Sigma to announce a new 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art full frame lens

[dniwkh]

So what is the adv of using the zoom vs shooting at f1.4 and cropping it? I don't expect the zoom to be lighter or sharper than the 24mm (Center region)

I have both sigma 24mm 35mm f1.4 primes. I use the 24mm so much more often as I find it easier to just crop to get 35mm fov vs swapping lens.

 

[Dfive]

So what is the adv of using the zoom vs shooting at f1.4 and cropping it? I don't expect the zoom to be lighter or sharper than the 24mm (Center region)

I have both sigma 24mm 35mm f1.4 primes. I use the 24mm so much more often as I find it easier to just crop to get 35mm fov vs swapping lens.

Whats the weight of both these primes?, how much space they take up?, and will you swap these lenses in a dusty street scene?, or near a flowing river that gives off a damp mist ?

Frankly if you think you can always walk forward or back your also dreaming.... Landscapes could be too dangerous u may fall off or there is some bushes are in your way you have only One perfect spot to capture it from, Street Scenes will you may have tight alleyways or fast moving motor bikes you can't move, Wedding shoots Ohhh damn all those tables or people dancing are in the way.

Cropping is not the only solution.

 

[Kit]

So what is the adv of using the zoom vs shooting at f1.4 and cropping it? I don't expect the zoom to be lighter or sharper than the 24mm (Center region)

I have both sigma 24mm 35mm f1.4 primes. I use the 24mm so much more often as I find it easier to just crop to get 35mm fov vs swapping lens.

I don't see the need for anyone to justify this lens to you. Vice versa, you don't need to justify your decision to use primes to us.

 

[dniwkh]

Whats the weight of both these primes?, how much space they take up?, and will you swap these lenses in a dusty street scene?, or near a flowing river that gives off a damp mist ?

Frankly if you think you can always walk forward or back your also dreaming.... Landscapes could be too dangerous u may fall off or there is some bushes are in your way you have only One perfect spot to capture it from, Street Scenes will you may have tight alleyways or fast moving motor bikes you can't move, Wedding shoots Ohhh damn all those tables or people dancing are in the way.

Cropping is not the only solution.

obviously you have not understood my comments.

I am not saying to replace the 20-35mm zoom with two primes, 24mm and 35mm. I am saying to replace the zoom with just the 24mm f1.4.

I never said anything about walking... that will change the FOV and resulting in a different picture.

My comments are based on my experience of using both the 24mm and 35mm. After a while, I just used the 24mm more and more often as I find that the 24mm can give exactly the same effect as a 35mm f2 lens after cropping.

 

[dniwkh]

I don't see the need for anyone to justify this lens to you. Vice versa, you don't need to justify your decision to use primes to us.

equipment discussion is discussion about pros/cons of lens/cameras so that people can make more informed buying decisions.

Else discussing how beautiful the lens is meh?

If you like to buy the zoom for no reason, then you are different from me....

 

[daredevil123]

So what is the adv of using the zoom vs shooting at f1.4 and cropping it? I don't expect the zoom to be lighter or sharper than the 24mm (Center region)

I have both sigma 24mm 35mm f1.4 primes. I use the 24mm so much more often as I find it easier to just crop to get 35mm fov vs swapping lens.

Perspective is very different, especially at the wide end. The way many see the picture will be different, approach the shot differently as well. You just cannot crop and get the same perspective at the wider end than at telephoto focal lengths.

I have both 24 and 35mm. And the 24 stayed in the dry cab most of the time. Different people shoot differently. What you find no point for, others may have tremendous uses for. The world does not revolve around you.

 

[dniwkh]

lets keep it non personal.

the point i am trying to make is the 24mm f1.4 shooting in apsc mode functions like a 35mm f2 lens in terms of perspective, fov, snr and dof.

is that true? it is just a technical discussion and this is not subjective and there is a yes and no answer. if u disagree with the above statement, i can google up some supporting evidence.

frankly, the only adv i can think of for using a 35mm f2 are just resolution and the inconvenience of shooting at f1.4 in bright daylight.

in return, u gain the ability to shoot at f1.4 at the 24mm end which is one full stop adv.

choosing which lens is personal and i am not asking u to buy the 24mm.

i was hoping to make the pros and cons clear so we can make informed buying decisions

 

[enenyi]

lets keep it non personal.

the point i am trying to make is the 24mm f1.4 shooting in apsc mode functions like a 35mm f2 lens in terms of perspective, fov, snr and dof.

is that true? it is just a technical discussion and this is not subjective and there is a yes and no answer. if u disagree with the above statement, i can google up some supporting evidence.

frankly, the only adv i can think of for using a 35mm f2 are just resolution and the inconvenience of shooting at f1.4 in bright daylight.

in return, u gain the ability to shoot at f1.4 at the 24mm end which is one full stop adv.

choosing which lens is personal and i am not asking u to buy the 24mm.

i was hoping to make the pros and cons clear so we can make informed buying decisions

I think this is a wrong approach towards cropping in photography. Cropping is there to enhance the final image (e.g. adjust subject to thirds line), it is a means to an end, not an end itself. So based on your logic, I own a Sigma 12-24mm version 2 lens. To get my intended subject at 200mm focal length, I should shoot my image at 12mm focal length and crop the image afterwards to 200mm equivalent focal length to get my subject? Or if resolution is limiting, I use a Canon 5Ds 50MP camera and crop it to 5MP? Then wads the difference between shooting with a DSLR with the intention of cropping versus shooting with an iPhone6 that is digitally zoomed in, all settings matching the DSLR? That is the point others r trying to tell u. Dont think that 24mm cropped to 35mm is the same as moving your body closer to get that 35mm shot. Yes, technically they are supposed to be identical, but have u tried it out? Taken a 35mm lens and compared to a 24mm cropped?

My 2 cents worth of opinion.

 

[swifty]

I think people may have misinterpreted what dniwkh is saying.
I think all it was is a comparison of the merits of shooting with a small range zoom vs a limited crop with a faster prime. Let's not take things to the extremes and take a look at the lens of interest.
The zoom range of 1.5X roughly corresponds with an APS-C crop from FF.
So on the one hand, one can shoot with a 24/1.4 prime and enjoy the benefits of f1.4 at 24mm but have to settle with less resolution when using an APS-C crop (whether in-camera or in post). But using equivalence theory, you'd roughly end up with similar framing and DOF as a 35mm f2 lens after cropping (but with less resolution). There's also the philosophy that you can see subjects entering the frame if you shoot wider but with the intention of using a tighter crop in the final image. Rangefinders do this with the various frame lines but of course the lens used actually corresponds to those frame lines and there's no cropping at all.
On the other hand, the zoom afford you to shoot at full resolution in the entire (albeit limited) zoom range.
The relative image quality of each scenario is harder to predict and we'll need to look at the actual lens in comparison but certainly using the crop option you are loosing a fair bit of resolution although with the large initial MP count of some of today's modern DSRLs you're still left with plenty.
Are there more compromises in making a 24/1.4 prime vs a 24-35/2 zoom? Don't know yet. We'll have to wait and see.

I don't know if they've announced the price yet, but the zoom is likely to be cheaper than the exotic 24/1.4 primes but of course Sigma have their own 24/1.4 Art that is priced quite favourably compared to their first party counterparts.

So each will have their benefits. I'm certainly glad Sigma's pushing the boundaries of lens design. Had this been a 21-35/f2 I think Sigma would've knocked it out of the park but with the current design already sporting an 82mm filter, it might be too much to ask of Sigma.

 

[dniwkh]

thanks swifty

If you look at it objectively, there is a reason why there isn't any 1.5X zoom lens around. Mainly because 1.5x zoom can be easily achieved by cropping. (not moving forward or back...)

I still think Sigma made a mistake focusing resources on making such a lens. People who want zoom will get the 24-70mm f2.8. The people looking for wider aperture which sigma is supposed to target will just go for the 24mm f1.4 as the added stop at 24mm is huge in my opinon

Sigma should be doing what it does best which is making popular lens with a better performance and lower price Still waiting for the 85mm f1.4 Art

 

[swifty]

Mainly because 1.5x zoom can be easily achieved by cropping. (not moving forward or back...)

Yea I think there were some confusion as we're not talking zooming with your feet. We're talking photographing in the same position but zooming optically vs digitally.

I still think Sigma made a mistake focusing resources on making such a lens.

Probably wouldn't say it's a mistake. Since many will prefer the optical zoom and shooting at full resolution across the board. I'm still at 12MP (with no plans to go any higher) so digital cropping won't be very attractive to me.
Furthermore, 35mm is a very popular focal length and you can't crop backwards. So if you like a fast 35mm but occasionally like to go wider you'd want full resolution at your preferred focal length which is 35mm. In this scenario the zoom lens would definitely be more attractive.

 

[daredevil123]

lets keep it non personal.

the point i am trying to make is the 24mm f1.4 shooting in apsc mode functions like a 35mm f2 lens in terms of perspective, fov, snr and dof.

is that true? it is just a technical discussion and this is not subjective and there is a yes and no answer. if u disagree with the above statement, i can google up some supporting evidence.

frankly, the only adv i can think of for using a 35mm f2 are just resolution and the inconvenience of shooting at f1.4 in bright daylight.

in return, u gain the ability to shoot at f1.4 at the 24mm end which is one full stop adv.

choosing which lens is personal and i am not asking u to buy the 24mm.

i was hoping to make the pros and cons clear so we can make informed buying decisions

You made it personal when you say you do not get why sigma would release such a lens...

Different people have different preferences, if you feel 24/1.4 works for you, then that is fine. If the new sigma zoom doesnt work for you, it is fine too. But what i stated is true, that thr world does not revolve around you. Some people find it useful, or a better value than the 24/1.4, or it is more flexible but why do you care? You can just move on and dont buy it.

 

[dniwkh]

Yea I think there were some confusion as we're not talking zooming with your feet. We're talking photographing in the same position but zooming optically vs digitally.



Probably wouldn't say it's a mistake. Since many will prefer the optical zoom and shooting at full resolution across the board. I'm still at 12MP (with no plans to go any higher) so digital cropping won't be very attractive to me.
Furthermore, 35mm is a very popular focal length and you can't crop backwards. So if you like a fast 35mm but occasionally like to go wider you'd want full resolution at your preferred focal length which is 35mm. In this scenario the zoom lens would definitely be more attractive.

I agree for that person you mentioned that the 24-35mm would be his first choice. I just feel that that additional market share to be gained is small, especially when you take into account that Sigma already have two very good lens 24mm and 35mm f1.4. Basically, Sigma 35mm and 24mm f1.4 probably owned lion share of the market at those focal length due to the insane price/performance adv over their competitors.

 

[swifty]

I just feel that that additional market share to be gained is small, especially when you take into account that Sigma already have two very good lens 24mm and 35mm f1.4. Basically, Sigma 35mm and 24mm f1.4 probably owned lion share of the market at those focal length due to the insane price/performance adv over their competitors.

Fair enough and you're entitled to that opinion. But my hunch is that despite the better price/performance of the Sigma 1.4 primes I doubt they own the lion share in that market. But without data to back this up we can argue til the cows come home and it wouldn't be of much use.
I'll only say that perhaps you underestimate the popularity of the 35mm focal length relative to 24mm or the versatility of zooms in that the 24-35/f2 would be immensely more convenient than a trio of 24/1.8, 28/1.8 and 35/1.8 primes if you take cropping out of the question, which is quite valid as ppl tend to like to use the full sensor in their camera that they paid for.

 

[XsenseX]

I do agree 24-35 is way to short to make its justifiable.

I usually use the 50mm 1.4 ART for most of my shoots. If the job doesn't permit time to change, then it will be back to my 24-70.

For primes, i'm just be on 14mm, 50mm & 85mm (which i hope the 85ART comes soon). Did have the 24L before but doesn't serve a lot of purpose as i didn't like the 'wide but not super wide enough' look (thus my 14mm)

 

[Dfive]

I do agree 24-35 is way to short to make its justifiable.

I usually use the 50mm 1.4 ART for most of my shoots. If the job doesn't permit time to change, then it will be back to my 24-70.

For primes, i'm just be on 14mm, 50mm & 85mm (which i hope the 85ART comes soon). Did have the 24L before but doesn't serve a lot of purpose as i didn't like the 'wide but not super wide enough' look (thus my 14mm)

85 ART will be announced before Xmas... this year.

As will a wide Zoom. ( Sigma was waiting to see what that other brands 15-30mm was like before "tweaking" their own lens recipe. )

 

[Dfive]

thanks swifty

If you look at it objectively, there is a reason why there isn't any 1.5X zoom lens around. Mainly because 1.5x zoom can be easily achieved by cropping. (not moving forward or back...)

I still think Sigma made a mistake focusing resources on making such a lens. People who want zoom will get the 24-70mm f2.8. The people looking for wider aperture which sigma is supposed to target will just go for the 24mm f1.4 as the added stop at 24mm is huge in my opinon

Sigma should be doing what it does best which is making popular lens with a better performance and lower price Still waiting for the 85mm f1.4 Art

its easier to make a sharper corner to corner f/2.0 than any f/1.4 .

Consider this - It may exceed their primes performance! ( excluding their 50mm which is a lot better than their 24 and 35 offerings. )

 

[soeypixels]

20-35 will be good for me

 

[Supersimon27]

I was hoping at least a 24-50mm f2 .... Or even better 24-70 f2

24-35 ... hmmm ... I think I will stick with my 24-70 f2.8

 

[Dfive]

First hands on use... In German.. :cry:

http://www.d-pixx.de/2015/07/sigma-224-35-mm-dg-hsm-a-im-hands-on/

They will review this weekend.

A few images there, but they not great to judge anyways.