Karl Summers: Makes me kinda wish I owned a crop sensor Nikon.
I have seen an English gentleman in India shooting with a 1Ds body and a 28-300mm L lens all day long so this is a toy compared to that combo. To each their own.
I use 2 camera bodies side by side when I go on vacation and this lens is hardly what I would call heavy.
dcperspective: No IS No Sale for me.
Ok first off, this lens isn't available for Pentax and if the past is any reference it isn't going to be made available on Pentax.
I have nothing but admiration for Pentax but the fact is sales aren't too hot and so most Sigma lenses don't get a Pentax version.
Secondly IS is a useful tool and to all those who claim they can handhold 1/25 or 1/15 its all good but with IS you can go down to 1/2 also if you are careful. Not everyone wants to use high ISO especially if you lack a tripod.
So IS is a useful tool and those who say it isn't are belittling those who find it a useful tool.
attomole: What bothers me is the size, its a lttle to big for street shooting, and what also bothers me is the implication does this mean we won't ever get a compact f 1.4 14mm 18mm 23 mm primes? Which it seems to, in which case FX still holds the edge and MFT / Fuji looks atractive altrrnatives to APS C
Sergey - Not everyone shoots streets so for most people who think about it with a cool head will realize that this is a kick ass zoom at a superb price.
My friend shoots streets with a 5D MK II and a 16-35mm f2.8 and takes some amazing shots so it depends on what a photographer is comfortable with.
kadardr: The sample images show that this 28-50 equivalent lens may not bring much excitement for the viewer (and the shooter). Something like a 14-30 mm APS-C zoom would be more desirable. OOps, there goes the Pentax 12-24mm F4.0, or the Sony 16-35mm F2.8. Well, these already also exist. F1.8 may not be the most important parameter.
^^ Thats the problem. You prefer something else but you are in the minority as the no of standard zooms far outsell UWA lenses.
If you know of any other f1.8 zoom on APS-C please let us know.
This lens is a new era in lens design and it comes at a relatively affordable price considering the IQ and sheer design superiority to existing lenses.
Nukunukoo: My only complaint is that it should have IS, at narrower apertures, I keep raising my ISOs above my comfort zones. Minor quibble really, since the overall performance more than makes up for that. Besides, I think of this lens as a prime, and how many primes have IS?
I'm starting to think that the Pentax K3 and this would make the perfect light, indoor event shooter.
Use it on a Sony system and you will get IS with this lens :)
MrSkelter: I am still surprised at this. Does Sigma not have an official license to Nikon's lens communication protocol? Even if not and it's reverse engineered why would the Df break compatibility?
What am I missing here...?
Nikon does not license its lens communications protocol to anyone !!!
Neither Sigma, nor Tamron nor Tokina. The only mounts that have officially allowed third party lens developers to make lenses is Sony NEX mount, m43 mount and maybe Fuji X mount.
For all lens mounts like Canon EOS and Nikon F, 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer the lens protocols to work with the mount.
Fuzzfuzz: I just wish the Tokina 11-16 2.8 existed in Pentax k mount... That lens is the only lens i really miss to the k-mount
+1 I fine 12-24 too be too narrow for an UWA and even 10mm isn't too wide for me but I can't afford the 8-16mm nor do I like the lack of filter support which is a big no no for me.
So it all depends on ones needs.
danny006: If the optics are as good as the tamron 200-500, I'm sold. The extra reach is priceless for wildlife.
The older Tamron also suffered from mediocre AF performance. Hopefully with the new USD motor Tamron would resolve even that issue.
dlkeller: If Tamron leaves the VC off this lens as they have their 18-270 PZD for Sony mounts I am through with their company forever! Otherwise, it is definitely on my wish list.
Actually its a myth that in lens IS is better than body IS for telephoto lenses. In many cases body IS can match or even exceed lens based IS on telephoto lenses.
One real advantage is however a stabilized viewfinder which is pretty useful for telephoto lenses though I would prefer to use at least a monopod with this 2 kg lens.
tommy leong: yesand the AF speed will be only suitable for static objects.
Great that means you have used this lens to make such a comment. So what else are your findings ?
Kalin: If they include VC in the Sony-Alpha mount I might be interested. If they go cheap ala Sigma and skip it, no thanks!
When will companies learn that removing features and capabilities while keeping the price the same is hardly a way to entice customers?
The issue isnt that steady shot isn't that great as lens based IS for telephoto lenses (most of the time steady shot can easily match lens based IS).
However the issue is that Sony people pay the same price as Canon/Nikon users for the lens but Tamron is saving money by removing the VC but charging Sony users the same.
Also lens IS for telephoto lenses makes sense in order to have a stabilized viewfinder even if the effectiveness of IS is more or less the same.
If you want IQ there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that will perform as good as this lens. If you want something beautifully designed and compact and you don't shoot Leica then this is hard to beat.
Jogger: "But this does come at the cost of pretty huge distortion, and although this can be corrected in software when necessary, doing so will have a slight impact on the image sharpness."
If this is going to be mentioned here, then lenses for m43/NEX/Fuji, etc should be tested without automagical software correction as well.
@Jogger - Your statements are very incorrect. Only a few 3rd party RAW convertors will show the actual distortions. Adobe camera RAW, DXO and Olympus and Panasonic default RAW converters all show the corrected output.
Futher these lenses generally start wider than their rated focal lengths.
So a 20mm f1.7 for instance may actually be a 18mm f1.7 lens with massive uncorrected distortion and when corrected for distortion the lens shows an approximately 40mm FOV when taking into account the 2x crop.
However Nikon, Canon, Sony etc lenses are not any wider so correcting large amount of distortion on an 18mm lens may result in a 19mm or 20mm FOV depending on how much distortion there is.
Slurcher: Beautiful shot!
At the risk of making myself look like an absolute newbie dick, why isn't depth of field an issue with the foreground at f/2.8?
There is absolutely no harm in asking questions if you can learn from them.
14mm is an UWA lens and so DOF is much much larger on such a lens.
There would be DOF problems if there was something relatively close in the foreground that would be OOF with the lens at f2.8 but as per the photo there wasn't anything terribly close and neither was there anything really prominent in the foreground that needed critical sharpness and focus.
IvanM: Now image if I can put my 24TS on a 36mp body via a metabones adapter? No more waiting for the Canon megapixel camera that is coming, when?
^^ Yes you can easily adapt the 24TS with a metabones adapter. Since TS lenses are MF you won't lose much attaching it to the A7r.
HubertChen: Sony 7 Cameras: Small, powerful and reasonably pricedSony FE Lenses: Big, slow, expensive
I always use both: Camera + Lens. What is the point of a small camera with big lens? Seems Olympus, Fuji and Pentax have bigger camera bodies. But once lenses mounted to them, they have smaller and lower cost systems with faster lenses.
I am really impressed with the alpha 7 cameras. I applaud Sony. I worry the big, expensive and slow FE lenses will hamper the success.
The 24-70mm f4 OSS has a 67mm filter size and weighs about half as much as the Canon 24-70mm f4 IS. The 35mm f2.8 weighs 120g, the 55mm f1.8 weighs 281gms but is an all metal body. The kit lens 28-70mm OSS weight isn't mentioned but its for sure smaller than a comparable FF lens with IS/VR.
The only really big lens is the 70-200mmf 4 which is a focal length where mirror less bodies lose their advantages over DSLRs.
So calling these lenses huge is a bit of an overstatement IMO. They are bigger than m43 standard for sure but m43 uses a quarter frame sensor.
dav1dz: Why are these lenses so heavy? I understand the Zeiss may have premium glass but the 70-200 f/4 G? At 840 g it's not exactly mirrorless weight and is heavier than the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS!
That said the Zeiss 24-70mm OSS is much lighter than say a Canon 24-70mm f4 IS.
justmeMN: These cameras will dominate the market, just like Sony's SLT cameras did. :-)
Great you can take a Toyota Camry while ill stick with a non dominating Ferrari. :D
Deserttrip: I am intrigued, but.....
I have the Canon 50D and a Canon Xsi with only L series lenses. However, my favorite and most reliable camera (for anything other than telephoto) is my SONY DCSR1 SLR-hybrid with the attached CARL ZEISS F2.8 24m-120m lens. The cost of that camera when it came out (it was their hybrid experiment) was worth that lens alone.
I wouldn't mind trying this new Sony, but am dismayed by the body cost. I wouldn't mind paying $1200 for great glass with decent range like the fixed lens on my R1, but imo, that body price is a bit much for me when you consider having to pay so much for decent glass on top of it. I will probably wait till the prices come down.
Its currently the cheapest FF camera to launch like EVER. Nothing even comes close.
Jesse P: Ooh, my compact Canon SL1 and 40mm f/2.8 pancake is better! ;-) (all for $850)
Not if you care for IQ. The dated 18 MP sensor in the SL1 is ridiculously bad for these days. But since Canon is market leader they can get away with these bad sensors as there are tons of fanbois willing to get these cameras.