Excellent review as usual, Dustin Thank you. I shoot weddings with my Tamron 35 f1.8 VC 95% and another 5% with my Tamron 85 f1.8. But I always felt for a little wider angle and I thought that the Sigma 24-35 F2 would be a good fit for my type of shooting. I bought a good used one from the owner who has the same camera as mine, D750. He assured me that the lens has no AF issues with the D750 and I'm glad he was honest about it because the lens didn't need any micro AF adjustment. 11mm zoom range isn't much at all and I know this lens isn't for everyone. But when I put this lens for the first big test, a wedding, it stayed on my camera all day! CA on this lens as you mentioned, is well controlled and this is the area where the Tamron 35 f1.8 suffers. AF is fast and it's sharp throughout the entire zoom range. Heavy? Yes, it's twice as heavy as the Tamron 35 f1.8 but it's manageable to me. This lens is going to be my go-to wedding lens from now on.
A well considered review . I decided to buy a used one as I am upgrading the older Nikkors which I have used for years. I have the 35,50 and 85 Sigma 1.4 lenses but wanted to replace my 24mm Nikkor. I had to choose between this and the 24mm 1.4 Sigma and traded the 1 stop advantage for the flexibility of this lens. I find the performance really good and am now wondering what to do with my 35mm. The combination of this lens, the 50 and the 85 work well for me and together with camera and spare battery make an useful although heavy general purpose kit. Many thanks for your valued advice.
The review and photos of this lens 24-35mm f2. It seems a good lens to use in most things and well built quality and nice looking lens in it's design. The F2 on this lens make it very attractive to use in somethings in low light. I'm sure there are people will enjoy this in their work!!!!
Thanks for this informative review Dustin. I was considering this lens for astrophotography, but realize the coma just isn't up to scratch. After watching quite a few of your videos, I've finally subscribed
+Dustin Abbott not to buy this excellent lens due to weight and possibly complex for me callibration.I can not inagine how slow i would become having two 5dmk3s on me and the 85 L on the other! i will stick with my 35 L :) great lens thiugh. . thank you !
+georgepahountis If your talented enough to use a 5D3 properly then calibrating this lens with a sigma dock will be very simple. The dock really is very easy to use & you can do firmware updates or customize the focusing speed/accuracy.
Hello, I mostly do Landscapes, I did them with the Canon 24-70 2.8. I left Canon for a little while and went to the Sony A7R, I then did landscapes with the Zeiss 16-35. I found that lens to be excellent, although I really don't need 16mm. I planned to get the A7Rii but I wasn't satisfied with the colors, the ergonomics, etc. I went back to Canon, I now have to re buy everything. I have been for sure I'm about to buy the 24-70 2.8L again, however, sharpness is my number one thing. I don't want to use a prime, I need 24 and 35 in the same lens. So, you would say this would be a much better landscape lens than the 24-70 2.8L? I have downloaded images from it, from the same full frame Canon camera I use, but they weren't landscapes. They were pictures of people but they were shot at F 2.0 at 24mm and 35mm. I zoomed in at 1:1 and judging from the Raw files I received, it appeared to be the sharpest wide angle lens I have ever seen. If the Canon prime is sharper, I'm not sure my eyes could ever see it because it was razor sharp in the images. I am thinking about skipping the 24-70 2.8 with my return to Canon and getting this 24-35 Sigma as well as the Canon 135 F/2L for portraits. Plus, I have the 24-105 F/4, 50 1.8, and 100 F/2. This would complete my kit, as I don't shoot longer than 135 and I can live without 16mm for landscapes. It would only mean I would have to buy a good 50mm in the future, which would be the Sigma art 50mm. I have heard some people say that the 16-35 F/4 Canon lens is the best Canon landscape lens. But, if I don't need 16mm, would you say that this new Sigma is the best Canon landscape lens?
+nagol5178 If you don't need wider than 24mm, this is a pretty amazing lens. The ability to use this for landscape and then for portraits as well is a nice bonus.
Nope, I don't need to go wider than 24mm. I am pretty much decided on this Sigma 24-35 seeing the results and how sharp they are. I'll also have enough money left over to get the 50mm 1.4 Art by Sigma. The only concern I have about that one, is some people speak about auto focus not being accurate some of the time. With the wide angle I don't use auto focus, I manual focus the landscape, I don't do many wide portraits. The portrait lens I use right now is the 100mm F/2. I thought about getting the Canon 135 F/2L instead of the 50 art, as they are the same price, but the non L series 100mm F/2 is rated higher than the 135 L on DXO mark.
Great review, Dustin. Very truthful. I have a Nikon 20-35 f2.8. It is an older lens but very sharp. This lens intrigued me but I am taking into account your caveats about it.
thx to your review and replies dustin. i picked up the 24-35 f2 and 135a last week and loving the 2 lens, the 35A still had some focus inconsistencies. I wanted the 35 1.4 mk2 from canon but couldn't justify the cost. I find the newer sigma lens eg. 50a or post 2014 have less focus issues :)
Great review! I'm in between the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and this new lens from Sigma. For wedding photography which one would you recommend? The Tamron with the bigger zoom or the Sigma with the faster aperture?
+lamarque1 Do you plan on pairing it with another lens? I have been using the Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC for about three years now in my wedding and event work and have been very happy with it. I personally would find the limited zoom potential here a little limiting for framing on the fly. The additional light gathering of this lens would be nice, however. The nice thing about using a 24-70 + 70-200 is that you have no gap in the coverage. This would be a nice lens for weddings, though, particularly if you were accustomed to working with primes.
+Dustin Abbott Yes, I have the Tamron 70-200 VC and my original thought was to pair it with the 24-70, but with this new lens Sigma has thrown me off. The lens is priced very competitively and it seems to have excellent optics. I've seen the lens for as low as $879.00 from an authorized dealer, but that short zoom really turns me off. What do you think in terms of image quality when compared to the Tamron 24-70? And how about that gain in f-stop, does it really helps with the image quality in low light when compared to the Tamron's f2.8? A comparison review between the two lenses will be fantastic!
Hi Dustin, love your content by the way man, so in case you see this comment, have you used this particular lens in a while? If so, do you think its in desperate need of an update for mirrorless cameras, or do you think its still worth using even today?
Great review as always dustin. Not sure if you aware that sigma will allow you to send the lens to them for free professional calibration to whatever camera body you have. Spoke to them on the phone and they do it for free if you bought the lens new, and 50 us dollars if you bought the lens used from somebody, pretty sweet deal. Most cases they only need the lens and not the body.
I have a question for you if I could, I shoot landscapes, which lens do you believe gives the best resolution the sigma 24-35mm F2 or the canon 16-35mm F2 I have seen both reviews and am torn between the two.
great review. would you consider this lens and dumping the 24 70 for weddings with a 70 to 200 also for that unique f2.0 look or would the 24 70 be a safer bet
I think the best way to determine that is to look at your own photos and determine how much are taken in the 36-69mm range. You'll be able to tell how much you actually need that focal length.
that's a great way of looking at it. I guess it's a loaded question. for weddings i rarely use the 36-69 range but I have a 50 that fits right in there. For my daily life photos of my toddlers, I've borrowed my friend's 35A and it's a delight combined with the 85A. Last question for now, would be how does the 24-35 @ 2.0 compared to the 35A at 2.0? sharpness, bokeh, af speed wise? thanks for the great videos! keep up the great work!
Nice, I just can't trust myself to be fast enough switching out primes in fast paced events, which is what I shoot most. 24-70 would be a logical companion for my 70-200, but if the 24-35 performs better, and the F/2 is another plus.. I'm leaning a lot in that direction then. I can live without the 35-70 bit I guess, I've been shooting APS-C with 11-20 and 70-00 90% of the time, I rarely use the 17-50. Might sound strange but.. :) Since I'll be getting a 6D, I figured I'd fill the gap with the 24-35. I just hope I don't get a bad sample since there seems to be some sample variation documented with the AF issues. :-/ I don't mind a miss here and there at F/2, I think that's to be expected.. but if I can't trust it, I'd be very dissapointed. :-/
dbauernf If it helps at all, I've been using the Tamron 24-70 VC along with a 70-200 since it was introduced for weddings and it has served me very well.
Great review Dustin...thank you very much. One thought/question....I do fine art landscape work. Wouldn't this lens be ideal for that because of the superior optic quality? As you've said before, the range is limiting for weddings but for fine art work, wouldn't this be an incredible lens as far as making prints etc? I guess my question is whether you feel the optic quality is serious enough for fine art?
Thanks for responding! Is the Sigma officially out yet? Do you know how much it will be? My main worry is distortion, which, unfortunately, must be inherent in most wide angles.
I have it in hand right now, and the distortion is actually quite well handled...particularly at infinity distances, where it is registered as essentially nill. There's a little more at close focus distances.
Hi Dustin, great review! I'm thinking if to get the sigma 24-35 or the 35mm, I'll use it mostly for video but there is just one thing that it may concerns to me, which it is the vignetting, is it really bad? which one would you recommend besides the aperture?
Hello Dustin, great review! I was wondering if you could help me out, im mostly a videographer, (documentaries, and short films mostly) and i can't decide between this lens, tamron 15-30, or canon 16-35iii in terms of image quality, vignetting, etc. In my free time i try to take landscape and astrophotography pictures. Which one would you recommend? Thank you very very much! Keep up the excellent work! (sorry if bad grammar im not english speaker)
Yes of course... but aiming at a completely different audience. I am talking about short zoom ratios and f/2.0 apertures to take things to the next level of sharpness and light gathering...adequate to the over 50MP sensors that are coming. Canon jumped in the boat with the 24-70/2.0 for it's new series. Sigma should be taking even more risks to this route!
And I suspect they will in the future. They are exhausting the typical focal lengths and aperture combinations, so I expect some more daring lenses from them...though I don't think this lens has been a particularly good seller for them.
I guess so, though I feel like the lenses are almost too similar. I think you go could go with a good 35mm prime and get a similar experience at a lower weight
for video what do you think would be a better lens ? the sigma 18-35 or the 24-35? I use auto focus and Manual focus. I like round bokeh and I need it for 6k footage with canon speed booster .71
I can't really answer that question, as it isn't an application I've tested. I typically don't love autofocus for video with adapted lenses, but, as I said, I haven't tested all of the elements you are mentioning together. I will say that I've seen a lot more video produced with the 18-35 than the 24-35
I think for landscape at this focal range this lens is unmatched, where zoom with feet does not work.do you think there is better lens than this for high res bodies. I am thinking to get one what is your take.
It's a strong lens, for sure, though I don't know that it has been particularly popular. If you are shooting landscapes, for example, I'm not sure that having F2 is particularly important. My favorite wide angle zooms at the moment are the Sigma 14-24 ART and the Tamron 15-30 G2, though neither of them accept regular filters.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i have nikon 14-24 with big filter set fotodiox and tamron 24-70. what i see from some reviews this lens is sharper than Nikon, tamron 24-70 in 24-35 range.i stop down to 5.6/f8
Does anyone tried this lens on a Canon R5 or R6? I heard that when enable the ibis on camera using this lens, the image gets way more shaky then with the ibis off
What camera body? If you were on Canon you might be better served by 28mm IS lens if all you are prioritizing is 28 mm. No, F2 .8 isn't all that fast, but the lens itself is excellent and the IS is very good
+Dustin Abbott Canon full frame. I had the 28IS and I found it flat and thought it drew flat and boring. I have all Zeiss primes but I've been trying to fill an AF void -so far with sigma 35, tamron 45 and 85. the 35 is going away as its not my focal length, but some room around a 28 has appeal.
+Dustin Abbott FYI, I had the Canon 35IS also and think it's a great lens, almost on par with the Zeiss 35/2, but the 28 copy I had was poor. I also have the Zeiss 28/2 and Voigtlander 28/2.8, love them both, but I like to have AF covered there as well. Since the demise of my Zeiss 24-85, I'm trying to fill the void with the lesson that I don't like f4 lenses. I traded out a 16-35II2.8 for the f4IS version and have been using that for 28. But stupid f4 has me looking at 24-70 options. (I'm lucky to have the Zeiss 15, 21 and 25 so I really don't need the 15/16-24 range.)
Captain Zouave Is the 35mm focal length a suitable replacement? If so, the 35L II is an astoundingly good lens that really made me feel like I was shooting an Otus at times. It's on my own personal list of lenses to add.
+kidinmee The Tamron is the more dynamic landscape lens because of the wide focal length. It can't use traditional filters, though (I now use the Fotodiox Wonderpana system, however, and it is awesome for this lens). Both lenses have exceptional image quality. What do you need more - a wider focal length or a wider aperture?
kidinmee If you had two very different purposes for them, no, but there is definitely some overlap. If you need a wide angle, I would prioritize the Tamron. It is a stunningly good wide angle option.
