Sigma Announces new Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art

PineBomb wrote in post #17602898
Yeah, it's intended for someone who's sick of swapping 24 and 35 primes, but that WEIGHT. I'll drag around a 24-70 or 70-200 at that load, but I don't know about this one.

Swapping 24 & 35? I don't think I've ever left the house carrying both of them. One or the other. 24 & 50 maybe. 35 & zoom. Pretty sure I've never swapped 24 & 35.

Talley wrote in post #17602928
well... i own the 15-30 which is only 2.8. Kinda redundant to own this 24-35 F2.

Although I really liked the 35 I love my 24. But they are 1.4.

I got a chance to shoot the Tammy 15-30 last week. It was on a Nikon body, but I thought a lot of that lens. Low distortion & vignetting at 2.8, and w/VC. But large and heavy for such a limited range zoom. I'd be happier with my Rok 14 on camera and 28 1.8 in the bag. Which is exactly what I thought of the 15-30; it is like two separate lenses that I seldom need together. Kind of like the Σ24-35. Both of them are large, heavy, slow and self-redundant. I don't see big market appeal of either.

Take my opining with a grain of salt. I didn't think Canon would ever do a 7D2, either.

BlazingSkies wrote in post #17602930
Ugh I'm so frustrated Sigma wanted to release this.
Right now I have the
CANON 24MM 1.4L (Version 1, lacks sharpness at 1.4, mostly use at F2 but still lacking for me somehow)
SIGMA 35MM 1.4L

I would get this lens so I wouldn't have to switch so much since I use 35 more and hate switching to 24 for a bit and then back to 35. Should I sell these lenses before this comes out? It's such a hassle to resell these lenses since there's so much in the used market.

How much for the Sigma 35 1.4L? That could be a great collectors item

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17602942
I want to like this lens but the market for it seems very small - if it had IS and weighed 30% less then maybe.

Then it would be the Tamron 15-30 VC. Another lens that is never going to be hugely popular. Both of them are too limited range, too heavy, too large, too slow.

Choderboy wrote in post #17602955
How much for the Sigma 35 1.4L? That could be a great collectors item

Good catch. I read right over it.

Well, I DO use both 24mm, 28mm and 35mm on the 17-40 a lot, probably my most used focal lengths and I love my Sigma 30 art.
I'd have to wait for the reviews to come in. I like big apertures better than IS so it might be just the thing for me.

The other route would be to get the 24mm and 35mm IS from Canon. Those sound pretty sweet too...

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17602954
Swapping 24 & 35? I don't think I've ever left the house carrying both of them. One or the other. 24 & 50 maybe. 35 & zoom. Pretty sure I've never swapped 24 & 35..

I suppose it depends on how you use them. Swapping or having to choose one over the other before you bust out the door are not unrelated problems. But to me the distinction between 24 and 35 is not arbitrary, and I dislike having to choose relative to the longer lenses I may be carrying. It's why I reject the notion of a lens trinity.

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17602966
Well, I DO use both 24mm, 28mm and 35mm on the 17-40 a lot, probably my most used focal lengths and I love my Sigma 30 art.
I'd have to wait for the reviews to come in. I like big apertures better than IS so it might be just the thing for me.

The other route would be to get the 24mm and 35mm IS from Canon. Those sound pretty sweet too...

This kind of begs the questions. If you like big apertures, why are you shooting a 17-40? The Sigma 24-35 weighs nearly twice what the 17-40 weighs, uses larger filters, and is a stop slower than primes you could get in this range. What is it about this lens that appeals to you?

I think you'd be better served by the 24A and 35IS. Or 24A and 35A. That gets you those big apertures.

PineBomb wrote in post #17602973
I suppose it depends on how you use them. Swapping or having to choose one over the other before you bust out the door are not unrelated problems. But to me the distinction between 24 and 35 is not arbitrary, and I dislike having to choose relative to the longer lenses I may be carrying. It's why I reject the notion of a lens trinity.

Certainly. I also don't think I've ever left the house with more than two lenses. Well, unless you count my P&S. But, I'd rather miss shots I wasn't prepared for than carry a truck load of gear. Some folks prefer to carry more stuff. Everyone has preferences. If we all agreed about everything, POTN would be page after page of: "+1".

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17602954
Swapping 24 & 35? I don't think I've ever left the house carrying both of them. One or the other. 24 & 50 maybe. 35 & zoom. Pretty sure I've never swapped 24 & 35.

I got a chance to shoot the Tammy 15-30 last week. It was on a Nikon body, but I thought a lot of that lens. Low distortion & vignetting at 2.8, and w/VC. But large and heavy for such a limited range zoom. I'd be happier with my Rok 14 on camera and 28 1.8 in the bag. Which is exactly what I thought of the 15-30; it is like two separate lenses that I seldom need together. Kind of like the Σ24-35. Both of them are large, heavy, slow and self-redundant. I don't see big market appeal of either.

Take my opining with a grain of salt. I didn't think Canon would ever do a 7D2, either.

I had the Rok 14. I sold it for the 15-30. I lost a bit on the wide but gained AF and picked up zoom and a ton of weight. It's a heavy lens but works pretty good. AF is kinda iffy in low light so I'm still trying that out.

I still prefer my 1.4 glass over anything. Currently my 1.4 holy trinity is the 24/50/85. I think the 24 1.4 art could easily be replaced by the 24-35 but would lose the 1.4 also.... but gain 35 which was a very popular focal length for me before.

I normally try to justify a lens purchase but this is one lens I do have a problem trying to justify. I just love my 24 @ 1.4

I guess 24-50 would have been a much better range for this lens, and then it would have fallen nicely into the same range on FF as the 18-35 covers for crop. A wide to normal zoom in the same aperture range as most mid level primes would have been welcomed by many I am sure.

Alan

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17602976
This kind of begs the questions. If you like big apertures, why are you shooting a 17-40? The Sigma 24-35 weighs nearly twice what the 17-40 weighs, uses larger filters, and is a stop slower than primes you could get in this range. What is it about this lens that appeals to you?

I think you'd be better served by the 24A and 35IS. Or 24A and 35A. That gets you those big apertures.

Thats a good point. I love 1.4. For me F2 is slow. I do struggle w/ moving to the 2.8 alot because it's just so slow compared to 1.4. I just picked up another 85 sigma 1.4 and now I'm not using the 70-200 as much.... again....

too much options these days and too much good glass going around makes it hard for people like me who love gear.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17603009
I guess 24-50 would have been a much better range for this lens, and then it would have fallen nicely into the same range on FF as the 18-35 covers for crop.

Sure, but what would the added range on an f/2 zoom do to the cost and size?

I think this is a stroke of genius by Sigma! You'll have the popular 24mm, 28mm, & 35mm focal lengths all at f/2.0 in one package, no extremes that you rarely use and because it is only about a 1.5x zoom then the optical quality should be superb. Get the price right as well and Sigma have a winner.

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17603052
I think this is a stroke of genius by Sigma! You'll have the popular 24mm, 28mm, & 35mm focal lengths all at f/2.0 in one package, no extremes that you rarely use and because it is only about a 1.5x zoom then the optical quality should be superb. Get the price right as well and Sigma have a winner.

While you are right about the popular FL for primes, I doubt if anyone carries all 3. Even 2 (24, 35) might be an extravagance for some...

BlazingSkies wrote in post #17602930
Ugh I'm so frustrated Sigma wanted to release this.
Right now I have the
CANON 24MM 1.4L (Version 1, lacks sharpness at 1.4, mostly use at F2 but still lacking for me somehow)
SIGMA 35MM 1.4L

I would get this lens so I wouldn't have to switch so much since I use 35 more and hate switching to 24 for a bit and then back to 35. Should I sell these lenses before this comes out? It's such a hassle to resell these lenses since there's so much in the used market.

uh, it's exactly what you want....... sell off your stuff and be done with it.

it's an odd focal range, I mean, how many people are swapping out 24mm and 35mm primes? I'de say the swap from 50 to 85 is even more relavent, and even then, not a very common one.

28-50, 35-70, 50-90 would even make more sense.