Rumors for a Sigma 24-70 F/2 (yes, F/2) before Photokina 2014

Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
46
Location
Dubai
I'm excited about the possibility of a Sigma 135mm 1.8 as I really found the Nikon version outdated and lacking.

I can't imagine they would get the 24-70 f/2 anywhere near as sharp as the Nikon version wide open across the zoom range. Having an extra 1/3 stop of light is all well and good but if it's soft...
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,924
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Never say never... especially after the latest hits ! And - maybe I misread your intention but it would be a FULL stop faster (not only 1/3) than Nikon's and Tamron. Actually, a 24-75 would be even better.. if only...
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
I'm excited about the possibility of a Sigma 135mm 1.8 as I really found the Nikon version outdated and lacking.

I can't imagine they would get the 24-70 f/2 anywhere near as sharp as the Nikon version wide open across the zoom range. Having an extra 1/3 stop of light is all well and good but if it's soft...

But you would also have more room to step into the lens too.

Sigma has been coming out with some great lenses so this one is on my watch list.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
393
Location
Canada
I'm excited about the possibility of a Sigma 135mm 1.8 as I really found the Nikon version outdated and lacking.

I can't imagine they would get the 24-70 f/2 anywhere near as sharp as the Nikon version wide open across the zoom range. Having an extra 1/3 stop of light is all well and good but if it's soft...
It's an extra full stop of light, pretty significant. Even if it is not as sharp wide open (and looking at Sigmas recent offerings, it very well could be sharp!), you could stop it down to f/2.8, but you'd have the added option of f/2.

I'd be more worried about the size and weight to be honest. This will probably weigh at least 50% more than the Nikon offering, probably twice as much (as is the rule of thumb for every extra stop)
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,924
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
On dpreview i found this link to a pic

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2011
Messages
1,333
Location
Brooklyn NYC USA
No doubt 135 will be great. And I am sorry I was so skeptical towards 18-35. So let me see the very first images taken with that 24-70!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
1,969
Location
Missouri, USA
Why don't they just remodel and make a really good 24-70 2.8 OS... very good optic and AF at a really good price, superior to the Nikon version as they did with 35mm?
But if this one has same/less weight, size ( I doubt it) at cheaper price...... then why we don't lust it?
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,315
Location
GA
Why don't they just remodel and make a really good 24-70 2.8 OS... very good optic and AF at a really good price, superior to the Nikon version as they did with 35mm?
But if this one has same/less weight, size ( I doubt it) at cheaper price...... then why we don't lust it?
Why go this far when you can go ttthhhhaaaatttt far? Stepping up the f/2 separates it from the other 24-70 f/2.8 options...adding OS does very little.

If this is anything like their 18-35 and their 35 f/1.4, they'll sell out quickly.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
46
Location
Dubai
It can't be "nearly as sharp" at f/2 - it's got to be as sharp at f/2 as the Nikon version is at f/2.8 to make it worth while. What's the point in stepping down a fast lens to make it sharp? That's why I love the 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 400mm 2.8 - they're all pin sharp wide open.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
That would be a great on location portrait lens.
Except that their 24-70 2.8's weakness is the bokeh. Isn't that the case with their 70-200 as well?

I'm not saying this lens will suck but typically primes beat zooms in the bokeh department.

With a rumoured price of around $2000 and if they keep the QC up this one will make alot of folks happy.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,722
Location
Banff National Park, Alberta
It can't be "nearly as sharp" at f/2 - it's got to be as sharp at f/2 as the Nikon version is at f/2.8 to make it worth while. What's the point in stepping down a fast lens to make it sharp? That's why I love the 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 400mm 2.8 - they're all pin sharp wide open.
I'm not sure I understand that post. People are going to understand that it's an f/2 lens, nobody is going to expect it to be as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 wideopen.

The 85 1.4 nikkor is sharp wide open but the the 70-200 at the same focal length is way better wide open than the 85 1.4 is wide open. nobody expects the 85 1.4 to be as good as the 70-200 wide open, as that would be comparing apples to oranges.

An f/2 lens is a different beast than an f/2.8 lens. Naturally if it's going to be a success it's going to have to have some decent looking mtf numbers wide open but the bar won't be set so high as to expect it to be as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 is wide open.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom