[Jake21209]

I received and email from Sigma and the lens will be available on or about July 30th. Pentax is shown as one of the mounts.

Jay

[Zygonyx]

Thank you for this good to know info !

[Nicolas06]

Do you like primes? Because this is 3.

I like primes but there NO WAY I would have 3 primes to cover the 24-35 range. I would have potentially a 24 and a 35mm if I was after an FF. For now I have a DA15 and a DA21.

Worse if you take a single 24mm lense, let say 24mm f/1.4, and you add a TC to it you get a 35mm f/2... You could also crop to get the same thing. You lose a bit resolution for the 35mm, but keep the same shallow deph of field capability and get wider apperture at 24mm...

I don't see the value of a zoom that is basically a variable 1.4TC put on a prime with a reduced max apperture at the short end.

[totsmuyco]

I got the same email from sigma. I hope in the future, they'll make the lenses WR.

[Cambo]

as someone previously said, get a 24 f2 and crop 1.4, to which I add, 'or walk two feet towards your subject'.

What a silly lens. Not at ALL for me.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Na Horuk]

This is basically a prime with a benefit of some zoom. Lets see how many primes Pentax has in this range. And how many of them are f2.0 or faster? Especially Pentax has a gap in this range, for APSC or FF. 21mm, 31mm, and just a couple zooms going across, most of them significantly slower. Now, if the FA 20-35mm makes sense and if the DA 20-40mm makes sense, why not this, with its fast (fastest) aperture?
If the optics of this lens are good, then its a great deal. The only way Id turn away from primes is like this - small range, high quality, fast aperture zooms. Our space age technology is finally trickling down into lenses, and it just might be time for zoom lenses to finally get on the throne next to primes (never thought I'd say this).

[Nicolas06]

This is basically a prime with a benefit of some zoom. Lets see how many primes Pentax has in this range. And how many of them are f2.0 or faster? Especially Pentax has a gap in this range, for APSC or FF. 21mm, 31mm, and just a couple zooms going across, most of them significantly slower. Now, if the FA 20-35mm makes sense and if the DA 20-40mm makes sense, why not this, with its fast (fastest) aperture?
If the optics of this lens are good, then its a great deal. The only way Id turn away from primes is like this - small range, high quality, fast aperture zooms. Our space age technology is finally trickling down into lenses, and it just might be time for zoom lenses to finally get on the throne next to primes (never thought I'd say this).

Currently there no FF and we have from the same sigma a 18-35 f/1.8... Wider apperture, cheaper, smaller/lighter, better zoom range.

We will see in 2-3 when Pentax will have time make a full FF lineup for the FF lenses.

[Na Horuk]

We will see in 2-3 when Pentax will have time make a full FF lineup for the FF lenses.

Definitely. That can really change the game, we will see.

[Stavri]

Do you like primes? Because this is 3.

I don't get the complaints. No it doesn't have a huge zoom range but everyone is always touting their prime lenses, particularly fast lenses and this lens provides that.

It's not meant to compete with a normal zoom; it's supposed to be a substitute for f1.4 and f1.8 prime lenses. Comparing this to a normal zoom is like comparing a normal zoom to a super zoom and saying that the normal zoom doesn't have enough range.

Most prosumer zooms designed after 2010 (and in current production) achieve "prime-like" levels of IQ, Sigma doesn't have a monopoly on that department. Anything from the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 to the DA 20-40 is in that category (heck my ancient Tokina 280 can achieve prime-like IQ midrange) , and I bet my last dollar that the new d-Fa* 24-70 will do the same. You want to buy a $1000 1.5x prime like zoom be my guest, I'd rather put another grand down (get AW and HD coating) for a 2.8-3x zoom...

I'm saying this as a owner of an excellent Sigma 18-35/f1.8 lens, limited reach lens, sharp as a bag of primes/nails/etc....

Tokina 280x 45mm@ f2.8

[Nicolas06]

Most prosumer zooms designed after 2010 (and in current production) achieve "prime-like" levels of IQ, Sigma doesn't have a monopoly on that department. Anything from the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 to the DA 20-40 is in that category (heck my ancient Tokina 280 can achieve prime-like IQ midrange) , and I bet my last dollar that the new d-Fa* 24-70 will do the same. You want to buy a $1000 1.5x prime like zoom be my guest, I'd rather put another grand down (get AW and HD coating) for a 2.8-3x zoom...

Tokina 280x 45mm@ f2.8

Well at f/8 I'd say yes, at least for common focal range like 28-200 and no more than 3-4X effective range for a given zoom. Prime actually get you something more through, depending of the exact model:
- ligher/smaller unobtrusive lense... Just compare a DA70 f/2.4 to a 50-135 to understand what I mean !
- more resistance to flare, better constrast in difficult conditions like contra-light due to fewer lenses used. Think of all HD DA ltds for example. There resistance to flare is seldom matched.
- faster max apperture and better bokeh, more interresting rendering. Think of FA ltd as examples.
- some prime are still unchallenged for sharpness... Most macro lenses are in this area so that for example DA35 ltd, DFA50 or DFA100 in Pentax mount.

But for sure I'd agree with you that for an FF a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom make much more sense than a 24-35 f/2 that can't hope anyway to match f/1.4 primes for max apperture and bokeh or slower primes for size/weight/resistance to flare.

[Matthew Saville]

Do you like primes? Because this is 3.

I don't get the complaints. No it doesn't have a huge zoom range but everyone is always touting their prime lenses, particularly fast lenses and this lens provides that.

It's not meant to compete with a normal zoom; it's supposed to be a substitute for f1.4 and f1.8 prime lenses. Comparing this to a normal zoom is like comparing a normal zoom to a super zoom and saying that the normal zoom doesn't have enough range.

That's exactly what I said in my review of the 18-35mm f/1.8 DC, actually. The lens isn't meant to compete with an f/2.8 zoom, it's meant to compete with 2-3 primes.

And, at that, the 18-35 is jaw-dropping. Even on the SLR Gear review chart, it is truly impressively "flat" across the 3-D chart for sharpness. It is three primes in one.

Yet, (and for me this is key) it doesn't weigh like a brick. To me, having a lens that weighs more than 2 lbs defeats one of the advantages I enjoy with primes. While Nikon is getting a ton of flak for the "cheap plastic" construction of their new f/1.8 G lineup, IMO it epitomizes the reason that some people buy primes. Incredible sharpness, and shockingly lightweight. Nikon's 28mm f/1.8 weighs just 11 oz. Pentax' 31mm f/1.8 weighs about 12 oz IIRC. If I'm going to compromise on carrying around two f/1.4 primes, I'd rather have an ultralight f/1.8 prime that is in the middle of the range, than an f/2 zoom that spans the whole range and weighs a ton.

Of course as ever, that's just me. I suspect there are plenty of folks out there with buying habits and photographic needs that are the exact opposite!

=Matt=

---------- Post added 07-19-15 at 07:46 PM ----------

I like primes but there NO WAY I would have 3 primes to cover the 24-35 range. I would have potentially a 24 and a 35mm if I was after an FF. For now I have a DA15 and a DA21.

Worse if you take a single 24mm lense, let say 24mm f/1.4, and you add a TC to it you get a 35mm f/2... You could also crop to get the same thing. You lose a bit resolution for the 35mm, but keep the same shallow deph of field capability and get wider apperture at 24mm...

I don't see the value of a zoom that is basically a variable 1.4TC put on a prime with a reduced max apperture at the short end.

I think this point is turning into a bit of a dead horse elsewhere, and maybe here too. However I agree with the sentiment, though others may not. Especially having used Nikon's 24 and 36 MP full-frame cameras a lot recently, and looking forward to Pentax' 36 or 42 MP sensor....cropping 1.5x is truly "no big deal" when you still have 10-16+ megapixels left over, for any type of photojournalistic work where needing zoom range even comes up. I do this with my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, and as a result I've sold my 50mm f/1.8.

To beat the dead horse one last time: if this lens had been just slightly better than 1.5x zoom, say a 24-50mm, I'd consider it an exponentially greater success. But with megapixels climbing higher, and f/1.4 primes being ultra-tack-sharp wide open, a 1.5x f/2 zoom is a tough sell for all but the select few who find themselves in situations that truly benefit from it.

[Zygonyx]

MSRP announced Euro 1149,00 // 1250,00 here in France.
Availlability confirmed for Canon end of this July.

[atlnq9]

I was hoping it would be in the same realm as the 35mm Art; but, it seems a bit shy of that. That lens is pretty much the current benchmark for a 35mm prime. It does edge out ahead of the Zeiss 35mm f2 if you presume the distortion is correctable so is probably comparable to the Zeiss f1.4 (If I am remembering right the 1.4 beats the 2.0). Results look good at 24mm so will be interesting to see how it compares to the Zeiss 25mm f2 (which is pretty close to the current 24/25mm benchmark prime). All in it looks like a few compromises were made to be a zoom but fewer compromises than a the likes of a 24-70...

It doesn't look like it will replace a Zeiss 25mm f2 and Sigma 35mm Art prime combination; but if you are looking for a bit better performance than a 24-70 but still want some zoom functionality it is a great option. Not to mention it is less than half the cost of the Zeiss 25mm/Sigma 35mm combination and probably similar weight in your bag. Correction the zoom is 325g lighter but you will loose that advantage with it's 82mm front filter...

[ogl]

Sigma is sharp at f2.0 even at 50 MP Canon....
Sigma 24-35mm F2 DG HSM A real-world sample gallery posted: Digital Photography Review

[Class A]

The Nikon 24-70 2.8 G is quite flat from 24-35mm, and the Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2 would probably have been even better if their full-frame testing had been done with a good copy;

The Nikon 24-70/2.8 has only been tested on APS-C.

Switch the graph to APS-C for the Sigma, stop it down to f/2.8 for a fair comparison and then compare it against the Nikon and Canon models. The Sigma wins every time.

And as I already mentioned, the Nikon 14-24 is downright witchcraft even at 14mm,

Again, the Sigma beats it (if you compare its APS-C result at f/2.8).