UPDATE: Sigma announced an amazing f/2.0 constant aperture Full Frame zoom lens! It’s a 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art Full Frame. But there is a bad news…there will be no A-mount version yet. But as it happened in the past a Sony A-mount and Pentax K-mount version are likely to be announced 6-12 months after the first Canon/Nikon/Sigma mount release.
P.S.: Their 24-105mm FF A-mount lens is still not in Stock yet 🙁
Images via Digicameinfo.
230 Responses
Sigma will not make any more high end lenses for A mount.
Canon then Nikon then Sigma are thier priorities.
Sony has made it abundantly clear that A mount is either dead…probably…or at the very least not to be depended on.
Sigma will not risk its survival on this…they cannot afford to fail with a high end lens.
Sony users can however use Canon or Nikon….soon..mounts on the new a7rii.
Woul’d be cool to have lens like this for my a7II.
get an adapter, this kind of lens wouldn’t be any smaller.
Actually, this type of lens would likely be noticeably smaller if designed for a mirrorless camera. Lenses near the flange distance of the system can be made very very small, look at Sony 16/2.8 and 20/2.8, those lenses can be small because they are very near to the ~17mm flange distance of E mount. For DSLRs, the flange is ~40mm and the lens needs to be designed with a telecentric design, which means larger. This doesn’t mean that a 24-35/2 could be a pancake lens, but it certainly could be smaller than this lens plus the required adapted need to mount it on an E/FE mount body.
It’s not only about the size. Its about 1 lens instead 2-3 primes. Also my A7II doesnt have the same crazy AF as RII and even adapter for 4-500 bucks will provide shittiest AF :/ Native lens bould be solution.
This is a SLR lens design, not mirrorless anyways.
Chances of Sony investing large amount of money and time to bring a lens like this for their mirrorless are very slim. So your best bet is to buy a Sony a7RII and use a Metabones adapter.
Its not for Sony to invest anything. Its sigma lens and Sigma would have to invest. Judging by the costand decrease of DSLR sales and Sonys success with mirrorless, i would think Sigma would see oportunity to make money.
One thing is decrease of sales of DSLRs and another thing is how many DSLRs users are active now (existing customers) and that’s one thing Sony is doing wrong with their customers, they want to get new customers like crazy but doesn’t care too much about existing customers. Meanwhile, Sigma is doing great with their existing customers. Sigma got the sales number and if they haven’t released lenses for Sony FE is because they don’t sense it is okay to develop lenses yet for a single system (because making them for only one fullframe system is very risky compared to 2 Fullframe system (Canon and Nikon)
Nobody is asking them to stop making lenses for Canon and Nikon. Just add Sony to the equation. I would be even ok with doing what Samyang/Rokinon is doing. Building exactly same lens for Sony mirrorless as they do for CaNikon just adding some size to compensate for shorter flange distance (like “built in” adapter). Lens would be bigger but i’d live with that if i have great autofocus as oppose to the one i get with metabones.
Rokinon/Samyang can do what they’re doing because they’re not doing AF lenses, it’s just a cold lens (no electronics for E-mount version). With Sigma, that means replacing their SLR optimized AF motors with stepping AF motors for mirrorless and that goes against their cost-saving measures (HSM for all of their mounts).
It is better to get Sigma do a A-mount variant and get the adapter for it.
EDIT: or buy the really good a7Rii.
Is it really worth carrying these large zooms instead of smaller, more compact primes? The zoom range is so small in this case that it would hardly seem like a good idea to lug around these hunks rof glass for a slight variability in focal length.
Hoping for more Sigma APS-C E-Mount lenses.
what’s the point.. super short range zoom.. it’s more like a cheat just to get f2
Or like a cheat to call it a zoom lens… For a prime f2 is not so unusual 🙂
yah.. may be just get 24mm f1.4 and crop to 35mm if needed. not much difference.
I guess I see a pretty significant difference between 24 and 35 and the types of shots I select at those two focal lengths.
At first I was disappointed with the short zoom range, but then I took the time to actually think about it. If this lens continues Sigma’s performance trend (I suspect it will), I see it replacing my 24mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4. That is quite a big deal. F/2 on full-frame is close enough to f/1.4 that I’m okay with losing a stop of light (especially with today’s FF ISO performance). I tip my hat to you, Sigma!
Yeah, this is really an impressive focal length if they can produce quality. Their 18 – 35/1.8 for APS users was one of the better zoom lenses I’ve ever seen, so perhaps they’ll hit a home run with this new FF zoom.
Next jaw-dropping release from Sigma: 24-28mm
And 34-35mm F1.7 after that. I get the 2x zoom on the 18-35 APSC version, and even that is on the border of zoom usefulness but what is the point in 1.5x zoom range here?
The point is covering key focal lengths (24, 28 and 35mm) in a single lens. But at 940g, its weight is a major disadvantage
And lack of aperture control, faster apertures and expectation of range by said weight, in fact weight has nothing to do with a better f/2 zoom, much like the other comments, it is rather the range it covers at that break even aperture (assuming aesthetic rendering and high quality wide open) and perfectly acceptable widest aperture that matters, because as a zoom it ought to cover a useful range after all.
The 24-105 is still not available after 18 months.. what are the odds of an A-mount version of this lens in 6-12 months?
They need to do this for e-mount… a mount is almost worthless at this point.
just get an adapter. The lens will be gigantic on your e-mount anyways
If I cared about the size of lenses I would have quit photography long ago. An adapter doesn’t have the same AF capabilities on anything less than the a7rii at least not for what I do.
They really need more emount lenses.
And there are plenty of them coming soon, just not this kind of lenses. Look at the size of the 35mm f1.4 or macro 90mm f2.8.
Why do you even reply with this pointless information? I would rather see lenses LIKE THIS ONE, that’s in caps for you to understand better, on emount. I could care less about the size or how many other lenses are coming. Please troll someone else with your boring, worthless, pointless text.
Even the 18-35 1.8 would be nice on emount. There must be some issue in building them that isn’t really known.
No, seriously. I’m not trolling. I’m a Sony A and E mount user myself, but the reality is that Sony can’t do too much to release small lenses and they’re trying very hard to keep them small. So lenses like this (24-35 f2 fullframe) or APS-C (18-35 f1.8) won’t be available in FE or E mount because of the size.
Maybe you don’t care about size, but Sony is trying their best to give the smallest package possible so they can sell their argument of best performance in a featherweight combo.
That is becoming less of an argument. Sony a7Rii is just plain badass and blows away the competition in so many ways. Small lenses are great! But a little later size and weight is okay as well.
Tell that to Sony, not to me. If they really wanted to forget about size, we could have 24-70 f2.8 FE and 70-200 f2.8 FE lenses by now, but do we have those lenses? Nope. They’re still trying to offer small lenses and small bodies
The a7Rii has increased in both size and weight. I believe the fe 70-200 f2.8 (and others) will come in time. This is still a new lens mount system.
When Mr Yamaki was asked why we’re not seeing Sigma lenses for systems like Sony FF mirrorless he answered “we want to increase our lineup for mirrorless cameras, but it’s just a matter of priorities.”
Then when asked about those priorities, he said “DSLRs first, particularly Canon and Nikon, since most of our customers use those systems. And after that mirrorless. Sony FE-mount. “
To summarize: Don’t get your hopes up.
Man, that is so sad. :/ I guess the market is so small.
Yep, I already have the 35 and it is larger than I expected, and the 90 was going to be next in line. The Loxia 35 now looks more appealing to me for travel.
If size is not a problem, why not use a DSLR/ SLT?
If you want better AF ability, you should get a DSLR/SLT, it is still far better than the OSPDAF in mirrorless, especially at less than optimal lighting condition.
Sony really need to do is make a new a-mount body with the new sensor.
Well, it’s all part of the investment problem. Why would I buy a DSLR or DSLT at this point?
1. Sony isn’t bringing much to A-mount only said they plan to keep a mount going. That’s not really enough. If I buy a-mount glass, I want to be sure it’s going to hold up for the future. There is no way to know.
2. Mirrorless is the future, supposedly, and yeah they’re making more glass at an impressive rate but they are just going for the sales. Which makes sense of course business wise.
Well, if mirrorless is the future, why aren’t sigma and tamron making lenses for this? If A mount is so scarce why are they making a mount lenses? I wish I knew, is the media just scaring me out of cameras?
Right now I have a d750 and an a6000. I would love to go buying sony cameras, but I feel like I should just stick with Nikon and invest in a D4/D4s. At least I have all the options for glass.
On the other hand, I absolutely love all the features of Sony and really want to be able to use them… but it’s either invest in Sony or invest in Nikon. Deeper I go into Nikon the more money I lose when switching to Sony. Sony is making these awesome cameras but right now it’s limbo and confusing as a photographer. I guess I should just tough it out with nikon and use the a6000 on the side.
FE mount, please.
just get an adapter
this lens would be made available in A-mount if Sony made it clear that they were fully comitted to it. But since Sony doesn’t care about A-mount, Sigma wouldn’t be releasing it in Sony mount anyways.
Nope. Get it to 50mm and we can talk.
For video, this is perfect because the A7 cameras can do a FF or a 1.5x Crop.
So at 1.5x, this lens gives an FOV of 36-52mm lens.
Therefore this the perfect range for keeping the weight down and the form factor compact.
If future E-mount cameras are able to autofocus with Canon mount lenses almost as fast, then Sigma doesn’t need to make an A-mount variant. Just buy the Metabones adapter to get access to all of them.
“Just”??
Bloody Metabones cost same as a lens itself 🙁 $400+ !!!
24-35????? That’s like want 3 steps? Get the 35/1.4 and a pair of shoes. Also, just get the A7r II and adapt the canon mount version.
Lens correction could become an issue.
Why?
I am pretty sure if this will become mainstream (using Canon/Nikon on Sony FE), Adobe and DxO will add that support much quicker than Sigma add’s A-mount.
If you are thinking about doing corrections in post-processing. You need to memorize what lens and what aperture you used. After a long trip it can be very difficult.
I camera you can buy teh 10€ app (ridiculous to pay extra at that price of the cameras…) on at least all a7 cameras and can correct it in-camera. But lens and aperture would be saved in EXIF anyway, so I don’t get that point at all…
I have that app. And it is a bit cumbersome to use. It is too inconvenient so I think it would stay popular among enthusiasts alone.
There are no adaptor that can pass EXIF data?
Shooting with 35 and moving back gives you a different picture than shooting with 24.
You’d need shoes that make you fly and hands that could smash walls. Zooming with ones feet is hardly always an option even if one wanted to.
You are missing the point. There are going to be very rare situations where this lens proves more useful than have a single 24mm or 35mm lens in your bag. I’m not saying it would NEVER be useful. I am saying for the vast majority of photographers they would get more benefit out of devoting the bag space and $$$ to a sharper, lighter, and lower f/stop prime. If it went to 50 then we are talking. 35 not so much.
If that much sharper — YES, else no.
I do agree that many would rather carry a 24+35mm though. But for my shooting a 24-35mm actually do make sense *IF* that shorter zoom range yields higher sharpness then say a competing 24-50, 24-70 etc.
Sigma is dead …to Sony users.
Blame Sony, Sony doesn’t care too much about A-Mount and now we’re paying the broken plates.
Why on earth would they think a 24-35 would be compelling just because it’s an f/2? As always I’m sure there are applications and users that want it, but would it sell enough to justify the R&D?
With sensors so great at low light the only purpose of the f/2 would be DOF but…then why do that with a wide angle…it’s a weird concept.
24-50 or even 28-50 would have been a much more appealing range, similar to the 18-35 aps-c lens (28-50 equiv).
Not at all, you could have 24mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8, 35 f1.8 all in one lens, and probably it will be much cheaper too.
But that’s my point, this product might be compelling to someone who owns and uses a 24, 28 and 35 or wants to own those 3, but how many of those people are out there?
24-35 is quite handy.
At least one person thinks so, LOL. Canon manufactured a 24-35 F3.5 L lens from 1978 to 1983, it was replaced by the 20-35 F3.5 in 1983.
Well, you are welcome to bring 2-3 lens and keep changing them hoping you wont loose shutter chance. If I have 24 and 35 prime, they will both be in my bag. With 24-35, I only need 1 lens.
I would prefer a 20-35 mm lens, much more versatile for a wide angle zoom.
For landscape, there is a FE 16-35, which is much wider and better corrected. Yet, there are several fixed lens cameras which has shown that focal length between 24-35 is useful enough.
One of the most common zoom lenses is the 24-70 mm F2.8 for full frame cameras, so the 24-35 would be redundant. And as you said the FE 16-35 already exists, making this new Sigma less desirable. And it’s not available for either A or E mounts, so it useless.
Well, is it uncommon to own 24-70/2.8 and 85 prime at the same time? For those 50mm is not badly needed, 24-35+85 is a good combo as well. Also this seems to be an internal zoom lens other than commonly seen external zoom 24-70/2.8 lens.
It’s not that uncommon, a fast 85 mm is a unique lens. I own both.
If I have to pick up 2 primes it will be 35 and 85. But for convenience I have standard zoom and 85, but that’s bought before this 24-35. In the future if I switched system I would seriously consider this lens.
I was planning to get the Zeiss 135 coz I missed that focal length so much~ even I have both the Zeiss 24-70 & 70-200G. Primes are so unique~
Not if those 24-35 offer much better IQ then that 24-70 does at 24-35.
As opposed to a 24-70? I mean you lose the stop but can way more flexibility in range.
As opposed to 24, 28, and 35 prime.
Canon does not have that good sensors ;)…
Ouch! LOL
could be a nice lens for landscape or architecture, if IQ is high enough (witch at least promises the short zoom range). So you can frame a bit without loosing any resolution.
Primes usually have higher IQ. But you will need to carry 3 primes, change lenses in the field, … So, if it’s good and if there will be a cheaper AF adapter than the Metabones (<75€) I will maybe go for Canon mount in the future using it on the a7rII.
I am not sure adapters other than noveflex are capable of taking long shoots without having light leaking in.
Boom — exactly!
As you say the short zoom range could yield better results across that range and 24-35 would, at least for me, be very useful *IF* that lens is better then say a 16-35.
The only reason I can think of for the development of such a lens is for astro landscapes. Which to fair is pretty amazing an astro landscape zoom lens (if coma is well controlled).
Sigma can suck it up. Sony users soon will have 20+ FE lenses. Sigma could have produced some nice FE zooms, but since Sigma is arrogant enough to continue producing lenses for dying out dynasors like Canikon – then they can shove it up their lenses and their Sigma cameras that are a joke.
All we really need is a couple of really high IQ zooms in native FE from Zeiss or Sony G. That’s it. Who will need Sigma then?
Sony users need Sigma badly. Not because we really need Sigma zooms(which would be nice), but because Sony’s lenses are incredibly expensive for what they are(excluding the 55 and 90). Competition from Sigma or Tamron would really help drive Sony’s prices down.
I believe you will see Tamron step up to the plate long before Sigma, Sigma is only interested in the main stream DSLR cameras.
Tamron already does, but their lenses are Sony or Zeiss branded and don’t drive prices down
Yes, but don’t expect Sigma to make the move to EF lenses anytime soon. It’s not their business model.
You mean FE, not EF (=Canon), right ;)?
Correct, typo.
If you mirrored an FE, it is a EF~
I think that the main reason Sigma isn’t making FE lenses is because the designs aren’t useful in any other mount. Sure, you could probably design an FE lens that could work on Fuji X or Canon EF-M(lol), but the lens would be much larger than it needs to be, and thus would be more expensive for Sigma to make, with that expense being passed on to the consumer. The greater price and lower practicality(size) would make an FE lens in an APS-C or MFT mount a hard sell. I think that if Nikon comes out with a FF mirrorless with a similar flange distance that Sigma will probably begin to consider it more.
“Sony users need Sigma badly”… Not anymore. Where is Sigma when we needed?
It has been almost 2 freaking years and NO FE lens is available. Yet, none is even on the drawing board.
It’s not that I don’t like Sigma latest quality line. But, I felt like Sigma has been treating Sony enthusiasts as a third class beggars.
No, I will not buy jack from Sigma anymore. PERIOD.
I’m pretty sure they aren’t making any because its a limited market. With their DSLR lenses, they can make a 50mm 1.4 and the same lens design will be used on the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony A, and Sigma versions, with incredibly limited modification. With FE, There is no other FF mirrorless, making specialized designs much less practical and profitable. I understand why Sigma is hesitant to produce lenses for Sony A as well, it seems like Sony is going all-in with mirrorless. Kinda wish Sigma would pick up the pace with the Pentax mount though, I don’t see Pentax dropping the K-mount any time soon.
“making specialized designs much less practical and profitable”… Timing is everything. I wouldn’t jump into a pool with full of people which get nowhere. A new line of FE lens with basically not much lenses then nor competition. One must thinks quick and decisive gamble to realized the rewards or bust. Sigma has already done aps-c e-mount….so what’s wrong? Yup! They want to play it safe to pickup nickel and dimes when the market is saturated.
The APSC E-mount lenses are an example of my point. You can get the 60mm in E-mount OR MFT; The optical designs are identical. If sales for E-mount weren’t good, they would still get money from MFT, which has a large user base. They could theoretically use the same lens for Fuji cameras; the optical design leaves enough room for the Fuji’s electronics and flange distance. The big reason they don’t make it is the incredibly limited market it would have(as well as the X system being relatively high-end with few mediocre lenses). I agree that Sigma should really decide whether or not to make FE lenses very soon, as others may very well enter the market before them(if they enter it at all, that is). Oh well, at least with the a7RII we will get “good” AF with Canon versions lol.
But Sigma doesn’t do inexpensive new glass anymore.
Well said!
Maybe you don’t know this, but Sigma is a small family run company. They need the money to grow and Canon and Nikon mounts are giving them plenty with a single optical formula. Designing lenses for a single mount (FE) isn’t economically viable YET.
Family run means nothing. Samsung are a family-run company, too, and they could shut down South Korea in the twinkling of an eye. Sigma are smaller, much smaller, than many optical companies, but calling them small, is off, and family run?
But I agree: they need to keep their eye on Canon and Nikon customers. And it’s possible that they know something we don’t.
It’s not only the amount of available lenses that matter. Also price/performance has a great deal of impact. Maybe one don’t need a $1200+ 50mm if i rarely shoot at that FL?
Manufacturers that don’t get directly involved in the E mount technology (lenses, adapter, flashes, rigs,etc) are not looking wisely into the future “Go Zeiss”
Sigma is already selling truckloads of their high end lenses in Canon and Nikon land. Zeiss not so much. So they need Sony to stay relevant in this day and age. Sigma on the other hand don’t need Sony. Sony needs Sigma however to offer some lower priced options.
Sony could get along just fine without Sigma’s help and they have been doing it for years now. Sony makes their own sensor, cameras, lenses and accessories. If Sigma chooses not to make FE lenses it’s their loss and Sony’s gain.
“Truckloads” Hardly, most Canon and Nikon users use OEM lenses and have been for years. Sigma has just recently started manufacturing high end lenses and they are selling, but certainty not by the truck load. Sigma’s biggest problem is the extremely slow manufacturing process required to maintain acceptable quality levels.
Sigma is not the lowpricelens company anymore, none of the glasses of the last 2 years was. Tamron however is another case.
Hard not to agree on Sony needing Sigma. As it is now lenses in the FE-collection has zero competition which isn’t such a great thing.
Better AF-adapters for A7r II might change this though since one then could use a lot of Canon glass.
SonyOwnsTheAlphaRumors: “Don’t wait for better Sigma lenses for less money.
Toooooooo much waiting! Buy Sony lenses for more now!”
If you wait for Sigma you’ll be waiting forever.
just buy sony zeiss used ones
Sigma should just make an adapter for Sigma Mount to E Mount with Autofocus and Exif data. Should be extremely easy for them, as the lens is their own intellectual property and the already know how to make AF lenses for the E Mount system. While they are at it, they could also make an EF to E Mount as well to compete against Metabones.
They should just make a-mount lens, then we can use EA3 & EA4 adapter
So for us who want dedicated PDAF for better AF can choose to use adapter with SLT mirror
The OSPDAF works on EA3 but sady it still suck in low light, it keep hunting & can’t lock focus reliably on static object.
I’m boycotting Sigma since they treat Sony like a second class citizen. Until they change their tune, it’s Zeiss for me.
…And even then… Screw Sigma and Canikon… GO SONY and ZEISS!
Oh Jesse, sometimes I wonder why we think alike~XD
You have no choice but to treat Sigma like a second class since they treat Sony like. You talk like you have a choice 🙂
Don’t even need to bother them at all, after all, they’re like second class citizen in lens category~ And get a Zeiss whenever possible~
The Sigma art lenses are spectacularly good even more so
when you compare prices to Zeiss .Zeiss have some wonderful options they also
have some grossly overpriced very average lenses
Art series are putting those overpriced Zeiss glass to shame though, when did Zeiss ever created an equally fast lens that can AF? the last time I checked the fastest 1.4 lens they have for FE mount is ~2x the price of the equivalent FLR art glass with IQ that’s not even 2x better
This product is ridiculuous. It is twice as heavy as a 24 and a 35mm f2 lens together. And who anyway would need a 1.5x zoom on Full frame? You can always make that crop from a good 24mm shot.
A-mount involves too much uncertainties.
because of Sony. Sony just don’t want to awknowledge that they’re not interested in A-mount except for marketing purposes of their E-mount cameras (like using the overall number of lenses available for E-mount or for every lens missing in the E-mount lineup, there is probably a lens in A-mount available before going for a 3rd party or competitor lens)
Amount is death as for now.
“I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Still waiting for 120-300 F2.8 Sport in a-mount.
I’m in the same boat. That lens is amazing for the price.
I think 2 x primes will be lighter
Please explain to me why 24-35 zoom range? You can zoom with yourself by walking closer with the Sony Zeiss 25mm f2.0 until they make an 24-135 F2.0 sort of awesomeness, I’m not impressed
ever heard of perspective? fov?
Going from 24-35mm doesn’t really make a world of difference. With a high resolution camera you aren’t losing much by shooting with that 25mm prime and cropping to 35 when you want that FOV. A top quality prime will be lighter, and probably sharper and less distorted too.
To me this looks more about bragging rights to claim the first f2.0 full frame zoom, rather than something that has a significant practical benefit to photographers.
In good light it is certainly an option to crop. At events, weddings, the light is often bad, so cropping brings out more noise. Nevertheless, I try not to go below 28mm if possible due to the distortion of people close to the borders.
If you want radical change of FOV, I guess the 16-35 range is much more prominent and have greater difference. This lens seems like want to show off the F2.0 zoom feature
I’m not impressed too.
In my opinion the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC is more impressive.
But Sigma purpose was to make an high quality f/2 zoom lens which could replace a set of 3 primes (24, 28, 35mm). Like they did with the APS-C 18-35 f/1.8 lens.
I’d prefer a 28-50 f/2 or a 35-70 f/2, but if they didn’t make one of them there is a reason… Probably size and bulk.
You should listen to @steMa. You cannot zoom with your feet without changing the perspective and distorting the object/person being photographed. For example, the Zeiss won’t be great for shooting people unless you are a skilled photogapher with very specific creative goals. The 35mm at the long end of this Sigma is much more versatile.
Just tried my Zeiss 24-70 and 24-35 range seems didn’t change the perspective by much unless it is a scenario specific case~
Hahaha, Zeiss won’t be great for shooting people, now that’s what I called a funny statement~ You just won the best joker award there buddy. And Hassy user with native Zeiss lens must be a bad combo for portrait works I guess~ You just made my day bro
Btw, I never need to use unsharp mask for my portrait works since I started using the Zeiss, not even my 70-200G can have that micro contrast~=P Here’s one casual shots without any light modifier~
I obviously didn’t say the brand is bad for shooting people, i’m saying the 24mm focal length is.
There’s no mircocontrast left in your picture because you have post processed it to look like a cartoon.
I am no joker and while you have postprocessed it oddly you have a nice picture. You might be a condecending idiot but good luck to you.
Well, you should say 24mm isn’t good for portrait rather than “For example, the Zeiss won’t be great for shooting people” at the first place~ LOL people might misunderstood what you have in mind~
Hahaha, Well because I have been using Adobe Fireworks for PP and it is meant for web UI, vector prototyping~ Also, movie posters and other commercial photos are PP in a very “cartoon” way all the long and the styles and application varies~=P
Condescending? Well, I’m trying. Idiotic? That’s too rich for me~XD
And good luck to both of us anyways~
To me, it’s more a question of why that zoom range, when most people in the target market will almost certsinly own 24mm and 35mm primes.
I’m not sure why anyone would carry a 24 and 35. You either have a 24/28 & 50 or a 18/21 & 35. The way I look at it this is a prime with perspective control and a bit of framing flexibility (all things being equal) built in.
There are no rules and everyone is different.
I find it so funny how many of you take this. As if the brand of system you use reflects on you personally and you must take revenge upon horrible Sigma for the insult! It’s ridiculous. If any of you made such an argument to a real person in real life you would be laughed out of the room. Sigma are just are business doing what they think is best to maximise their returns.
Well, since E mount is the future, why not metaboned the Canon version~
I’m not sure e-mount is the future. However, go ahead; the Canon version will have a much higher resale value if you get bored of it in the next few years.
Sorry bro, I never sell my lenses or body even I don’t use them anymore. It looks good in my dry cabinet for decoration purposes~=D
You put good wine in a cabinet for that dude. That’s far more likely to impress visotors. And you might want to drink it occasionally too.
That’s right, if you have sold it you can’t enjoy it occasionally~ And why not impress some visitors?
Think of it as a prime with zoom capability. With the camera on a tripod, accurately leveled, it could be quite handy.
Next 35-70 f/2 and 70-100 f/2…
And again… Bye Bye Canon! 😀
speaking of lenses, Admin, are you holding out on us? : ) or have you not yet seen this image:
(it’s from this review: http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/compact-system-cameras/1403428/first-4k-full-frame-camera-hands-on-with-sony-a7r-ii).
Looks to me like a sony branded 35 f1.8, apparently targeted at those who don’t want/like the system’s other two 35 primes..no?
This is the crop lens that is already 3 or 4 years old. It is a nice lens but not quite suitable for Full Frame
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Sony-NEX-5r-product-photos-4-of-10ISO-4001-30-sec.jpg
…which only leaves open the question of why they put a APSC lens on the A7rII…
because you can get 18Mp aps-c area
..because Sony is not Canon and you can use your lenses as you see fit not as Canon thinks they should be used.
I suppose for video in crop mode, it could make sense…
It can shoot videos in Super 35 and stills in APS-C crop mode, so not that unusual to see a crop lens on this new FF camera.
Use same config
You should change your username to “amoron” now….
Oh dear. You should probably do a little research before posting.
..? becoming a scholar of sony apsc lenses you call “research”? I want to tell you just how much I care about this question, but I don’t want to hurt your feelings…
If you could point out what question you’re referring to, given I didn’t pose one, that would be great. Hurt my feelings? Please, give it your best shot.
Ridiculous zoom range))) crop version of 18-35/1.8 is much interesting instead…
And we don’t need A mount version anymore, just use EF adaptor and A7RII with canon version of this lens
Sigma are abandoning A mount. The 150-600 both C and S versions will never make it to A mount. This lens just shows this trend continues
Just use it with new A7RII and canon EF-E adapter
The AF speed has been greatly improved on A7Rii,
however the OSPDAF of mirrorless still not good enough for BIF,
especially lens with adapter is slower & less reliable than native e-mount lens.
Still waiting for the 24-70 f/2. That lens would be a real beast (screw ‘compactness’).
1.5 kg beast=)
So?
Imagine a 24-135 F2.0. The perfect lens for portrait works~=D
Look at 28-135/4 and imagine how bigger that may be, at least 3-4 kg
Hahaha, It will be huge I’m sure but I’m really into big and heavy lens. Btw, the FE28-135 is one sexy lens~=D
Btw, check out this monster 15-150mm F2.8~ Woot Woot~!!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-Rokkor-10VX15-15-150mm-F2-8-C-Mount-TV-Zoom-Lens-M4-3-BMPCC-Cameras/221801577314?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D31233%26meid%3D479942683b2d4003a3a765cdc7989f96%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D3%26sd%3D181662597379
It’s C mount, mean 2/3″or maximum 1″sensor coverage area, and it’s not huge. It has size similar to FF 70-200 2.8 zoom
Aww, too bad… =(
Yep! If you search, you can eve find about 5x F1.5-1.8 zooms for C mount.
Thanks for the info~ Btw, is the old Minolta Rokkor lens compatible with current A mount?
No, rokkor is not, different mount and different flange distance, installation on A cameras is only possible with lens modification. Or on E cameras with MD to E adapter
Oh ok~ Thank you so much for the info there~=D
Yup, that’s why you could choose between a lot of fun zooms if you settle for Nikon 1 or Pentax Q.
Last year I was planning to get the Q but I already have both A and M43 mount to maintain, and was thinking of adding the E mount later on. So I gave up on the Q. But the Q really seems like a fun system to have. Well, maybe one day~
I would like a 20-135mm f/2.8 which is only 15mm extra range from a vintage one I have at f/2.8, and yes i’m serious. 35mm sensor obviously.
We need many vintage remakes.
Yes, and remodel the whole zoom range system to match the newly potentiated extension each way, bring back the real normal length and its coverage, make new ranging fast zooms, don’t focus only on developing super wides that are generally not useful, and make aesthetically rendering lenses, not just sharper. Also make photographic lenses with functionality thus smooth focus and aperture and utilizing the best focal lengths for each purpose as I am indicating by my selections.
So true~ No issue for non-event shooter for the 2 prime combo though~ Unless 2 bodies to hold 2 different focal length~!?
35-70 f2, fair enough. I just can’t see anyone who already owns 24mm and 35mm primes being remotely interested…
If it is as good at same apertures as those and also adds a 28mm for not much more than a new dedicated 28mm at that aperture be it more compact or something, which they don’t have then you are clearly blind to lens selection because its a zoom with AF as well, that’s why they would get it and you said a zoom so you know this and chose to ignore it after just to say nothing about it at all. If you didn’t know, I apologize, 28mm is very useful too. Also, if you didn’t know, Sigma made an 18-35mm 1.8 for APSC that is not just as good but better than most all primes in that range ALL in one lens.
This zoom range makes no sense at all. 24 and 35 is so close? at least 24-50 to be usable IMO
I think one of the oldest “ultra”wide zooms was a 24-35…the range has been abandoned since. Indeed it isn’t very useful.
Would have been suitable with the 35-70 lenses also available. 70-200? forget anything remotely normal focal length and 24-70? forget anything more interesting than 70 if you choose to switch ends between shots for dynamic reasons…I think the new INSISTENT combo of FIRST just TWO zoom lenses is heavy and would be better broken around normal each side and with further extension each way out, using new lens design but retaining aesthetic rendering and not just sharp with high ca. You can then add ranging zooms which CROSS the normal focal lengths so you can choose ideal settings by live comparison WITHOUT switching lenses by having such a lens with you for THAT purpose, normal length being the most useful of course, most of the time. These could be 20-105mm f/2.8 or at the very least 24-135mm f/2.8, its the absurdity of having to have a separate zoom lens for anything wider than 24mm as a third necessary option and you cross over even this point to a dead end with any other available wide to normal angle zoom at something like 35mm and cant match up with just one more zoom lens, (which could be say 35-135mm or even 35-200mm) or have to go as wide as 12mm in other direction to get a good range to make it worth it, which is incredibly specialized! You thus have to have 3 of the most expensive and heavy lenses and still NONE will cross the normal length optimizing quality and cost and weight thus, and no one lens will go to both extensions at a good aperture so now you MUST buy and carry primes each side and justify the zooms expense by negating better focal length choices… because zooms aren’t bad quality wise, its a general misconception, they are simply more expensive and heavy…
This is a lens to avoid having to change primes in the middle of a photoshoot or event. Some people buy a 24/1.4, 28/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 but changing lenses could mean missing a certain moment or making the client wait a few seconds. And since people close the aperture of their lenses around f1.8-f2 anyways, this lens is a good compromise.
If the lens is as good as the 18-35, then this will be a great option for some people.
Again, some people, not everyone.
‘Some people’ a bit vague, shouldn’t a great lens be suitable for a lot of people or even most people? An f/2 is ideal, If as I qualified above, it doesn’t become a robot for sharpness over all and aberrations to match and bad rendering, what in your opinion would be a commonly useful range for an f/2 lens? again without being vague. I’m not sure the ‘since people close the aperture of their lenses around f1.8-f2’ means anything useful. Relative to this lens that would be stopped down further than f/2 making it like the common f/2.8 which would actually be a totally fair criticism of it. Hence I demand great look wide open like primes and rendering without over corrected aesthetic AT that f/2 which is actually along with f/1.8 the widest aperture of my favourite primes anyway. ‘Its bulky and has no aperture or weather sealing, and doesn’t cover the wider or normal ends, why don’t i just get the 24mm 1.4 as a size and cost compromise to go with my great mini primes at f1.8/2’ that’s my personal general response to this lens.
A 400mm F2.8 is a great lens but not suitable for a lot of people. The same goes for some specialty lens like the fisheye 8-15mm F4 zoom from Canon. Or a Minolta 200mm F4 G Macro.
And as I said, those “some people” are those who don’t want to carry three primes, or to switch lenses in the middle of a shoot (asuming the photographer doesn’t have another camera, has the second camera with another lens, or it is simply difficult to change lenses due to the environment conditions or situation around the photog).
Perhaps this lens isn’t for you, but the good thing is that since you’re not those “some people” who will buy this lens, you can pick up other options. Having options is really nice.
400mm 2.8 isnt a zoom and isnt even an example of a speciality lens, its just very expensive and heavy. People who don’t want to carry three primes and are serious about photography want the prime like quality from a fast short range zoom as I said, therefore a universal qualification you now agree with. It is to go with other zooms in a system therefore it DOES matter where it lies in ranges for THIS reason, as it is, 35mm is dead end, I don’t know why you find that difficult to understand as a basic qualification of useful zoom ranges either. The conditions of use are important too, and this won’t be weather sealed so some may be forced to go for slower zoom for that and lose the f/2 as they would have wanted it, THE differentiator of this apart from obviously compromised range which makes us consider it thus a prime set at all: ONLY with quality to match and from wide open else ALL great quality zooms can match some primes thus as there really is no compromise in zooms but cost and possibly weight, as I said and reiterate from a video with a Zeiss lens engineer speaking. I want this to be my option as its the closest yet FOR The reasons above AND there being NO good zooms at all otherwise. Hope springs eternal, unless you are a nihilist or burdened by them.
Oh my… was I required to tell you about specialty lenses? I was just giving you example of lenses that are made just for “some” people. That’s why I mentioned the fisheye zoom or the telephoto macro. All those lenses not made to please the crowd but to offer another option to some people.
Do you have a Sigma 1.4 prime? If not why not, if its bulk and you don’t want one, you’ve answered the real question and proven your real purpose, not photographic.
Ok, too long, didn’t read all. But I can tell you. You’re not the most significant person in this planet and everyone has their opinions. Maybe you don’t see this lens desirable, but some people will buy this for sure. AGAIN, some people.
LOOK at the best photos online that you can verify as 35mm sensor camera or at least the equiv focal lengths so you dont get confused and discern which are most useful from that photographically and which are born of limitations of context like obstacles and to what degree even acceptable for a shot to be worth taking, or don’t and stop talking about photography as if you are a marketer or something. I have and I also worked out the basic principles, its unlikely even the lens makers understand, its a shame you are a let down with this pertinent information readily at your disposal, or worth ANYTHING AT ALL not politically self assured. Regards most significant person on the planet, for what? photography? my wish list for the next Sony cam was dead on and you argued then all pointlessly, as if i was for deterministic reasons false. Chances are I am the most significant person on this matter at this time for the purposes and am saying anything and working anything as before, for my favoured camera system to be completed at some point.
Something beyond your understanding, in future the sensors will be so great and response to lenses so great that cropping will mitigate all but fractional differences in focal length on what will surely become endlessly croppable primes, no? even then it will require a widest angle point…will you argue its all choice then also? or will it be some people want to shoot holographically some want to shoot analog print out? implied absurdity intended. Holographical will be superior for information represented obviously. End of debate. You don’t have a camera so why argue at all. Medium format solves ALL these problems. In another few years you will see how wrong you are again.
Consider this simply, if you don’t care about important things like direct aperture control and compact size of lens with camera at any time, and this lens turns out to render and image better than all the primes in the same range you considered and cost less, you get it instead, now on from this, if you don’t realize its actually worse for subtle issues like rendering quality, you should not just have an uninformed opinion about it but could potentially consider why primes would still be better or that an even better zoom of this sort the only one worth it instead of say a 2.8 with useful range and better quality. That’s basically your entire own opinion idea debunked. Opinions could be uninformed or proven false.
so, following your logic, a 200-400mm f4 is less desirable than a 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 because it has less range or than a 300mm f2.8 because it is prone to perform worse?
Look, people will get this lens like it or not. You don’t desire this lens even without seeing reviews or price or comparisons. I get it. No need for lenghty comments that I’m not going to read completely.
qualifications=lens tests upcoming
desire=literally choose this lens with whatever finite funds I have in future before all my other selections and most likely before any other zoom even really cool ones with aperture etc. Do something useful like teach in school politics to people with opinions without basis like you formulated only for disparity.
compromise=not wider than 24mm zoom and not even close to normal either in my first and only modern zoom for some period, and no weather sealing for instance, let alone no direct aperture control, one of worst factors.
I just wanted to tell people that there is place for lenses like this one. But you went too far. Have a nice day.
What is that place, and for you? if you don’t even know don’t just assume that.
What is that place? people who wants a fullframe lens that covers 24, 28 and 35mm with a fast f2 aperture (f2.8 for some isn’t fast enough) but don’t want to switch between primes because of the environment or circumstances in the middle of the shooting. People that need maximum light available and that don’t want to buy the 18-35 f1.8 because it is not a fullframe lens. Have a good day.
Low light, no switching at all.
Interesting marketing in their press release. “For the person who doesn’t want to carry around a 24, 28 and 35 prime, they can now carry one lens” They left out the word “monster” in front of lens. While no price on their website, it did have technical data. 82mm filter and weighs 940b/33.2oz. A fat, over 2 lb lens (before adapter) obliterates any walk around value expected in that focal length range. Thanks, but I will use primes with a 28 splitting the difference if just want one lens.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a?link=jun-m-24-35
It’s about as heavy as my 70-210/3.5, I think its weight is acceptable although not being able to go as wide as 21 greatly hampers its usefulness.
This lens isn’t for you. This lens is mainly made for DSLR folks who don’t care about size or weight.
Impressive technology BUT: this thing will be crazy pricey and it is relatively slow in comparison to prime lenses. I don´t doubt that for a lot of folks this lens might be a dream come true but I don´t know why I should buy it. I have a 24mm and a 35mm. Why would I mount a big, heavy, slow(ish) zoom on my camera when I can have small primes? Changing lenses is not a problem – who switches between 24 and 35mm that often? Well, that´s just me, I guess. All the others, pls enjoy that lens – it´s cool that Sigma pushes the envelope.
We need a 50-135mm APSC F2.
Obviously it’s not for you Charles. It’s for folks who don’t have time to change lenses like event photogs or videographers that want a variable prime with that reach which is a nice one if you are hand-holding video.
For weddings a 28-70 f2.0 would be more usefull… even if more than 1kg… for not being 24mm the size would be smaller (probably) than a 24-50 f2.0… (they have made really sharp corners on this lens and I think that is unfortunate, as most people would prefer longer range with less sharp corners).
We need a 50-135mm APSC F2 for weddings.
That would be so heavy and unweildy.
I can handle it. Drop it like it’s hot is what I say.
Don’t drop a f/1.3 zoom in a unique range, it will be expensive to replace…and cost more than a 35mm sensor camera
BS. Just slap focal reducer (Speed Booster) on 70-200/2.8, and it’s done
Nobody says 70-200/2.8 too heavy and unwieldy?
No you need to instead devote that weight to moving up to full frame so you can have the high ISO performance that all APS-C’s can’t match.
I have the FF. I want the APSC equivalent as well. More options please!
Qualifications please. Is that so you can shoot from a safe distance before giving them the results? Or do you mean a lens equiv to that on 35mm sensor camera of 34-90mm, an f1.3 even?
It’s that APSC users can have a 70-200 2.8 equivelant designed for APSC. I believe Fuji is the only one that has done something along these lines…not that fast though.
yes, but the random numbers, its like ‘Lost’ or something :I just press the button…
Actually a 19-28 would be much more useful…
Why so? because no modern zooms start at 35mm and instead at 24mm and 28mm?
If so have you also noticed that the APSC range equiv for 24-70mm is a neat 36-105mm range? sadly lacking on 35mm sensor cameras, and I have even got a vintage lens with even longer range than that on 35mm sensor and at f/2.8
Because 19 is a decent ultrawide(21 is a little bordering and I wouldn’t call 24 ultrawide) and 28 is still street range as is 35.
I would never consider shooting a lens like this on APS-C, a total waste…
For what purpose do you want a fast/the fastest zoom to be ultrawide where deep focus might even be suitable? Seems like you not only want it at shorter range still but also more specialized in use…Tamron 15-30mm all but has that covered at 2.8 already too, with 6mm more overall and a lot wider too if what you want from this is an ultrawide zoom
14-24 is even better
No that would be something different…It would be too wide for street(some can handle it but still), and 24/2 wouldn’t leave much bokeh at the usual distance of usage, kinda beats the point of this lens, not to mention it would be much bigger, heavier and more expensive altogether, I’m guessing 1.5-1.8kg with at least 4 stops of falloff wide open, and over 2kg if they want falloff to be more reasonable, like 3 stops, and over $3.5k?
and this is coming in a FE mount or Canon?
This was my thought too. Or 35-70 which was a popular focal range.
Anyone have sensible qualifications for what would make this lens in their opinion go from a bad choice to an essential choice of zoom for them?
Did you read how much it weighs?
To heavy, f.2,0 is not good enough when it comes to such a small zoom range. I rather use a 24, and a 35 mm f.1,4. Lighter, smaller , and better aperture