Sigma is rumored to announce a new 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art lens


Just a quick update in case you are not following PhotoRumors: Sigma is rumored to announce a new 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art lens (via Nokishita).


This will be a direct competitor to the popular Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED lens ($1,896.95). Maybe this news will push Nikon to release a new version of their 14-24mm lens just like they did with the 24-70mm and 70-200mm models and complete the "Holy Trinity".

Update - additional info on the new Sigma lens:

First pictures of the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art lens

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • This is awesome if true!

  • a5m

    Nikon 14-24 is due for an update. Flare monster. Hopefully this will be enough motivation.

    • Bob Thane

      If anyone can make a 14mm f2.8 without loads of flare I’d be deeply impressed. The Sigma 12-24 has loads of it, and even the Tamron 15-30 is brutal with flare (though slightly better than the Nikon). Just the nature of these bulbous lenses, but perhaps someone can fix it.

      • Nyarlathotep

        You are probably right, f2.8 and UWA is a really difficult combo. Most of the lenses in this category, if not all, are quite challenged with respect to flare control.

      • nigel

        I have an older Sigma 15-30 that has little flare issues at all. Same bulbous lens, few if any problems with flare. That being said, if/when that lens fails, I’m not sure what I will be able to find to replace it with.

      • a5m

        I think “brutal” is an exaggeration and “slightly better” an understatement. IMHO Tamron is in a different league compared to the Nikon. VC to boot, which blew me away with the IQ I got from wide open.

        On a side note, I don’t get the weight complaints I often see about the Nikon. Carried it for hours without a problem. Y’all is weak.

        • Bob Thane

          Fair enough – it’s all subjective, and the Tamron’s definitely an exceptional lens. As for weight, I think it really depends on the situation. I shoot with the 200-500 handheld for full football games, no problem. But if I’m going on a hike I want to reduce my weight as much as possible – my food and tent is already ~30 pounds, and while an extra pound or two won’t kill me I’ll certainly be feeling it at the end of the week (especially since my food will be eaten, but the camera will weigh on me the whole time).

          • a5m

            I didn’t think of that – hiking. That’s a good point. In that case I imagine every ounce counts. I was actually surprised at the small size and weight of the 14-24. I always thought people were complaining about its weight exclusively.

    • Tooki

      As much as I love my 14-24, I’ve actually been tempted to sell it for the Tamron 15-30 just because of the flair. I just hope when they do come out with a new one that it isn’t any bulkier or heavier. The size of the new 24-70 is actually ridiculous.

      • Just Me

        The 24-70 E is fine. Hit the gym. 😉

        • Tooki

          I’m perfectly fit enough to carry it thanks, but It’s not fine. It’s significantly longer and quite a bit heavier than any competing lens (Canon, Sigma, or Tamron) without any particular optical advantage to show for it. And it has an 82mm filter thread, which means you’d have to carry adapters or buy a different set of filters if you’re carrying other common lenses like a 70-200 or a 300mm f/4.

          • Just Me

            It is significantly longer and heavier but it is very obviously sharper in the corners than EVERY other 24-70. If you shoot landscapes, architectural, etc.. it makes a big difference. And the Sigma and Tamron 24-70s take 82mm filters as well. So, it’s just a matter of whether or not you need the corner and edge sharpness.
            In any case, I was joking.

            • Tooki

              I believe you that it’s a very sharp lens. What I don’t believe (based on plenty of reviews) is that it’s sharp enough to justify the significant increase in size and cost (compared to the G version or the Tamron), the moderate increase in weight, or having to buy and carry a separate set of filters and/or filter adapters.

            • Just Me

              That’s a different story and people have to decide that for themselves. Within reason, which is also subjective, I don’t worry about cost. Long after I’ve forgotten about the difference in price, I’ll still be shooting with whatever lens I bought. Either I’ll be happy with it or I won’t.

          • Lou Rivera

            Nikon 2.35 lbs
            Canon 2.45 lbs
            Sigma 2.25 lbs
            Tamron 1.98 lbs

            It’s not quite a bit heavier than any of them and it’s perfectly balanced on a full-frame body.

            • Tooki

              Canon’s 24-70 f/2.8 II is only 1.77 lb. Even the older version is only 2.1 lb. I assume you were looking at the total package weight.

              And the size is probably an even bigger issue than the weight. It’s as close to a 70-200 as it is to some of the other 24-70s.

            • Lou Rivera

              Seems to be an issue for you. Stick with the 24-120. Or a DX camera system. Why make it an issue for everyone else? I’m sorry you can’t justify the extra size for insane image quality. Most professional photographers can.

            • Tooki

              >Seems to be an issue for you. Stick with the 24-120. Or a DX camera system.

              If size, weight, and price are no object, why are you shooting Nikon? Why not go medium format? If they aren’t an issue, why are a growing number of pros switching to mirrorless systems? I don’t have a problem with carrying bulky, heavy gear. What I have a problem with is that it keeps getting bulkier and heavier for marginal gains. The difference in size between the Canon 24-70 II and the Nikon 24-70 VR is enough to make the difference between being able to carry a fast 50 or a teleconverter. And Nikon managed to make the 70-200 FL ED sharper while simultaneously making it slightly lighter and smaller AND fixing the the focus shift problem AND keeping the 77mm filter size. I had similar expectations of the 24-70–especially when the G version was already noticeably larger than the competition.

              > Why make it an issue for everyone else?

              Nobody forced you to respond to my comment. I’m not “making it an issue” for you anymore than you are for me.

            • Lou Rivera

              Medium format? Where did I say price wasn’t an issue? Mirrorless? No way. I don’t like hand cramps and lack of glass. I’ll keep my perfectly weight balanced D850 and 24-70. Especially for the image quality

            • Tooki

              Oh sorry, I thought we were making nearly baseless assumptions about which gear would be best for each other.

            • Lou Rivera

              Actually, you were the one doing that. Telling the world why they shouldn’t use a Nikon 24-70. I was explaining why we use it.

            • Tooki

              Show me where I said people shouldn’t use a 24-70. Show me. I’m waiting.

              I own and regularly use the 24-70 f/2.8 G FFS, as well as the 14-24 and 70-200. All I said was that the size of the new 24-70 is actually ridiculous—which it is next all competition including its previous version—and that I hope the 14-24s successor doesn’t receive a similar size increase.

            • Lou Rivera

              And all I’m saying is even after adding VR, the size isn’t ridiculous.

            • Chris

              The New Canon is 82mm as well and has no VR/IS

      • don’t do it. Tamron is closer to 16mm in reality (so Nikon is noticeably wider) + it’s actually heavier than 14-24 and feels way more fat/beefy (to me doesn’t feel as good in hand as the Nikon).

        I had 14-24 – got rid of it, got 15-30 (sold it after a year for what I bought it for and went back to a used 14-24).

        • Tooki

          I’ve already decided not to for those reasons and because the 14-24 is otherwise so good. It’s just that the flair on the 14-24 can be so obnoxious in some situations and I’d really like a lens that handles it better (hoping Nikon’s next version does).

  • Nyarlathotep

    Interesting, Sigma keeps nipping at Nikon’s heels. The real questions are, how good and how much. If they can nestle in below Nikon’s current offering and meet or beat its performance, that would be quite intriguing. Tough order, I know. The 14-24 is still a very good lens, especially given it’s age. It has really held that banner for a long time.

  • Amir

    I don’t know others,but I am quite happy with older nikon 24-70G with my D850 for wedding,concert,and the like.Unlike crappy counterparts like new Sigma art or Tamron G2 of 24-70,it is still strong.Of course,if you wanna shoot landscape rather portrait with 24-70,newer E version is there to go with.70-200 has quite different story and if you shoot with FX bodies,newer E version is your almost only choice.Nikon 14-24G is still strong,even on D850,if you know how to get it right while shooting.

  • Mike

    Shut. The. Front. Door. This should be cool. Quite remarkable though that after 11 years, the Nikon 14-24 is still king of the heap. 12 mp era and all. What Nikon really needs more than a 14-24 refresh is a 17-35 2.8 refresh.

    • Dino Brusco

      Agree. It’s the only AF Nikon lens that I regret having sold before being able to master it.

    • Julian

      The Nikkor 14-24 is an awesome lens, and still one of my favourites, I loved it so much I splurged on the Lee filter holder for it, and that was worth it too, love this lens.

  • DieMusik

    Great! Sigma bring out 70-200 Art soon as well!

  • The Nikon is a good lens. I have the 14-24 2.8G because at 14 it is better than the prime.

    • Ed Hassell

      I would almost be willing to say that a coke bottle would be better than Nikon’s 14 f2.8D. It was great back in film days; but even in the era of the D3, it was out-classed.

      • I think he meant ” better than what a good prime would be”. I agree with your opinion of current 14 mm.

  • Luca Motz

    This is great news, but will it work, once Nikon transitions to mirrorless?
    I‘m definitely trying to stay in Nikon land these days

    • Semaphore

      Nikon starting a serious mirrorless line doesn’t mean they’ll kill DSLRs. It’s not a transition as much as an expansion.

      • Luca Motz

        I think we‘ve been through this enough now.
        They won’t instantly stop their DSLR production but rest assured that you will see mirrorless only in 10 years time. And I’m not buying a lens for it not to work on modern bodies anymore in 5-10 years. Not in that price range anyways

        • I can comment with my own opinion, but I won’t 🙂

          • Luca Motz

            I mean don’t get me wrong, if they come up with some reason a DSLR has an advantage over a mirrorless that cannot be mitigated by more processing power, I‘d be more than happy to stay with DSLRs. I‘m HEAVILY invested in Nikon and 3rd party glass and you can rest assured, I’d be totally bummed out if all of that glass didn’t work as advertised anymore in the future. I also just bought the D850 instead of switching to Sony. I’m certainly a Nikon fanboy at heart.
            All of that said: I had 2 friends come to me for camera buying advise. I really wanted to tell them to buy Nikon, really did. I had to tell them Canon though. Video was a factor, so Nikon was out. For one of them, size was a factor, so Nikon was out. It was between Fuji,Sony and Canon. Canon made the most sense in terms of price efficiency.

            • I just came back from the SpaceX launch. There were 4,000 people in the area I was and pretty much everyone had a camera. I would say 99% were DSLRs. Do you think all those people will switch to mirrorless just like that because it’s the latest trend? I certainly won’t. DSLRs will be sold for a very long time, just like multiple companies still sell manual focus M-mount lenses….

      • Markus

        The question remains how much Nikon will allow on their mirrorless.

        I tend to think Sigma and Nikon have an licence agreement.

        Otherwise this is a huge attack on Nikons lens line. Both Sigma and Tamron have produced some really nice glas.

        • Luca Motz

          Seeing that the Sigma art line tends to have AF problems I’m not so sure..

        • It’s nothing personal. Just business.

  • This might be asking too much but it would be great if this lens was able to compete with the Nikon or Tamron without a bulbous front.

  • Gerard Roulssen

    Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-28mm f/2.8E VR is just around the corner, so … not really interested in this rumor …

  • Gerard Roulssen

    Waay back there were (fake …) rumors of a 10-18/4 FX Nikon lens. With the latest Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-28mm f/2.8E VR lens rumors starting to build up, an addition of a second WA zoom lens in the form of Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 10-18mm f/4E VR would make Nikon unbeatable in the WA zoom arena.

  • HKer

    I have been using the 14-24 Nikon for work for a few years now, its a workhorse lens. Fairly rugged lens. Yes some minor flare, but a hand over the lens can solve that. Nikon needs to go even wider. I have bought the canon 11-24 as you can never say no to a wider rectilinear lens for whatever purpose, could be for getting more crowds in the shot, a whole wall of artwork, a whole building side in one shot when limited space to move back. With Sony 12-24f4 at half the weight. Canon 11-24 f4. Nikon needs to go WIDER! So could you risk buying this sigma lens with the possibility of Nikon coming up with something wider? I currently use the 8-15 fisheye and rectify as best as possible when in desperate need of something wider than 14mm. I would love to see a 11-24f4 Nikon version. Or 12-24f4 at half the weight:)

  • Back to top