# Review - Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2015)

Discuss our review of the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG Art series lens here.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 7, 2015)

I made the point in the review that I felt like the images from the lens were fun to process. Here's a few that I've processed from it and shared to social media:

Here's one using an ND1000 filter to get a 30 second exposure midday (f/11)



The Blue Mesmer by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 7, 2015)

This is another landscape with more minimal processing. A little color work, but mostly just some tone curve work to bring out foreground detail and also allow the stars to "shine" a little more.



Full Moon Rising (Sigma 24-35 ART Review) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 7, 2015)

These last two are wide open shots at 35mm. Both show really nice sharpness in the narrow focus area:



Sigma ART (Series) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Dog Days of Summer (Sigma 24-35 f/2 ART) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 7, 2015)

One last thing: the rather tepid response to both this review and the one from Bryan Carnethan tells me that people are not exactly excited by the prospect of this lens. I'm a little skeptical that it will have the commercial success that the 18-35 ART for crop sensors did.


----------



## meywd (Sep 7, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> One last thing: the rather tepid response to both this review and the one from Bryan Carnethan tells me that people are not exactly excited by the prospect of this lens. I'm a little skeptical that it will have the commercial success that the 18-35 ART for crop sensors did.



True, even though the images look superb I don't think I will buy it, the 35mm f/1.4 Art and the 24mm f/1.4 Art are above it on my list.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 8, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> One last thing: the rather tepid response to both this review and the one from Bryan Carnethan tells me that people are not exactly excited by the prospect of this lens. I'm a little skeptical that it will have the commercial success that the 18-35 ART for crop sensors did.



I would guess it might appeal to certain pros who want some versatility AND speed in the wide-angle area but for most people I just don't think its that exciting a range.

I think they'd have either been better off making it a bit wider to trump typical 24-70mm zooms(say 20-35mm) or going for a 35-70mm range that's probably more useable to more people who want an ultra fast zoom.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 8, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> One last thing: the rather tepid response to both this review and the one from Bryan Carnethan tells me that people are not exactly excited by the prospect of this lens. I'm a little skeptical that it will have the commercial success that the 18-35 ART for crop sensors did.



+1. The 24-105A competing against white box 24-105L at 600 was a head-scratcher. This design is another. Perhaps if it had no coma, it could have found its way as an astro lens. If it had been 24-50 f/2 (near 2x zoom like the 18-35A), I think it would have created a lot more buzz. Then it would have hit 2 (24 and 50) of the focal lengths used for prime wedding setups and saved a "body". As it is, you lose a stop and gain a heavier lens, but you haven't reduced the total gear count.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 8, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > One last thing: the rather tepid response to both this review and the one from Bryan Carnethan tells me that people are not exactly excited by the prospect of this lens. I'm a little skeptical that it will have the commercial success that the 18-35 ART for crop sensors did.
> ...



Good points all. I've already had questions from people cross-shopping 24-70's and this lens. Assuming your second body has a 70-200 (or similar tele) on it, there's a pretty big gap after 35mm that a 24-70 doesn't leave. And frankly there are few situations I'm in where an f/2.8 lens simply cannot do what an f/2 could. 

The sad thing is that this is a great lens in a lot of ways...it's just that its very existence is so confining.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 9, 2015)

Unless you have a 5Dsr, then you reach out via the crop. A lot of the time I enjoy close quarters work with the 24-35 and the 85L across two 5DSr's.

Works really well.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Unless you have a 5Dsr, then you reach out via the crop. A lot of the time I enjoy close quarters work with the 24-35 and the 85L across two 5DSr's.
> 
> Works really well.



The cropping would definitely work if you were using the 5DSr. How do you find the resolution holding up compared to comparable lenses (I realize the 6D bodies I used for this test aren't pushing the resolution envelope these days).


----------



## jd7 (Sep 15, 2015)

I saw one of these lenses in a shop yesterday - it's a hefty piece of kit!! It certainly made the 50 Art and 35 Art primes sitting near it look pretty small. And I guess it probably indicates we aren't likely to see the mythical 24-70 f/2 any time soon.

(OK, it's nothing like a the size or weight of a super-tele, but given the focal lengths we're talking about, it's hefty.)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 15, 2015)

jd7 said:


> I saw one of these lenses in a shop yesterday - it's a hefty piece of kit!! It certainly made the 50 Art and 35 Art primes sitting near it look pretty small. And I guess it probably indicates we aren't likely to see the mythical 24-70 f/2 any time soon.
> 
> (OK, it's nothing like a the size or weight of a super-tele, but given the focal lengths we're talking about, it's hefty.)



You're right, and I think this lens gives us an idea of how big a 24-70 f/2 would actually be with the constraints of current technology.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Sep 18, 2015)

I loved the video when you posted it. I guess I missed this post on the forum too. Honest review as always.

This is a lens that interests me, and also is one that Ithink I'll end up buying. The difficult decision I have to make is if I want to sacrifice the extra stop of light or not. I have the Art 50mm, and was considering the 35mm as well. When this lens came out, I certainly appreacted the engineering marvel that it is, but I also felt it could be a good lens for me as a walkaround lens at a wedding. The reviews by wedding photographers have been very stellar for sure. I just don't use 24mm very often, and when I do it's for a semi-wide landscape shot that I usually shoot at f/7.1-8.0. So then I say...maybe the 35 is the better, cheaper option that offers more "artistic" posibilites.

Very limited market for sure. But I'm sure it's a great lens. I'll rent one for a wedding or event soon to give it a whirl.

- Kevin


----------



## rs (Sep 18, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Good points all. I've already had questions from people cross-shopping 24-70's and this lens. Assuming your second body has a 70-200 (or similar tele) on it, there's a pretty big gap after 35mm that a 24-70 doesn't leave. And frankly there are few situations I'm in where an f/2.8 lens simply cannot do what an f/2 could.
> 
> The sad thing is that this is a great lens in a lot of ways...it's just that its very existence is so confining.



It's not just 24-70's already in kit bags that this will compete with. Many also have 16-35's too, so the 24-35 range is typically covered twice. Therefore a third lens which only does the pre existing overlap isn't of much use, other than the speed. I'd suspect most people looking for a third lens in this range would rather a prime for outright speed than a third zoom to carry around.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 18, 2015)

This is my next lens purchase. I have the 50 Art and a Canon 70-200, so I'm looking at a wide zoom to round out my troika. 

The choices considered:
- Canon 16-35 f/4 IS
- Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC
- Sigma 24-35 f/2

I eliminated the Canon because f/4 is just too narrow given some indoor shooting I do. Especially as it often involves moving children. 
I was hot on the Tamron for a while, but direct comparisons of image quality show the Sigma to be superior. I really do like the VC of the Tamron, though. 

So I'm buying the Sigma, because the f/2 will let me freeze the indoor movement more than any other lens competing in the range. OS would have been nice, but it wouldn't help me freeze a running toddler. I also like the superior autofocus micro adjustment capabilities (even though it's long and tedious to do). 

I do wish they made more of an attempt to weather seal, and to add image stabilization. The narrow range is not a problem for me, as I was looking for that range anyway. I think people may underestimate the demand for this lens for those of us who've fallen in love with our Sigma 50mm Arts. When you try to use that lens as often as possible, you do need a wide and a telephoto zoom to complement. The 24-35 is just about perfect for that on the wide end.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 19, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> This is my next lens purchase. I have the 50 Art and a Canon 70-200, so I'm looking at a wide zoom to round out my troika.
> 
> The choices considered:
> - Canon 16-35 f/4 IS
> ...



It seems like you have weighed the negatives fairly well. You won't be disappointed by the image quality.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 21, 2015)

Great review Dustin.
I must say I love the images you produced.
This probably not just because the lens is good but mainly because the photographer is good.
It looks a good lens.
It's big drawback is that it's such a short focal length.
The 24-70 and 24-105 cover this focal length so it would need to build a reputation as being stunning to compete.
You certainly have done a good turn of it. 
I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 21, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Great review Dustin.
> I must say I love the images you produced.
> This probably not just because the lens is good but mainly because the photographer is good.
> It looks a good lens.
> ...



Thanks for the great feedback, Hector. The image quality from the lens is very good, and you are absolutely right - it had better be, because that focal length is very confining!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 26, 2015)

I couldn't find this posted anywhere else, so I apologize if it's redundant. But Roger at LensRentals basically apologized to Sigma for how misleading his original lens test was (with the crazy astigmatism). 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/09/sigma-24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-art-mtf-curves-and-sample-variation/comment-page-1#comment-99999

Turns out the Sigma is even more amazing than we thought. I'm really bummed, because I actually passed on the Sigma due to the Astigmatism (I shoot off center a lot). Had this been the original review released, it would probably now be in my kit.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> These last two are wide open shots at 35mm. Both show really nice sharpness in the narrow focus area:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dog days is simply gorgeous.....btw I love this lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 16, 2016)

slclick said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > These last two are wide open shots at 35mm. Both show really nice sharpness in the narrow focus area:
> ...


----------



## slclick (Feb 16, 2016)

My motivation for purchasing this lens is I have been a 'mostly prime' shooter for sometime, having only one zoom here or there. I rarely shoot anything wider than 24 and longer than 240mm. I have owned many variations of 24-70 lenses and have found the FL's over 40 (I love my pancake) and less than 85 do nothing for me. Add to that the various 24 and 35 primes on the market, I was seeking IQ and distortion values found in lenses I simply could not afford, i.e. Canon 35 1.4L ll and the 24 L. This lens was the best compromise I could possibly make, giving me both FL's and everything in between at a quality level I found to be far higher than any two primes I could get at under $900 (combined). I have used or borrowed the Canon non L IS 24/35 Primes and have owned a Sigma 35 Art in the past and I am convinced the 24-35 outperforms the IS variants and is nearly on par with the 35 Art. Your review helped solidify my decision Dustin. Thank you. I couldn't be happier.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 16, 2016)

slclick said:


> My motivation for purchasing this lens is I have been a 'mostly prime' shooter for sometime, having only one zoom here or there. I rarely shoot anything wider than 24 and longer than 240mm. I have owned many variations of 24-70 lenses and have found the FL's over 40 (I love my pancake) and less than 85 do nothing for me. Add to that the various 24 and 35 primes on the market, I was seeking IQ and distortion values found in lenses I simply could not afford, i.e. Canon 35 1.4L ll and the 24 L. This lens was the best compromise I could possibly make, giving me both FL's and everything in between at a quality level I found to be far higher than any two primes I could get at under $900 (combined). I have used or borrowed the Canon non L IS 24/35 Primes and have owned a Sigma 35 Art in the past and I am convinced the 24-35 outperforms the IS variants and is nearly on par with the 35 Art. Your review helped solidify my decision Dustin. Thank you. I couldn't be happier.



Good to hear. It definitely is a very sharp lens.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

Antelope Island, Great Salt Lake at sunrise

Playing with stacks of filters on the Cokin Z Pro system, basically learning that I don't have what I want and what I have (Formatt filters) are not the best quality. Learning!


----------



## slclick (Feb 23, 2016)

Dustin, have you had a need to utilize the dock with this lens? So far I don't see an issue but I haven't put it through many close focus paces yet.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 23, 2016)

slclick said:


> Dustin, have you had a need to utilize the dock with this lens? So far I don't see an issue but I haven't put it through many close focus paces yet.



It performed better for me than any of the other Art series lenses I've tested. I actually have a dock now, but I don't have a Sigma lens at the moment to calibrate on it.


----------



## slclick (Feb 23, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin, have you had a need to utilize the dock with this lens? So far I don't see an issue but I haven't put it through many close focus paces yet.
> ...



Ok thanks!


----------

