Sigma 24-70 F2 OS

This would be very nice..!

http://www.canonrumors​.com …-70-f2-os-hsm-coming-cr1/

I just saw that as well....was going to post it but you beat me to it.

I will say though, if it happens, I'll be first in line. f/2 seems to be the "sweet spot" for my 7D, where I can use it indoors for anything, and as long as it isn't a dungeon, I can get by with an acceptable ISO. Part of the reason I bought the 18-35 1.8...but I'd be willing to give up the 18-24mm range for the 35-70mm range.

WOW Sigma is really been doing well

hope to see it by next year

This with a 6D would be a great combo.

OS too...ha. Seems too good to be true.

A theoretical 24-70/2.0 on FF would be a lens with approximately the weight of a 70-200/2.8L IS.

The rule of thumb here is that a one-stop widening of aperture usually implies a doubling of the weight of the lens. The current Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is 825g and a f/2 lens will be ~1500g.

Saw this earlier. Exciting news for sure.

frankchn wrote in post #16164925
A theoretical 24-70/2.0 on FF would be a lens with approximately the weight of a 70-200/2.8L IS.

The rule of thumb here is that a one-stop widening of aperture usually implies a doubling of the weight of the lens. The current Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is 825g and a f/2 lens will be ~1500g.

I don't think there's enough data to make that even close to a rule of thumb.

This is a good time to be a gear head!

Good thing I'm used to hauling my 70-200 2.8 around and a whole lot more for long periods of time, haha.

frankchn wrote in post #16164925
A theoretical 24-70/2.0 on FF would be a lens with approximately the weight of a 70-200/2.8L IS.

The rule of thumb here is that a one-stop widening of aperture usually implies a doubling of the weight of the lens. The current Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is 825g and a f/2 lens will be ~1500g.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #16164977
I don't think there's enough data to make that even close to a rule of thumb.

Scanning through the Tables of Lenses PDF files, I would hazard a guess that it is actually a good rule of thumb. In the cases where Canon has a pair of lenses at a given FL or FL zoom range but at different apertures, the weight gain from 2.8 -> 2.0 or 4.0 -> 2.8 is about double.

e.g. the 70-200 IS 4.0 760g, the 70-200 IS 2.8 II 1490g.

or the 300 IS 4.0 1190g, 300 IS 2.8 II 2350g.

or the 135 Soft-Focus 2.8 390g, 135 2.0 750g.

or 85 1.8 425g, 85 1.2 1025g.

And that doesn't even take into account the addition of IS/OS.

A slightly different comparison:

24-70 4.0 IS 600g, 24-70 2.8 II (non-IS) 805g. Without the IS the new 24-70 4.0 would probably have weighed 450g or so, in my estimation.

Anyway, IMHO the comparison is valid, and the rumored Sigma 24-70 2.0 OS would weight about 1400g to 1500g. And I'd probably buy one, assuming optics were close to Canon's 24-70 2.8 II, and price was south of $2K.

shinksma

If they can match or beat the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM for sharpness, it should be one killer lens. Sure it would be heavier, but I'm getting pretty comfortable with heavy lenses.

Sigma is swinging for the fences and that's great!

With this lens, we'll see a lot of folks start heading to the gym to get strong enough to wield such a lens. Next barrier of entry: being swole.

It is going to be bigger than the EF 24-70 2.8 v1, which was 950+ grams. It will have a bigger front element than the 24-70 2.8 II, which mean at least 86mm. This thing is going to be LARGE, HEAVY, EXPENSIVE. One of you 24-70 2.8 II shooters can sell my your Canon for $1500 when this comes out. That should almost cover half the cost of your new Sigma. Maybe. In the meantime, I'll shoot my 28-75.

shinksma wrote in post #16165156
Scanning through the Tables of Lenses PDF files, I would hazard a guess that it is actually a good rule of thumb. In the cases where Canon has a pair of lenses at a given FL or FL zoom range but at different apertures, the weight gain from 2.8 -> 2.0 or 4.0 -> 2.8 is about double.

e.g. the 70-200 IS 4.0 760g, the 70-200 IS 2.8 II 1490g.

or the 300 IS 4.0 1190g, 300 IS 2.8 II 2350g.

or the 135 Soft-Focus 2.8 390g, 135 2.0 750g.

or 85 1.8 425g, 85 1.2 1025g.

And that doesn't even take into account the addition of IS/OS.

A slightly different comparison:

24-70 4.0 IS 600g, 24-70 2.8 II (non-IS) 805g. Without the IS the new 24-70 4.0 would probably have weighed 450g or so, in my estimation.

Anyway, IMHO the comparison is valid, and the rumored Sigma 24-70 2.0 OS would weight about 1400g to 1500g. And I'd probably buy one, assuming optics were close to Canon's 24-70 2.8 II, and price was south of $2K.

shinksma

Yup. Some more examples:

Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM - 335g, Canon 35mm f/1.4L - 580g
Canon 200mm f/2.8L - 765g, Canon 200mm f/2L IS - 2520g
Canon 400mm f/4 DO - 1940g, Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS II - 3850g

Of course, there is probably a base amount of material needed that won't change - explaining the smaller differences you see between the 24-70 f/4L and the f/2.8L. That said, I would be very surprised if the lens (if indeed real) is less than 1.2 kg or has a filter size of 86mm or lens with the same IQ is the Tamron 24-70 or the 24-70II.