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

My immediate reaction to this announcement was the thought that Sigma needs to stop playing with my emotions and get to releasing a 24-70 2.8 Art.

Easy answer - money!

In the same price range, I would probably be looking at a 35 IS and 24 IS, at F/2 and F/2.8, respectively. I'm assuming that the 24-35 would be priced at 850 euros, which was a rumor that was going on online. If it is much more expensive it is no longer an option for me.

The appeal is that most of my use in the 17-40 is the 24-35 range. Walking around, I usually use the 24, 28 or 35mm settings but the 17-40 isn't a stellar lens.

I do love primes, so I might as easily go with a good 24mm and 35mm. We'll see!

DoughnutPhoto wrote in post #17603103
Easy answer - money!

In the same price range, I would probably be looking at a 35 IS and 24 IS, at F/2 and F/2.8, respectively. I'm assuming that the 24-35 would be priced at 850 euros, which was a rumor that was going on online. If it is much more expensive it is no longer an option for me.

You can already consider that it is not an option for you >> it's a f/2 zoom lens ... >> f/2 at 850 USD not even in a dream

MakisM1 wrote in post #17603068
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...

Nobody would need to carry all three now eh?

Talley wrote in post #17603011
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.

I am somewhat of a gear-whore, also. Lately, I've been limited by finances. It 'pays' to be broke!

MakisM1 wrote in post #17603068
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...

I have a 28 1.8 (primarily because I can't afford a 24 1.4 right now) and a 35 IS. They are my heaviest use lenses. But, like I said above, I have never carried both at the same time.

PineBomb wrote in post #17603076
My immediate reaction to this announcement was the thought that Sigma needs to stop playing with my emotions and get to releasing a 24-70 2.8 Art.

\

Too much competition in that range. I vote for 85A.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17603112
You can already consider that it is not an option for you >> it's a f/2 zoom lens ... >> f/2 at 850 USD not even in a dream

Which is exactly why I peg the price of this beast at $1500+. It will drop when it doesn't sell. That will take the 24A and 35A lower, also. We all win!

I remember the days when lenses were expenses (to my finances as a graduate student anyway...). It was the Vivitar 28 f2.8, the Canon 50 f1.4 and a no-name 135 f2.8.

Before anybody asks, I carried all three.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17603112
You can already consider that it is not an option for you >> it's a f/2 zoom lens ... >> f/2 at 850 USD not even in a dream

Hell if they can sell an f1.8 zoom lens for $799, I don't think it's that far off...I'd be surprised if it were over $1,000

Although this lens doesn't appeal to me, I just think it's cool they've come up with an f2 zoom

DreDaze wrote in post #17603283
Hell if they can sell an f1.8 zoom lens for $799, I don't think it's that far off...I'd be surprised if it were over $1,000

Although this lens doesn't appeal to me, I just think it's cool they've come up with an f2 zoom

Be surprised, because we are speaking about an f/2 zoom for FULL FRAME not a dedicated to APS-C like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art as you make reference

MakisM1 wrote in post #17603274
I remember the days when lenses were expenses (to my finances as a graduate student anyway...). It was the Vivitar 28 f2.8, the Canon 50 f1.4 and a no-name 135 f2.8.

Before anybody asks, I carried all three.

We have already established that we are similarly aged. Back when I shot film regularly, I had a multi-coated Yashica 28 2.8, a Yashica 50 MLc, and a Yashica 135 2.8 MLc. All excellent lenses.

Vivitar lenses were made by other companies. Some were better than others. I had a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5, and a Vivitar Series 1 28-105, both made by Tokina. Loved them both. That 28-105 holds the distinction of being the only lens I've ever owned that developed internal mold. Glass was certainly cheaper then.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17603316
Be surprised, because we are speaking about an f/2 zoom for FULL FRAME not a dedicated to APS-C like the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art as you make reference

yes, but we're also talking about sigma, and not canon...they're prices are a bit more realistic...the only lenses they've released that are over $1,000 have been the Sport lenses...so i'm going to remain optimistic

DreDaze wrote in post #17603369
yes, but we're also talking about sigma, and not canon...they're prices are a bit more realistic...the only lenses they've released that are over $1,000 have been the Sport lenses...so i'm going to remain optimistic

Yes, OK, i can understand your point of view

I would think it would be a Perfect reception lens for a wedding photographer. Table shots, dance floor and a fast 85 and you are set.

http://sigma-rumors.com …rt-price-rumor-849-euros/

I don't think it'll start out at 850. But keep in mind that the zoom range is very small - it's not like its a 24-70 f/2 or anything like that.

umphotography wrote in post #17603422
I would think it would be a Perfect reception lens for a wedding photographer. Table shots, dance floor and a fast 85 and you are set.

Exactly! And for party-photographers as well.

But I still think that is a pretty small group of photographers. But I am always happy with new lens releases.
I wished it was a 20-35/2.0 then it would be much more interesting for me. I really hope Sigma or Canon is releasing a faster 20/2.0 prime anytime soon.

GoForBroke wrote in post #17602893
Looks interesting for a street lens. Look forward to real world samples.

No way I would use it as street lens! 940g and 12cm long, that lens attracts attention more than me walking around naked. And at 940g this is to heavy for a walkaround. I see this lens in hands of working pros like wedding or similar. 24-35 on one body for wide shots/portratis with included background and 70-200 on another body for portraits. F/2 is great for low light.

If it were 20-35mm much more people would be interested. Anyway, I'm happy we get more and more lenses to choose from, it's really great time to be a photographer.

Personally, I still plan to get Canon 35 IS and Sigma 24/1,4 combo some time this or next year.