Sigma to announce a new 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art full frame lens for Nikon F mount

Sigma 24-35mm f:2 DG HSM Art  lensSigma 24-35mm f:2 DG HSM Art
Update: the lens is now officially announced.

Earlier today I reported on PhotoRumors that Sigma will announce a new 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art full frame lens. The first pictures just leaked online courtesy of digicame-info. No additional info is available, stay tuned for more.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Visar Sulejmani

    That’s the lens I’ve been waiting for. If the price is right, I will definitely add this to my collection. My D800 is going to appreciate it. 🙂

    • Piotr Kosewski

      Wait no more.
      You can easily use Sigma 18-35/1.8 on D800. Google it.
      It seems like Sigma is simply going to limit and rebrand the crop sensor lens, because 24-35/2 is the range where it covers full frame.

      I wouldn’t expect very sharp results near the corners…

      • Craig John

        Corners are overrated. 😉

        • Piotr Kosewski

          That depends on what you’re doing.

          Some people even like bad corners (“artistic vignetting” and this kind of BS :-)).
          But some simply need the corners to be good and I really doubt this will be their favorite lens. Time will show.

          Sigma 18-35/1.8 on APS-C is pretty much awesome when it comes to corner sharpness. It was obvious from the start that its image circle is huge.

          Big question here is: how much will Sigma ask for a limited $800 lens rebranded as full frame. :]

      • SimenO

        The image looks excactly like my Sigma 18-35mm f/1,8. Is it just a photoshopped fan image or the real thing? The Sigma 18-35 works fine on FF in the range 24-35 all the way from f/2.

        Since mine is K-mount i dont have FF yet, but i have stabilization and are eager to use it on FF later on. 🙂
        I dont mind cropping a bit in the wide end. It gives me more freedom to choose aspect ratio.

        • this is the real thing confirmed by two different sources, the official announcement should be tomorrow

      • nhaler

        You mean in DX mode? I have this lens, and have thrown it on FF: vignetted corners cease to be vignettes and are hard circles from 28mm and wider – leaving only 28-35 of the zoom range usable, up to about F2.8 before those outer corners harden into circle edges.

        • Piotr Kosewski

          I’ve seen claims that the lens is more or less usable from 22-23mm. Can’t check myself.
          Could you post a full sized sample at 24/2? 🙂

          • Nyarlathotep

            DP Review has a little light fall-off and vignette set of pictures. I guess it all depends on how much fall-off you will tolerate:

            http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/4

          • nhaler

            Piotr – I have the shots – is there a hosting service you’d prefer? (I have full-sized RAWs and 6mp SOOC JPEG Fine’s that have all correction settings turned off.)

        • El Aura

          There is a rule of thumb that the maximum AOV of a zoom lens is a given regardless of sensor size. Essentially the vignetting determined by the front ‘half’ of the lens limits the AOV. At the short end of the zoom range that AOV is projected at a smaller area (for DX lenses the DX image circle). As you zoom in that AOV is projected on a larger area (which means a DX sensor only sees the centre, ie, you are zooming in). But put a larger sensor behind it and it can access that original AOV.

          I have seen such a behaviour with the Nikon 12-24 mm f/4 DX. At 18 to 19 mm, it stopped vignetting on FX. Which matched that rule of thumb in that the AOV of 12 mm at DX is the same at 18 mm at FX.

          For the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 DX this would indicate that it stops vignetting at about 27 mm.

      • Dave_D69

        I had the 18-35 1.8. It does not work on full frame unless you use dx crop mode or keep it at 35mm. The corners are horrible even then… This is a welcome addition and I’ll pick one up.

      • WorkonSunday

        82mm filter thread tho….

        • Dave_D69

          Seems like that is the new norm if you want quality optics these days….

      • WorkonSunday

        let me help you abit, this is similar to what you are referring to:

        http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/51113-sigma-18-35-1-8-zoom-aps.html

        the 18-35mm is usable from 28-35mm. i guess this one limits it to F2,make the circle abit bigger to allow it to extend to 24-35mm.

    • BRNSMRF

      Selling my Nikon 28 1.8 as soon as this comes out. As much as I love primes, zooming my feet is aging me.

    • 120_300 OS for nikon

      it is real look above.

      • Visar Sulejmani

        I wrote the comment before they updated the post with the official announcement. 😉

  • Plug

    f/2…that is fast for such a lens.

    • verytoxic

      and probably heavy too

      • Spy Black

        For that kind of range I’d rather just have a 24mm f/1.8 (which appears to be on the horizon), and a 35mm f/1.8. The two together would probably be lighter.

        • Dave_D69

          And miss shots because you had to change your lens.. 😉

          • Spy Black

            The difference is so small you just move forward or back and shoot with what’s on the camera and be done with it.

            • Eric Frame

              Then whats the point of owning a 24 and a 35, if you can “just move”?

              There’s more to a lens than moving yourself to frame the shot… the angle of view and compression changes. So “just moving” still isn’t the same as changing lenses.

            • Spy Black

              Actually, you’re partly right. Just get a 24 and be done with it. The differences aren’t going to be that great.

          • Maji

            If you miss shots because you are changing lenses then you are doing something wrong… I see those guys spend 30+ minutes setting up view cameras and I don’t see them missing a shot. Actually, their images turn out to be more thoughtfully composed and better than what I got by zooming back and forth, machine gunning etc. I just stopped thinking and instead of quality, tried quantity approach. It is good to slow down and shoot.

            • Eric Frame

              Go shoot a wedding with a view camera, and then report back on how many shots you missed. Jesus Christ.. Don’t buy the damn thing then if you have all day to take a shot.

            • Maji

              I guess people did not take wedding photos 40 years ago… It must be a new thing… taking wedding photos that is.

            • Eric Frame

              Yes, they did. And they didn’t need all day to set up a shot then either.

            • Maji

              I am sure they did not spend all day but did spend some time to set up… however, changing a lens must be faster than setting up a view camera.

      • Antonio

        Not at all…”just” 941 grs / 33.2 oz 🙂
        At this size and weight it will most likely become invisible when used for street photography as many people is seeing its optimal playground…:-)
        It may be a good and fast lens but not a small one by any counts.

  • mas921

    won’t this just replace the -epic- 24 and 35mm art primes? of course it gathers slightly less light, and same goes for IQ; but why release a limited zoom in a range they already have primes serving?

    am also worried that this lens might be the actual lens indicated by the zoom ART rumor and not the 24-70 f/2.8 OS ART…. i really hope not …

    • maybe because of all the R&D they did on the 24-70 2.0 which isn’t happening anymore. They sought to shrink it down to 35mm

    • Dave_D69

      If you are like me you like primes. However you can’t afford 20 of them and 24 and 35 is really close so you pick one. Then end up wishing it was a bit wider or tighter… If this come in at about the same price you may consider it two primes in one rather than a zoom. Less to carry. Less $ and if you need to zoom a bit in or out you don’t waste time switching lenses.

      • mas921

        Fair enough, as long as its “Art” sharp, having it instead of 2-3 faster primes is a good compromise.

        heck most of my shots are 18-35mm. Which was leading me to get a Tamron 15-30mm VC; and that one is very sharp; wonder how this one would stack up to that!

        • Eric Frame

          I’d guess its going to be awesome… I have the 24-105mm f4 Art, and wide open its almost on par with my nikon 70-200 VRII wide open… Stop both down a stop and they’re insanely sharp. If this lens is as sharp as my 24-105, i’d be happy…but It will probably be slightly better considering the much shorter zoom.

    • Up next… the 35-50mm f/2 OS Art… I was really hoping the next Art lens would have been the 85mm or the 135mm.

      • blp

        and follows up by 50-85

    • Eric Calabros

      You prefer zoom over two primes because of convenience it makes, but the question is how a lens this big, and probably heavy, can be convenient? This kind of design decisions doesn’t solve user problem; just replace it with another problem.

      • KnightPhoto

        I’d say zooms DO solve event and action shooters problems. The action is right there in front of us and our job is to capture it.

  • doge

    interesting

  • JK

    I guess I don’t get this lens. Not enough range/wide enough…fast for a zoom yes but not compared to the primes in that range… I just don’t get it.

    • That was my thought as well.

    • Dave_D69

      I never use f1.4. I usually stop to 2.8. Focus shift can be a problem on some lenses. Plus f2 is plenty fast and shallow for most purposes. If you buy a 35mm prime. At times you wish it was a bit wider or more tele. This is the answer. You can consider it two fast primes… it’s only one stop slower than 1.4. Plus it’s optics are better than most zooms (most likely like the 18-35 f1.8 which even beats out most primes, I owned it and miss it after switching to FF). I for one welcome this. If they can make a whole range of f2 short zooms with great optics, I wouldn’t have any primes in my bag…

      • saywhatuwill

        Really? You have f/1.4 lenses and you don’t use it at that aperture but stop them down to f/2.8? Why not just get the f/2.8 version of the lens? I feel guilty whenever I’m not using f/1.4 on my lenses.

        • Dave_D69

          Because those lenses aren’t as sharp at 2.8… the art lenses are much better…

        • Raffaele Aquilante

          This is the reason why older lenses (like canon FDs ) had extreme aperture like f/0,95 – f/1,0 – f/1,2.. to stop down and have sharpnen image at standards aperture like 2 / 2,8 / 4

          The fashion of using them wide open (with all their faults optical) it’s just a consequence of digital era..

          Nowadays even at 1,4 are crazy sharp.. but according to Dave the real problem is the focus shifting over the frame composition..
          Proud of my 35 ART !

        • FreshpicsUK

          Haha, I’m with you on that. 😉

      • I use my Sigma 35 1.4 Art wide open at f/1.4 all the time, even for family formals at a high-end wedding, and get tack-sharp faces as long as there is just one row of people and they are lined up decently. Shoot from a tripod and focus manually in live view, it worked for portrait photographers decades. (And now live view makes it 10x faster too!)

        There’s nothing wrong with shooting stopped down, to be sure. The Sigma Art primes get incredibly sharp by f/2.8, and I use 2.8-5.8+ when there are 2+ rows of people in my photo. But neither do I hesitate to shoot wide open, in fact I do it 75-90% of the time no matter what lens I’m using…

      • fanboy fagz

        if im shooting a single person, ill go from 2-2.8 but depends when ill use 1.4 at weddings.

        dof is too thin and if 2+ people stand together one will always be oof. no point. if im shooting the bride at the salon getting makeup or hair done or for selective focus when shooting the BG but thats it.

  • Paul H.

    Wow. If this lens’ performance lives up to the ‘Art’ tradition, then it will sell boatloads (while also cannibalizing Sigma’s own 24mm/35mm primes).

  • peter w

    Wow, I love a wide-angle zoom, perspective/ cadre, what’s the word, changes so fast each decimeter you move, a zoom helps to control balance in foreground and background. F2 is most of the time ample for wide angle unsharpness. Great this thing. It might replace my 17-35 F2,8 AF-S and rather new 35 F1,4. Depending on its price and weight. I wouldn’t want it to be heavier than the 17-35.

  • This is an amazing lens for weddings. I switch between my 24 and 35 several times per day, and have wished for this lens many times. If it lives up to the quality of the ART line it will be an absolute game changer.

    • Dave_D69

      Exactly my thoughts…

    • As a Nikon user, I just use DX crop mode. Done. 24mm f/1.4 in 1.5x mode is going to be about the same as 35mm f/2 full-frame, lol. Plus you get to carry around a lighter yet faster lens on-camera, while also fitting more images onto a memory card for weddings.

      I do this exact thing with my Sigma 35 1.4 Art, and I wound up selling my 50 prime as a result.

      • This is quite literally the most interesting comment I’ve ever seen in this forum, as it’s potentially quite useful in actual, real life, as opposed to fake internet shooting-brick-walls-and-complaining life. Thank You Astro Landscapes.

        What’s really funny is I’ve been shopping for 50 primes, as it’s the one major focal length I don’t have (I’m renting the 58mm f/1.4 for this weekend’s wedding) but this might solve it. I too rock the Nikkor 24 and Sigma 35. Time to go try this out. . .

      • Eric Calabros

        But if you calculate the hyperfocal, 35 f/1.4 will become almost a 50 f/2.8, not f/2.

        • Hyperfocal? Shooting candid portraits and general wedding / event stuff, I only care about shallow DOF, (decent bokeh) …and having fast shutter speeds at my disposal. Both which f/1.4 in FX and DX crop mode deliver in spades, thanks to how incredibly sharp the Art lenses are.

      • Eric Frame

        and cut your resolution in half in the process. :/

        • Obviously, not something I would ever do as a landscape photographer, (my hobby) but for general photojournalism, (my day job) …I do it without thinking twice for all but the most important portraits.

          • affinityseattle

            I do this at weddings on D750 and D810. Much better to do it at the shoot versus in post.

      • Kim

        Why crop in-camera when you could just save the whole file and have the freedom to fine-crop later?
        The only thing DX-mode does is throw away all the ‘FX-pixels’ surrounding the DX-frame.

        • I shoot weddings full-time, which means 2-6 thousand RAW photos per week. It adds up real quick, and plus I shoot immediate redundant to two memory cards, so that doubles my consumption for the sort-term.

          Shoot two 14 hour Hindu weddings in one week, plus 4 days of pre-wedding events and engagements, and you’re killing half a TB right there sometimes.

          If I shot any less high volume, it might not be an issue. I’m sure it isn’t an issue for many, and they’re welcome to do all their cropping in post-production. However shooting and editing thousands and thousands of photos per week, 30-40 weeks per year, like I said it adds up real quick.

      • Same here, my nikon 50 1.4 dont get used very often for the same reason

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Looks great on paper, but I’ve had my AF-s 17-35/2.8 for over a decade and it still is my go-to lens…

    • William Dyer

      I’m still using my 17-35 too though mostly for infrared, where it rocks! I also have the Tamron 15-30 for ultrawide color work. This 24 to 35 doesn’t appeal I have sigma’s 35 1.4A and it can’t be as sharp as that lens! If I want a wide zoom I already have two options. Where’s the 135 f2 Art?

      • Dave_D69

        It in fact can be as sharp. The 18-35 1.8 beats most primes… the 35mm has slight field curvature a d the corners are abit soft on the 24mm. Lets see if the short zoom range and f2 can fix those very tiny imperfections…

        • The Nikon 14-24 also beats all 14mm primes at 2.8, too.

          With today’s computer-aided optical designs, anything is possible if money and weight are no object. With 82mm filter threads and a zoom range of about 1.5x, I suspect this lens is indeed going to be utterly flawless wide open. I wouldn’t expect any less from Sigma.

      • Yep! And make it a 135 1.8 OS!
        Many thanks 😉

  • William Dyer

    So, where are the 85 F1.4 and 135 f2 Art lenses people have been clamoring and waiting for? This limited range lens is being produced first? I have Sigma 35 1.4 A, 50 1.4A and the 24-105 f4A. This lens hold NO interest for me. At least my wallet won’t get any thinner!

    • Dave_D69

      Maybe not you. But other people have been waiting for this and it may have been devloped first…

    • preston

      Even though I’d rather have a 135mm Art myself as well, I don’t want to complain about them being innovative and coming out with unique lenses!

    • Carleton Foxx

      How dare you! Nikon users already have the 135 DC which creates amazing portraits (despite having a touch of purple and green fringing that makes everything look a little psychedelic).

  • Chiumeister

    Why would Sigma make this as they already have the great 24 1.4 Art and 35 1.4 Art lens?

    • verytoxic

      I guess so that you don’t have to buy the two lenses.

  • WorkonSunday

    i think one should consider this as a shorter range 24-70mm but with increase aperture. so might work well with those who has two bodies one with this lens then second body with 70-200mm. with high enough resolution, the 35-70 gap can be covered by cropping….

    • KnightPhoto

      Come to think of it, I guess this lens kills the 24-70 f/2 OS lens rumour?

  • wangbu

    Next lens that Sigma will announce will be a 35-70mm f/2. 😉

    • I’d actually REALLY prefer that lens, than this, for weddings and portraits! 35-70mm is absolutely perfect for say, a family portrait photographer who is always shooting groups of 3-5+, or a wedding photographer who shoots family formals of 5+, as wel as general mid-range candid photojournalism. For weddings and portraits, compared to the 24-70 2.8’s out there I’d give up 24mm in a heartbeat if it gave me f/2.

      This lens, as a 24-35, makes far less sense. It could be a fake, as I commented above, but if it is true, it is clearly just a “well the 18-35 was such a smash hit on APS-C, we should do something similar on full-frame!” …Unfortunately even at that, it misses the mark a little bit.

      • This is true, especially the bit about family formals, but in my experience just about anything works for those. A self-proclaimed prime snob, I’ve lately been using the 24-120 for these and it’s great – I never shoot them at less than f/6.3 or so for DOF reasons, so that lens is fine.

        A 35-70mm f/2 would be incredibly veristle, but those focal lengths are, in my opinion, harder to create magic with artistically. I’d rather have a 60-90 f/2 (or something similar) for the other body.

        • I honestly could shoot an entire wedding with just my three primes, the Rokinon 14mm, Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, and Nikon 85 1.8 G. They’re all so sharp wide open, and my D750 has enough resolution, that I don’t hesitate to shoot them all in 1.5x mode. This gives me 14-21mm, 35-50mm, and 85-125mm. All at fast apertures, all much lighter than any zoom, regardless of aperture.

          Sure, I’d trade the Rokinon 14mm for a Sigma 16mm f/2.8 or 17mm f/2.8 Art, and I might consider buying a Sigma 85 Art or 135 Art, but for now I’m mainly just eyeing the Sigma 150 2.8 OS Macro.

          I do also own the 24-120 f/4 VR, and I only ever get it out when I absolutely MUST have the super- zoom capability. (With DX crop mode it turns into a 24-180mm!)

          BTW, I don’t hesitate to shoot family formals wide open on the Sigma 35 Art, either. As long as there’s just one row of people, I simply use a tripod and focus manually in live view, and if the people are lined up decently they’re all tack-sharp. You don’t want to put faces right in the extreme corners of your photos anyways, and the Sigma 35 has a pretty large circle of “amazingly sharp and flat-field”…

          It’s a whole different workflow, but it does set your images apart from the crowd.

          People may say it’s heretical to shoot in DX crop mode, as opposed to just buying the right lens for the job, or even just cropping in post. But those people usually don’t shoot 40-50 weddings a year with lots of fast-paced events such as Hindu, Persian, and other Asian types of wedding ceremony rituals. This system works amazingly well for me, that’s all I can say.

          • Yep, Im with you. Im mhooting mainly with 24 and 85 on D750 and D800 and cropping a bit when required (and without any hesitations with lower isos)

          • Carleton Foxx

            How many bodies do you use when you are shooting those weddings? I feel like I would go nuts if I had to swap lenses all the time.

            • @Carleton, I’ve spent years doing it each different way. I like shooting with two cameras at once, and I like shooting with just one camera. It really just depends on the job, or the season. Lately with the D750 I’ve been just using 2-3 primes for almost all my work.

              I actually fit all three primes in one waist pouch, and the 24-120 f/4 VR in another. So I can literally walk into any event with Just one camera and my Spider Holster ready to shoot, and leave the rest of my gear in a rolling case.

              If I weren’t in the middle of waiting to see what Pentax does in the full-frame department, I might invest more in a better 2nd Nikon body, maybe just a 2nd D750. But for now, my backup D700 just feels like such an old clunker, I haven’t shot dual-camera in 1-2 seasons.

  • Photobug

    Interesting focal length.

  • Carleton Foxx

    Ok. Sounds cool. But at f/2 don’t we imagine it will be the size of a fire hydrant?

    • blp

      82mm filter thread

  • An f/2 zoom that covers what two incredibly sharp f/1.4 primes cover? Hmm, I’m not buying it. This is very different than the DC 18-35 1.8, since that lens is able to be much smaller and lighter, hit a greater zoom range, and do it rather affordably.

    To be a real smash hit, this lens desperately needed to be either 18/20mm on the wide end, OR 50/60mm on the long end. F/1.8 would have been nice too, but I won’t nit-pick over 1/3 of a stop. I’d rather have f/2 and extremely low light falloff anyways.

    The good news is, these images could still be fake. The pieces could easily puzzle-shopped together from the 24 1.4 Art and the 18-35 1.8 Art… Then again, the exact curvature of the hood doesn’t match any existing Sigma Art lens that I could find, so unless some extra warping went into it, it could also be legit.

    • Yep

    • Carleton Foxx

      What’s so bad about Nikon’s existing 35-70 2.8?

      • …It’s not f/2. The whole point of these lenses is that they’re “attacking” the prime world more than the zoom world, almost.

        I’ve been around long enough to have used the 35-70 2.8 though, and it is one sharp lens. Gorgeous sunstars, too! That’s one thing you don’t see much anymore with all these bokeh-mongers demanding flawlessly curved aperture blades… 😉

  • Duncan Dimanche

    sweet !

  • Patrick O’Connor

    Sounds a lot like the Nikon D810A: Modify an existing product slightly for a narrow market. You get a few extra bucks and fill out your resume.

  • Okay, I pieced it together. Someone with lots of Photoshop time on their hands tell me if I’m not right:

    The hood is from the 24-105. The focus ring is from the 50 Art, and the rear is from the 18-35.

    Busted?

  • ShakyLens

    Aha! So it’s the DX 18-35 with the range reduced, likely because the image circle is too small below 24mm. Touche Sigma, you’ve killed two birds with one lens, so to speak. I still think it’s pretty much a pointless lens, but anyhoo.

  • trialcritic

    Wonder how expensive this will be. Sounds interesting.

  • Uncle Bob

    One stop is not worth the limited focal length. I’d rather just have the 24-70 on the camera and bump up the ISO by a stop. If I need more light, I’d get a f/1.4 prime and take two stops forward or two steps back. I’d be about the same price.

  • AYWY

    As someone already pointed out – the target audience would probably be event/wedding photogs who may be shooting people groups in low light and cramped spaces. Although they might still want to carry another body with a more portrait-friendly lens for pleasing compression when the opportunities arise.

    Not useful for “general wide-angle zoom usage”, where the inability to dip below 24mm could mean you’ll miss that picture that needs that wide-angle perspective/coverage to make it special.

  • I would more happily buy a 20-35 f2 or 24-50 f2 since 24-35 f2 is already covered buy the 24 f1.4 by croping or by switching to DX mode in camera.
    I use my 24mm as if it was a 24-36mm f1.4-2.0 at the expense of loss in sharpness and resolution, but if the performance of that 24-35 f2 really is on par with the latest Sigma primes it will be a great choice too.

    • f/1.4 is still f/1.4, so while your DOF may change relative to your sensor cropping, your low-light capabilities will still be superior with the f/1.4 prime. Unless they put OS in this f/2 zoom, which the “leaked images” don’t seem to indicate.

      Really, the ONLY reason to buy this lens is if you absolutely MUST have the zoom range for fast-paced action shooting. Otherwise a 24 1.4 or 35 1.4 combined with DX crop mode will serve you much better.

      Like you, I think they missed the mark by not making this 20mm or even 18mm on the wide end. Any landscape photographer will tell you that 24mm is awesome, but hardly worth stopping at for a wide angle zoom.

      • No. Even though you are obviously using it at f1.4 while cropping in DX mode the image degradation is about the equivalent of 1stop (Because you are making an image with a smaller part of the sensor and as any test will confirm: DX sensor is about one stop less of a performer vs FX sensor).

        With “crystal sharp” lenses you would theorically have about the same IQ with a 24mm @f1.4 on DX crop than with a 35mm @f2 on FX. But there are no crystal clear lenses and in practice you will always have better IQ shooting a 35f2 on FX than cropping your 24F1.4 in DX mode (I only do crop because I find it more convenient than swapping lenses!)

        I love to have the ability to shoot the 24mm at 1.4 so I dont think I would switch for a 24-35 f2 but if vignetting is really well controlled on that one (I doubt it) and sharpness is stellar (this can be expected) I will consider swapping my 24/1.4 for this lens.

        • *To be clearer: you theorically have the same quality with a crop sensor at let say 800iso 24mm/1.4 than with a FX sensor at 1600iso, 35mm/f2 … but in practice no …

        • There is no magical “degradation” when you use a smaller part of a full-frame sensor, there is ONLY the loss of megapixels, and the appearance of a change in DOF.

          Considering that you still have 10-16 MP in DX from a 24-36 MP FX sensor, the loss of resolution is a non-issue for weddings. I’d rather have the shutter speed variability that f/1.4 gives, than the “quality” that a higher-res file offers.

          • It is not magical, it is called downsampling. If you use fewer pixels to make a same size output you loose some IQ.

            There is not “only” less resolution (which I dont mind either for corporate and wedding), but also less sharpness because you are using a smaller part of the glass. (this becomes marginal when you use the optimal aperture for IQ).

            Just make a picture with your 35mm at f2 1600 iso and the same in DX crop with the 24mm at 1.4 800 iso and you will notice the difference: the output image is better with full frame at f2 (not at pixel level obviously)

            • I think we’re in agreement about the physics of it, however you’re confusing my assertion with normalized comparisons.

              I’m just saying that pixel-for-pixel, cropping doesn’t change how pixels pixels look. It won’t change the IQ of a certain ISO or aperture, when viewed at 100%. It’s the same image, cropped. You’ll only see a difference if you start re-sizing one or both images, or normalizing them in some other way, and even then the biggest difference will usually only just be a slight change in bokeh, unless you’re printing huge.

            • Well yes, but the thing is that we naturally “resize or normalize” when exporting the images for viewing or print. Photos are not made to be viewed at pixel level but as a whole. So at the end it does impact sharpness – and this is noticable – and resolution but there is still plenty for most work.

            • Carleton Foxx

              For God’s sake, please let’s keep this an “equivalence” free zone. If you want to discuss crackpot theories, go hang out with the nuts at DPreview.

            • My bad, I did not know that rule … 🙂

  • KnightPhoto

    Just settling in to read this post and comments, but the specs do sound crazy – f/2 for Pete’s sake! For theatre I could use something like the 17-35 f/2.8 on one body or especially an updated Nikon even sharper than the current model wide open. But an f/2 lens (giving up the widest focal lengths of course) would have to be scrutinized. I actually use f/4 a lot to provide depth of field but one would assume this lens would be sharp at f/2.8 and very sharp at f/4. I think the focal range ultimately is not wide enough for my specific use case. I use my 24-70 a lot currently and 24 is not wide enough for some scenes and my 16-35 f/4 probably warrants more use than I currently put it to. Probably brings me back to the 17-35 but still, this 24-35 does sound very interesting. I like fast lenses for those times when you need a fast lens.

    I’ll also continue to take better low light performance than my current D4/D800E sensors, hopefully they will continue to improve. For what I do the camera capability at the highest ISOs has more impact than the fastest lenses because I am often trying for some DOF to keep several actors in acceptable focus.

  • Dan Suquitana

    I have a tokina 16-28mm 2.8. A little soft wide open at 2.8 and very soft at 28mm. Do you guys think I should get this and replace it?

    • Dave_D69

      Yes. No doubt… I had the 18-35mm 1.8. Sharp as hell and well built…

  • Joseph Li

    wow…damn…strange..but good
    it’s a 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 combined and lose a stop. If it’s sharp wide open, this lens can certainly be two primes in one. f/1.4 has too shallow a depth of field sometimes anyway, this could be a really good lens for wedding

  • blp

    the lens is announced

  • affinityseattle

    Even if it’s not tack sharp at 2.0, you have to realize that you are giving your AF system a 2.0 to focus on even if you stop to 4.0+ for the shot. That’s a big advantage for dark scenes.

  • Kim

    How can they call this a “ZOOM”??? From 24mm to 35mm? A “zoom-range” of 1,45x!!! That’s exactly the same as Tokinas ‘adjustable-prime’ 11-16mm
    You really have to pay attention to see any difference in framing 🙂
    I would much rather have a smaller 30mm f/2 at half the weight.

  • 24×36

    WAAAY too small a zoom ratio to be remotely interesting to me. Where’s the 24-70 redo (hopefully with the zoom ring turning the right way this time)? You can leave the VR off of that, too – don’t want the battery drain and/or other issues, never mind the extra cost.

  • beach
  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    Hi it is real look at Sigmaphoto.com no price yet.

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    it is real and preorder too bur no price yet

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    oops but no price yet B%H and Sigmaphoto.com

  • Pembaca Gerak

    no OS?

  • Install an Ad-Blocker!

    24-35 f/2…

    Why?

  • Vick Ebong

    can it work with samsung note 4?

  • Carleton Foxx

    Based on my experience shooting an event on Friday, this could be the perfect lens for people covering events in hotel meeting rooms, nightclubs, dinners and other places where you have to capture groups of 4 to 10 people in insufficient light and can’t use a flash. I was finding f2.8 far from good enough.

  • Back to top