Again: Sigma 24-35 f/2

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The lens - that judging from the previous post no one wants or sees any reason for its very existence finally has a price: $999. Available by the end of July - so there's no need to rush to get your pre-orders in.<br>

Any takers?<br>

Just saved everyone a grand (minus a buck) ;-)</p>

[Two23]

<p>I would buy one if I didn't already have a 24mm and a 35mm. What I'm really holding out for is an 18mm PC-E lens from somebody!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>It's probably a really good lens.<br>

I already have good 35/2, 28/2, 21/2.8 lenses, and 24mm never did anything for me.<br>

Also, it is likely---though not known with certainty--- that the primes I have produce less distortion and more detail across the frame than the new zoom does. And I hate distortion.<br>

I suspect that this will be one of Sigma's slower selling items.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>maybe next time. i already have the 35 ART, so im more likely to get the 24 ART on its own. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>They would get my attention if it had 20mm on one end (stellar to that). If you don't need wider, you'll still have 3 lenses: 24/28/35 and whatever in between.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[andylynn]

No, I already have more than one lens for that range. If they'd made a new 24-70 that's a real improvement over other

options I'd be looking seriously at that, but 24-35 is not much of a zoom range. I'd rather just have a 28/1.8, and save 20

ounces of weight.

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Images from the new lens can be seen here</p>

<p>http://sigmaphoto.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=42ef155d71b475ec1a57de4b4&id=89230eec9c&e=2dd401a94a</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Thanks Dieter. I am very glad that our mostly negative comments on the previous thread helped bring down the price for the new lens, thus benefiting everybody who might actually buy this lens. :-) http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dLlX</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes... I wonder who that would be, Shun. I really do.

[ShunCheung]

<p>QG, it is about time for you to buy a new lens and take some pictures. :-)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I'm afraid i have all the lenses i could want or need, so i guess i can't take some pictures. ;-)<br><br>Seriously: what would be the reason someone would want to buy this lens? I want to know!

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sigma aren't my favourite company; I've been disappointed by their products too many times in the past, but this doesn't seem like an un-needed lens addition to me. It covers the commonly used full-frame wideangle range at a useful aperture of f/2, and without the bulk and inconvenience of changing primes. Even the cost isn't excessive when you consider that buying Samyang's 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 primes would set you back almost as much, and with no AF or 28mm focal length thrown in.</p>

<p>Of course it all hinges on what the optical performance is like. If (and that's a big IF) the IQ, flare resistance and distortion really can compete with that of a set of 24mm, 28mm and 35mm f/2 primes, then it looks like a bit of a bargain. And a space-saver to boot. I'd be using my old Tokina AT-X 20-35mm f/2.8 zoom a lot more if its image contrast and flare resistance were better. As it is......</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as RJ says, at under $1000, the price is actually reasonable compared to comparable primes: the 24 and 35 ART lenses together would be 70% more expensive and the nikon versions would run around $4000 USD (!), but then those<em> do</em> go to 1.4. </p>

<p>theoretically, i could actually use something like this for low-light nightclub photography if--and this is a big if--the AF accuracy holds up at open apertures, which is an issue reportedly on the lens this is based on, the 18-35/1.8. also the lens would have to be super sharp in the center at f/2-2.2 at all focal lengths, which it looks like it is, from the DPReview samples. but... stills are one thing but AF accuracy would have to be good with moving targets. looking over the specs its 941g so heavier than the 24-70 (!) and 1/3rd heavier than the 35ART or 24 ART... my main reservations would be 1) already have the 35ART; 2) weighs more and has less range than 24-70; 3) would rather have a wider angle than 24 - a 20-35/2 would be much more compelling but probably way more bulkier too. So, a bit more intriguing at that price but i dont see this as being a must-have, especially if you have a fast 35, unless you also have a fast 24 and want to save a bit of weight. i dont really see this as a 'travel lens' since its so bulky -- for event/documentary/PJ/street, maybe, but what i'd really prefer there would be a sharp 28-105/2.8 with stabilization. it does seem to hold up well on higher-resolution cameras, though, so for image quality fiends it could replace the 24-70 on d800/d810.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

I only have the 35mm f1.4 Art, but I assume the 24mm is excellent as well. Rather than compromising with the very

limited 24-35mm zoom range, one might as well just get the 24mm and crop some if you need a narrower view. Today we

have plenty of pixels for cropping.

 

Personally, I don't need wider than 35mm for f1.4, f2. Hopefully Nikon will update the 17-35mm/f2.8 to some 16-

35mm/f2.8 E lens soon. That would be a far more useful zoom range, but we'll be talking about well over $2000.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Roget Cicala of Lens Rentals has a short review: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/a-quick-look-at-the-new-sigma-24-35-f2-art</p>

<p>At least according to Cicala, this Sigma zoom doesn't seem to be as excellent as I had expected.</p>