[Class A]

940g???

Optical performance takes its toll on size and weight. No way around that.

If you always shoot high f-ratios with small primes, you may want to ask yourself why you aren't using a mirrorless system like the A7 series from SONY. Such a small camera is a better match for small compact lenses. Conversely, a DSLR is a better match for larger lenses with more optical performance potential.

There is still one major reason not to go small, i.e., adversity to EVFs, but if you don't suffer from this, why bother with a DSLR?

I personally hope that Sigma will offer the 24-35/2 in K-mount. It will most likely provide the best value for money ratio of any lens in that range for the future Pentax FF.

[Zygonyx]

+1

[atlnq9]

It is also lighter than carrying a Zeiss 25mm 2.0 and Sigma 35mm Art. ~1200g

I am guessing that Sigma has placed a lot of constraints in the design and performance will be similar to those primes. An important thing to note is that while these primes are sharp wide open they yield very impressive results stopped down, beyond current best of Nikon and Canon variants. That performance improvement is demanded by the high resolution sensors today. Shorter zooms in wide angle is becoming the norm today in trying to be up to muster on sensors. An updated 24-70 would surely have been a lower performer and not offered much of a selling point over current offerings. As much as Pentax fans feel the older FA lenses are amazing I think you will be very surprised at reduced performance if they release a FF camera with 36-42mp. Remember on apsc you only use the centre; so if corners look like even a remote degrading the corners on FF will be serious lacking. Just look in comparison to how far behind the film era Canon and Nikon lenses were compared to what is out there today. Do we really think the Pentax was 3 times as good as Canon and Nikon in that era?

The offset is big sharpness is often not what you want when photographing people, etc. I don't want to count the pores on Joe Bob's face. I want smooth rendering and great transition to out of focus with nice bokeh. I would say this new lens is more oriented to landscape yielding class leading sharpness stopped down compared to other zooms and still life images at wide aperture. Have to wait and see. If it doesn't offer sharpness compared to the top primes it will be a flop...

Now the other question you have to ask is we love to think and imagine about printing large; but, how many 4ft prints can you fit in a house and do you want them overwhelming everything else taking attention away from furniture and architecture? Do we need anything more than 24mp? And with those large prints how often do you want to get close enough to assess the sharpness; getting that close you can't visualise and take in the whole picture. I sure don't want a 4 ft picture of Aunt Betty showing the details of every wrinkle and that little makeup mistake over my fireplace. 8x10 in the stairway is fine with me.

There is still one major reason not to go small, i.e., adversity to EVFs, but if you don't suffer from this, why bother with a DSLR?

Battery life, battery life, battery life. Going small means making smaller batteries. Going to EVF and Live View means more juice required. Result is piss poor battery life. The size is soon lost by having to carry 10 batteries and a charger.

[Nicolas06]

Optical performance takes its toll on size and weight. No way around that.

If you always shoot high f-ratios with small primes, you may want to ask yourself why you aren't using a mirrorless system like the A7 series from SONY. Such a small camera is a better match for small compact lenses. Conversely, a DSLR is a better match for larger lenses with more optical performance potential.

There is still one major reason not to go small, i.e., adversity to EVFs, but if you don't suffer from this, why bother with a DSLR?

I personally hope that Sigma will offer the 24-35/2 in K-mount. It will most likely provide the best value for money ratio of any lens in that range for the future Pentax FF.

Just checked Sony web site, they have 1 small/light lense available, a 35mm... All other are bigger than the typical ltd while the crop factor of an FF require significantly longer focal length for the same framing. Their lenses are also significantly more expensive, there no much choice neither.

They latest body (A7-II) is not significantly smaller/lighter than a DSLR neither. Fuji make much more sense for being small/light and are less expensive too... There still the issue of lack of offering and that mirorless tele tend to be bulky.

I have an FA77 and F135 in the bag, to find the equivalent in mirrorless for equivalent price (900€ used) and size is quite challenging... or impossible.

[drypenn]

Optical performance takes its toll on size and weight. No way around that.

So, I guess all the FA and DA Limiteds don't measure up to acceptable optical performance? No?

I guess, if sharpness is the be-all and end-all of all measures of optical performance then indeed, these Limiteds are utter failures.

As for Sony, I have my own personal reasons why I think that they are good with innovations, but their products generally suc..( unprintable ).

[wed7]

Speed
Size
Price

We can't have it all,

But the limiteds are great compromise.

[Na Horuk]

Actually I am glad different companies have different priorities, vision. That gives users a lot of choice. Want to go travel? Grab those limiteds and a WR zoom. Want to take studio photos? Grab the * or a Sigma or a Zeiss or Schneider. Want something artsy? Look at Holga, Lensbaby. Lenses for manual focus? Samyang, Mitakon, legacy glass.
Much better than having 5 companies, all trying to make the sharpest 50mm f1.4 prime and smallest 18-300mm zoom. We need variety, and even though some complain about Pentax K mount, we actually have a lot of options

[Class A]

So, I guess all the FA and DA Limiteds don't measure up to acceptable optical performance? No?

What does "acceptable" mean?

I'm assuming anyone prepared to carry around a DSLR with some lenses wants more than just "acceptable"; a phone can take very acceptable photos in many conditions.

I guess, if sharpness is the be-all and end-all of all measures of optical performance then indeed, these Limiteds are utter failures.

I never suggested that "sharpness is the be-all and end-all of all measures of optical performance".

I noticed that you own the three FA Ltds (as I do) and hence you are probably very well aware of the fact that while they are all marvellous in their own way, the designers achieved their good qualities by carefully choosing certain compromises.

The FA 77/1.8, for instance is not an f/1.4 lens even though most portrait primes in this class are. It also can show a tremendous amount of purple fringing. The FA 43/1.9 has very weak edges/corners until you stop it down quite a bit. It can also have quite "trippy" bokeh. I love my Ltds, but that does not stop me from understanding where their limitations are (the above is not meant to be exhaustive, for instance, due to their small size, the FA Ltds show higher levels of vignetting).

I agree with Na Horuk that diversity is good. All I was trying to say is that some people sometimes want lenses that have certain optical properties which are only achievable by using a certain size and amount of glass and that it does not make sense to use a camera that is designed to deal with such lenses when one is happy to make certain optical compromises.

BTW, I'm also agreeing with atlnq9 that battery life is another problem with mirrorless cameras, but the argument that the additional batteries needed amount to the same bulk and weight as a bigger DSLR system is exaggerated.

[Nicolas06]

I noticed that you own the three FA Ltds (as I do) and hence you are probably very well aware of the fact that while they are all marvellous in their own way, the designers achieved their good qualities by carefully choosing certain compromises.

The FA 77/1.8, for instance is not an f/1.4 lens even though most portrait primes in this class are. It also can show a tremendous amount of purple fringing. The FA 43/1.9 has very weak edges/corners until you stop it down quite a bit. It can also have quite "trippy" bokeh. I love my Ltds, but that does not stop me from understanding where their limitations are (the above is not meant to be exhaustive, for instance, due to their small size, the FA Ltds show higher levels of vignetting).

I agree with Na Horuk that diversity is good. All I was trying to say is that some people sometimes want lenses that have certain optical properties which are only achievable by using a certain size and amount of glass and that it does not make sense to use a camera that is designed to deal with such lenses when one is happy to make certain optical compromises.

BTW, I'm also agreeing with atlnq9 that battery life is another problem with mirrorless cameras, but the argument that the additional batteries needed amount to the same bulk and weight as a bigger DSLR system is exaggerated.

To me it is easier to find high quality, small lenses with a good price compromize in K mount than it is in FE mount. All limited lenses are highly regarded and quite small too. I don't see that many f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses for this FE mount neither and some key zoom are only in f/4 flavor, not even f/2.8 while still being expensive, under corrected and big... The lenses are not that heavy because they are made of more plastic than metal, but that's not without drawbacks.

[Matthew Saville]

Just checked Sony web site, they have 1 small/light lense available, a 35mm... All other are bigger than the typical ltd while the crop factor of an FF require significantly longer focal length for the same framing. Their lenses are also significantly more expensive, there no much choice neither.

They latest body (A7-II) is not significantly smaller/lighter than a DSLR neither. Fuji make much more sense for being small/light and are less expensive too... There still the issue of lack of offering and that mirorless tele tend to be bulky.

I have an FA77 and F135 in the bag, to find the equivalent in mirrorless for equivalent price (900€ used) and size is quite challenging... or impossible.

1.) The Sony 35 2.8 FE, if that's the lens you're talking about, is actually not very impressive in the lightweight dept, if you consider it is f/2.8 and the Pentax 35mm f/2 is only ~80 grams heavier. In short, the larger the sensor you use, the more mirrorless systems lose their bragging rights WRT both weight and affordability. I've been saying this for quite a while, and Sony continues to fail to prove me wrong with each new lens.

2.) Yup, the A7II is indeed no more than a few ounces lighter than the lightest (yet still robust and weather-sealed) DSLRs. Again, Sony continues to prove that if you want to save weight or space or money, sensor size is far more important than mirror / no mirror.

To that end, I don't think a Sigma 24-35 f/2 would have been much lighter if it had been designed for full-frame mirrorless. If you want to save weight, Sigma has already made it really clear: Get the 18-35 1.8 DC...

---------- Post added 06-29-15 at 12:13 AM ----------

To me it is easier to find high quality, small lenses with a good price compromize in K mount than it is in FE mount. All limited lenses are highly regarded and quite small too. I don't see that many f/1.2 or f/1.4 lenses for this FE mount neither and some key zoom are only in f/4 flavor, not even f/2.8 while still being expensive, under corrected and big... The lenses are not that heavy because they are made of more plastic than metal, but that's not without drawbacks.

For now, the wave Sony is riding definitely relies heavily on using adapters to allow support for other lenses. This attracts folks who have a bag of Canon or other lenses, but aren't happy with the sensors or other bells / whistles that a mirrorless body can offer. This, IMO, is why they're taking it slow with "covering all the bases", and just going for the big bucks at first. Because when you have the Zeiss name in your corner, and sensors that run circles around the competition, you can pretty much do whatever you want.

As someone with a very specific personal goal, I'm still not very interested in what mirrorless has to offer; I think Pentax' current path is much more intriguing, and offers much more promise in my eye in the long run...

[Class A]

As someone with a very specific personal goal, I'm still not very interested in what mirrorless has to offer;

Just to clarify, I'm not interested in mirrorless systems either as I prefer an OVF, better battery life, less sensor-on time, better handling, and last but not least: Pentax ergonomics.

I think Pentax' current path is much more intriguing, and offers much more promise in my eye in the long run...

I agree, but it took them a while. For a long time they came out with one small but slow and optically compromised plus expensive lens after the other. Their recent lens releases are much more promising. I still don't think that the prices are fair (compared to what the competition can offer for the same or even less money) but perhaps they'll become more attractive after a while.

[Stavri]

I don't see the usefulness of a FF 24-35mm/f2 (limited focal length) over a 24-70mm/f2.8, I'll take the latter anyday of the week...

[rawr]

The Sigma 24-35 lens has been tested now at SLRGear on Canon:
Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Performance seems pretty good, which is nice. But that 940g ...

[Matthew Saville]

The Sigma 24-35 lens has been tested now at SLRGear on Canon:
Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Performance seems pretty good, which is nice. But that 940g ...

Considering the size and weight, I'm actually moderately disappointed.

In the face of Sigma's recent Art lenses, Canon and Nikon have both been getting a lot of flak for being so trounced in the sharpness department, while still charging an arm and a leg for what are (allegedly) inferior lenses.

Yet Both Canon and Nikon's lineup of f/2.8 and f/4 zooms are completely un-matched in sheer resolving power, and their primes aren't that bad either when stopped down just a tiny bit. All of the latest Nikon f/1.8 G primes are almost razor-sharp wide open, too.

This Sigma 24-35, while sharp, doesn't seem to be worthy of any such praise, nor does it really shame any competition, given it's weight and size. IMO to be truly worth it, it needed to surpass either of the f/1.4 primes it shares range with, at least by f/2.8, but preferably wide open.

I know this is a lot to ask, but for a 2+ lb lens that is barely a 1.5x zoom, I feel justified in expecting a more flawless result.

Thus, it quietly takes its place as the only f/2 ful-frame zoom on the market, and whoever is crazy enough to buy it will probably enjoy it, but to most of us mere mortals, it is another "trophy" lens.

[ogl]

The Sigma 24-35 lens has been tested now at SLRGear on Canon:
Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Performance seems pretty good, which is nice. But that 940g ...

At 24mm, on average, barrel distortion hits just under +5% on a full-frame camera....

Huge distortion