Sigma 16-20 f/2.0 Art

www.canonwatch.com/sig​ma-rumor-16-20mm-f2-dg-lens-set-come-soon/

Is this the UWA-zoom we've been waiting for? The zoom range is not very flexible, but who cares as long as it is tack sharp.

Could be quite awesome for landscapes and stars.

Sigma really need to update their tele lenses and are messing about with a 1.25x zoom? A very short zoom range if you ask me.

Ginga wrote in post #16538988
www.canonwatch.com/sig​ma-rumor-16-20mm-f2-dg-lens-set-come-soon/

Is this the UWA-zoom we've been waiting for? The zoom range is not very flexible, but who cares as long as it is tack sharp.

Could be quite awesome for landscapes and stars.

... and night shots! Thanks Sigma to innovate with "non conservative" products... Wait and see.

Titi

yeah - as exciting as their upcoming lenses souned (and I am interested in some of them)
this one seems a bit limiting

Yes!! Bring it

Neilyb wrote in post #16538993
Sigma really need to update their tele lenses and are messing about with a 1.25x zoom? A very short zoom range if you ask me.

Tele lenses.. Really? As if there aren't already a gazillion of tele lenses available for Canon.

There is a wide angle void in Canon's lineup that needs to be filled.

The 17-40L and 16-35L are bad jokes in terms of sharpness.

I hope they at least make it 16-30, if it tops out at 20 you really need to have at least 2 lenses with you at all times...

The limited range might be a tradeoff worth accepting, for that extra stop.

1Tanker wrote in post #16539050
The limited range might be a tradeoff worth accepting, for that extra stop.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Couple that with prime sharpness and we have a winner.

I think it's a good one. Zooming from 50 to 60mm is nothing.

But from 16 to 20 the difference is huge. If you couple it with a standard zoom, the kit becomes really flexible.

Sirrith wrote in post #16539032
I hope they at least make it 16-30, if it tops out at 20 you really need to have at least 2 lenses with you at all times...

If the aperture is well f/2.0, a 16-30mm would weight something like 2-3kg...
Look at the 16-28mm f/2.8 from Tokina only a "f/2.8" zoom which is a brick. For me, 16-20mm range is great!

Titi

Neilyb wrote in post #16538993
Sigma really need to update their tele lenses and are messing about with a 1.25x zoom? A very short zoom range if you ask me.

Your probably just not interested in uwa

elitejp wrote in post #16539103
Your probably just not interested in uwa

Actually I am and I know that the Canon 16-35 is way behind but 16-20mm sounds like a compromise from the start. Would love to replace the 17-40 but not for 4mm of range.

Yes there are loads of teles for Canon, but the good ones are all from Canon and cost a small fortune. Sigmas teles are out of date and really cannot match the Canons. Would be a welcome relief if they are anything like the 120-300 OS S.

titi_67207 wrote in post #16539088
If the aperture is well f/2.0, a 16-30mm would weight something like 2-3kg...
Look at the 16-28mm f/2.8 from Tokina only a "f/2.8" zoom which is a brick. For me, 16-20mm range is great!

Titi

It's f2, but for 30mm you don't need much glass. So it wouldn't weigh that much. It's when we're looking at the longer focal lengths that big apertures becomes prohibitive in terms of weight.

WOW this lens could be just perfect for my needs!

If they could make it 14-20 or 14-21 and tack-sharp wide open, it would be great. Sacrifices a bit of zoom range over a 14-24, but with even better optical performance.