[Brightcolours]

The Tokina 80-400mm weighed under 1 kg too, if I remember correctly. It also was a dog...

[davidmanze]

         Could be that Sigma have decided to take a slightly different route with their 24-70, it's 2/3rds the length of the Nikon and extends, the Nikon is 45mm at MFD at the 70mm setting, so another style that maybe sacrifices a little sharpness wide open for no breathing and a shorter but fatter profile.

 

 

 

   I certainly like it's look!

 

 

  Ah the images of the lens in it's contracted and extended form have been "blocked in this community", they post fine in DPreview,  strange!

[JJ_SO]

I think it's some copyright issue. Had that, too.

 

For the Sigma, I expect a battle price - but I have to admit, in terms of sharpness over the field, the new (and very expensive) Nikkor 24-70/2.8 is very impressive, if you look at Mansurov's sample pictures.

 

The 24-70 Sigma has M82 filter, the 24-105/4 M86. What I don't like with both is the very dense distance scale. For me, it's sometimes difficult to adjust focus although the focus ring has a gear ratio.

[Klaus]

The Tokina 80-400mm weighed under 1 kg too, if I remember correctly. It also was a dog...

 

The Leica 100-400mm isn't ;-)

[Brightcolours]

The images I see there are taken at f8 and f11, they are in a low resolution and in the format they are in extremely oversharpened. Most standard zooms do just fine at f8 and f11, these are not samples that can show how impressive the new Nikkor is?

[Rover]

I think it's some copyright issue. Had that, too.

 

For the Sigma, I expect a battle price - but I have to admit, in terms of sharpness over the field, the new (and very expensive) Nikkor 24-70/2.8 is very impressive, if you look at Mansurov's sample pictures.

 

The 24-70 Sigma has M82 filter, the 24-105/4 M86. What I don't like with both is the very dense distance scale. For me, it's sometimes difficult to adjust focus although the focus ring has a gear ratio.

The 24-105A has 82mm filters as well. It looks like standard practice now for f/2.8 standard zooms (with the exception of the Sony A-mount which is the only one still sticking to 77mm) but rather novel for f/4 ones. 

[Brightcolours]

The Leica 100-400mm isn't ;-)

Panasonic/Leica also cheats on the weight spec. They say 985 grams, for the lens without its front cap, without its back cap and without its tripod mount.

 

Even with its caps and without the mount it goes over 1 kg

[JJ_SO]

The 24-105A has 82mm filters as well. It looks like standard practice now for f/2.8 standard zooms (with the exception of the Sony A-mount which is the only one still sticking to 77mm) but rather novel for f/4 ones. 

You're right, sorry for wasting your time. I confused the filter thread of 85/1.4 Art with 24-105/4 Art. Really strange, that 135/1.8 "goes back" to M82 (this time I double-checked  :wacko: )

[Klaus]

Panasonic/Leica also cheats on the weight spec. They say 985 grams, for the lens without its front cap, without its back cap and without its tripod mount.

 

Even with its caps and without the mount it goes over 1 kg

 

Now you are nit-picky ;-)


However, the upcoming Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4 should be WAY below 1kg (and after that's a "400mm" lens). 

[Brightcolours]

Now you are nit-picky ;-)


However, the upcoming Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4 should be WAY below 1kg (and after that's a "400mm" lens). 

True, but then again, that lens has a smaller aperture again (f5.6-f8 equivalent). So naturally it can be less heavy. Less glass after all.

But yes, lighter than a Canon 70-200mm f4 + 2x TC too.

One good example of that if you choose carefully, MFT indeed can give a lighter set up with equivalent glass .