Sigma 24-35mm f/2 – Ultra Fast Full Frame Zoom Lens

theprestige

Well-known Member
Just heard about this, sounds like it could be the business. Was thinking of getting this instead of a 24-70mm to compliment my Tokina 11-16mm. It's got great aperture considering the zoom, and covers important lengths. If this proves to be as good as a strong prime lens then I think it'll be a must have for any videographer.

My only reservations are that it is somewhat wide to wide-ish, which is fine, but I already have a very wide lens in the Tokina 11-16mm, so I felt the natural progression was a 24-70mm 2.8 as that seems vital for event videography, which is what I do at times. But maybe I can work with the 35mm end if I want to get a portrait interview or whatever? Also, i'll be using a Sony A7S which is amazing in low light so dunno how worth it the extra stops are, but I do like the sound of it.

Thoughts anyone?



Sigma re-defined themselves as a third party lens company when introducing the Global Vision Lens Line. Previous to this, they offered affordable second tier standard alternatives to Canon and Nikon still lenses.

We’ve seen then offer some stellar performing prime lenses in the 35mm f/1.4 Art, 50mm f/1.4 Art and 24mm f/1.4 Art, as well as the fastest zoom lens in production the 18-35mm f/1.8 Art. These latest releases have now put them right up there with the best performing still lenses.

There was one caveat with the latter mentioned zoom lens, it is APS-C only. Well, Sigma have responded with another record breaking fast zoom lens, this time suitable for the full frame format.

The Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 offers a wide to moderate zoom lens, with a constant aperture of f/2.0 maintained through all focal range challenged only by prime lens equivalents.

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 performed fantastically as both a parfocal lens (doesn’t alter focus when zooming) and constant aperture lens.

In regards to the latter, many constant aperture lenses despite saying so on paper don’t actually maintain the same brightness throughout the zoom range. T stopping a lens would prove this; I hope the Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 performs as well as it’s APS-C brother here.

Here’s the spec of what will be a much anticipated lens:

Lens Construction : 18 Elements in 13 Groups
Angle of View : 84.1º-63.4º
Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9 (rounded diaphragm)
Mininum Aperture: f/16
Minimum Focusing Distance: 28 cm / 11 in
Filter Size: 82mm
Maximum Magnification: 1:4.4
Dimensions: 87.6 x 122.7 mm/ 3.4 x 4.8 in
Weight: 940g/ 33.2oz

Currently, the Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS is my go to stills lens for gimbal work. It offers a good range from wide to moderate zoom as well a Image Stabilization. It has needed a faster counterpart for sometime, and this may just be the lens to go for.

The Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 will be a fantastic partner to the likes of the Sony A7S, 5D Mark III, as well as Sony FS7 with Metabones Speedbooster. APS-C users will make great use of this fast zoom lens also, which converts to 38.4-56mm focal length.

Pricing and availability not announced just yet, will keep you updated.
 

theprestige

Well-known Member
What would be wrong with that?I know that A7S is small, but most large aperture lenses are going to be heavy on it's body. As long as i'm using a good stabiliser, it's all alright ain't it?
 

twist

Distinguished Member
What would be wrong with that?I know that A7S is small, but most large aperture lenses are going to be heavy on it's body. As long as i'm using a good stabiliser, it's all alright ain't it?

Ermmm its massive and heavy on a tiny body for pretty much no zoom and an average aperture, theres no balance and a huge amount of strain on the mount. Other than that, imo nothing.

88 x 123 mm @ 1040g after including a mount adapter.
 

snerkler

Member
Seems an odd zoom range to me, neither here nor there :confused: I agree with twist re the balance on an A7.
 

twist

Distinguished Member
Well what's the heaviest you would go on a A7S, twist????

I used a Mitakon 50 0.95 and that was about 750g, it was VERY front heavy, I really wouldnt even consider the 24-35.

I find that generally a lens that weighs about as much as the body balances best. Depends on a few factors like length/diameter etc. as that can also effect the way it feels. Everyones different.
 

shotokan101

Banned
70-200 would probably be ok as it would have a lens collar/mount mount you'd use to fix or balance it probably...
 

Dancook

Distinguished Member
35mm 1.4 @ 630g is quite nice with the A7S.

The 85mm 1.2 L (1025g) is front heavy on my 5dm3 (without grip), you hold the 5dm3 and can feel strain in your wrist as it tries to tip forward.

My 200mm f2, even bigger and heavier than the 70-200 f2.8 - 2520g vs 1490g, but with the big lenses it's easier to just support the entire weight on the lens instead of the body.
 
Last edited:

topgazza

Distinguished Member
That would be the way to go... just bias support more on the lens not the body. As twist says you risk straining the mount otherwise. But I think the natural tendency would be to support the lens more than the body anyway. Heavy beast though but based on what you've got it covers the next step along be it all in a very small segment. 24-70would be the way to go... get the Zeiss
 
Last edited:

topgazza

Distinguished Member
Its all what feels comfortable to you as an individual. My Sigma 105, whilst not 1kg, felt really comfortable on my A6000 and doubly so on my X-T1... it just feels right. Thunderbird didn't like the feel of the XF18-55 on his X-T10 but again on the X-T1 its just right...... for me anyway. I think the op needs to try it if they can
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
I think it it applies much more on the longer lens where you can choose your own balance point.
 

theprestige

Well-known Member
I honestly didn't think the weight of a lens would matter that much on a video camera like the A7s. Maybe I need to rethink getting a 70-200mm if it can damage the mount.
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
Its just it how you hold it to reduce any chance of straining the mount. If you just held the camera body...it would be uncomfortable anyway... it might be a problem. But left hand on the lens and right on the body and you should be fine. If on a tripod then a lens mount would be essential I would think.
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: Streaming Theatrical Releases And The Future Of Cinema
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom