Sigma Amazes with Pricing for World's First Full-Frame f/2 Zoom Lens: $999

Sigma Amazes with Pricing for World's First Full-Frame f/2 Zoom Lens: $999

The world's first full-frame coverage, f/2 zoom lens makes history as Sigma prices the 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art lens at a very fair $999.00. Moreover, Sigma promises it will feature similarly excellent optical performance as the other lenses across their new Art-series, Global Vision lenses.

For what it offers, it's no secret that the lens comes in at a relatively low price. Sigma's commitment to create lenses with fantastic optical performance while keeping prices well below the competition over the last few years is clear. But this is the first lens that offers something completely new — something that can't be found anywhere else today. Naturally, the sub-$1,000 pricing is a sign of Sigma's unending commitment to their renewed vision that continues to give the photographic community greater confidence.

Sigma's Art-series lenses now famously also include the 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and the 24-105mm f/4.

Read more about the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 or pre-order it now in Canon EF, Nikon F, or Sigma SA mounts for $999.00. Orders should ship by the end of July.

Log in or register to post comments

32 Comments

Michael Comeau's picture

The price is right but it seems like they wanted to claim the first FF f/2 zoom without putting much thought into practicality.

That thing weighs 33 ounces and the zoom range is incredibly limiting.

A 28mm prime and the willingness to take a few steps forward or backwards makes way more sense.

Christopher Nolan's picture

wow, i didn't realize i weighed 2 pounds, . . . LOL, . . . i am not sure i get it either

Physics and fantasy collide. Physics wins.
Yup its large AND the range is limited. But a fast zoom is what the market asked for.
IMO it offers a decent short zoom for weddings in crap (available) light.

Of course, now the 24-70 f2.8 zooms don't look so slow or bulky. Bump the ISO one stop and you are making images for a bride that gets printed (at best) at 11x14 with no discernible difference to IQ.
As for "zooming with your feet" sometimes the position you stand makes all the difference and demands a certain camera position.
The silly Kabuki of prime lens infatuation gets old real fast when working a lot of events and weddings.

Michael Comeau's picture

The whole point of a zoom is flexibility and this lens doesn't offer much. 24-70 is just more practical.

I agree. But it lost its flexibility when Sigma chose to make it f2.
An ironic result of giving customers what they were asking for.

Zyaire Porter's picture

Couldn't agree more. You can get a 28mm 1.8 for $700

Brian Carpenter's picture

I believe I have the lens you are talking about... Nikkor 28mm 1.8G. Great lens and probably not really replaceable by this Sigma lens.

Andrew Richardson's picture

The difference in distortion and field of view from 24mm to 35mm is actually pretty significant. I would use this as a go-to for photojournalism assignments and wedding receptions.

Next up 50-55mm f1.8.

You cannot zoom with your feet. Walking forwards or backwards changes the distance from the sensor to the subject and thus changes the perspective of the image.

That's true but this is still a relatively small zoom range

Eric Duminil's picture

Yes, Sigma produces very good and affordable lenses.
All your Sigma announcement looks like cheap advertorials though, and it's getting counterproductive.

Are those sigma lenses plastic? Are the filter threads metal or plastic?

Fritz Asuro's picture

The new lens line up from Sigma are well rugged, metal construction, and feels premium. They are introducing the Art (A), Contemporary (C), & Sports (S). I'm pretty sure the Sports lineup are weather sealed and has rubber gasket on the mount, not quite sure with the other two (A & C).

The lenses certainly look stylish. I wonder how the build quality compares to those horrid new plastic nikons. Zeiss are all metal and great but don't have autofocus which is such shame but apparently Sigma does?

As Fritz noted, Sigma build in the Art line is excellent AND they have AF.

Fritz Asuro's picture

The new line of lenses are sure stylish, more Sony/Zeiss-ish look I guess. I have the 120-300 Sport and I can say that Sigma has raised their bars on their craft. I've tried the primes too and I can say it's all well built. Metal it is! AF also is fast and accurate (even better than my Nikon's?) Sharp lenses. Though too sharp that if you are looking for dreamy creamy bokeh, Sigma might disappoint you a little.

Whatabout the hoods and filter threads? Even on all metal lenses these are often plastic which is mostly a problem for filter threads as they wear out.

Adam Ottke's picture

I'm going to look into this on my lenses ASAP. I can't imagine the filter threads are not metal...first, that would be bad for longevity as you suggest. And second, I've put a few filters on (and taken them off) and imagine I would have noticed if they were not metal. That would be a critical part to keep metal...

The hoods, on the other hand, are plastic. You're correct. Here, however, it is a completely replaceable part that isn't critical to the lens or optics apart form shielding some stray light. The plastic they do use is quite good...and using plastic allows the weight to stay just a bit more manageable. So I think those things are the reasoning there (also, plastic won't bend permanently like metal will. This is VERY good since you can't damage a plastic hood without breaking it... A metal one, on the other hand, might be bent in a way that would interfere with picture-taking...especially if it's a leafed hood...).

Will double-check on those threads soon...

Greg Taillon's picture

The threads on the 18-35 F1.8 are plastic, and *will* grab onto a filter and not let go, I-tell-you-whot.

Adam Ottke's picture

That's really unfortunate to hear... Maybe they somehow thought that was okay because it's an APS-C lens??? Why that would ever be okay is a mystery to me, though... But on the bright side (for me, not for you...)...the full-frame lenses seem to be all metal (at least for the filter threads).

Dan Savinelli's picture

I am sure it will be a great lens for a photojournalist, especially if they want to travel light. Or on a dance floor for wedding I can see being fantastic. I do neither and don't really need this one. I am thinking tho its great to knock Nikon and Canon in over complacent butts. It seems to be more of a speciality lens for specific types of photography. I just wish Sigma would release a 85mm 1.2. So I can ditch my Nikon 85 1.4, I hope that's next in the lineup. May be if I am lucky, Sigma will come out with Art series speedlights with built in radios and 5 groups for Nikon. Give Nikon a kick in the butt there to.

I believe that I read somewhere that a Nikon F mount can not support an 85mm 1.2 because of the distance to the sensor and the size of the mount or something to that effect, and that is one of the reasons that Canon updated their mounting system in the 80s.

I had read that at one point but I don't believe it since Leica has a smaller mount on the M series and they still get 1.2 lenses to work. In addition other third party manufacturers make lenses as fast as .95 in M mount.
As for f1.2 I used a Canon 85 f1.2 for a while and found it a clunky and slow lens that had scant advantage over the 85 f1.8. While it had killer bokeh, one had to be very close to the subject to see it. At f1.2 the number of keepers is low. so I stop down a bit and Voila, I have bokeh very close to my f1.8 but still have a heavy, clunky lens.

I don't get the hoopla over the 85/1.2. Every time I see a review of all 4 of the major 85s (Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss), the Canon version always falls to the bottom of the list. Yeah, it was wonderful bokeh at 1.2, but the images are softest of them all, and the CA is gnarly.Once you stop down, the bokeh advantage diminishes due to the 8 blade design. Just seems like an old legend in need of an update.

True about the 85 1.2.Overrated but breathlessly adored.

Unique Photo has a review of the 24-35 with sample images.

http://blog.uniquephoto.com/sigma-24-35-f2-hsm-art-review/

Dano Blanchard's picture

I would dump my (Canon) 24-70mm f4 in a heartbeat for this lens regardless of the weight. If the build quality and performance matches my Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art, then this lens should be a winner.

Adam Ottke's picture

I agree. Just FYI...it likely won't be quite as good as the 50mm... That is specifically meant to outshine everything in terms of optical performance. But yes, it will be similarly well-apportioned in terms of optical performance and build quality compared to the rest of the line (as with the current 24 and 35mm lenses). Still -- quite excellent... But even with the promises, I have a hard time believing there won't be some tradeoffs compared to the prime lenses in the lineup in the area of optical performance... But time will tell... And either way, whether or not you'd even be able to tell the difference is another issue altogether (likely not at all).

I've always got money to burn on new gear, but this won't be on my shopping list. Most DSLRs perform well enough in the higher ISO range, so a stop is no big deal. And I don't see it being a "must have" for those need the highest image quality.

More comments