Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2015, 01:05 AM   #121
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Sigma is sharp at f2.0 even at 50 MP Canon....
Great rendering!

The samples from DPReview also contain some very nice demonstrations of the great IQ.

07-27-2015, 12:33 PM   #122
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,086
specialized lens that doesn't appear to control flare too well

With the limited range it is definitely a specialized lens. Seems to be sharp enough. But unfortunately it's apparent lack of flare control limits adds to its already limited use. Might as well buy a prime.
07-27-2015, 12:39 PM   #123
Veteran Member
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,287
Not too long ago I wouldn't mind such a heavy lens.
But these days for travel purposes, I try very hard to keep my lenses to be no bigger than 67mm filter size.
Wish there were more 67mm's to choose from, but frankly I'm pretty happy with my current travel setup.

Michael
07-28-2015, 02:07 PM   #124
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
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.


Again, the Sigma beats it (if you compare its APS-C result at f/2.8).
The point of both lenses is to use them full-frame. The point of the 14-24 is to use it wide open at f/2.8 and 14mm, 90% of the time. Otherwise a 16-35 f/4 is a far more practical lens. As such, the 14-24 is one of the most incredible lenses ever made in the vicinity of 14mm and f/2.8. Any Nikon shooter who buys the 14-24 and uses it on a crop sensor camera, or mostly at 24mm, is IMO suffering from a serious case of "size matters" insecurity and mis-guided buying philosophy.

As for the 24-70, I'm forgetting which review you're referring to, but the Nikon 24-70 indeed has both crop and full-frame test results.Between 24 and 35mm, it is very comparable.

Either way my point has always been this: At 1.5x and f/2, the Sigma 24-35 is meant to compete against a set of 2-3 f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes, NOT an f/2.8 zoom IMO. Anybody who "needs" f/2.8 and 14-24mm, 17-35mm, or 24-70 is going to find it to be extremely difficult to make such a huge compromise on zoom range just to gain one stop of aperture and a faint amount of extra sharpness. The 24-35 is meant to be a prime lens that zooms.

As a prime lens, the 24-35 fails to deliver in some of the areas that IMO make a prime so valuable and desirable: size, weight, (and therefore, unobtrusiveness) and speed / sharpness. In other words, if I need f/2 so badly that f/2.8 just won't do, I'd much rather have either a Sigma 35 1.4 Art, or a Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G, or a Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G, etc. etc...

As ever, "to each their own". At this point I'm fully aware that we're just enjoying re-stating our own personal opinions on the matter, and what we personally need in a lens. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will find a very good purpose for such a lens, but as someone who reviews lenses for a living and frequently gives real-world buying advice to fellow hobbyists and full-time professionals, ...I honestly do believe that inevitably, many folks who are excited at first will wind up either regretting buying this lens, or deciding to buy something else entirely.

Me, I'm happy to wait for a ~16/18-24 mm f/2 Art. That'd be a lens much, much more up my alley. Even if it weighed ~2 lbs and cost ~$1K. Remember, to each their own!

=Matt=

07-29-2015, 12:04 AM   #125
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Matthew Saville Quote
The point of both lenses is to use them full-frame.
Of course it is.

I only pointed out the APS-C performance (in which the Sigma trumps the other two lenses you mentioned) because SLR Gear does not have FF results for the Nikon, and it does not make sense to compare charts from different sites with each other. Even when the measurements are from the same site, one must make sure the same camera has been used as camera-based measurements are not transferable across different cameras used.

I haven't looked specifically at the charts, but I'm sure the Sigma will hold its own very well on FF as well. One reason I'm not too fussed about comparisons to Canikon lenses is that the only lens that I may be able to use on a Pentax camera is the Sigma. It is plenty sharp and has wonderful bokeh so it will be definitely good enough for me.

QuoteOriginally posted by Matthew Saville Quote
Either way my point has always been this: At 1.5x and f/2, the Sigma 24-35 is meant to compete against a set of 2-3 f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes, NOT an f/2.8 zoom IMO.
Well then at least compare it against a set of primes, i.e., the combined weight and price of high quality primes. From what I've seen the Sigma 24-35/2.0 competes with the FA 31/1.8 for IQ and it would include a 24/2 as well (which is currently not even available from Pentax). Add another high-quality, fast 35mm prime at current Pentax pricing and your combined price will be almost triple that of the Sigma. The combined weight of the primes will be higher than that of the Sigma, and the handling will be much worse as you cannot change the focal length on the fly, and won't have access to the intermediate focal length either.

QuoteOriginally posted by Matthew Saville Quote
As a prime lens, the 24-35 fails to deliver in some of the areas that IMO make a prime so valuable and desirable: size, weight, (and therefore, unobtrusiveness) and speed / sharpness.
Sorry, the Sigma is not a "prime lens". It fails as a "binocular" and many things it isn't either as well.
Please, I don't want to heat up the discussion. I'm happy for you to have other preferences, but if you are wearing your impartial reviewer's hat for a moment and consider that there are people for whom this lens does make sense, I don't think you should be judging it in a category where it clearly does not belong.

QuoteOriginally posted by Matthew Saville Quote
I honestly do believe that inevitably, many folks who are excited at first will wind up either regretting buying this lens, or deciding to buy something else entirely.
At this point in time, you'd have to have an amazing amount of clairvoyance in order to be right with this prediction.

I couldn't tell whether the lens will be a financial success for Sigma at this stage, but I'm very glad they made it and I hope the market will reward them for offering such a high quality optic for such a competitive price.
07-29-2015, 12:46 AM   #126
Pentaxian
redcat's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Paris
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,827
even if it's the best lens, it's not available for Pentax
07-29-2015, 02:48 AM   #127
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Of course it is.

I only pointed out the APS-C performance (in which the Sigma trumps the other two lenses you mentioned) because SLR Gear does not have FF results for the Nikon, and it does not make sense to compare charts from different sites with each other. Even when the measurements are from the same site, one must make sure the same camera has been used as camera-based measurements are not transferable across different cameras used.

I haven't looked specifically at the charts, but I'm sure the Sigma will hold its own very well on FF as well. One reason I'm not too fussed about comparisons to Canikon lenses is that the only lens that I may be able to use on a Pentax camera is the Sigma. It is plenty sharp and has wonderful bokeh so it will be definitely good enough for me.


Well then at least compare it against a set of primes, i.e., the combined weight and price of high quality primes. From what I've seen the Sigma 24-35/2.0 competes with the FA 31/1.8 for IQ and it would include a 24/2 as well (which is currently not even available from Pentax). Add another high-quality, fast 35mm prime at current Pentax pricing and your combined price will be almost triple that of the Sigma. The combined weight of the primes will be higher than that of the Sigma, and the handling will be much worse as you cannot change the focal length on the fly, and won't have access to the intermediate focal length either.


Sorry, the Sigma is not a "prime lens". It fails as a "binocular" and many things it isn't either as well.
Please, I don't want to heat up the discussion. I'm happy for you to have other preferences, but if you are wearing your impartial reviewer's hat for a moment and consider that there are people for whom this lens does make sense, I don't think you should be judging it in a category where it clearly does not belong.


At this point in time, you'd have to have an amazing amount of clairvoyance in order to be right with this prediction.

I couldn't tell whether the lens will be a financial success for Sigma at this stage, but I'm very glad they made it and I hope the market will reward them for offering such a high quality optic for such a competitive price.
I am sure the lens will be fine, but I agree with Matthew that I would compare this lens to fast primes in that range and it is certainly a small enough range that there is no way I would buy 3 primes to cover this range. I own the FA 31 limited and would not buy a Sigma 35 f1.4 as the focal length is close enough that I wouldn't use it as well. Truthfully, I wouldn't even buy a 24mm prime, since I own the FA 31, but would look for something wider in the 16-20mm range.

The issue with the lens, to me, isn't that it isn't sharp and fast enough, it is that it covers a small enough range that I would easily cover it with a single prime.

Anyway, I am fine if the lens sells well -- I hope it does, I just have a feeling that there are a lot of folks who won't be particularly interested in it, mainly because of the small range.
07-29-2015, 03:25 AM   #128
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by redcat Quote
even if it's the best lens, it's not available for Pentax
Yet...

07-29-2015, 04:10 AM   #129
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Of course it is.

I only pointed out the APS-C performance (in which the Sigma trumps the other two lenses you mentioned) because SLR Gear does not have FF results for the Nikon, and it does not make sense to compare charts from different sites with each other. Even when the measurements are from the same site, one must make sure the same camera has been used as camera-based measurements are not transferable across different cameras used.

I haven't looked specifically at the charts, but I'm sure the Sigma will hold its own very well on FF as well. One reason I'm not too fussed about comparisons to Canikon lenses is that the only lens that I may be able to use on a Pentax camera is the Sigma. It is plenty sharp and has wonderful bokeh so it will be definitely good enough for me.


Well then at least compare it against a set of primes, i.e., the combined weight and price of high quality primes. From what I've seen the Sigma 24-35/2.0 competes with the FA 31/1.8 for IQ and it would include a 24/2 as well (which is currently not even available from Pentax). Add another high-quality, fast 35mm prime at current Pentax pricing and your combined price will be almost triple that of the Sigma. The combined weight of the primes will be higher than that of the Sigma, and the handling will be much worse as you cannot change the focal length on the fly, and won't have access to the intermediate focal length either.


Sorry, the Sigma is not a "prime lens". It fails as a "binocular" and many things it isn't either as well.
Please, I don't want to heat up the discussion. I'm happy for you to have other preferences, but if you are wearing your impartial reviewer's hat for a moment and consider that there are people for whom this lens does make sense, I don't think you should be judging it in a category where it clearly does not belong.


At this point in time, you'd have to have an amazing amount of clairvoyance in order to be right with this prediction.

I couldn't tell whether the lens will be a financial success for Sigma at this stage, but I'm very glad they made it and I hope the market will reward them for offering such a high quality optic for such a competitive price.

This lense is compared to prime because the primary feature of a zoom is the conveniance to zoom, something that prime lenses do not have... Well you can crop but that limit you of no more than 2X zoom range, preferably 1.5X zoom range to keep a great quality and enough pixels/sharpness.

With the 1.5X range, it can be argued that this is a zoom that doesn't provide signifcantly more conveniance for zooming than a prime.

A 24mm f/1.4 provide simliar price/weight/size while keeping a faster apperture at 24mm and the same effective zooming capability. A 50MP FF camera cropped to 22MP APSC will give you equivalient 35mm f/2 Quality of the picture producted, will be the quality of a 24mm prime on an APSC sensor, so far from bad.

If cropping a 50MP FF to 22MP is not acceptable, an innexpensive 35mm f/2 can be added and give the added benefit to have an option for being unnobstrusive/lightweight when you need it. It would likely also come with much better flare resistance, something that is very important feature for a wide angle.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-29-2015 at 04:25 AM.
07-29-2015, 10:12 AM   #130
Senior Member
Matthew Saville's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California
Posts: 250
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I only pointed out the APS-C performance (in which the Sigma trumps the other two lenses you mentioned) because SLR Gear does not have FF results for the Nikon...
That's what I was trying to say. SLR Gear does have full-frame test results for the Nikon 24-70 2.8. And they're pretty impressive.


QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Well then at least compare it against a set of primes, i.e., the combined weight and price of high quality primes. From what I've seen the Sigma 24-35/2.0 competes with the FA 31/1.8 for IQ and it would include a 24/2 as well (which is currently not even available from Pentax). Add another high-quality, fast 35mm prime at current Pentax pricing and your combined price will be almost triple that of the Sigma. The combined weight of the primes will be higher than that of the Sigma, and the handling will be much worse as you cannot change the focal length on the fly, and won't have access to the intermediate focal length either.
1.) A lightweight lens in the hand is worth two in the bush. I mean camera bag. As a full-time event photographer, I will gladly put 50-100% more weight on my belt pouches, if it means the lens in my hand weighs a ton less. The FA 31, at a meager 12 oz yet still built rock-solid, is the epitome of what IMO primes are all about.

2.) I've added up weights of many different lenses from Pentax, Canon or Nikon. If you compare similarly built f/1.4 primes, then yeah the 24-35 is a noticeable savings. But if you compare f/1.8 primes, you can fit three primes in and still barely be a few ounces heavier, or you can just "make do" with two primes and come out way ahead.


QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Sorry, the Sigma is not a "prime lens". It fails as a "binocular" and many things it isn't either as well.
Please, I don't want to heat up the discussion. I'm happy for you to have other preferences, but if you are wearing your impartial reviewer's hat for a moment and consider that there are people for whom this lens does make sense, I don't think you should be judging it in a category where it clearly does not belong.

At this point in time, you'd have to have an amazing amount of clairvoyance in order to be right with this prediction.

I couldn't tell whether the lens will be a financial success for Sigma at this stage, but I'm very glad they made it and I hope the market will reward them for offering such a high quality optic for such a competitive price.
I make this admitted conjecture based on having conversed with innumerable photographers from practically every genre of photography, and given advice to many folks regarding lens purchases. Simply put, I have lost count of how many folks have bought exotic lenses such as this (hefty, limited zoom range) ...only to realize it's just not for them.

The bigger and fatter the lens, the more people absolutely must be certain that the focal range is integral to their style. Otherwise it'll wind up collecting dust and they'll opt for a different, lighter lens almost every time. People talk online about how you just need to work out, man-up and shut up, but that's not what I see in the real world. In the real world, people get sick of carrying around lenses like this real quick.

I also work full-time as a photographer in extremely active event photojournalism, (hindu weddings etc.) one of the ONLY scenarios in which I think this lens could be extremely useful. And I'm part of a team that has 20+ other full-time and part-time photographers. And you know what? I think every one of us would rather have a single f/1.4 prime, and just use 1.5x crop mode, instead.

I know there's a pile of dead horses here to beat. I apologize for enjoying such a weary discussion. But I would put forth a challenge: Which specific situation in photography WOULD highly benefit from this lens? I simply can't think of any, that wouldn't be better served by a single f/1.4 prime, and/or a pair of f/1.8 primes, and/or an f/2.8 2-3x zoom.
07-31-2015, 12:51 AM - 2 Likes   #131
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,826
Lenstip have now done their review of the Sigma 24-35 (on FF Canon).

Overall they have praise for the lens. Resolution is very nice and even, no real flaws (except perhaps for lots of vignetting at all focal lengths). Seems a worthy lens.

---------- Post added 2015-07-31 at 06:39 PM ----------

Plus LensRental have now done a review of the lens too:

LensRentals.com - A Quick Look at the New Sigma 24-35 f/2 Art

Last edited by rawr; 07-31-2015 at 01:40 AM.
07-31-2015, 03:49 AM   #132
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,792
Considering my bad experience of AF issues with the several Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lenses I have tested, I have to say i'm concerned about this lens. Optically it might be excellent, perhaps better than any prime lens of equal speed ever made: but if it cannot AF accurately and reliably it is just a colossal waste of money and bag space.
07-31-2015, 03:59 AM   #133
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,826
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
if it cannot AF accurately and reliably
I have similar reservations, based on my experience with the Sigma 35 f1.4 A. Optically excellent, but AF erratic.
07-31-2015, 04:35 AM   #134
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,862
but why is the AF so weird with recent high-en Sigma lenses? You think its the camera manufacturers sabotaging Sigma, so they can't be too good? Or is the lens somehow odd? Because you'd think AF is a straightforward thing, check red and blue phase, adjust until it fits. And a bright aperture, good resolution, should allow AF even in fairly low light on different kinds of subjects.
07-31-2015, 04:55 AM   #135
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Because you'd think AF is a straightforward thing, check red and blue phase, adjust until it fits. And a bright aperture, good resolution, should allow AF even in fairly low light on different kinds of subjects.
When i think of it the only lenses in current Pentax line up that has truely great AF is the 150-450 and still it is not at the level of what Canikon can produce. Other lenses are either slower, have difficulties with tracking, are unreliable or the camera is simply not good enough...

Sure at f/4 or landscapes it work quite well, but when somebody buy an f/1.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime this is not exactly what he is after.

To me things like quick shift clearly are used among other things to compensate for AF performance limitations. And I would say that prior to K3 if you really wanted to achieve a precise focus with a wide apperture, you couldn't rely that much on AF... And lenses like FA50 were really a nightmare to use with AF alone at their max apperture.

So for sure it is not that basic to do a good and fast AF.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24-35mm f2 dg, 24mm, aperture, corners, dg, f/2, f2, f2 dg hsm, field, folks, hsm, leica, lens, lenses, opinion, pentax news, pentax rumors, photographer, post, range, sensor, sharpness, sigma, sigma 24-35mm f2, weather, weather seals
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 IF EX DG HSM - Pentax Fit Keif Sold Items 3 05-16-2015 10:37 AM
Sigma 24-105 F/4 DG OS HSM "Art" series Winder Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 26 03-22-2015 06:55 PM
SMC Pentax FA 43mm 1.9 Limited vs. Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG HSM Art b-theodore Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-24-2014 10:39 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM EricBrown Sold Items 5 05-08-2014 01:45 PM
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for $699 trek560ex Pentax Price Watch 3 12-17-2013 05:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top