[Matthew Saville]

In my opinion, this is a clear indication that we are in some sort of phase of "bigger is better" lenses. Much like the obscene gas-guzzling SUV craze that has come (and gone?) here in America.

This is the third lens in the very recent past that has had ~2x or less zoom range, and yet is over 2 lbs. (The other two being the Canon 11-24 f/4 and Tamron 15-30 f/2.8.)

This is the umpteenth lens with 82mm filter threads, which has been another relatively recent trend.

Is it going to be an awesome lens? Probably. Is it lighter than a 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm prime? Possibly, depending on which apertures and which exact lenses you pick. But in my opinion, at over 2 lbs the lens is "missing the point" of what a prime lens is supposed to be to many folks.

Sure, out of context most people only really cite primes as being sharp and generally good quality, but if you ask anyone who shoots primes AFTER lugging around a bunch of hefty 2.8 zooms, they'll tell you a different story.

I'm happy for Sigma, and as an astro-landscape photographer I think I might rent this lens for a specific project. But as a daily shooter? I can't imagine a landscape photographer who wouldn't rather have a wider f/2 zoom, say a 16-24, or 17-28, or 18-28 f/1.8. Nor can I imagine a portrait or wedding photographer who wouldn't rather have a longer f/2 zoom, say a 35-70, or 50-100 or 70-135mm f/2. If I'm going to lug around a ~2 lb lens, this focal range is the last one on earth I could put to good use.

---------- Post added 06-20-15 at 06:15 PM ----------

Turns out it's basically a 18-35 limited to 24mm and F2 for acceptable vignetting

(I'm joking btw)

Based on the visual similarity, and also the similarity in optical construction, you're at least half right. I've personally tested the Sigma 18-35 1.8 on both crop and full-frame sensors, and I can totally see how they might have just enlarged this lens a bit, "locked" it at 24mm and f/2, and called it a day.

If Sigma had actually designed this lens from scratch, IMO, it would have indeed been a ~28-50mm lens. That focal range just makes a lot more sense for almost any use you could think of, except for maybe astro-landscapes in which I'd rather have it be wider and sacrifice something off the long end anyways.

Either way, it sounds like Sigma is doing well, if they can produce a lens like this, and at the price they're asking, it will only help their business even if only the elitist, "compensating for something" folks out there wind up buying it.

---------- Post added 06-20-15 at 06:18 PM ----------

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

I agree that a 24-70 f/2.8 would have been a better choice for Sigma, sales-wise. They could have made more money and made more photographers happy, with such a lens.

Just like Canon, in my opinion, really REALLY should have updated their horribly soft 16-35 2.8 II before they worked on the 11-24mm f/4 that they just released.

But, what do those two lenses have in common? They're trophy lenses, they're going to turn heads, and that's the goal of the makers. Making waves, proving that they've "still got it", ...and practicality be damned; we'll wait till later to worry about the lenses that the masses want.

[ogl]

50-100/2 is the killer

If Ricoh offer new DFA*24/2 and new FF wide-angle fast zoom (2.8 at least), smaller than 24-35/2, this lens (24-35) will be rather marginal player.

[mee]

Too bad Sigma only weather seals their Sports line (which consists of two long zooms). I think I'd rather have Sigma glass than Pentax.. if it was sealed.

[Adam]

Too bad Sigma only weather seals their Sports line (which consists of two long zooms). I think I'd rather have Sigma glass than Pentax.. if it was sealed.

Yeah, they need to get on top of that. Almost every other pro grade lens is sealed these days...

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[mannyquinto]

I guess somebody has to make big lenses to justify big prices....

[ZoeB]

If they're making a K mount of this guy, then i guess all hope is not lost that the inevitable update of their 85 could come in a K mount too. That's a lens I'd sell my first child for.

[Nicolas06]

I guess somebody has to make big lenses to justify big prices....

When you see what the leica range finder primes are able to do and their size (smaller than ltd), the only reason for being big seems to be more affordable rather than providing higher quality.

[thibs]

50-100/2 is the killer

If Ricoh offer new DFA*24/2 and new FF wide-angle fast zoom (2.8 at least), smaller than 24-35/2, this lens (24-35) will be rather marginal player.

It will be marginal anyway...

[drypenn]

940g??? Maybe if I put it in its case, it'll top the 1,000g line (1 kg). And all 940g of which for that miniscule range? This makes the 20-40 a much better choice, especially outdoors.

[Conqueror]

940g??? Maybe if I put it in its case, it'll top the 1,000g line (1 kg). And all 940g of which for that miniscule range? This makes the 20-40 a much better choice, especially outdoors.

My thoughts exactly... unless you are weight training

[atlnq9]

In response to the bigger is better discussions. This is a response to the movement to high mp cameras like the 36, 42, 51mp FF dslr offerings. Trying to keep up with lenses that resolve to these sensors the size of lenses are moving into the medium format realm (and some have in terms of cost too like the Zeiss Otus line). I also see this as Sigma's response to designing a lens to match the superb ground breaking resolution of their 24 and 35mm Art lenses with an equivalent zoom so you don't have to pay $1800 for a pair and still have to swap them out all the time. A high zoom range is a compromise to lower sharpness gaining utility. Why buy a 51mp dslr if your pictures only look like 24mp because of the lens limitations...

[Nicolas06]

In response to the bigger is better discussions. This is a response to the movement to high mp cameras like the 36, 42, 51mp FF dslr offerings. Trying to keep up with lenses that resolve to these sensors the size of lenses are moving into the medium format realm (and some have in terms of cost too like the Zeiss Otus line). I also see this as Sigma's response to designing a lens to match the superb ground breaking resolution of their 24 and 35mm Art lenses with an equivalent zoom so you don't have to pay $1800 for a pair and still have to swap them out all the time. A high zoom range is a compromise to lower sharpness gaining utility. Why buy a 51mp dslr if your pictures only look like 24mp because of the lens limitations...

The bigger design mostly bring ultimate sharpness at f/2 or f/1.4 and on borders/corners for WA/UWA...

You'll not find many issues on a FA50, FA35 or FA135 at f/4-5.6 even if you go to 50MP FF.

[drypenn]

I agree and understand the rationale for the HUMONGOUS size, but in reality, who really shoots at f/1.4 or f/1.2 at the very least 20% of the time (especially outside)? (That being said, I muss confess guilty of using my 50/1.2 at 1.2 maybe 3 or 4 out of ten times .)

In my subjective opinion, if you'll be using these big glasses inside the studio, then it's fine. But, if you'll have to walk around, that ultimate sharpnesst at thin DOF at the cost of being big and heavy will not justify it. I can get a miniscule 20-40 and compromise the sharpness a little, or I can bring my 15 and 31, with a lot of room to spare, as I'll likely be shooting at f/5.6-f/11 anyway, in the real world. And at f/5.6-onwards, I don't think there will be a lot of difference in the IQ to justify the weight penalty. Who knows, the 15's starbursts and the 31's character may even take a bite out of the Sigma's vaunted edge-to-edge sharpness.

[savoche]

I'm sure it will have excellent image quality, but it is definitely not the lens for me. Even the FA31 is too big to get much time on my camera... I love small primes and I live well with the limitations that come with small size.

More options is always good, though, so I hope Sigma will make this monster in K-mount, too.

[Rondec]

In response to the bigger is better discussions. This is a response to the movement to high mp cameras like the 36, 42, 51mp FF dslr offerings. Trying to keep up with lenses that resolve to these sensors the size of lenses are moving into the medium format realm (and some have in terms of cost too like the Zeiss Otus line). I also see this as Sigma's response to designing a lens to match the superb ground breaking resolution of their 24 and 35mm Art lenses with an equivalent zoom so you don't have to pay $1800 for a pair and still have to swap them out all the time. A high zoom range is a compromise to lower sharpness gaining utility. Why buy a 51mp dslr if your pictures only look like 24mp because of the lens limitations...

I think Sigma wants to have a stand out product that no one else has. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8, by all accounts, has been a big seller. It offers a decent (2x) range of focal lengths with speed that no other zoom offers. Sigma supposedly was trying to replicate that for full frame with a 24-70-ish type lens. Obviously that wasn't feasible and so they made a zoom that is the fastest available for full frame, but with a fairly tiny zoom range.

In the end, I don't believe that this will be as big a seller as the 18-35. It just isn't a bread and butter focal length, the speed isn't as necessary on full frame cameras, and the lens size is considerable. I think most pro shooters would give a stop of light in order to get a wider range like 24-70 f2.8 lenses offer. Sharpness isn't problematic on the the 24-70 f2.8 lenses that are out there right now. They certainly give quality results, from what I have seen.