Random Stuff

[Dave Throgmartin]

Part of the trade off is that most of the really high performance lenses are getting huge. I don't have any wide angle primes right now, but if I did I wouldn't want to replace to them with a comparatively very large 24-35 f/2.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

I'm glad someone enjoyed the Gitzo Traveler Tripod post...it was a pain to put together (time consuming with all the formatting and links).

I saw where Zach Sutton reviewed the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art, and he made some good points. Basically, he said it performed very well (optically) but that there wasn't enough difference between 24-35mm focal lengths to justify losing the one stop aperture to the Art primes (in other words, it would be better to simply own one of the primes and move yourself the x-distance to equal the other focal length). Of course, sometimes that's not possible (as with small spaces).

If it had been a 24-50mm f/2, it would have been bigger, heavier, more expensive...and maybe three times more practical.

Keep in mind, I'm definitely a fan of what Sigma has been doing with their Art lenses. They aren't perfect, but for the money – they're amazing. If I didn't already own the Sigma 24 and 35mm Art lenses, I might be tempted by the 24-35 zoom. But as it is, the primes aren't going anywhere.

Ha...I don't blame you. And the lens I would like to see is actually something like a 70-135 f/2 with good IQ/bokeh (maybe IS?), etc or an UWA f/2 lens.

Regarding Zach's conclusions....choices like these are always going to be about circumstance, settings, and shooting style. I was a little disappointed he didn't include some of that perspective in his review. It looks like Zach's images were outside, on a sidewalk, where he had plenty of room to walk forward and back, and a subject that allowed all the time in the world (at least, she doesn't look impatient). Even in the comment section, people were disagreeing with his conclusions and pointing out, from their perspective, that their is a big difference between 24 and 35 mm. If he had tried out the lens in a tight room with some faster action, (i.e. a wedding) then he might have appreciated the zoom a bit more. For me, that would be a kids birthday party.

Part of the trade off is that most of the really high performance lenses are getting huge. I don't have any wide angle primes right now, but if I did I wouldn't want to replace to them with a comparatively very large 24-35 f/2.

Dave

Yeah, some of these are getting to be beasts. But some of them a great options. For the 24-70 II, I am able to justify the size/weight pretty easily. But, I am finding I haven't sold my EF 50 f/1.4 yet just for this reason and I'd consider it one of the advantages the EF 35 f/2 has over the Sigma 35A f/1.4 (both great lenses). But, for example, size/weight are some of the issues I have with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (bigger and heavier than the Sigma 24-35). Otherwise, seems like a remarkable lens.

That said, it would get down to use...if the Sigma 24-35A really did replace two prime lenses, then the combined size and weight is lower.

[Sean Setters]

If he had tried out the lens in a tight room with some faster action, (i.e. a wedding) then he might have appreciated the zoom a bit more. For me, that would be a kids birthday party.

I completely agree. I purchased the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art when it first came out and, after using it for a couple of years, I realized the need for a 24mm f/1.4 prime (and it's why I preordered the Sigma 24 A). The Sigma 24 A stayed on my camera for almost 90% of the time during the last two wedding receptions I shot and it was instrumental in capturing the getting-ready shots in relatively cramped quarters.