaper Sigma 18-35/1.8, and the rest of the full-frame system has disadvantages for me (no practical hyperzooms, no light-weight video-friendly telephotos, no built-in flashes, no reasonably-sized body with 10fps, low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds).

But now that I've made the switch, I can't see switching back any time soon, so too late Sigma.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 6, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds



Lost you there.

You have a 24.2MP 80D + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 set to 22mm vs 22.3MP 5DmkIII + Canon 35mm f/2. What difference does the pixel density make?


----------



## docsmith (Jan 6, 2017)

I do not anticipate any reason to move off my EF 24-70 II, which is ridiculously good.

But, I do like to see new stuff. I love my 50A and 150-600S. I am very impressed by the reviews I have seen of the 85A. So, impress and entertain me Sigma, but just don't count on getting my money this time around.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

More quality lenses no matter whom they are manufactured by is a good thing. I like, occasionally love certain Art series lenses but since I own the Canon Mk2 of this zoom, it won't be for me. But man, I really loved the Sigma 24-35 while I had it and I think that they really have the AF dialed in for shorter zoom spreads now.


----------



## Jopa (Jan 6, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > No freaking way! I'm excited!!!
> ...



Lol! Why?


----------



## Diko (Jan 6, 2017)

It would be cheaper than current Canon counter-part. And I doubt it to be less of a quality than it.

However my main concerns are regarding *AF speeds*. My bet is that Canon ones will be always hard to match again just like the *70-200 IS 2.8 II*.
Not to mentioned the _24-70 2.8 *IS*_ which is rated as _*CR2*_ already. I think that the most general lense (especially well utilised from it biggest market - the wedding colleagues) it is an essential feature.

But again for most of the rest who are not concerned with AF speed the Sigma ART would be a better choice. That is at the better price offer, of course. 

This Sigma announcement however is good. Maybe it would make Canon hurry up with street release date for that awaited IS 2.8 beauty.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2017)

Diko said:


> It would be cheaper than current Canon counter-part. And I doubt it to be less of a quality than it.
> 
> However my main concerns are regarding *AF speeds*. My bet is that Canon ones will be always hard to match again just like the *70-200 IS 2.8 II*.
> Not to mentioned the _24-70 2.8 *IS*_ which is rated as _*CR2*_ already. I think that the most general lense (especially well utilised from it biggest market - the wedding colleagues) it is an essential feature.
> ...



So you are speaking for yourself and the many other photographers who don't care if subjects are in focus? Sigma certainly has tapped a market.


----------



## Diko (Jan 6, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> So you are speaking for yourself and the many other photographers who don't care if subjects are in focus? Sigma certainly has tapped a market.


 Don't quite get you? What made you believe I don't care about the focus?


----------



## setterguy (Jan 6, 2017)

This might be great news for those of us that shoot both Canon 6D/7DII and Sony A7II. With a Canon mount I can use the Sigma MC-11 to mount on my Sony. I use my Canon L glass and it works great with the MC-11 on the Sony and AF is pretty fast. Expect this new lens will work just as well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2017)

Diko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So you are speaking for yourself and the many other photographers who don't care if subjects are in focus? Sigma certainly has tapped a market.
> ...



When it comes to Sigma, "AF speed" is a euphemism for "AF sometimes."


----------



## Diko (Jan 6, 2017)

As I already said speed is not good. But the 50 mm ART is nat that slow but quite good on getting most images sharp. 

As for first zoom ART lense we are about to see your theory. However please do not missinterpred anymore my words in future. 

Thank you in advance.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Ah, there it is. I was wondering where you were headed with that. I welcome others' thoughts on this.

To me, Sigma appears to be turning a corner with AF: 



The 35 f/1.4 Art (aka 'the 35L II minus the 35L II's AF') would inconsistently swing and miss in non-dock-correctable ways. That's a non-starter for me.


The 50 f/1.4 Art would inconsistently swing and miss in non-dock-correctable ways. Ditto: Non-starter.


The 85 f/1.4 Art appears to be a new animal, and AF testing of that lens has shown much stronger performance. If I was into portraiture (scripted, lit portraits are simply not my bag), I'd strongly consider one over the 85L.


_Recent non f/1.4_ Sigma lenses naturally have fared better in comparison to their wide aperture brethren. If I needed one, I'd snap up a 150-600 or 12-24 f/4 from Sigma without much concern.


I doubt Sigma will ever have the same AF speed / reliability as a contemporary Canon USM lens, but the idea that you'll miss a quarter of your wide open shots should no longer be a pain point in opting in for the newest Sigma lenses. With the 35 and 50 Art, people complained, Sigma listened, and apparently they've made positive changes.

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Jan 6, 2017)

Why Can't anyone make a 24-105 2.8 Lens???? Too many 24-70 options already.


----------



## Diko (Jan 6, 2017)

Actually I don't complain with Signa 50 even @ 1.4.

24- 105 @ 2.8 -> good point. Perhaps tech issues?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jan 6, 2017)

I only have 2 L lens that are Canon and that's the 24-70 II and 70-200 2.8 II. They are both work horse lens and works really well. All my other lens have been third party Sigma 85 1.4 Art, Tamron 90 SP Macro, Tamron 15-30 macro and they have been providing incredible value. I wouldn't mind buying this lens if I didn't have Canon equivalent already.


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

Diko said:


> As I already said speed is not good. But the 50 mm ART is nat that slow but quite good on getting most images sharp.
> 
> As for first zoom ART lense we are about to see your theory. However please do not missinterpred anymore my words in future.
> 
> Thank you in advance.




http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-24-35mm-f-2-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

ahem


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



I'll say it again (187 times actually) The Sigma 24-35 Art nails focus much faster than any other Sigma FF lens. I've owned 5 different Art lenses and it's by far the most consistent and fastest. Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 6, 2017)

I'm really really excited about this! I love my sigma 150-600mm and it focuses just as well i think as a canon lens. Maybe just slightly slower.. slightly.. but very accurate. I completely agree that the old sigma lenses are very slow and inaccurate. I'd say un-usable in most situations. You cannot put away the newer lenses that have been coming out though. I'd say to at least try it - the actual lens itself, before saying things. I agree that canon lenses are superior in AF generally speaking. But there is alot that sigma has to offer in general for a lot lot less green.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 6, 2017)

slclick said:


> Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.



I know, and it's just silly: in FF alone, they've already released a 12-24 Art, 24-35 Art, and the 24-105 Art.

And they've branded their better crop-only glass as Art as well -- 30 f/1.4, 18-35 f/1.8, and 50-100 f/1.8. That's a shrewd move as 'premium crop-only' lenses have been an abandoned market by Canon. The Art badging (plus some very sharp optics) are allowing Sigma to mop whatever of that business is out there.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Folks keep referring this so called upcoming 24-70 as the first Art Zoom.
> ...



I agree and if I was a crop shooter (non BIF) I'd be almost a strictly Sigma glass owner.


----------



## nicolas.det (Jan 6, 2017)

We have been using a EF 24970 F2.8 L USM II.. and its focus was never consistent... So this kind of issue can (unfortunately) also happen using Canon products..


----------



## slclick (Jan 6, 2017)

nicolas.det said:


> We have been using a EF 24970 F2.8 L USM II.. and its focus was never consistent... So this kind of issue can (unfortunately) also happen using Canon products..



I think you have an exception as mine and many others say it nails it time after time. Is yours calibrated for AFMA with your body? It's true that in AI Servo it's not as near perfect as in One Shot..maybe that has been your experience?


----------



## Diko (Jan 6, 2017)

Ok nicrle. Thanks for the link. Wasn't interested in the above mentioned zoom lenses that are ART. COOL!  And even though Inwasn' aware of them - if I understand they tend to have accurate focus, right?


----------



## slclick (Jan 7, 2017)

Diko said:


> Ok nicrle. Thanks for the link. Wasn't interested in the above mentioned zoom lenses that are ART. COOL!  And even though Inwasn' aware of them - if I understand they tend to have accurate focus, right?



I hope I didn't come across in a mean way, just trying to shed some light. Well, it's a tossup. The 24-105 is ok in One Shot, poor in AI Servo. The 12-24, which I never owned yet played with at a shop is very good. I only used it in One Shot but it did really well from MFD to about 40 feet in the camera store. The 24-35 I have had considerable experience with and I did not notice much difference between it and the 16-35 f/4L Fast, quiet, accurate. No hunting.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 7, 2017)

I beg to differ. Tamron 24-70 VC USD can hardly be called excellent. I owned the lens for 2 years and used it quite a lot. VC is a joke as I had to keep it switched OFF unless shooting slower than 1/60s or all images are blury. Onion ring type bokeh of the lens looks revolting to say the least. CA are very noticeable wide open.
I have upgraded to Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II few weeks ago and what a difference!! OMG! That not to say that I am not interested in Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens (The first *stabilised* Sigma Art Zoom lens). I will be carefully evaluating my options once we learned more about the new Sigma lens.




heretikeen said:


> This will be interesting.
> I'm a huge Sigma fan, but let's see this lens top Tamrons excellent 24-70/2.8 with stabilisation.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 7, 2017)

Thats the word: sometimes. The new Sigma 85 1.4 Art does focusing very fast and consistently for me. There is a hope that the 24-70 IS Art will follow the lead.



YuengLinger said:


> When it comes to Sigma, "AF speed" is a euphemism for "AF sometimes."


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 7, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > low pixel density except for the slow 5Ds
> ...



Not then.

Pixel density matters when you are focal length or magnification limited. For example, my longest lens is the Sigma 150-600C. I get more resolving power at 600mm with a crop body than with a full frame body (other than the 5Ds) because of the smaller pixels. The difference isn't 1.6x unless the lens is infinitely sharp (which is impossible) but it can easily be 1.2x to 1.4x, which is a lot.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 7, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Maybe if both were shot at base ISO. But for myself, using like you, the 150-600C I greatly liked the images from my 5d3 over my previous 7d when cropped to the same framing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 7, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Yes, crop cameras have definite advantage on the supertele front.

That's where I see the 7D(mk whatever) having a comfortable spot in Canon's line of cameras, which makes me wonder why a 7Dmk3 with the 24MP sensor wasn't released yet.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 7, 2017)

I imagine that a LOT of people who buy this lens are going to spend a fair amount of time microadjusting the lens to 16 different focal length/distance combinations straight away, and then need to readjust a couple of months later as the lens is "broken in" and used a bit. This will be frustrating, of course. Hopefully for these folks, Sigma has fixed the tendency of their Art lenses to exhibit "drifting" (as some are calling it) in the AF over time.

Personally, after my experience with 2 Art lenses, I can't wait for Canon to release a 50mm L update so that I can sell my 50mm Art and be done with Sigma.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> I imagine that a LOT of people who buy this lens are going to spend a fair amount of time microadjusting the lens to 16 different focal length/distance combinations straight away, and then need to readjust a couple of months later as the lens is "broken in" and used a bit. This will be frustrating, of course. Hopefully for these folks, Sigma has fixed the tendency of their Art lenses to exhibit "drifting" (as some are calling it) in the AF over time.
> 
> Personally, after my experience with 2 Art lenses, I can't wait for Canon to release a 50mm L update so that I can sell my 50mm Art and be done with Sigma.



Apparently we have had similar experiences with the Arts, but I gave up on the 50mm after two copies, having had much better luck with the 35mm Art.

In fact, I found the 35mm Art to be pretty good when I had plenty of time to compose on a motionless subject in easy light, nailing AF on eyes most of the time. But the overall IQ, as with the 50mm Art, just didn't seem to have "zing," or "punch," or "scintillation," all subjective. So I sold my 35mm Art, got the new Canon 35mm 1.4 II, and couldn't believe how much better the AF was on the same 5DIII. Instant and reliable in backlit and lowlight situations. As for IQ, definitely worth the upgrade. A good lens vs a great lens.

My question to you, jebrady03: What would get you past your current feelings about Sigma? Reviews from who? Sample images posted where? What would entice you to give them another chance with an important lens purchase?


----------



## heretikeen (Jan 7, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > It would be cheaper than current Canon counter-part. And I doubt it to be less of a quality than it.
> ...



You do realise that peak AF speed doesn't really concern anyone outside of sports and action photography? Or was it more importantly to fire off a snide remark than to make sense?
I've yet to have a Sigma lens that focuses too slow for me, and I'm primarily shooting concerts.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jan 7, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Apparently we have had similar experiences with the Arts, but I gave up on the 50mm after two copies, having had much better luck with the 35mm Art.
> 
> In fact, I found the 35mm Art to be pretty good when I had plenty of time to compose on a motionless subject in easy light, nailing AF on eyes most of the time. But the overall IQ, as with the 50mm Art, just didn't seem to have "zing," or "punch," or "scintillation," all subjective. So I sold my 35mm Art, got the new Canon 35mm 1.4 II, and couldn't believe how much better the AF was on the same 5DIII. Instant and reliable in backlit and lowlight situations. As for IQ, definitely worth the upgrade. A good lens vs a great lens.
> 
> My question to you, jebrady03: What would get you past your current feelings about Sigma? Reviews from who? Sample images posted where? What would entice you to give them another chance with an important lens purchase?



Like you, I ended up with the 35mm f/1.4L II and find it to be ridiculously fantastic. VERY happy with it.

As for your question, it would take an overwhelming number and quality of reviews from not only reviewers but the photographic community at large regarding impressive and Canon-esque AF as well as NOT clinical sharpness, but impressive image quality. My guess is that your impression of Sigma's Art line lenses image quality is probably like mine; impressively sharp and clinical, but rather lifeless compared to other lenses on the market. I think content of the image matters more, of course, but given the content would be the same, I'll take the image with more zing/punch/scintillation every time. And I admit it could certainly be an inherent bias (although I don't think it is) but I feel like Canon's L glass provides that more often and consistently than Sigma's Art lenses.

I'm keeping the Sigma 50mm Art for now, because I've owned the Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 50/1.4 and both were mediocre, IMO. And the reports of focus shift when stopping down on the 50L means I simply won't even try it. So I'm stuck waiting for an update.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2017)

heretikeen said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



And you have the conceit to believe your experience is universal. Portrait, street, and wedding photographers also need quick, spot-on AF wide open. Even if somebody is sitting for a portrait, time is precious, expressions come and go quickly, and patience is limited. Nobody wants to wait while the photographer hunts for focus or has to take 10 shots to make sure one is in focus.

The IQ and AF of two Sigma ARTs I had every reason to want to work simply weren't good enough when a much more reliable alternative was available, albeit for a higher price. In fact, the AF on the 50mm ART was erratic and I sent back two copies after optimism turned to frustration.

I'm glad you have good luck with your Sigma products. From what I've seen of concert photography, crystal clear imagery is not the highest goal, nor are eyes in perfect focus... More about dynamics, mood, energy in very tough lighting. But I'd still rather count on Canon AF and IQ--until Sigma can match the higher standard.

Who WOULDN'T want a lens that is "just as good" at a lower price? Anybody you know?

I do, btw, have a Sigma 15mm fisheye which I like very much and would replace if something happened to it.

Last point, I'd love my Canon 24-70mm to have IS. But I'd rather have its IQ, AF, and Canon service behind it.


----------



## nicolas.det (Jan 7, 2017)

Yep. I think it's an exception as well.. but was not nice.

The lens went like 3 times to Cannon and they never succeed to fixed it. AFMA does not help because the lens ALWAYS focus differently...

I just wanted to say that Sigma and 3rd party are not the only one concerns with AF/quality issues..

Regards



slclick said:


> nicolas.det said:
> 
> 
> > We have been using a EF 24970 F2.8 L USM II.. and its focus was never consistent... So this kind of issue can (unfortunately) also happen using Canon products..
> ...


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2017)

In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2017)

infared said:


> In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. *Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera*.



Refreshing dose of common sense. Thanks! +1


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > In spite of what some are saying here...(I own a 5DIII and the Sigma Art 20mm, 35mm, 50mm), and after carefully calibrating the lenses on the Sigma dock (I did had to get a 2nd copy of the 50mm from B&H, no problem), I have spot-on AF....It's not an issue. I SAVED A TON of money and can create beautiful images with this gear, and do. There is extra work involved in setup which really $ucks, no doubt...but to each his own. *Customers buying my images never asked what lens I had on the camera*.
> ...



I never had a customer buy a picture that was out of focus either.

The 'issue' that I have with Sigma products is their inconsistency, sure there are some Canon lemons out there but service is swift accurate and reasonably priced, in my experience. Sigma have an appalling reputation for consistency and after sales service, for me that just doesn't work in a professional environment. 

Am I a snob? No, I'd happily use whatever lens does the job, I've owned Tamron and Sigma lenses, but in my experience in a professional environment Sigma don't cut it for consistency.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2017)

Inconsistency is an issue. But if a photographer is getting good results with gear, that is what matters most to that particular photographer.

This is a legitimate, relevant thread in response to the announcement of another Sigma lens. Those of us who have had bad experiences with Sigma have concerns and express them. Those who have had mostly good luck with Sigma are excited.

I don't think we have to form camps on this issue. 

One thing that has become nearly impossible is finding trustworthy statistics. When I had the two bad Sigma 50mm Art lenses, I searched the Web using different search engines, terms, phrases...I could not get any sense of how common the problem is, whether Canon bodies have more problems than Nikon, etc.

So, a Sigma announcement comes. Those of us who feel like Charlie Brown, with Sigma being Lucy snatching the football at the last moment before a kick--Of course we are going to speak out. There isn't any reason to take reasonable grumbling as "snide" comments.


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 7, 2017)

jebrady03 said:


> I imagine that a LOT of people who buy this lens are going to spend a fair amount of time microadjusting the lens to 16 different focal length/distance combinations straight away, and then need to readjust a couple of months later as the lens is "broken in" and used a bit. This will be frustrating, of course. Hopefully for these folks, Sigma has fixed the tendency of their Art lenses to exhibit "drifting" (as some are calling it) in the AF over time.
> 
> Personally, after my experience with 2 Art lenses, I can't wait for Canon to release a 50mm L update so that I can sell my 50mm Art and be done with Sigma.



I had to do that with my 18-35/1.8, but it remained stable over time.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 7, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Well, I use it on a 7D Mark II, and it's quite a nice combo, and not just at base ISO.


----------



## slclick (Jan 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Actually for me, my highest sale was an OOF print sold to a very eccentric buyer in Australia who saw it as an eclectic piece and therefore loved it for it's soft tones and dizzying properties. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2017)

slclick said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



There's always an exception, and there are a billion 'art' photographers out there too. Point is soft focus is easy to achieve if you want it, however if accurate focus is needed if you didn't get it you are out of luck.


----------



## slclick (Jan 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Lost in a sea of a billion, great


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 8, 2017)

slclick said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Yep. If it fails to focus just desaturate, or super saturate, increase the blur and print it really big, then call it art. That is how art is made :

Maybe that is why the Sigma line is called 'Art'.............


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 8, 2017)

Gentlemen,

Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 8, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.



1) I doubt that, but even if true, that's not the whole story.

2) The risk of the lens being bricked is still there.

Yes, the USB dock helps, but it takes time to release a firmware upgrade, it might have a bug, and one would have to check all Sigma lenses are compatible before upgrading to a new camera. People could do without this hassle.

3) This quality improvement comes with significantly higher prices, while lower prices is a big part of what makes a 3rd party lens an attractive alternative to Canon lenses.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 8, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Let's Stop Looking in the Rearview Mirror to Predict the Future. This Sigma Art AF inconsistency issue is no longer an issue with new generation of Sigma Art glass. It is time to move on. fixed. done and dusted.



Ok, if we agreed that was fixed done and dusted, and I don't, shall we talk about the focus shift on the new $1,500 12-24mm?


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 8, 2017)

I think if budget wasn't an option, everyone would choose the Canon lens. 

But for most the budget is the deciding factor. For those, the option of sigma becomes a possibility. Some will choose to "gamble" on AF accuracy, some are willing to return lenses until they get what they are after. Some NEED a lens to work out of the box. Some think they need it, but really decide they don't want to deal with it. I've been burned by a sigma 50mm. BUT I love my 150-600C

I am tempted by sigma everyday. For the price of a Canon 35 1.4ii i can almost buy the sigma 35A and the 85A together here. The prices of any new canon lens in Canada, I think is rediculous, although i understand. Eventually, when and if the Canadian dollar equals out, I wouldn't consider any other lens then canon.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 8, 2017)

AF was definitely fixed. Focus shift of the new 12-24 Art is a completely different issue all together. There are some serious design shortcomings in some of the latest Canon lenses as well. Extreme vignetting of the new 16-35 F2.8 L II lens comes to mind? Still, It's a pitty about that focus shift on what could be a great lens. But what do I know.

My point is: it is no longer evident that each and every future Sigma Art lens will suffer from inconsistent AF performance.



privatebydesign said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Gentlemen,
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 8, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> I think if budget wasn't an option, everyone would choose the Canon lens.



I have two Sigma lenses and neither was purchased because the Canon option was more expensive. Both were bought because the Canon option was non-existant - just like the Canon 24-70/2.8 L IS.


----------



## picturefan (Jan 8, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> I think if budget wasn't an option, everyone would choose the Canon lens.



Of course, budget is one main reason for a lens, not really depending if you're doing photo as hobbyist, semipro or pro. But more than that, 3rd party lenses are becoming more and more attractive since quality improved very much (sigma global vision or tammy, see 24-70 VC). 
I think, for me and many others, the advantage of tammy over sigma is that they're builing the more sturdy lenses, especially for oudoor conditions. So Sigma Art was never an option - no weather sealing. 
My request for the new 24-70 OS: weather sealing!!!! so not only wedding photographers will be able to enjoy the (probably) high image quality and viability of OS.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 8, 2017)

Sigma 85 Art and 12-24 Art lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. Therefore your request was granted. It's a safe bet: Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens will be released with weather sealing of some sort 

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/features/


Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction

The lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops.





picturefan said:


> My request for the new 24-70 OS: weather sealing!!!! so not only wedding photographers will be able to enjoy the (probably) high image quality and viability of OS.


----------



## nicolas.det (Jan 8, 2017)

I wish it to be (a least a little) weathersealed !


----------



## picturefan (Jan 8, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Sigma 85 Art and 12-24 Art lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. Therefore your request was granted. It's a safe bet: Sigma 24-70 F2.8 IS Art lens will be released with weather sealing of some sort
> 
> http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/features/
> 
> ...



More than the rubber sealing at the mount, real weather sealing on the other lens parts is also needed, especially in a zoom-lens. 
Besides, the new siggy 85 isn't that handy to carry around, but I guess it's a fine portrait lens. Also some say it is likely to have lots of flare.

Outside, in rain, snow, dust and wind, only full weather sealing allows me to use a lens in interesting light conditions and so on...


----------



## photojoern.de (Jan 8, 2017)

> I do not anticipate any reason to move off my EF 24-70 II, which is ridiculously good.


 Same applies to me - as of now. We will yet hve to see how the optical quality is. And the Autofocus. The bar is set very high with the 24-70 L II from Canon. But: we have seen a very decent 85mm Art lens from Sigma which shows optical performance comparable to the stellar 100mm f2.8 IS Macro Canon and the 70-200 II L IS f2.8. I am really curious to see what will happen, how good this lens is really.
In any case, this lens will hopefully be very good and thus prevent Canon form rising prices or launching a 24-70 III f2.8 with IS at sky high prices (e.g. 2500 USD or higher).


----------



## slclick (Jan 8, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> > I do not anticipate any reason to move off my EF 24-70 II, which is ridiculously good.
> 
> 
> Same applies to me - as of now. We will yet hve to see how the optical quality is. And the Autofocus. The bar is set very high with the 24-70 L II from Canon. But: we have seen a very decent 85mm Art lens from Sigma which shows optical performance comparable to the stellar 100mm f2.8 IS Macro Canon and the 70-200 II L IS f2.8. I am really curious to see what will happen, how good this lens is really.
> In any case, this lens will hopefully be very good and thus prevent Canon form rising prices or launching a 24-70 III f2.8 with IS at sky high prices (e.g. 2500 USD or higher).



I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.


----------



## Alex_M (Jan 9, 2017)

Sigma 85 Art is an ultimalte portrait lens. It does not have lots of flare. Not sure who told you so but it is incorrect:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=453&Lens=397




picturefan said:


> Besides, the new siggy 85 isn't that handy to carry around, but I guess it's a fine portrait lens. Also some say it is likely to have lots of flare...


----------



## photojoern.de (Jan 9, 2017)

> I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.


Well, an IS would certainly be a huge improvement. If Canon had their 24-70 f2.8 II with IS and otherwise the same superior optical performance, I would immediately jump on it. Especially if you own a 5 DS R, an image stabilization is a huge benefit. With the 24-70 f2.8, I can hardly use slower shutter speed than 1/100th of a second if I want crisp sharp photos hand held. An IS would allow many more handheld low light photos where I would then be able to use 1/30th of a second.


----------



## vscd (Jan 9, 2017)

photojoern.de said:


> > I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.
> 
> 
> Well, an IS would certainly be a huge improvement. If Canon had their 24-70 f2.8 II with IS and otherwise the same superior optical performance, I would immediately jump on it. Especially if you own a 5 DS R, an image stabilization is a huge benefit. With the 24-70 f2.8, I can hardly use slower shutter speed than 1/100th of a second if I want crisp sharp photos hand held. An IS would allow many more handheld low light photos where I would then be able to use 1/30th of a second.



What I didn't find out... do you have 5DSR with the old 24-70L 2.8?


----------



## slclick (Jan 9, 2017)

vscd said:


> photojoern.de said:
> 
> 
> > > I to love my 24-70 Mark 2 and I can't see a reason why is would move many owners away, a few sure, especially those who need to fill their G.A.S. tanks but realistically the improvements over the Canon will be small if any. Now for Tamron shooters yeah, it will be a huge or partially huge or semi-huge upgrade. Maybe even an incrementally huge.
> ...



My question as well. As an owner of both, I get it for the version one but the Mark 2? I can handhold to the corresponding FL/SS no problems. True it's on a 22MP sensor.....


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 9, 2017)

To be clear, I'm not one of the Canon-only crowd when it comes to lenses. I own a few Sigmas and Tamrons that are either unique in their range; better than Canon's (50mm anyone?); or just 1/3 the cost in a range I don't use frequently. 

That said, Point 1: Aside from getting to use these great third party lenses, they also serve the function of lighting little fires under Canon's lens development department, which is probably the biggest benefit we all share from the competition.

Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.



I'm just not quite sure why Sigma would go after Canon's more wildly successful zooms: the 24-70 2.8 (rumored) and the 70-200 2.8 (no rumor, but perhaps someday?). 

Both are very sharp, and though Sigma can even outresolve those if they commit to it, the AF on those two Canon lenses (speed, consistency, etc.), build quality and handling is simply phenomenal. These are staple first-choice tools for working professionals. Besides sharpness, Sigma can only really offer a less expensive instrument, or in the case of a 24-70, they could offer IS. 

Surely, continuing to pick off _much_ lower hanging fruit would continue their longer-term 'hearts and minds' campaign of improving over time. Make a killer 135 prime, 200 prime, inexpensive 400 5.6 with IS, the great coma-free + fast + wide astro lens that no one seems to be able to make, etc.

I fully recognize the market-size advantage of a pro zoom, but should this 24-70 2.8 IS materialize, Sigma would be picking a fight where Canon is the most determined to succeed. Doesn't seem wise to me.

- A


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Point 2: I'm not sure the Sigma 24-70 will do overly well if it doesn't do more than just hit the sharpness out of the park. Yes, it can be sharper than the Canon 20-17 II. I expect it will be. But the Canon model has been drifting down in price here in the US to be a few tens of percent to what you'd expect to pay for the upcoming Sigma. The Art series has avoided OS and it has avoided weather sealing. If the new zoom has both, it'll be a home run lens. If it does neither, it'll be just something to fill out the range with. I am a big Sigma fan, but I have low expectations on this. Owned the Tamron for the VC in that range, but went to primes for sharpness.
> ...



Don't forget that Sigma offers lenses in other then Canon mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 9, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> Don't forget that Sigma offers lenses in other then Canon mount.



The same applies to Nikon, of course.

Sigma could win some points with the Sony crowd if FTM mechanical focusing is retained in the Sony mount variants. Those Sony G Master lenses are focus by wire, which -- at those prices -- boggles my mind. 

- A


----------



## picturefan (Jan 9, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Sigma 85 Art is an ultimalte portrait lens. It does not have lots of flare. Not sure who told you so but it is incorrect:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=453&Lens=397
> 
> ...



Saw some pics with bothersome flares, the sun was directly in the pictures corner. That's the only "flare-test" of the lens i have seen. I thought a prime should do better. But maybe in other situations it also performs better. Other pics I have seen proove that it's a very good performer.



Besides IS and weather-sealing, there are two more things I rally appreciate in new (e.g. the mkII) lenses: good flare resistance and the short MFD (especially for outdoor). That offers a lot of new possibilities and you don't have to carry a thousand "special" lenses.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 9, 2017)

The reason why Sigma goes after the f/2.8 workhorse zooms is that many amateur users (that's most of the camera-owning population) would like a good f/2.8 normal zoom with IS at $1,000.00 rather than at $2,000.00 or more (the non-IS OEM f/2.8 24-70 is ~1,900.00).

I really like my Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I don't have a normal zoom. If the Sigma is sharp and has reasonable AF accuracy, I might consider it - the OEM 24-70 f/2.8 IS is not even rumored yet.


----------



## bsbeamer (Jan 9, 2017)

I will be curious to see what the prices are like. I need IS/VC/some kind of stabilization for my work and the Tamron VC 24-70 was really the only one that fit what I was looking for. Have to admit that I really do not like the lack of optimization available in-body for the Tamron and many other third party lenses. Not so much for photo usage (can be worked around when shooting RAW), but mainly for video usage. Vignette correction in post-production is not usually a 1-2 click and done process. This correction is baked into the recorded file when using Canon lenses, if enabled. Unfortunately, the same issue would likely happen with this Sigma. Only hope would be less native vignetting and aberrations... or Canon could make a 24-70 with IS and I'd probably pre-order.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 12, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



Having used the atrocious sigma 24-70mm 2.8 years ago, even if sigma isn't competing with canon, they need to refresh this lens. I tried using the sigma 35 1.4 and that lens is killer. I'm not too sure why people talk about AF inconsistency with the sigmas so much - in reference to their global vision lenses (contemporary, art, sport). I did bash on sigma a ton before, but that's their old lineup - they are atrocious. With the newer lineup, there might be a LITTLE more hunting but if you're generous with your skills as a photographer, those decrease dramatically. I feel that with some of my canon lenses, I can be a little careless and it's forgiving. Absolutely love my 150-600. The price point, build, IQ, etc.. bang for your buck and more. I'm excited to see sigma coming out with an update that has been long in waiting - regardless of the specs and details.


----------

