WEDDING SEASON SALE! 30% Off Training Systems!

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds

It’s Official! Sigma Unveils New 24-35mm F/2 Art Series Lens

By Anthony Thurston on June 19th 2015

Yesterday, we shared the hot rumor going around that Sigma was cooking up a new 24-35mm F/2 lens for full frame. It seemed unlikely at first, but later, actual product images started surfacing, and it seems like the rumors would be correct.


This morning, Sigma made it official, announcing the new 24-35mm F/2 DG HSM Art lens. The new lens features a lens design made up of 18 elements in 13 groupings, with a minimum aperture of F/16, a rounded aperture with 9 blades,  and a front filter thread of 82mm.

The new 24-35mm f/2 also weighs in at 33.2oz, or 940g, making it quite hefty. But beyond that, the lens looks to have that same global vision fit and finish that we are used to seeing from Sigma as of late. The lens is designed to be able to replace your fast 24, 28 and 35mm prime lenses in one, and I have no doubt it will do that nicely.

The question is, how many of you actually use 24, 28, and 35mm primes regularly enough that you are switching between the three of them? If the answer is often, then this is probably going to be a killer lens for you.

So far, Sigma has not announced any pricing or availability for this lens, so really all we know is that the lens is real at this point. We can’t pre-order it (yet) and we can’t mark a day on our calendars to go check it out. I don’t know about you, but I hate it when companies do this; if you aren’t ready to announce even a basic ‘the end of June’ sort of availability, then you shouldn’t be announcing the lens, in my opinion.

If you want to be notified once pre-orders and availability are announced, you can sign up for updates from B&H on their product page here.

I want to know what you think about this new announcement? Have your opinions changed at all since the rumor came out last night? Leave a comment below and let us know what you think!

This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Stephen Velasquez

    OK boys and girls who will you recommend this lens to? Wedding? 24-70 covers that. Landscape/Architecture? Photojournalist? Videographers will love it but will complain about image stabilization. How about astro photography? OK maybe not wide enough for their needs. I just can’t recommend this lens for any genre out there any many of you can’t justify getting this lens which means it is useless like tits on a fish. No stop talking about this lens and start putting lovely images on SLR lounge good bye.

    | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      As an event photographer that works in tight quarters most of my time, wanting a shallow depth, plus a wide aperture to lessen my flash output to make it less intrusive and shorten my recycle time, this lens works for me. I’d definitely use it at a wedding too. The separation you get from f/2 to f/2.8 is marked so the 24-70 might cover the same focal length plus more doesn’t hold weight if you’re shooting style is such that you like shallow depth of field. More and more wedding photographers are using primes these days anyhow.

      On my Leica 28 and 35 is my most used focal length, and I’d use a 24 if it didn’t require and eternal finder. This might persuade me to take my Df out more for street photography.

      Lots of people find these focal lengths in their bags, only as primes. Putting them all into one gets rid excess lenses and unnecessary lens changes.

      You’ve use the the “tits on a fish” analogy a number of times already, so yeah maybe it IS time for you to stop talking about it. It to be honest, are people exactly beating your door down looking for lens recommendations?

      | |
    • adam sanford

      Agree with J Dennis. Raging against a product you don’t particularly see much value in isn’t really fueling a discussion so much as raging at it. Not being able to recommend it doesn’t make it useless.

      Though I do happen to agree with Stephen that this lens will have a limited appeal with such a limited FL range — this will not fly off the shelves in great numbers. But, for the folks who actually do walk around with 24, 28, and 35 primes in their bags, this might be a really attractive option for them.

      | |
    • Stephen Velasquez

      OK J.Dennis Thomas it looks like your interested in buying this lens. Please let me know all about it. I want to know how practical this lens to your photography and how it saves you from carry those other focal lenght. Pleas update me in the near future.

      | |
  2. Stephen Velasquez

    Mr. Thurston, I still believe this lens is garbage for photography or falls into a niche like 24 and 85 mm tilt shift lenses and that 135 mm f/2 DC lens from nikon. The people I see buying this a DSLR videographers who want two popular focal lenths at F/2.

    | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas

      Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s garbage. Seriously, what’s your issue? You can’t find a use for it so you slag it off as garbage? You say they can’t produce lenses “we” need. Who exactly is this “we”? You and the mouse in your pocket?

      I just dropped my 35mm f/1.4 and I’m probably going to replace it with this lens because I need and like using a fast wide prime and this packs three into one. “Zoom with your feet” is a BS concept. There’s a thing called perspective distortion. You can crop to the same FOV, but you still get the same perspective distortion.

      A 16-24mm f/2 would be prohibitively massive to make with good image quality. Look how big the the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is. Not to mention the need for an f/2 ultra wide is next to nil considering the seriously deep depth of field at those focal lengths and the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras.

      Instead of just declaring it “garbage” maybe you could just say, “doesn’t work for me” and move on…

      | |
    • Paul Nguyen

      J. Dennis Thomas – “There’s a thing called perspective distortion. You can crop to the same FOV, but you still get the same perspective distortion.”

      You shouldn’t try and sound so high and mighty when you have a lack of understanding of basic physics.

      Perspective distortion depends on how far you are away from your subject, not your focal length. So if you stand in one place, shoot with two different focal lengths and crop in on the wider shot, you’ll get exactly the same perspective.

      | |
    • J. Dennis Thomas


      Dude. YOU are the one that brought up the “zoom with your feet” bullshit.

      I quote: “I could just get a 28mm f/1.8 and move forward or back, getting a lens that will probably be half the price, half the weight and even faster.”

      The point is that you get your 28mm lens and ZOOM WITH YOUR FEET you must get closer or further, thus introducing perspective distortion. Moving closer with your 28mm to get a 35mm FOV still gives you a 28mm perspective distortion.

      I do know physics. I typed this off rather quickly as I was in the middle of something else and the “foot zoom” and FOV crop wasn’t quite as clear as I meant it to be.

      Not sure why you needed to fly in and act like a dick claiming I have no knowledge of basic physics, but being that I have a degree in photography and I have written about 2 dozen books and I don’t know how many magazine articles, it’s safe to say that I’m quite aware of how lenses and cameras work.

      | |
  3. Paul Nguyen

    This is such a silly lens. The sacrifices it makes are far too great.

    I could just get a 28mm f/1.8 and move forward or back, getting a lens that will probably be half the price, half the weight and even faster.

    Or I could just sacrifice a stop and get a 24-70mm and get all that range from 35mm to 70mm, which is a big, big deal. The fact that this is even heavier than a 24-70mm f/2.8 is also a dealbreaker, in my opinion.

    Sigma should have produced an 85mm or 135mm, but to be honest, they’re up against some pretty tough competition in those markets, the Nikon and Canon 85mm f/1.8 lenses are great (and most will prefer them to a Sigma f/1.4 version) and even the f/1.4 versions from Nikon and Canon are excellent. They’re not like the ancient 35mm lenses which Sigma pounded with their 35mm f/1.4 ART.

    I think it’s almost certainly a case of Sigma running out of lenses to produce.

    | |
    • adam sanford

      Great points on the tradeoffs — I agree. Your comment of one stop buying you 40mm of FL is a great one.

      But I respectfully disagree on Sigma running out of lenses to make. The revered Canon 135 f/2L is now long in the tooth and absolutely ripe for Sigma to swoop in and outperform. A 135 f/1.8 — with or without OS — would fly off the shelves, I think.

      | |
    • Paul Nguyen

      Perhaps, but the thing with Sigma is that they’ve been releasing lenses that are cheap and perform better than the competition. Both Canon and Nikon’s 35mm lenses are very old optical designs that aren’t sharp at all.

      135mm is a completely different ballpark. Canon’s 135mm f/2 is a very sharp lens that’s very highly rated on DxOMark, it’ll be tough to beat and let’s be honest, but 135mm isn’t anywhere near as popular of a focal length as 35mm, 50mm or 24mm which are their other Art lenses.

      We’ve already seen how Sigma’s 24mm f/1.4 ART doesn’t blow the Canon and Nikon equivalents away like the 35mm did. It’d be the same story with the 135mm and given that Canon’s is already quite affordable, it’s a tough sell for Sigma.

      On the note of other zooms such as a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8, well they have Tamron to compete with and Tamron’s lenses aren’t bad.

      | |
    • Stephen Velasquez

      They are not running out of lenses to produce. They just can’t produce the lenses we need at the moment. They could have done a 16-24 f2 lens or a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 zoom. I think they haven’t found the formula for those ranges as yet; hence this stupid lens.

      | |
    • Paul Nguyen

      Yeah, but is there really a point in Sigma producing a 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8? I don’t think so. Both Canon and Nikon have a great 24-70mm f/2.8. Nikon’s releasing a new one soon and Canon’s 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II is probably one of their best lenses ever. On top of that Tamron makes a pretty decent 24-70mm f/2.8 as well, is there any space for Sigma to jump in there and shake up the market?

      Same goes with the 70-200mm f/2.8 – both Canon and Nikon have great versions and Tamron is doing okay too.

      I just feel like in order for Sigma to really make an impact they not only have to blow the first-brand manufacturers out of the water, but do so at a significantly better price, they’re probably finding that increasingly difficult to do.

      We’re no longer talking about low yield lenses like the 35mm f/1.4, we’re talking about what are probably some of the highest grossing lenses for Canon and Nikon (24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8), if there was a way to make them better, Canon/Nikon would have already done it.

      | |
  4. Trevor Dayley

    It’s an interesting move by Sigma. Let’s see if it pays off for them.

    | |
  5. Max C

    I wonder where Sigma saw a demand for this lens? Maybe they ran out of focal lengths to create. This lens just makes no sense.

    | |
  6. Jesper Ek

    It’s a cool lens. really looking forward to see how it performs.

    | |
  7. Moise Oiknine

    This is probably most interesting for the video people out there. The f2 will keep them interested and no switching to change framing. I rarely find the need to go faster than 2.8 when shooting weddings, so 24-70 is all that is needed.

    | |
  8. Kristopher Galuska

    I just got a nikon 24mm 2.8 it is practically the size of a micro 4/3 lens, cost $270 used, and at f8 and up (what most use for landscapes) it is about as sharp across the image as Nikon’s 24mm 1.4 My point is that at these focal lengths this sigma is a specialty purpose lens much like a 14mm 2.8. It will be great for astro and/or some creative wide angle wedding shots, but for what most people use these focal lengths for, f2 is just bragging rights.

    | |
    • adam sanford

      Agree. This is not a landscape lens. You’re wasting your money in that case.

      Seeing as it’s such a beast size wise, it’s likely too indescreet for street shooting. But environmental portraiture and possibly astro come to mind.

      I happen to love the 24-35 end of things as a walkaround FL, but I’d love the added reach up to 50 in this case.

      | |
  9. shonaa pell

    good news

    | |
  10. adam sanford

    The truth is that this is a really cool industry first on one hand and a limited appeal product on the other. This lens will polarize folks pretty harshly. Some will adore that they can consolidate the work of three primes into one lens. Others will roll their eyes at such a limited FL range.

    Personally, I think Sigma should have gone for it with a 24-50 f/2 that weighed 3 pounds instead of a 24-35 f/2 that weighs 2 pounds. Weight matters, don’t get me wrong, but a 24-50 f/2 is a bigger game-changer in my mind, and the folks that buy large aperture glass are used to heavy lenses.

    | |
    • Anthony Thurston

      I look at this as more of a proof of concept sort of lens. Those who use 24, 28, and 35mm primes often will love and use it for allowing them to consolidate those primes into one lens. Others will scoff because the FL range is so limited.

      But where Sigma wins, regardless of how the lens sells, is they did it first, and they will have the experience necessary to improve on it and expand the FL range with future lenses (maybe a 24-50mm, or 30-70mm)

      | |
    • Kim Farrelly

      I’m with you on that one Adam, I think the FL of 24-35 is just too limiting. A 35-85 F2 probably would spike my interest more that a 24-50 but either would move my wallet more easily than 24-35mm. It’s a pity that Sigma could/would not replicate the 18-35 range in a F2 for FF, I don’t find such a great difference between 24mm & 35mm but the difference between 15mm & 30mm is something.

      | |
  11. adam sanford

    Best posting I’ve seen on this:
    “Somebody just needs to pack a single 28 prime and learn how to move their feet.”

    | |