Is it just me or do the specs look "meh"? Yes it is a little smaller than the Sony 20-70 G (no idea about weight yet), but this Sigma pretty much becomes F/4 once you zoom beyond 35mm.
Price is the other aspect that is disappointing. For 849 USD it had better have stellar IQ - which I don't doubt from Sigma - but on E-mount, Sigma's very own 20-200 is a much more interesting and versatile lens. Or I might as well stick with Sony. On the L-mount, the price again makes it a tough sell against the Panasonic 20-60 or even the 24-60 with a constant F/2.8.
IMO, Tamron has set a smaller lens trend through less range while maintaining aperture and it seems to be catching on. So I’m not surprised Sigma is attempting to follow suit in their own way.
I like the size...similar to my 24GM & 16-25 2.8, which I think handles great for travel on an A7cR.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
Jack Flesher wrote:
IMO, Tamron has set a smaller lens trend through less range while maintaining aperture and it seems to be catching on. So I’m not surprised Sigma is attempting to follow suit in their own way.
I will say Sony started it all. And I love it!
Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 16-35mm f/2.8.
Sony 24-50mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 24-70mm f/2.8.
Sony 20-70mm f/4 alonside the usual 24-105mm f/4
gocolts wrote:
I like the size...similar to my 24GM & 16-25 2.8, which I think handles great for travel on an A7cR.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
Having slept on it and now that the lens has been officially announced with full specs (including weight, around 380g), I can increasingly see the appeal of the lens and actually agree with all of your points.
PavSZ makes a similar point to the F/2.8 at the wide end being a bonus:
?si=A8KgWsZDGDAGaqTX
What I hadn't realised was that the Sigma 28-70/2.8 was released with the same RRP. So I would still agree with PavSZ and maintain that it's not a cheap lens and there are many viable alternatives especially within this price range.
What impresses me most is the size which is where I think one would invest the current price premium compared to say a used Sony 20-70 or the Panasonic kit lens. PavSZ's side-by-side with the Panasonic 20-60 makes it look very impressively small for being a full stop brighter than the Panasonic and only 50g heavier. Against the Sony 20-70, the Sigma is actually 100g lighter.
