[Conqueror]

Big and heavy... and presumably no WR

[Wired]

I like it for what being unique and interesting, but I have no use for it. I use wide angle so little, and when I do I stop down to f5.6 or more. I don't actually understand fast aperture lenses in the wide angle in general. but I guess people enjoy them.

50mm f1.4 Art for Pentax please. I'll super glue it to my new FF body. Look at me petting the unicorns.

[thibs]

I wouldn't get a FA 20-35 or an 18-35.

I'm not sure I would either.

When I put a zoom on, it isn't because I need the fastest lens out there, it is because I want to cover several focal lengths moderately well. When you have the possibility of losing one stop to f2.8 but gaining significantly more focal lengths (24-70), I would usually choose the latter. If I don't need much flexibility, then I would just go with a prime.

I agree but on the wide end, the difference, visually, between 24 and 35 (in this example but this is true for other WA/UWA ranges) is so big it actually makes this is kind of zoom useful.
Would I buy one? I can't justify it now and the size is... well, Sigma modern lens size. Not my first choice.

I do think really wide zooms that have fast apertures do tend to have smaller zoom ranges (14-24, 11-16, etc), but I wouldn't consider this really wide, but rather a normal zoom with the only thing going for it being the f2 aperture.

This is no UWA zoom but 24 on FF really on the fence WA/UWA. Sure, starting at 20 would have been better but they chose the f/2 instead. Probably because Sigma lately really do make 'optical statements', I'd say.

I suppose guys massively using 24/28/35 and in need of light will look at it seriously.

BTW, if Sigma outs their Art lenses for K mount when Ricoh announce the FF, it would boost the camera IMO.

[Rondec]

I like it for what being unique and interesting, but I have no use for it. I use wide angle so little, and when I do I stop down to f5.6 or more. I don't actually understand fast aperture lenses in the wide angle in general. but I guess people enjoy them.

50mm f1.4 Art for Pentax please. I'll super glue it to my new FF body. Look at me petting the unicorns.

Maybe for astro photography? But I'm guessing this lens has more coma than a lot of the primes out there in a similar range.

[hoopsontoast]

Its nice to have a choice though, good on Sigma.

The way i see it, its lighter and smaller than the 24mm Art and 35mm Art together, with a bit more flexibility.

[Conqueror]

FF and f2 but otherwise the 20-40mm is a dwarf in comparison and one that packs a punch you might argue

Ricoh/Pentax will surely realise an FF lens in this range soon

[Nicolas06]

The opinion on this lens seems to be riddled with internal contradiction and lack of agreement on what the purpose of a zoom lens is.

Some people feel the purpose of a zoom lens is versatility, that it should provide as much flexibility as possible. But doing so involves compromises to image quality and so a chunk of these people complain that the versatile zooms don't offer enough image quality for them. Now we have a zoom with limited range that is probably optimized for IQ and people are complaining its not versatile enough.

It comes down to how you think of a zoom. If you think a lens like this is too limited to be useful, then you may be stuck in the beginner mindset that more millimeters is better. Instead, think of it as a prime that offers some bonus flexibility. I've come to see my Sigma 18-35 as a 21-24mm lens that has some extra padding I can use when it becomes necessary. That's what this is: you'll park it at, say, 30mm or so and then have access to a bit more wide angle and a bit more zoom when you need it. That's better than carrying a 30mm prime and finding you can't get the entire subject in the frame because you have no more room to backup.

I love my FA31 but indoors at museums and other tight spaces...that Sigma offers way too much additional bonus to be retired.

You know with a 24mm prime you can cover 35mm too. It is just a crop away. I'am not that sure how conveniant a 1.5 zoom is when it is almost 1kg...

We tend to be obsessed with huge, heavy insane lenses... I'd prefer we would be obsessed with creativity instead !

[Sandy Hancock]

You know with a 24mm prime you can cover 35mm too. It is just a crop away.

Better still, have a crop body handy - my FA*24 makes a very nice fastish 36mm on the K-3.

Wait, what's that sound? Oh no, it's the equivalence brigade galloping our way....

[ogl]

MSRP is said to be €849 (incl. VAT) in Europe, which corresponds to US$799 (excl. sales tax).

Some specifications:

- Lens construction: 18 elements, of which 1 FLD element and 7 SLD elements (of which 2 aspherical elements) in 13 groups
- Minimum focusing distance: 28cm / 11.0in.
- Maximum magnification ratio: 1:4.4
- Filter size: 82mm
- Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded)
- Size (Diameter x Length): 87.6mm x 122.7mm / 3.4in. x 4.8in.
- Weight: 940g / 33.2oz.

Thank you for info. MFD 28 cm is good..

[Nicolas06]

Better still, have a crop body handy - my FA*24 makes a very nice fastish 36mm on the K-3.

Wait, what's that sound? Oh no, it's the equivalence brigade galloping our way....

AhAhah

Hey a 24mm f/2 prime is already inherently a 24-34mm f/2-2.8... or a 24-48 f/2-4.

The only issue is to keep enough resolution but with modern FF bodies, well cropping of 1.4 ratio is a no brainer. As you just explained that give you an APSC framing well indeed something between APSC and APS-H. With all theses FF at 36, 42 or 50MP that a non issue.

At least a 24-50 f/2 or 50-100 f/2 I could see a real benefit. Here we are really as the prime with a bit more room... Except that prime give all the room to crop already, so that only when you need a wider view... A problem that solved with buying a wider prime to begin with...

This is a strange thing we have here, and an heavy one at it. But that's exactly the sigma trend... And I'd say exactly too the drive for ultimate fast appertures, sharpness and alike so many are after.

[Conqueror]

This is a strange thing we have here, and an heavy one at it. But that's exactly the sigma trend... And I'd say exactly too the drive for ultimate fast appertures, sharpness and alike so many are after.

Indeed they seem to be gunning for clinical sharpness at the expense of size/weight/handling...

as the FA lenses prove... there's something some lenses have lab tests can't always quantify

[ogl]

AhAhah


At least a 24-50 f/2 or 50-100 f/2 I could see a real benefit. Here we are really as the prime with a bit more room... .

It will be huge...No any benefit. 24-70/2.8 is better.

[Nicolas06]

It will be huge...No any benefit. 24-70/2.8 is better.

I would agree overall in particular on FF but at least 50-100mm would be interresting for portraiture, sport, events and a 2X range start to make some sense... more than 1.5

[npc]

I think of this as a 28mm F2.0 prime that can give you also 24 or 35 when needed. Basically fully covers what is usually considered the "wide-angle" range. below 24 goes into ultra-wide-angle and above 35 starts to get .. normalish.

[Nick Siebers]

The FA 20-35 is a great lens. Reasonably compact and light too. If I was in the full frame market, I would be looking for one. This lens just seems too big for me. I don't think I would use f/2 enough to justify,

I do wish Pentax would revive the FA 24/2.