cjf2: Great photo. This was my favourite.
white shadow: What a teaser! No weight, price and how big it is.
Weight and size you can see it in Sigma website:http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a?link=jun-m-24-35Weight: 940g/ 33.2ozSize: 87.6x122.7 mm/3.4x4.8 in
No price though... :)
Don´t get too excite about the bokeh. It is nice under these circumstances, which are not challenging at all. But nice anyway. ;)
Do we really need the Fuji X30? In one word: NO!
australopithecus: What's beautiful about a game that hosts players who argue with referees, who act as if they are injured (put them in a rugby scrum for a few games then they'll learn about pain !) and who bite. For this they are paid ridiculous sums of money.
Did you take your pills today, munro harrap?
No, you're right. Rugby is the most beautiful game together with figure skating.
The Name is Bond: I've always laughed at the idea of it being the 'beautiful' game. The irony is wonderful.
It's no irony. Maybe you don't consider it to be beautiful but that's YOUR opinion. I find it very beautiful indeed as well as a billion people around the world. ;)It's easely more beautiful than USA's football that's for sure... :)
Interesting to see how Tamron and Sigma are diverging: Tamron releases a set of superzooms, while Sigma a set of premium primes.Who will win the most? Let's wait and see... :)
Rob Sims: I'm slightly struggling to tell who this is aimed at. Cheaper superzooms lenses nearly always compromise on a speed and image quality... two of the main reasons why most users would have upgraded to FF for in the first place.
Is the 'beginner' FF-user category really large enough to warrant creating this lens? i'd have thought someone interested in this sort of lens would be better off with a superzoom attached to an m43 / aps-c sensor instead (just my 2ps worth).
That is right Andy. That is exactly the argument I hear. I don't agree with that kind of thinking (in that case I would buy a smaller package just for holidays - with 500€ you can buy pretty good gear) but we have to respect... :)
I tend to agree with you but I know some FF users that buy this kind of superzooms. It's hard to understand from my (our) perspective but it sure happens.
I'm so glad I didn't buy this one!
What a disappointment! I see no point for this lens. Canon/Nikon have similar lenses priced very similarly.Unless this lens has some Super Duper optics I think it will be a failure.It's even heavier than Canon/Nikon counterparts!
aramgrg: Well, it's too late, I have already bought 6d :)
I did the same. I had to decide (6 months ago) which FF model to buy. Did not trust the D600 so sold all my Nikon gear and bought the Canon 6D.No regrets.It's better late than never. It's good that Nikon finally ack the problem. But it's too late for some.
This is the kind of statement that made me quite Nikon.Why not admit the problem? Every brand has its problems/mistakes. There is not a big issue with that. The issue here with Nikon is that they don't admit they have a problem.They seem to prefer save the recall than save the customers.
Thanks for making me feel smart to buy the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. :)
Is it just me or does the temperature rises when you look at this beauty?So sexyyyyy...Why am I not rich? Why? :)Gorgeous little thing!
Jun2: Sigma can pass half stop more light.
Dxo tests reveal that indeed. But dunno which image stabilization system provides better performance. That would be important to know for static shooters because you can gain f-stops that way too.
Alastair Norcross: Given that the Canon lens can be bought for less than the Sigma, because of the widespread availability of the Canon as a kit lens sold with several DSLRs, there would seem to be no reason for Canon users to consider the Sigma. It looks like a fine lens, but certainly not better than the Canon in any way that will show up in real world shooting.
Tend to agree with Alastair Norcross.I don't see a strong reason to switch or to choose Sigma if you are a Canon user.On the other hand, the Nikon user might be tempted since the Nikkor 24-120 is known for its mediocre performance.
Wow, that's sharp. :)