Opticallimits
First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - Printable Version

+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" (/showthread.php?tid=5002)



First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - Klaus - 02-19-2021

https://photorumors.com/2021/02/19/first-pictures-of-the-sigma-28-70mm-f-2-8-dg-dn-contemporary-lens/


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - wim - 02-20-2021

So, what is the idea going to 28 mm only at the wide end?

We know Canon did that with the RF 28-70, but that is an F/2 lens rather than an F/2.8.

Strange, if you ask me.

Kind regards, Wim


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - Rover - 02-20-2021

They already have a 24-70mm lens, this one is a cheaper one. And smaller from the looks of it (67mm filter thread?)

EDIT: shorter than the Tamron 28-75, while being very similar in thickness, according to SonyAlphaRumors.


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - Klaus - 02-20-2021

well, they said that they are going to release more compact C lenses.

However, I was hoping that they were going for smaller apertures instead of reducing the focal range.

28mm isn't wide enough and 70mm isn't long enough - thus what's the point?

However, fast standard zoom lenses were always a mystery to me (except for journalists).


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - wim - 02-21-2021

(02-20-2021, 10:10 PM)Klaus Wrote: well, they said that they are going to release more compact C lenses.

However, I was hoping that they were going for smaller apertures instead of reducing the focal range.

28mm isn't wide enough and 70mm isn't long enough - thus what's the point?

However, fast standard zoom lenses were always a mystery to me (except for journalists).
Smile I like fast primes and non-standard type primes, tilt-shift and non-standard macro set-ups and such Smile. Zooms only for convenience, when the circumstances are asking for it.

Kind regards, Wim


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - Rover - 02-21-2021

(02-20-2021, 10:10 PM)Klaus Wrote: well, they said that they are going to release more compact C lenses.

However, I was hoping that they were going for smaller apertures instead of reducing the focal range.

28mm isn't wide enough and 70mm isn't long enough - thus what's the point?

However, fast standard zoom lenses were always a mystery to me (except for journalists).

I'm a photojournalist (among other things...) But I've never owned a fast standard zoom since giving up on the Minolta system, for which I had the KM 28-75 (rebadged Tamron of the old variety). Unless the Canon 17-55 counts but then it was my only lens. :-)
In theory I could agree that the 35-70 range is not necessary. :-) I've been using the 17-35 / 16-35 range lenses since 2008, and then the 70-200 or even 100-400. However, none of that was on FF. And many people mostly dwell inside this range (I have a 24-85 to cover it, and a 45 prime).
I guess these 28-something lenses are not intended to be the widest a user has. Even 24-something would not usually be enough. But as a double kit with a 16(17)-28(35), it should do.


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - thxbb12 - 02-21-2021

I guess a 28-70 covers 3 important focal lengths: 28-35-50. Not sure whether the 50-70 range is that useful.
A 28-85 would make more sense IMHO.

Traditionally, manufacturers have been producing these two main zooms: 24-70 and 70-200
Such a combo still lacks any UWA focal length, so you'd need to add a 16-35 or equivalent, thus a 3rd lens.

I argue that the following combo would be much more useful: 16-50 and 50-150
With these 2 lenses you get a much more useful range covered without the need for a 3rd lens.
The 150-200 range doesn't matter much IMO.

Why is it that no manufacturer released such lenses? Would a 16-50 be much more difficult to design than a 24-70?


RE: First pictures of the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 "C" - wim - 02-21-2021

(02-21-2021, 01:23 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: I guess a 28-70 covers 3 important focal lengths: 28-35-50. Not sure whether the 50-70 range is that useful.
Just as useful as the 35 to 50 part, as the step is 1.4x linear, or 2x area-wise.
Quote:A 28-85 would make more sense IMHO.
Only because there is more range, and the step from 28 to 50 and 50 to 85 is both 1.7x linear, yes.
Quote:Traditionally, manufacturers have been producing these two main zooms: 24-70 and 70-200
Such a combo still lacks any UWA focal length, so you'd need to add a 16-35 or equivalent, thus a 3rd lens.

Traditionally they have been producing UWA zooms as well, once it became possible.  That is what the 16-35 has become, just that initially the lower end often was a bit less wide, 17, 18 or even 20.

Don't forger that for a long time a 20 mm was the last step down UWA wise, unless you wanted to go fisheye.
Quote:I argue that the following combo would be much more useful: 16-50 and 50-150
With these 2 lenses you get a much more useful range covered without the need for a 3rd lens.
16-50 is 24-75 APS-C, so what is the difference?  Same with a 50-150, which becomes a 75-225.
These lenses do exist, just not for FF. And a 16-50 would be rather difficult to make.
Quote:The 150-200 range doesn't matter much IMO.
That depends on one's personal preferences and use. It is indeed an opinion. I would prefer a 100-250 or 100-300 over a 70-200 or 50-150.
Quote:Why is it that no manufacturer released such lenses? Would a 16-50 be much more difficult to design than a 24-70?

Yes.

Even a 35-70 was difficult to do in its days, but that was really a proper standard zoom lens, with 1.4x linear steps going from 35 to 50 to 70, with area-coverage of 2 : 1: 0.5. There was method in this madness.
28 mm was added later, when it was possbile with new glass and computers, because that was considered a true WA.
When things improved further, the range was extended further, to 24 mm, which back when was already considered UWA, with an AoV of 84 degrees diagonally.

It really gets very complex when designing rectilinear lenses which have an AoV of more than 90 degrees, IOW, on FF any lenses with a shorter FL than 22 mm.

IOW, the current 16-35 mm class zoom lenses are really quite incredible considering their imaging possibilities.
Combining this with a "normal" AoV, or even tele AoV, makes it even more complex, because image corrections for the short and tele end of such a zoom are for practical reasons contradictory, plus you'd need to design an image forming part of the lens that is extremely sharp to have it magnified over such a long range and still give good resolution and correction of aberrations.

Therefore, it is easier to design a lens in the 3 classes that now exist, namely a WA-zoom, a normal or standard zoom, and a short to medium tele-zoom. It just makes for the least number of compromises for the best results, and also allows for maximum apertures to be relatively large compared to wider range zooms.

It gets a bit easier with the shorter mount distances with mirrorless cameras, but that only helps so much, as other restrictions come into play. This is also why software for correcting lens flaws is playing a continuously larger part as well. Unfortunately, up to now, it still means that resolution is not optimal with such corrections, although I expect things to improve drastically over the next decade and beyond.

Kind regards, WIm