Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 24-35mm f2 DG HSM Art announced.... Heavyweight.
#1
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35...un-m-24-35

 

It weighs 940 grams and is 87.6x122.7 mm big.

 

I'd probably prefer  the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM (335 grams) + Canon EF 28mm IS USM (280 grams) + Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM (280 grams) in my bag/on my camera.

 

Maybe wedding photographers might really appreciate this new lens, though. If Sigma can get it to accurately focus on Canon AND Nikon.

#2
It's probably useful for event photographers who can't decide which wide prime to bring and don't have time to switch lenses Big Grin


I would have liked to see something in the "normal"-range like a 35-70. It would have to be huge though...
#3
I've never been much of a prime shooter, outside of exotics like fisheye, macro and tilt-shift anyway. I tried using the TS-E 24 as a normal prime and never got on with it. The old 35/2 was better in that respect, but I guess I'm not suited to a fixed focal length. So in that case, the Sigma could be a good fit for those who can't decide what wide angle prime they want to use, or otherwise end up constantly swapping lenses. This of course assumes the lens is capable of delivering prime like performance wide open within its focal range.

 

Personally I don't care about the size and weight if it saves me swapping lenses in the field.

 

But would I buy this lens? No. While I do use that range, I don't really need the aperture, so a slower longer zoom will do me fine.

 

Also as a Canon user, it has a backward zoom ring so is an instant deal breaker for me. This seems to be a break from tradition, where it seemed most recent Sigma lenses were Canon/Oly zoom order if they were full frame, and the opposite way around on crop. Some have speculated this may be a pimped out version of the crop lens so that might give a possible reason why the zoom direction is the way it is.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#4
Quote:I'd probably prefer  the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM (335 grams) + Canon EF 28mm IS USM (280 grams) + Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM (280 grams) in my bag/on my camera.
 

Right ... and I would even skip the 28mm ... inbetween 24 and 35 this additional lens doens't

make overly much sense.

 

I think the 24-35/2 will likely be a fine lens technically, but frankly, a 1.5x zoom isn't much more useful than

a prime is (if you allow slight cropping).

 

just my 2 cts ... Rainer
#5
Quite bit an overdose, opening two threads about the same lens. Next will be "Sigma 24-35/2 available - pricing not like Samyang" or something like that…  Rolleyes  Ah well, he was the OP on both of them. No wonder.

 

Rainer, I usually tend to agree about cropping instead of getting an 1.5× zoom. But in that case it's not only cropping at infinity but also in very close range (28 cm), so the typical distortions of a 24 mm would remain in a crop whereas the 35 mm would bring things into "normal" proportions. Next to the fact, the Nikkor 24/1.4 is a nice lens but at the corners wide open not super convincing.

 

Plus, the 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4 together are 1250 gr without and 1400 gr with all caps and hoods. So, for less the price of the 24/1.4 Art I'd get a 35 and 24 one stop slower - for people starting fresh with full frame, not owning one of those primes, this Sigma Art wide angle zoom is a full stop faster than the "normal" 24-70/2.8 and (in NIkon case) with a 85/1.8 still cheaper than the "real" Nikkor 24-70/2.8.

 

I've seen one "comparison picture" but for no given source. If that picture would be no fake, the zoom at 24 is better than the fast prime. I'm looking forward to x-mas 2016. Not expecting to see it long time before  Sad
#6
I guess the "is it prime or zoom" jokes will abound. I just have to point out that there has been a lens with just the same 1.45x zoom ratio. Also unique in a way. A smash hit for the manufacturer...

 

 

... the Tokina 11-16/2.8. Big Grin

P.S. I know Ken Rockwell went into a verbal killing spree but why does he still keep separate 24, 28 and 35 primes if they're all the same to him. Big Grin

#7
Another lens made by Sigma to show their muscles and capacities.

For me it doesn't make much sense, surely there will be someone interested with it and buy it of course not me.

I feel this lens is just for marketing purposes

#8
I don't think Sigma is playing around with a lens just for marketing purposes as long as they can't satisfy the request for their already announced lenses, as long as they have to shift the delivery date over and over. But I'm also a bit puzzled about this nearly double issue (there's already a 24 and 35 with f/1.4

 

Don't see why they go this way.

#9
Answering my own question: To leave space for another prime in my bag, they went this way. And if lensrentals checks 10 lenses and found them on par with primes, especially regarding sample variations and overall performance, well, I only can recommend any person not able to decide between 24, 28 or 35 and all reasonably fast lenses to go for all of them in one barrel.

 

Last weekend I had such a situation when that lens would have been great. I took pictures of a group of 4 persons in narrow and wide spaces. One body with that lens and another with a 85/1.4 would have been THE right combination. The 50 mm sometimes was too limiting and I found myself cropping a lot.

 

I had a 24, 50, 85 and 300 with me, left the 35 at home and after deleting the worst shots I see the distribution

 

24:  44% (and of them, ¼ I had to crop)

50:  28%

85:  23%

300: 5%

 

Why I didn't take the 24-105? Nearly 40% of all shots I took at a faster aperture than f/4, but only 6% were faster or equal to f/2

 

Of course, those are only numbers, I would have guessed something like that, but the amount of wide open shots surprised me. To be fair, the numbers are a result of having only a 24 at hand and no 35, but here's the thing with changing between wide angle primes: I simply don't want to interrupt the flow with 4 nice persons by changing lenses. I'm no superfan of primes, if a zoom delivers the same IQ, I'm all eyes.

 

To sum it up: For that session, the 24-35/2 would have been THE lens to have with me.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)