Great Bustard: It's an interesting lens, to be sure. I just have to wonder how much larger, heavier, and more expensive an 18-35 / 2, 24-50 / 2, and/or 35-70 / 2 would have been, as I think they'd have a lot more appeal.
Still, if it's as good as the 24 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.4A stop for stop, then since it's the same size, weight, and price as the primes, the 1.5x zoom might be worth more to some than the extra stop.
I would rather have one lens than two, especially if the IQ is the same. I am a landscape photographer and have no reason to shoot at 1.4. I am sure f2-2.8 is good enough for milky way shots. I only wish it was 18 or 20 athe the wide end.
DigitalWalnut: I really wish this was a 20-35mm (or even a 20-30mm) for those situations where the wide end of a 24-70mm isn't quite wide enough or has too much distortion. Still, it's nice to see Sigma pull of an f/2 full frame zoom. I hope there are more to come.
Even taking a step back doesn't give you the same view as using an actual 20mm.
wassim al malak: how that sigma 24-35 f2 can be compared to the tamron 15-30 f2.8 vc ?!if those two has the same price , don't you think that the tamron is best ?more wider 15 vs 24 . and 30 is not so wider then 35 !and f2.8 vc can somehow get light as the f2 due the VC .the drop down of the tamron will be the more deep DOF , i think .what is your opinion ?
Tamron doesn't allow filters, so that is what turns me off about it.
I wish it was 20-35. I already own Sigma's 24-105 and can't justify getting another 24mm lens, even if IQ is somewhat better edge to edge. That is the 24-105's only weakness I see, the edges.
How can this be legal?
For the money, I'd rather have the new Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 that's coming out in a few weeks and use a teleconverter if needed on that.
Got mine a couple weeks ago, not a speck, and still not a speck. Either they fixed the problem or I was lucky and got a good model. I'm sure there are probably bad ones still floating around somewhere. Make sure you buy one from a reputable place and you'll probably be alright. http://mark-papke.artistwebsites.com/
Mountainshots: Beautifully crafted fake reflection. Problem is, it defies the linear properties of reflection. But well done.
Hate to disappoint you but this is not a fake reflection, It is exactly as shot. I may have brightened it a little in photoshop but it is real. I couldn't fake this if I tried. Some people probably could but I'm not that good.
Is there really much need for 1.8 in that focal length?
AnHund: Sigma is never going to be a success.
Sigma has been around since 1961, I'd hardly say they are not a success.
I think its great that they are doing that. Nikon and Canon wouldn't have done that, They would have just said too bad so sad. I could easily find $4800 dollars worth of Sigma products to use it on.
NZ Scott: I found this odd, as I can't understand how a country's national flag can be "a symbol of freedom".
What is your county's symbol of freedom?
map1273: It is because of our great armed forces that we can remain free. Maybe in your country they mean oppression, but in ours they fight for our freedom as well as many other countries.
Our flag is the very symbol of freedom and our armed forces defend it. Besides, these are no longer military planes, they are used for exhibition. It is because we are free that we can have airs hows like this.
It is because of our great armed forces that we can remain free. Maybe in your country they mean oppression, but in ours they fight for our freedom as well as many other countries.
Why do they say enthusiasts will love the optics of the 180mm macro, are they saying the optics aren't good enough for professionals?