We have all been patiently awaiting Sigma’s next Art lens announcement, many hoping for the fabled 24-70mm F/2, or an updated 85mm F/1.4. But it seems that Sigma’s next lens will be neither of those, but something unique – if these latest rumors are to be believed.
According to the report(s) over on Photo Rumors, Sigma will be announcing a new 24-35mm F/2 lens tomorrow, and they even have what appears to be the official product shots of the lens. So this looks to be a legitimate leak.
24-35mm seems like a rather off focal range choice. Personally, I would be all over this if it were a 24-50mm or something similar. That said, this is probably going to be a great lens for landscapes, architecture, video, and environmental portraits.
So, it’s not quite the 24-70mm F/2 that people were hoping for, but this is still a pretty amazing piece of kit. Constant F/2 zoom on full frame. Wow, the more that I think about it, the more I am impressed with it.
No pricing or availability has leaked yet. Luckily, we only have to wait until tomorrow to find out, so stay tuned. We will have all the details for you whenever we get the official info from Sigma.
What are your thoughts on this lens? Are you exciting to get one for yourself once they are available? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think!
[via Photo Rumors]
28 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IT WILL BE ON MY LIST
I am currently using a combo of a 24-70/4.0 and a 28/1.8 for my wide angle work depending on the situation. I’ve been kicking around the idea of a 24/1.4 from either Sigma or Canon but this would probably be way more useful for me though… faster than my 24-70 by 2 stops and more versatile than my 28/1.8 without sacrificing too much light.
With a glance at the existing designs out there, I’d say it’s a photo-chop job:
The hood is from the 24-105 f/4 Art.
The focus ring is from the 50 1.4 Art.
The rear is from the 18-35 1.8 Art.
Moral of the story: A new Sigma Art zoom may or may not be coming out tomorrow, but this probably isn’t what it is going to look like. Either that or Sigma is getting lazy with their designs.
But Matthew, the source is *Digicame-info*. Unlike other rumor sites, those guys are like the pre-cogs of camera gear rumor mongering. It must be true!
Also: Kidding.
The lens is live, at least on Sigma-Rumors. Over 2 pounds, yowza! But still 13 oz lighter than the combined weight of a 24 1.4 and 35 1.4. Hmm…
Why would I buy a 24-35 F2 over the 18-35 F1.8? It makes no sense, I don’t understand?
Easy: The first one fits on a FF camera. The second one doesn’t. :-)
You should NEVER buy this new 24-35 f/2 lens if you have a crop camera unless you (a) want to future proof it for sale or plan to upgrade to FF yourself someday.
I love this one. 24-35 would be great for weddings (coupled up with an 50mm or 85mm) and for landscapes. f/2 is good enough aswell. All depends on the quality.
This is perfect for me! Especially if it keeps the size and cost down. I mean most 24-70s aren’t that great at the long end wide open.
Interesting… If it has OS it’d be a really killer video lens, if not it’ll have to be cheap enough to compete with Nikon’s f1.8 primes. Either way, always good to see a new lens, thanks for the heads up.
This is what I’m thinking too. This is really going to appeal to the videography crowd (like myself). Especially, like you say, if it has OS.
not useful enough range for me… I’ll stick with my 24-70 workhorse… not perfect but extremely useful and competent… 24-85 /2.8 is ideal… though un-full-frame-able I guess..
I don’t know what to make of this but Sigma is backtracking. This lens is not an art lens in my opinion. The focal range is useless. They should just rest on their laurels before dropping any more lenses. A 35-70 f/2.8 with OS would have been better than this because now you can have your on trinity with 16-35 mm, 35-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. This lens is useful as tits on a fish. Speaking of fish Sigma should have came out with a fish eye lens.
I disagree, its plenty useful for someone who doesn’t already have lenses in the 24-35mm range, OR someone who constantly uses 24/28/35mm primes and would rather combine them all into one lens.
It may be redundant, sure, but hardly useless.
What are the advantages of owning this lens compare to a 24-70 mm f/2.8 or F/4 with stabilization? I will take any standard zoom and destroy this lens easily at an event or any photowalk for that matter. This lens is straight up garbage; it goes from wide to wide. Buy a 16-35 f/2.8 or F/4 will eat this lens up.
As a portrait / wedding / event photographer, I’d rather have a 35-70 f/2 that weighs about the same as the Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2. That’d be quite doable.
As an astro-landscape photographer, I’d rather have a 16/18-24 f/2 that weighs about the same as the Tokina 16-28 or Nikon 14-24.
24-35, however, isn’t nearly as useful as either of those focal ranges could be. Especially as a Nikon user with 1.5x crop mode at their disposal. I do this all the time with my Sigma 35 Art, and I wound up selling my 50mm because of it…
I like it.
90% of my shots are in this range at f/2.8 right now. But when doing astrophotography the 2.8 is nice but I’d love to suck in more light, and you need to be pretty wide to catch the whole galaxy.
Too many people assume all photographers are taking the same type of shots they are. Like Anthony said, this is appealing in landscapes, architecture, and astrophotography. Personally I lean more towards primes now but if I wanted a zoom this would be a nice low focal length one that would spend a lot of time on my camera.
Such a nasty childish response to a lens that nobody is forcing you to buy. This is the kind of comment I expect to see on Nikon Rumors.
Bashing gear because it’s not what YOU like.
@J. DENNIS THOMAS,
In the photography community, IMO it becomes pretty apparent when a lens is in fact just a little bit too oddball for the masses. Sure, there will be a few folks who find this lens to be a fantastic solution to their obscure challenge / problem. Sure, this lens will probably be amazingly sharp, and decently priced considering it’s an f/2 full-frame zoom.
The reason that we have a “right” to be so upset, is because Sigma is a very, very small company and if they’re releasing a lens like this, that means they’re taking up a fair amount of resources doing it and that just postpones the other lenses that we all really want.
Whether or not this lens is meant to reach the masses, Sigma already has a long list of lenses that fans of Art glass are dying to buy… A 70-200 2.8 OS Art / Sport, a 24-70 f/2.8 Art, a 16-35 2.8 Art, …or as I mentioned before, a 17-24 f/2 Art or a 35-70 f/2 Art would have been much, much more useful for many, many more buyers than this particular lens.
It may sound like spiteful whining, but really we’re only this passionate about it because we’re truly rooting for Sigma to “win” in general.
Think of it this way: it’s like watching an epic chess battle in which your favored player could checkmate in just a few more moves, but instead they’re making odd moves in the corner with a pawn, just to try and show off.
Every new lens kind of find it’s fans.. :)
Love the Art series lenses but this one doesn’t appeal to me because of the focal range. I have plenty of lenses to cover 24-35mm including the 35mm Art. I guess if you don’t have anything in that range this could be useful. I want to see a Sigma 135mm Art lens. Now that I would be interested in. Did you hear that Sigma? I guess a 135 wouldn’t generate the sales they want though…
Anthony nailed it: 24-50 would have been awesome. It would have weighed seven tons, but for those who espouse the 24 prime and 50 prime as a great combo could have gotten by with one lens and still retained a fairly wide max aperture.
But 24-35 is more of a corporate vanity project of ‘Look what we can do! Industry first!’ than the disruptive innovations Sigma has been delivering of late.
So, if it’s real, I give points to Sigma for having the stones to build this spruce goose, but I wouldn’t buy it.
Spruce Goose… now that is a great analogy. Funny enough it is housed a mere 20 minute drive from my home. If I review this lens, I think I know where I am taking it. haha
24-50 was my first thought when I saw the zoom range.
Considering the DX weight of the 18-35, and the usual conversion factor for size / weight that I’ve seen, a 24-50 f/4 full-frame couldn’t have weighed more than a pound or so more than the 18-35, or been bigger than say the Tamron 24-70 VC.
A Spruce Goose indeed, though. Especially if it is OS.
I’m thinking that it wouldn’t take much to make a 24-35 full frame out of the 18-35 APS-C design, which is why they’ve done it. Between losing the wide end (a simple mechanical stop), slightly restricting the aperture, and maybe swapping out two elements deep in the bowels of the thing for a slightly larger diameter, they’ll get acceptable coverage and vignetting without having to change much at all. If it costs like the 18-35 and performs as well (and maybe even improves the pincushion at the “long” end), a person could do a lot worse — it’ll effectively replace 3 f/1.8 primes.
As I’m always reminded, the ‘crop only’ Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 fits on FF rigs and shoots 24-35 just fine.
(Not that I’m alleging that’s all this new lens is. The filter size has been jacked up significantly, so if this is a real lens, it’s a new design altogether.)
I’d love to be able to justify it for landscapes, but already having the 24-70 f/2.8 it will make more sense for me to deploy my money for an ultra-wide angle for landscapes, like their 12-24 f/4/5-5.6, or the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.