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

The first pictures and specifications of the rumored Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art full frame lens for DSLR cameras leaked online:

  • Mount: Canon · Nikon · Sigma
  • Release date and price to be determined
  • Outstanding picture quality of the Art product line
  • Compatible with the aberration correction capabilities of Canon cameras
  • Professional specifications
  • Introduction of the new front-change service
  • Lens construction: 11 groups of 17
  • Number of diaphragm blades: 9 (circular aperture)
  • Maximum photographing magnification: 1: 5.4
  • Size (for Sigma version): 96.4 mm x 135.1 mm
  • Weight (for Sigma version): 1,150 g

Via Nokishita

Like: Sigma Facebook page | Join: Sigma Facebook group

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

    Nice looking lens. Can’t wait to see how it stacks up to the Nikon. Stabilization? They might have made a system to hold filters?

    • Ed Hassell

      Without any evidence, my guess would be not. Stabilization, while useful, is less important at very wide angles.

      • Shutterbug

        Stabilization is still extremely useful on UWA. Lots of places don’t allow for tripods, or are not convenient or even possible to set up a tripod in (i.e. crowded areas, museums, etc.). Also, it’s easy to get shots down around 1/4-1/10 with a good stabilized UWA like the Nikon 16-35, which allows you to handhold sharp images in extremely low light or for waterfall shots. Personally I find stabilization on UWA’s a must-have, but everyone’s usage is different. I would at least like the option. Too bad it looks like the Sigma doesn’t have it – I’ll be keeping my 16-35 a while longer 🙂

        • bonem

          I agree. I’d rather have stabilization even if it is a wide angle lens. It allows you to push the exposure time even further.

        • TheInfinityPoint

          YES. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen people say VR is useless or less important on UWA lenses. It’s still stabilization. It’ll still let you drag your shutter longer. What’s to complain about that?!?

    • cBBp

      Sigma is banking in all camera shaving IBIS soon. In lens was ok but is more elements and worse image quality. Thats why no lenses have had OS in some time unless they were wedding photography style lenses that needed it right now.

      • Shutterbug

        DLSRs won’t get IBIS (current PDAF implemention makes this difficult if not impossible), and not even every mirrorless camera today has IBIS. There are some huge drawbacks to IBIS, such as higher sensor noise and a non-stabilized viewfinder. Also, IBIS is pretty well useless as the focal length increases. Lens based stabilization is far superior, assuming it is an option.

        • El Aura

          You should tell this Pentax and Sony. They apparently didn’t get the memo that IBIS was impossible on DSLRs and went right ahead and implemented it in grand total of 49 different cameras with a mirror and off-sensor PDAF.

          • Mike

            If you’re into having an accurate representation of what the final image will be vs what you see in the viewfinder….IBIS may not be for you. People complain about having a 98% coverage viewfinder (a la D700) where there was a smidgeon of a crop in the viewfinder compared to the resulting image. It used to cause all sorts of trouble on gear forums. IBIS is worse. You may have precisely lined up your shot but then the sensor moves and the final image has shifted in a direction you didn’t want or anticipate. With in-lens stabilization, what-you-see-is-what-you-get. And the VR/VC/OS/IS is tailored to that lens/focal length. EVF is one thing, you sort of see what you’re getting. But even then, even as you’re pressing the shutter the sensor is still moving. With OVF…. Yeesh…. Worst of both worlds…. But you’re not even viewing things stabilized. The viewfinder is all shaky (I’m thinking longer than 135mm) which would make it tough to compose. Lastly, there is a reason Panasonic removed it from the G5s…. Theirs is operated by magnets, and even when off the sensor can still move passively. Apparently this doesn’t play well with external stabilization like gimbles. So Panasonic put a fixed sensor in their S version camera.

            • El Aura

              You underestimate how fast the stabilisation system work. OIS for example re-centre the lens elements just a few milliseconds (or thereabouts) before the exposure such that during the exposure the optical system is as close as possible to the original optical design (of course the stabilisation element isn’t perfectly still during the exposure, that would be dereliction of its stabilisation duties, but tilts and shifts about symmetrically around its neutral axis).

              But before the exposure, while you are looking through the viewfinder this constraint obviously cannot apply. Thus what you see through a DSLR viewfinder (with IBIS) is an average of the camera movement. And with OIS you see the same average, just smoothed out by the OIS and not your brain integrating the input. But since the time of exposure is not linked to your (somewhat periodic) camera movement, the exposure can happen at any point in that (periodic) movement and since the stabilisation elements are re-centred before exposure, the framing you get is randomly distributed according to your (periodic) camera movement.

              IBIS can act exactly the same way (ie, re-centre the sensor just before exposure) which leads to same framing differences as with OIS. Or it can keep the average framing that you saw (with an EVF) or the mental average through an optical viewfinder. Meaning there is no framing advantage of OIS, there even could be a disadvantage.

              OIS does have the advantage of a stabilised viewfinder (with DSLRs), and it is more effective for longer focal lengths (which thus doesn’t apply to the lens we are discussing here). IBIS has the advantage that it can stabilise all existing non-OIS lenses and that it adds no optical compromises (which is part of the reason while almost all very fast primes outside of long tele lenses don’t have OIS, it adds compromises in already difficult optical designs).

              And while the GH5s is a counterexample, it is a very niche camera and the trend is clearly going in the other direction with Panasonic adding IBIS to most new cameras and Fuji with the X-H1 going there as well.

              But that is all just you distracting from the point that you didn’t know or forgot that Pentax and Sony DLSRs (incl. Sony SLTs) have IBIS when you made your statement about IBIS in DSLRs.

  • vipmediastar

    Two hoods?

    • Ed Hassell

      Possibly a more constrictive hood for use with DX sensors as opposed to full-frame?

    • pedantic_brit

      Looks like a hood or no hood – is that what they mean by “Introduction of the new front-change service”?

      • Roger S

        I was wondering about the “front-change service” as well. Does anyone know what this means?

        • cBBp

          probably to remove hood for filter uses

          • Roger S

            That makes sense — to mount a filter holder on the front of the camera. Thanks.

            • pedantic_brit

              Or perhaps to use it on a body with a larger sensor when the hood would cause vignetting?

          • Mistral75

            With such a protruding front element?

            • Roger S

              I assume that some filter system holders will be deep enough to extend beyond the front element.

      • Mistral75

        I think so. It would explain why the lens has no lens hood on some pictures and a petal-shaped lens hood that looks as if it were built-in on some others.

      • vipmediastar

        Looks like two hood. Look at the focus grip above that you have a hood that is smaller or a larger hood. That’s my guess but if the smaller one is consider not at a “hood” for filters than thats it

  • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

    Looks beautiful hope it puts some pressure on N,C, S to bring out some competitive updates and for their prices to be near / competitive as the Sigma version.

    Looks like on paper an excellent product from Sigma.

  • DSS

    As much as I like the optical quality and look of Sigma’s latest Art series, the question is….. is it going to focus properly? At least with such a wide lens, it will have a higher tolerance for front and back-focusing. Shooting wide open and close to the subject might be a different story. I really wish they’d work that out.

    • Eric Calabros

      Many of its potential buyers don’t care about AF at all.

      • Just Me

        Which could be why they are potential buyers.

        • DSS

          True,.. most will use manual focus and narrow apertures on a tripod, but having spent some time using an 11mm f/4 manual focus lens, I sure do miss autofocus for action-type photography where subject distance changes, especially in lower light where wider apertures are needed. It would be nice if it had accurate AF for those situations.

          • Bob Thane

            I own the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 DGII – so quite a bit before their art line, and the focus has always been fast and accurate. I’ve heard that their AF has only improved since then, so I imagine it’s good enough to handle a 14-24mm f2.8 pretty well. Their 135mm f1.8 seems to have pretty fast and accurate focus, and that’s with a much narrower depth of field.

            • Their AF has been really touch and go lately. I had a 50-100 and that thing was atrocious through three copies. I would literally mount it on a tripod, focus, shoot, require without moving the tripod, focus, and shoot and repeat this and have front and back focus. It was awful.

            • GMck

              Same here with art 85 & 35. 35 went back to sigma and they repaired it. It works better now, but not every shot. I gave up on the 85 after 2 copies would not focus at all. There are so many reports of focus issues, you’d think they would figure out why and fix it once and for all.

    • Citizen Kang

      I’ve had a number of the newer Sigma lenses (35mm, 20mm, 135mm, 150-600mm, 60mm e-mount, etc.,…). The only ones that did not need some focus adjustment were the 135mm Art and 60mm e-mount (which doesn’t have the dock adjustment capability). I get the impression that they’ve sorted out their focus issues with the advent of the 85mm f/1.4 and all the lenses after that are pretty good within some tolerances.

  • fanboy fagz

    no stabilization and a short range. I think the tamron seems a better choice here. good price, goes to 30mm and has VC.

    that 24 is too short. pain in the ass to shoot 2-3 people 1/2 body shot at 24mm. its not great at 30 but yet better.

    • fanboy fagz

      why no 105 1.4 art lens?

      • CBJ

        Maybe Sigma couldn’t figure out how to make it yet?

      • Mike

        It’s a tough act to follow. The ONLY way Sigma will beat that is with price. The 105 is near perfect.

    • Vinnypimages

      That said the Tamron is in fact a 16mm at the wide end and loses out nearly a stop on light transmission so for some other uses is not such a good choice.

  • HD10

    At 1150g, this Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom is the same weight as the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.0 for Nikon. Both would be 150g heavier than my already heavy Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G.

    • Which should remind Nikon they need to update the 17-35 f/2.8 and redo the 16-35 f/4 VR.

      • Mike


  • James R Mercer

    Unless the quality of this lens exceeds the Tamron 15-30mm F/2.8, I don’t see this as a compelling competitor to either Nikon or Tamron’s current offerings.

    Given that the Art series has excelled in quality with its Art prime lenses, but NOT with Art zooms… I’ll be surprised if this is truly competitive. I’m guessing they simply felt compelled to create this lens to make the entire line directly comparable to their competition’s offerings.

    • fanboy fagz

      actually the 24-35 f/2 / 18-35 1.8 / 50-100 1.8 are OUTSTANDING lenses. the new 24-70 ART is garbage, not worthy of the badge and the 24-105 is decent for such a wide range but no art badge which people know as outstanding lenses.

    • Yasfaloth

      It’s not difficult to exceed Tamron overall quality, especially build quality !

      • Their new build quality is a world different. Definitely on par with Sigma. I had the 50-100 and it was awful! Completely unreliable and inconsistent AF

  • Mistral75

    So, compared to the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED this Sigma lens:

    – has three more elements (17 in 11 groups instead of 14 in 11 groups)
    – is a tad longer (+1.1mm, the mount being the same) and thinner (-1.6mm in max. diameter)
    – is 15% heavier.

    • Gerard Roulssen

      … aaand will be better where it counts most – image qiality. The NIKKOR is a 12-13 years old design and manufacturers, Sigma especially, have come a long way since.
      So, this will be better than the 14-24/2.8 NIKKOR, but only for a few months, when the new 14-28/2.8E NIKKOR arrives 😉

      • “The NIKKOR is a 12-13 years old design”

        It’s still one of the very best Nikkor lens, the bar is high here.

        • sickheadache

          No..u would be off just a bit..10 years.

          • Mike

            You’re both right….. It’s been on the market for just over 10 years but the design and patent process likely started a few years before that.

            • El Aura

              As did the one for this Sigma lens. If you call the Nikon a 12-13 year old design, the Sigma is then a two-year old design.

  • T.I.M

    Still waiting for a nice Nikkor 15mm f/4 (77mm filters) without distortion or fall off.
    The Nikon 14mm f/2.8 is slow (AF), have tons of vignetting and distortion.

    • Aldo

      You want a 15mm without distortion?

      • T.I.M

        got one for me ?

      • Mistral75

        Venus Optics propose two 24×36 ultra-wide angle lenses with close-to-zero distortion, the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D and Laowa 15mm f/2 FE Zero-D (the latter only available in Sony E mount), why couldn’t Nikon?

        • T.I.M

          The AF-s 20mm f/1.8 is great, just need to make it wider…

  • T.I.M

    And please, tell Annie Leibovitz to stop calling me, I don’t need a 5×7″ view camera.

  • Aurelie

    Perfect for landscape photographers.

  • bobgrant

    Zzzzzzz. We already have great options with Nikon 14-24, Tamron 15-30, Tokina 16-28 and so on. And all of those are fantastic, so I even if the Sigma is a tad better, who cares? Sigma should have gone for Nikon/Canon’s throat with a 200mm fast pro ART prime. Everyone’s loving the Sigma 135 ART. 14-24 = one giant snore fest.

    • TurtleCat

      It all depends upon features. If this has low glare and little coma and doesn’t have mustache distortion it could be a real gem.

    • bonem

      The person that cares is the person looking to buy the best lens. Having options is great.

  • Shutterbug

    No stabilization kills this for me, otherwise it looks like a great alternative if it’s significantly cheaper than the Nikon (which I know also lacks VR).

    • Toy let

      Tamron 15-30 corner to corner sharpness amazing vibration control. It’s so good I own two.

  • sickheadache

    2.5 Pounds of Sigma Goodness

  • jsvfoto

    Maybe there’s still hope Sigma will release that 200mm f/2 they pantented a few years ago.

  • Even if it does have Sigma Stabilization, they kind of wet the bed with their stabilization on the 24-70 and 70-200. Not the greatest stabilization in the world. I want to compare to the Tammy 15-30 before I buy a UWA.

  • Randolf Sack

    It looks tiny compared to the Nikon, I only take out my Nikon these days when I feel guilty about never going to the gym.

    Oh damn, just read the weight…. wish they’d work on light lenses

  • Toy let

    Tamron 15-30mm own this focal range, I don’t see it being dethroned anytime soon especially to a lens with no vibration control.

  • Back to top