# First Impressions: Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art by LensRentals.com



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 30, 2015)

```
Roger at LensRentals.com has completed his initial testing of the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art series lens and has come away pretty impressed.</p>
<p>From LensRentals.com:</p>
<blockquote><p>Some people are going to be a bit disappointed (I admit I am a bit myself) because they really wanted a zoom that was every bit as good as their prime lenses. What we actually have is a zoom that’s as good at f/2.0 in the center as their prime lenses, but like almost every other zoom isn’t quite as good as a prime off-axis. When even the best optical engineers (and lately Sigma seems to have some of the best optical engineers) design a wide-aperture zoom lens, some compromises have to be made. In this case there’s a lot of astigmatism away from center. There’s good news for you who are disappointed now: Computer image analysis (like Imatest and DxO) don’t show astigmatism directly so this lens will probably look better with those test results than it does on the optical bench. <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art" target="_blank">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>In Stock: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1162798-REG/sigma_24_35mm_f_2_dg_hsm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 31, 2015)

dilbert said:


> So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?


Whenever you want, you can stop down the lens to achieve sharp images at the image edges.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 31, 2015)

Lenstip is more than a little impressed:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=447


----------



## Mr Bean (Jul 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?
> ...


Stopping down won't eliminate astigmatism.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And, you did not by a f/2 zoom to use it at f/8. Virtually any lens looks good at f/8.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 31, 2015)

Will not buy this zoom or any other as long as the zoom ring does not turn in the Canon direction. No matter how good and or cheap they are. Using different lenses with inconsistent zoom ring direction looses me shots in fast reaction situations, when i switch lenses/bodies. No go. 

Zoom ring direction needs to be linked to the lens mount the lens is sold with. If Sigma and other third party kens makers only want to make one zoom ring + gear variation, they should at least be smart enough to keep it in sync with the clear market leader and the largest installed base of camera bodies = Canon, not Nikon.

Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 31, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > So a good indoor lens for pictures that are primarily of people in the center of the frame?
> ...



Yeah...that's why we pay the big bucks for fast lenses....so we can stop them down to the same brightness of the lesser and cheaper models...nice thinking.


----------



## sanj (Jul 31, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



$999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness. 

Edit: At full open....


----------



## kubelik (Jul 31, 2015)

sanj said:


> $999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness.
> 
> Edit: At full open....



sanj, precisely. People are thinking of this lens as a 24-70 L replacement or competitor, whereas it's clearly priced as a midrange lens. if you look at it, it essentially replaces the Canon 35 f/2 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, and 24 f/2.8 IS, for $1K instead of ~$1.5K. those lenses also are midrange lenses, and have pretty steep corner sharpness fall-off and bad vignetting as well.

if I didn't already have the 35 f/2 IS, and if it wasn't my high-portability lens, I'd definitely be getting the 24-35 f/2. as it stands, I still would love to own it, and I'll be evaluating my lens lineup over the next few months to see if there's some way that I can sell/swap other stuff to make it fit.


----------



## chmteacher (Jul 31, 2015)

The front page should have included the two sentences that followed:

"But the glass here is definitely way more than half full. We have, for the first time, a modern zoom lens that reaches f/2.0 aperture and is wickedly sharp. That's an amazing thing all by itself and this is a unique optic. What is really amazing to me is that it sells for $1,000."


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 31, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.



Wow, I never knew that zoom direction would be so important. There are only two directions to choose from. 

Are you one of those people that only wants the toilet paper put on one specific way? ;D

I think there are many reasons why I would or would not buy a specific lens. I just never considered zoom ring direction to be one of them.


----------



## Andyx01 (Jul 31, 2015)

I'm sorry - did I miss something? Is the 24-35 image stablized? :




kubelik said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > $999 is not big bucks for this lens. And at that price is promises only a certain level of corner sharpness. I believe. Besides, how bad is the corner sharpness? We don't know that yet. Many more expensive lenses do not have perfect corner sharpness.
> ...


----------



## Andyx01 (Jul 31, 2015)

35 @ f/2.0 (IS) 1/5th sec or so (handheld).

Sorry Sigma.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 31, 2015)

macVega said:


> If DxO doesn't measure astigmatism, it is not important for image quality :


They do measure astigmatism just look at the lens' sharpness profile measurements - there are two line graphs: one for radial and the other for tangential.


----------



## RogerCicala (Jul 31, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> macVega said:
> 
> 
> > If DxO doesn't measure astigmatism, it is not important for image quality :
> ...



They measure horizontal and vertical (actually nearly horizontal and nearly vertical), which is very different from radial and tangential. They might (or might not) be affected by astigmatism but are certainly affected by a host of other things. Unfortunately, no tests done using target analysis (DxO or Imatest) can measure astigmatism.


----------



## AvTvM (Jul 31, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.
> ...



Yes it seriously is a big issue for me. Of course It depends what you are shooting. If it is landscape from a tripod with lots of time to set things up, zoom ring direction does not matter. 
But if i am at a concert and switch from 70-200 to wide angle zoom, and in the middle of things i inadvertently twist the zom ring in the wrong direction, i will miss a shot or two. I am not willing to put up with this just because Sigma is not willing or unable to match zoom ring direction wiht the respective lens mount. 

If they are able and willing to equip their lenses with either Canon, Nikon or Sony mounts, and manage to reverse-engineer the respective camera makers AF system standards - more or less - they should go all the way and also put as simple a thing as the zoom ring turning direction right. I also see it as a clear sign of disrespect towards Canon owners. Why should we as clear majority of camera owners buy lenses that work "the Nikon way"? I at least will not throw money at Sigma or Tamron zoom lenses, until they finally take the right attitude and produce correct products. If they want my business, they need to earm it. Half-assed products won't cut it.


----------



## whothafunk (Jul 31, 2015)

Andyx01 said:


> 35 @ f/2.0 (IS) 1/5th sec or so (handheld).
> 
> Sorry Sigma.


I handheld my Canon 8-15 f4 fisheye on my trip at around 9.30 PM when only just a few seconds of visible light was available, when it was dark and out of 3 shots of burst, 2 were sharp. and 8-15 doesnt have an IS as well.

and that happened on MULTIPLE occasions since i was on my trip, sleeping outdoors every day and did a shot of my "bedroom".

so whats your point?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Aug 1, 2015)

Looking forward to buying this lens. Hoping Sigma compliments it with an 85-135mm f/2. Only two lenses I would need for weddings.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 1, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Lenstip is more than a little impressed:
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=447


It isn't a bad lens at all, just not as good as a prime


----------



## dak723 (Aug 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Goes for the Sigmas and for Tamron (eg 24-70). I will never budge on this issue. Wrong turn zoom -> no buy. That simple.
> ...



Having recently tried out some of the new Sony cameras and lenses, I agree that zoom direction is important if you are used to the Canon way. Having owned Canon and Olympus cameras and lenses for 35 years, I automatically turn in the correct direction and found it very annoying that my initial movement was in the wrong direction with every shot using the Sony. Not sure if it would be a complete deal-breaker for me if I were to change systems completely. In that case, I think I would eventually re-learn my automatic response. But otherwise, it is a big reason not to get this lens or others that go the "wrong" way.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> You underestimate your brain.
> I've been using a Tamron zoom, along side Canon zooms and not once have I ever zoomed (or thought of zooming) the wrong way - with either brand.



Yes, even my brain and body adapts. But it takes time. No problem, if I 'd swap my entire gear and lens set for one where ALL zoom rings CONSISTENTLY turn the other way round. I may have some minor initial misattempts, but after a day or two it would be gone. And if I have time to set all parameters at total leisure, I will also not turn zoom rings the wrong way. 

But a "mix and match" lens set zoom rings does not work for me at all in "busy" suituations, when my brain is 100% focussed on getting the shots I want: desired light/exposure, desired angle and framing and most importantly "the right moment". In those situations - when it matters most - I need to have as consistent a user interface as possible on all the gear in use. Some years ago I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8. While I liked the lens and its performance, I sold it after 6 months, because I missed shots when switching between my Canon zooms and this "wrong way round zoom" in the middle of an event/concert/wedding/sports meeting. When switching lenses I inevitably turned the zoom ring the wrong way round the first one to three attempts. And I know that many other photographers are experiencing this issue exactly the same way. 

Additionally and more generally I do not see why the huge Canon user base should silently put up with Sigma's and other third party lens makers decision to just stick a "Nikon-way zoom ring" on their lenses with Canon EF mount and call it a day. It is ... sloppy. Not right. And while prices are somewhat lower than Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses are not dispensed free of charge either. And if they only can or want to stick one type of zoom ring gears into their lenses, then they should be the Canon way. Simply because tehre are so many more Canon camera bodies out there than Nikons and Sonys to stick Sigma or Tamron lenses on. To me the current practice is bad business judgement and a blatant sign of disrespect from Sigma and Tamron. From what I see, Tokina seems to equip more and more of their zooms with correctly turning zoom rings - matching the convention of the respective lens mount/camera maker. That's the way it ought to be. Nothing difficult or prohibitively expensive about it. Definitely not on 999,- zoom lenses.


----------



## jthomson (Aug 1, 2015)

dilbert said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...


The Backwards Brain Bicycle - Smarter Every Day 133 - YouTube

Retraining the brain is not as easy as you think. Watch the video.

As a long time user of Lotus 123 (dos 2.1 to win 95), I still have a specific problem with Excel even after using excel almost exclusively since win 98. I frequently don't start an equation with an equals sign or an operator. It is really annoying to have to go back and edit to put one in. Lotus default was to assume if it started with a number that it was an equation if it started with a letter it was text. 
I just can't break the habit of going 1+2 enter
Even though I know I should go =1+2 enter. I really have to think to put in the equal sign or an operator.

I said almost exclusively because there was time when I had to use both before my work converted all of the Lotus calculation sheets we used to excel. I also very rarely had to go back and check a finished calculation that had been done in lotus before we switched to excel. 

Habits can be very hard to break.

Fortunately I can handle the zoom directions without problem but I can see how it could be a real problem.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 2, 2015)

RogerCicala said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > macVega said:
> ...


The profile is plotted from center to corner. I naturally assumed that horizontal would be in the direction of the radius and vertical is the direction of the tangent.


----------



## casperl (Aug 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > You underestimate your brain.
> ...


Maybe because not all of the huge Canon users are bothered by the zoom ring direction?


----------



## rado98 (Aug 3, 2015)

Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 3, 2015)

rado98 said:


> Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.



you may have missed the image on top of the lensrentals.com blog article that has sparked this thread. 
See here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/07/sigma-24-35-f2-mfr-43.jpg
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art

This image clearly shows a "wrong"/non-Canon zoom ring direction. Yes, it might be the Nikon version shown - I can't tell from this angle, whether the lens mount is Nikon or Canon. However until confirmed by Sigma, I assume the zoom ring direction not matched to Canon lens mount. 

But aside from this specific lens, and more important to me is that Canon users really should not have to even think about the zoom ring. To me it would be "minimum expected standard" taht each and any third party zoom lens offered with a Canon lens mount should by default also be equipped with a zoom that works according to Canon's convention.


----------



## casperl (Aug 3, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> you may have missed the image on top of the lensrentals.com blog article that has sparked this thread.
> See here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/07/sigma-24-35-f2-mfr-43.jpg
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art
> 
> ...



To me if it is the same/similar lens spec, then yes the zoom direction could be a deciding factor since it may causes some missed shots. But usually Sigma lens cost significantly cheaper than the Canon counter part, and with the saved cost one can get another lens which means getting the Canon instead means LOTS of missed shots. For 18-35, well there is not really any alternative for a 18mm f1.8. For 24-35mm f2.0, alternative may be two f1.4/f1.8 primes on two separate bodies. I assume switch bodies will cause more missed shots then turn the zoom ring in the wrong direction, not to mentioned the missed shots by not having the focal length in the middle. It's all about compromises :


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 3, 2015)

rado98 said:


> Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.


New Sigmas go the other way, and it's really, REALLY silly.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 3, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> rado98 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I missed it somewhere but the zoom direction of my Sigma 17-50 is the Canon way, I would assume this lens does the same thing. Tamron goes the Nikon way.
> ...



very silly. Thing is, Sigma has become totally INCONSISTENT as far as zoom ring direction is concerned. Earlier on, it was "nikon-direction" all the way (like Tamron still is). For Sigma the only constant is, that each zoom is fitted with a single zoom ring direction - absolutely irrespective of lens mount. 

PS: I do believe criticizing such design flaws in internet forums will help rectify things. Google lists this thread fairly prominently, when searching for "Sigma 24-35 / 2.0" ... so it will likely not go unnoticed by Sigma representatives.


----------



## Andyx01 (Aug 4, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> Andyx01 said:
> 
> 
> > 35 @ f/2.0 (IS) 1/5th sec or so (handheld).
> ...



My point is I'm sorry you don't have or apparently understand IS.

I hate to have to point it out because it should be obvious, but I'm sure you will continue to miss it otherwise - whatever you accomplished with your three attempts, you could have done at an ISO 3-4 stops better with  it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 6, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> PS: I do believe criticizing such design flaws in internet forums will help rectify things. Google lists this thread fairly prominently, when searching for "Sigma 24-35 / 2.0" ... so it will likely not go unnoticed by Sigma representatives.



You're deluded if you think that Sigma (or anyone) relies on meaningless blather on the web for their decisions. Especially when you're the only one blowing up the board about this.


----------

