• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > Sigma 14-24 mm f/2.8 DG HSM | Art coming ...
stoppingdown
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,063

Reputation: 7
#11
02-08-2018, 01:43 PM
Quote:True. The price of the Sigma with MC11 is nearly the same (1779.- Sony, 1796.- Sigma incl. adapter).
 

I'm not personally interested (too heavy and I'm fine with the SEL1018), it's just that a friend recently bought some Sony stuff and asked for advice. Having competition would hopefully lower prices, even though they start at the same level.
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
  Website
  Reply
JJ_SO
All-Star
*****
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,031

Reputation: 22
#12
02-08-2018, 03:55 PM
The Sony weighs less than half of the Sigma (without MC11). So, there's hardly a reason to go the Sigma way.

  Reply
Brightcolours
All-Star
*****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,715

Reputation: 22
#13
02-08-2018, 04:03 PM
I am guessing the talk switched from the coming Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 to the Sigma 12-24mm f4?

  Reply
Rover
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,198

Reputation: 22
#14
02-08-2018, 04:22 PM
If we're still talking about the rumored 14-24, maybe some people are dead set to have the f/2.8 aperture, so for them the extra size and weight is a necessary evil.

  Reply
JJ_SO
All-Star
*****
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,031

Reputation: 22
#15
02-08-2018, 04:42 PM
Quote:I am guessing the talk switched from the coming Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 to the Sigma 12-24mm f4?
 

Yes, you're guessing right. My bad, I thought it will come soon into da lab.
  Reply
JJ_SO
All-Star
*****
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,031

Reputation: 22
#16
02-08-2018, 04:46 PM
Quote:If we're still talking about the rumored 14-24, maybe some people are dead set to have the f/2.8 aperture, so for them the extra size and weight is a necessary evil.
 

If it's this lens https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/08/first...ore-119537

 

then the weight is exactly the same as from the 12-24/4 Art.

 

Strange, Sigma. Why are they making a zoom lens which is only f/2.8, one stop faster than their 2 mm shorter 12-24? and 1 1/3 stops slower than the 14/1.8 mm

 

*ordering a second golf caddy*  :wacko:
  Reply
miro
Unregistered
 
#17
02-08-2018, 06:27 PM
Quote:At least you save a couple of hours in the gym with the Sigma bricks.
Come on guys, the golden standart nowadays is 

1. Weight              -1kg++

2. similar for price -1k$++

 

* higher numbers means beter

  Reply
Rover
All-Star
*****
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,198

Reputation: 22
#18
02-08-2018, 06:48 PM
Not necessarily. Look at the Sony 12-24 which is half the weight and as good (if not better) when you consider the sum of its qualities.

 

The Canon 16-35/4L is a pretty compact and lightweight lens (less than 650 grams), brakes for nobody in the IQ department and has very effective IS. I love mine to bits.

  Reply
JJ_SO
All-Star
*****
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,031

Reputation: 22
#19
02-08-2018, 07:20 PM
Yes, it's good to see the Sony can be lighter and simpler designed if the lens designer doens't have to consider a mirror. More of that, please.  ^_^

  Reply
borisbg
Senior Member
****
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 648

Reputation: 1
#20
02-08-2018, 07:33 PM
4 options now in 1kg category:

Sigma 14-24

Nikon 14-24

Tamron 15-30

Tokina 16-28

  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)