Sigma 16-20 f/2.0 Art

1.25X zoom range is near pointless IMHO. Might as well make it a prime and optimize at one end of it.

Yawn,not my range.

I don't think I'm that intrested...f2 nice, but for 95% of the time I'd (personally) use a lens like that I'd be shooting f8 + anyway.

I would prefer 14-24 anyway of the week. Don't care what the minimum aperture is.

Leica has a 16-21mm zoom, so such a short range isn't unprecedented. But it's a small lens, designed for a rangefinder system.

If they could expand the range a bit (14-21mm would be perfect) while keeping f/2, this would be perfect for nightscapes.

Looking forward too seeing more on this lens

Meh...too limited of a zoom range to care. Would be more interesting if they made an optically stabalized 14-24!

watt100 wrote in post #16539487
seriously short
might as well just use a wide large aperture prime

Agreed. What are you going to shoot at 17-20mm that you can't shoot at 16mm?

Why not do a 14-24 2.8 instead? It will fill a void on the canon lineup.

If you want a 14-24 use the nikon?

16mm and 20mm are a fair way apart and I can see a use for that zoom range easily.

But then give me a an f2.0 prime that is perfect at either 16 or 20mm and I would be happy..

RobDickinson wrote in post #16549457
16mm and 20mm are a fair way apart and I can see a use for that zoom range easily.

fair way apart? It would be like having a 28-35mm, 40-50mm zoom or a 200-250mm zoom. It's nothing.

tkbslc wrote in post #16549528
fair way apart? It would be like having a 28-35mm, 40-50mm zoom or a 200-250mm zoom. It's nothing.

Try working out the change in the angle of view between 16-20mm and 200-250mm.

Color me interested. A 14-20mm lens would be more desirable, of course, but if this is sharp enough wide open and priced decently, it would certainly find its way into my bag.

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...

Why not get the 18-35 1.8 if you want the longer end @ 30mm?

madasax wrote in post #16557869
Why not get the 18-35 1.8 if you want the longer end @ 30mm?

According to the rumors, the 16-20 would be FF compatible.

Ahhh....I haven't done a lot of research on the 18-35 is it only Crop - I looked into it but i have a crop so i didn't read into FF compatible