Sigma just don't really miss these days for price vs performance. I just got my first Sigma lens, the 85mm f1.4 and I cannot find fault especially at literally half the price of the new G-Master MkII. It's just impressive what they're doing, hats off to them.
I was deciding on that sigma vs the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Ultimately went with the Samyang because apparently it has really nice character, and saved me a couple hundred bucks. Haven't gotten to properly test it yet. But I hope I didnt make the wrong decision, lol
I'd love to hear your thoughts about the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 ii versus this Sigma 28-105 F2.8. Not the obvious range differences or the price, but what about the picture quality where the 2 lens overlap? Like from 28-70, which of these 2 lenses actually has better image quality? Now THAT would help me decide which of these two choices I will be buying.
Get well soon dear Jordon. Sigma is really evolving impressively over the years and i still own and use the 50 1.4 art and the one who chris don' t like (35mm 1.2) which is amazing lens. Thanks Chris for the special coverage as always.
Nice 18-70mm f/1.8 on APS-C. ;) Whenever I want to better idea of what the specs mean, I convert back to APS-C since that's what I started with. :) Nikon had the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. I had a Pentax 17-70mm f/4. This is in a totally different league. Also size and weight wise of course.
You didn’t mention the lack of IS, which I think most of us expect in this type of lens. Not that it’s a fatal omission, but I was surprised when I learned it was not stabilized.
Hey Guys , Great video and I hope the foot is healing well Jordan. A quick question, out of this Lens and the Tamaron 35-150, which I own and love for Wedding work, Which one is better? Should i replace it with this one due to the weight of the 35-150? Thanks , Love the channel and the podcast. Philtography 😊
I'm surprised they didn't even mention the Tamron 35-150. I feel this lens is a little niche to be honest. Sure this one goes a little bit wider, but you do miss a lot of zoom. If you don't need more zoom than 105, then sure it's perfect. If you do, then you'll need a more telephoto lens, Which brings you right back to 2 lenses anyways. Just as if you had a 24-70, 70-200. But with the 35-150. You miss a little on both ends, but It really can take the job of 2 lenses
Depends on what kind of photographer you are. In the wedding world, there are a few types of photographers. The two most common are dual zoom shooters and dual prime shooters. Dual prime shooters generally run a 24/50 or 35/85 and will switch primes situationally throughout the day. Most prime shooters will also have a 70-200 as a backup for scenarios where they are restricted (like a Catholic ceremony for example). Even wedding zoom shooters typically shoot the majority of their photos under 105mm. So I’d argue that this lens easily checks most of the boxes for most wedding photographers; especially prime shooters like myself. This is the only Sony lens where I can honestly see myself going down to one body for an entire wedding.
24-105mm is the ideal focal range for a general walk around lens. This is close but I would miss the 24mm. I miss it on the canon 28-70 as well. The canon 24-105 f4 gets more use, also because its lighter.
I've got the Tamron 35-150, but really considering swapping it for this. There's been a handful of times where it didn't just get as wide as I wanted. Sure I'd be giving up some on the long end, but with high megapixel bodies there's plenty of room to crop...
As long as you aren't getting a second lens for more telephoto reach then the 28-105 might be a better pick for you. Even if you get a second lens for wider shots, going to 28 on one lens make switching bodies or lenses less likely
Please! Can you do a vs with this vs the tamron 35-150 for event/wedding photography? Would also want to see how much I would gain in image quality vs the tamron 28-200 lens
I have to be honest: I dont see a need for this kind of lens for weddings. Of course this is my personal preference but I really often do need those 24mm a 24-70 can get me. I like to shoot wide and up close. And those 4mm do make a big difference. Of course there is the Canon 24-105 f2.8 but its just tooo huge. If I need to reach further ill rather use a 135mm prime on my second cam.
@@michaelcroff7097 Yeah I can see that. But your cam better have ibis because its not stabilized. I for sure wouldnt be able to handhold it at 105mm without stabilization haha
I like wide as well... but I rarely shoot 24mm. If I go wide I use a 16~20mm. Otherwise I'm using the 35-150mm. On rare occasions I switch out to 28-75 (my first and oldest zoom) if I need the 28mm wide end. Indoor greetings with drinks etc. There is no point in arguing who needs or uses what... everyone does their own thing. May it be the classic trinity of zooms or 50/1.2 purist. In the end... if you manage to make your clients happy, everything goes.
@6:44 That wonky breathing correction in the top left tells me there is some serious pincushion distortion correction going on at the wide end. Great review guys. With some minor issues I would have purchased this lens, but unfortunately 28mm is not wide enough for the indoor event work that I often do. Would have loved a 24-90 to replace the Leica 24-90 that I have.
I'll need about four bodies now. One with this, one with the 28-45 f1.8, one with the Samsung 35-150 2-2.8. And something wide. TBH, I'd prob rather 24-105 and a bit bigger like the canon. But this is great to have choices.
You should get Casey from Camera Conspiracies to fill in when Jordan can't do the video part. Really want to see someone run across the street in slow motion with this lens.
@@lionheart4424 it's a different take, works for many and he consistently shows and contrasts his results for people to have their own take. But yeh, not sure if @xx-ip7ej was serious 🙂
Exactly I took just those 2 lenses on recent shoot events with the 35-150 on the Sony A7R5 so I could use the apsc mode if needed to get even closer to the subject. That said the 35-150 feels noticeably heavier than the Sony 70-200 on a long days shooting.
good review. thank you. What I've noticed that looks a little unpleasant rather than cat eye effect that doesn't seems to me too much annoying, in the same image at 105mm f/2.8, it's the blades form: the out of fous lights that are not squeezed into a cat eye form look too polygonal
Chris, I think I see what you mean when you call the out of focus background frenetic but I still struggle a bit to see what you mean by smooth transitions from in focus to out of focus despite the frenetic background. I’m curious if you’ve ever seen a lens that has the reverse situation (i.e. a smooth background but harsh transition, or if not, whether you could point to an example of a any lens you’ve reviewed that didn’t have a smooth transition from in focus to out of focus. Thanks!
I have rented the RF one a couple times for 2 events, a HS Sr shoot and a small wedding. I found the range to be great but there were times I wanted a little longer. That 35-150 lens would have been better but not available in RF mount.
@@obscurelines I don't think so... to me it's not wide enough, not long enough, too heavy, slowish focusing, awful bokeh balls,... a 24-70mm 2.0 would be much better
Goodness, I'm glad this came out prior to me getting a native sony 24-105... I don't shoot at 24 often enough for me to care vs the lower light performance wide open. I'm sold... when I can afford to get this lens. Till then the canon 24-105 f4 L (the first version of it) with an adaptor to e mount will do.
This is a really nice seeming lens, and Sigma is so consistent with that. Might be a good addition to my travel photography/videography kit. Still a little overlap with my Sigma 18-50mm but not so much that it renders either useless
Would love to see a comparison to the Tamron 35-150. I own a GM 16-35, but sold my 24-105 because it was good back in 2017, but there are some better options now and I am still curios what to choose. A 24-70 is in my opinion to close to the 16-35 range.
Not sure why people don’t just copy Tamron’s F2-F2.8 variable aperture approach to the 35-150. The aperture is probably already wide enough to cover F2 at the short end without increasing the size / weight of the lens, unless they have to add more elements to make the image look good at F2.
In 10 years, Sigma's gonna be spoken about the way we speak about Zeiss glass today. They're the biggest innovators in the space, making consistently excellent lenses.
Great lens but I don't think I would walk around with it as my daily. I still think the most versatile lens was on the compact Canon G1x mark ii with a 24-120mm f2.0-3.9. Once you zoomed out at f3.9, that background just melted away!
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo You do realize that we are talking about a camera that came out 10yrs ago right? Just because cell phone tech has caught up, doesn't mean it's less capable. Not to mention that no cell phone is even capable of that zoom range in a single lens and lacks the physical controls the camera has.
Great Video as Always 🙂PS: @Jordan...Looks like you had time to get a pedicure before the foot picture was taken LOL did @Chris Niccolls talk you into that LOL 🙂get well soon 🙂
It’s hard to say - if you’re shooting professionally for events & weddings either one you’re going to have to have at least one more camera / lens on you. With the 24-70 you’ll probably want to carry an 85/1.4 or 135/1.8 for reach and the bokeh, where’s the 28-105mm f2.8 you’ll probably want a 16-35 or 14/1.8 to cover your wide shots due to 28 not being wide enough for a lot of scenarios. In either case, you can pick one you’re comfortable with for balancing on your body lol
They came out with this lens sometime in the 70s or early 80s and it was a pretty heavy lens. It also wasn't very sharp. And, without OS, it also loses a lot of its value. I had that lens and FWIW the Canon 24-105 L IS f/4 was a much more fun lens to use for photo walks. If I was a professional on a shoot, I would seriously consider shooting with 2 primes (24/1.4 and 85/1.4) if I wasn't satisfied with a max aperture of f/4.
This lens is perfect for my stationary video camera. I do like the sigma 35-150mm but mang, starting at 35mm is a huge downside. And i rarely go to 150mm so this sigma 28-105mm will be perfect for my station camera.
@@Rafaelinux everybody has a pipe dream. Some want a 20-75/2.8 and others marvel at the 35-150/2.8. Sigma took the middle road and that's why this lens will be an instant hit. Because it is BALANCED!
This or the Tamron 35-150? I was just about to pull the trigger on the Tamron but suddenly I’m not so sure anyone. We really are spoiled for choices now a days
Between Jordan's ankle, your rebar incident, and a certain editor slicing up their thumb, I'm really worried about what we need to do to keep you guys safe.
I don't know, but for me, it won't make sense to buy this lens(unless it's cheap and has internal focus). The TAMRON 35-150mm f2-2.8is a better lens choice for versatility.
thanks ..I will not consider it. Sadly contrary to what used to be Sigma compact design trend ,now it has move to opposite direction for their newer lens larger , bigger & heavier & shorter in zoom range .It should has at least 18-120 or 28 -150
Sigma just don't really miss these days for price vs performance. I just got my first Sigma lens, the 85mm f1.4 and I cannot find fault especially at literally half the price of the new G-Master MkII. It's just impressive what they're doing, hats off to them.
I was deciding on that sigma vs the Samyang 85mm 1.4. Ultimately went with the Samyang because apparently it has really nice character, and saved me a couple hundred bucks. Haven't gotten to properly test it yet. But I hope I didnt make the wrong decision, lol
@BTEguitardude the Sigma is virtually flawless but I've heard the Samyang is very nice. Not sure anything can beat the Sigma, imo
Get well soon Jordan!
Hope Jordan feels better soon, but you missed the opportunity of adding text on his wrapped leg that could have said "shot with Sigma 28-105 @ 28mm"
I'd love to hear your thoughts about the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 ii versus this Sigma 28-105 F2.8. Not the obvious range differences or the price, but what about the picture quality where the 2 lens overlap? Like from 28-70, which of these 2 lenses actually has better image quality? Now THAT would help me decide which of these two choices I will be buying.
Jordan: *Did we?
LOOOOL!!
Get well soon Jordan.
Get well soon dear Jordon.
Sigma is really evolving impressively over the years and i still own and use the 50 1.4 art and the one who chris don' t like (35mm 1.2) which is amazing lens. Thanks Chris for the special coverage as always.
Is that a fishing wedding party? 😳 That is either a stroke of genius or an absolute disaster. Either way it’s a bold move, so got to respect that!
Fishing wedding party would be awesome.Nice idea
Absolutely the killer lens for L mount, this is going to be glued to my SL3.
Feel better soon, Jordan!
28-105mm - perfect summary of my wedding night
Thanks for sharing 👀
@@bingbong4848” Thanks for sharing” - also heard on wedding night…
🤣
More of a 24-70mm here… oh well at least I’m a “G” Master
@@medicinalcarrots123 With the hood or without? 🤷🏻♂
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Jordan! And, any word on the Z mount version of this lens?
Nice 18-70mm f/1.8 on APS-C. ;)
Whenever I want to better idea of what the specs mean, I convert back to APS-C since that's what I started with. :) Nikon had the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. I had a Pentax 17-70mm f/4.
This is in a totally different league. Also size and weight wise of course.
Thank you for the review, Chris!
That parking sign had it coming😂
You didn’t mention the lack of IS, which I think most of us expect in this type of lens. Not that it’s a fatal omission, but I was surprised when I learned it was not stabilized.
Hey Guys , Great video and I hope the foot is healing well Jordan.
A quick question, out of this Lens and the Tamaron 35-150, which I own and love for Wedding work, Which one is better? Should i replace it with this one due to the weight of the 35-150? Thanks , Love the channel and the podcast. Philtography 😊
I'm surprised they didn't even mention the Tamron 35-150.
I feel this lens is a little niche to be honest. Sure this one goes a little bit wider, but you do miss a lot of zoom. If you don't need more zoom than 105, then sure it's perfect. If you do, then you'll need a more telephoto lens, Which brings you right back to 2 lenses anyways. Just as if you had a 24-70, 70-200. But with the 35-150. You miss a little on both ends, but It really can take the job of 2 lenses
Depends on what kind of photographer you are. In the wedding world, there are a few types of photographers. The two most common are dual zoom shooters and dual prime shooters. Dual prime shooters generally run a 24/50 or 35/85 and will switch primes situationally throughout the day. Most prime shooters will also have a 70-200 as a backup for scenarios where they are restricted (like a Catholic ceremony for example).
Even wedding zoom shooters typically shoot the majority of their photos under 105mm. So I’d argue that this lens easily checks most of the boxes for most wedding photographers; especially prime shooters like myself. This is the only Sony lens where I can honestly see myself going down to one body for an entire wedding.
@@yes_senpai8880I'm surprised Sony didn't match Canons 24-105.
24-105mm is the ideal focal range for a general walk around lens. This is close but I would miss the 24mm. I miss it on the canon 28-70 as well. The canon 24-105 f4 gets more use, also because its lighter.
I've got the Tamron 35-150, but really considering swapping it for this. There's been a handful of times where it didn't just get as wide as I wanted. Sure I'd be giving up some on the long end, but with high megapixel bodies there's plenty of room to crop...
just get additional 20 mm lens
a traditional combo of 24-70/2.8 and 70-200(180)/2.8 is still the best, nothing beats it
I'd keep the Tamron and get a 16-35
As long as you aren't getting a second lens for more telephoto reach then the 28-105 might be a better pick for you. Even if you get a second lens for wider shots, going to 28 on one lens make switching bodies or lenses less likely
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo that combo requires 2 camera
Please! Can you do a vs with this vs the tamron 35-150 for event/wedding photography?
Would also want to see how much I would gain in image quality vs the tamron 28-200 lens
I have to be honest: I dont see a need for this kind of lens for weddings. Of course this is my personal preference but I really often do need those 24mm a 24-70 can get me. I like to shoot wide and up close. And those 4mm do make a big difference. Of course there is the Canon 24-105 f2.8 but its just tooo huge. If I need to reach further ill rather use a 135mm prime on my second cam.
Wedding video is a whole different world from wedding photo. I use the Tamron 17-70 often and 70mm (105mm) is often not enough reach!
@@michaelcroff7097 Yeah I can see that. But your cam better have ibis because its not stabilized. I for sure wouldnt be able to handhold it at 105mm without stabilization haha
I like wide as well... but I rarely shoot 24mm. If I go wide I use a 16~20mm. Otherwise I'm using the 35-150mm. On rare occasions I switch out to 28-75 (my first and oldest zoom) if I need the 28mm wide end. Indoor greetings with drinks etc. There is no point in arguing who needs or uses what... everyone does their own thing. May it be the classic trinity of zooms or 50/1.2 purist. In the end... if you manage to make your clients happy, everything goes.
yep, 24mm is a lot more useful, while 70-105mm is little useful, pretty much dead range, most pictures are taken at the wide end
Hummm Sony 16-35 and Tamron 35-150 ?
Tamron 35 150 f2-2.8 is my choice over this
@6:44 That wonky breathing correction in the top left tells me there is some serious pincushion distortion correction going on at the wide end. Great review guys. With some minor issues I would have purchased this lens, but unfortunately 28mm is not wide enough for the indoor event work that I often do. Would have loved a 24-90 to replace the Leica 24-90 that I have.
I'll need about four bodies now. One with this, one with the 28-45 f1.8, one with the Samsung 35-150 2-2.8. And something wide. TBH, I'd prob rather 24-105 and a bit bigger like the canon. But this is great to have choices.
You should get Casey from Camera Conspiracies to fill in when Jordan can't do the video part. Really want to see someone run across the street in slow motion with this lens.
OMG YES
So he can then bash this lens for not having "3D pop"? No thanks.
@@lionheart4424 it's a different take, works for many and he consistently shows and contrasts his results for people to have their own take. But yeh, not sure if @xx-ip7ej was serious 🙂
Please no, his "3d Pop" obsession is overbearing... Not to mention his videography is starting to get pretty creepy
@@joeXjoeX duuuude. That kid is going to get himself put on a list real soon. It turned very weird and creepy very quickly
Right, NOW BRING IT FOR NIKON Z :/
These releases are meaningless without a Z-mount.
40cm working distance for 105mm or entire zoom range? So at 28mm it is also 40cm?
So begins Petapixel's Podiatry Period.
I wish it was 24-90mm f2.8 instead of 28-105. Sigma should release a bit smaller art lens. Still, I love Sigma❤
tamron 35-150 still would be a winner here
Agree. Even 24 would be too tight for many situations. 35-150 with an additional 20 mm seems to be the perfect combo - at least for me.
Yes, I agree, and that lens pairs well with a 16-35mm lens.
Exactly I took just those 2 lenses on recent shoot events with the 35-150 on the Sony A7R5 so I could use the apsc mode if needed to get even closer to the subject. That said the 35-150 feels noticeably heavier than the Sony 70-200 on a long days shooting.
Great rewiew one question how long is the lens?
Would love to see this compared to that Tampon 35-150!
good review. thank you. What I've noticed that looks a little unpleasant rather than cat eye effect that doesn't seems to me too much annoying, in the same image at 105mm f/2.8, it's the blades form: the out of fous lights that are not squeezed into a cat eye form look too polygonal
Get well soon, Jordan!
Chris, I think I see what you mean when you call the out of focus background frenetic but I still struggle a bit to see what you mean by smooth transitions from in focus to out of focus despite the frenetic background. I’m curious if you’ve ever seen a lens that has the reverse situation (i.e. a smooth background but harsh transition, or if not, whether you could point to an example of a any lens you’ve reviewed that didn’t have a smooth transition from in focus to out of focus. Thanks!
I have rented the RF one a couple times for 2 events, a HS Sr shoot and a small wedding. I found the range to be great but there were times I wanted a little longer. That 35-150 lens would have been better but not available in RF mount.
The 35-150 in an RF mount would be used for probably 85% of a wedding day for me. Which is why Canon will probably never allow it to be made... 🤣
Still holding out for that Sony 24-70 f/2.0
The canon (28-70) is just brilliant for weddings. But I'm not working anymore in canon.
@@obscurelines I don't think so... to me it's not wide enough, not long enough, too heavy, slowish focusing, awful bokeh balls,... a 24-70mm 2.0 would be much better
@@bernardlanguillier7970 I know it's not the same thing but I loved using the Lumix 10-25mm f1.8. a very viable set up for weddings, even at mft.
Two things:
1) I hope you feel better soon Jordan!
2) Did you use a smoke machine for your injured foot shot, you absolute madlad? lol
I still cant pick this over the tamron 35-150 . you just get much more. As a pro photographer, we would still go with the tamron
Get well soon Jordan😇
Goodness, I'm glad this came out prior to me getting a native sony 24-105... I don't shoot at 24 often enough for me to care vs the lower light performance wide open. I'm sold... when I can afford to get this lens.
Till then the canon 24-105 f4 L (the first version of it) with an adaptor to e mount will do.
Speedy recovery for Jordan!
This is a really nice seeming lens, and Sigma is so consistent with that. Might be a good addition to my travel photography/videography kit. Still a little overlap with my Sigma 18-50mm but not so much that it renders either useless
size comparison?
Looks like I might sell off my Sigma 24-70 2.8 to help fund one of these!
Would love to see a comparison to the Tamron 35-150. I own a GM 16-35, but sold my 24-105 because it was good back in 2017, but there are some better options now and I am still curios what to choose. A 24-70 is in my opinion to close to the 16-35 range.
Imma take a hard look at it.
What lens brand (and lens size) would you guys recommend for the Nikon Z6iii?
For a day and night time shoot?
looks cool but I am still waiting for 24-105/2,8 or 24-120/4 :)
Not sure why people don’t just copy Tamron’s F2-F2.8 variable aperture approach to the 35-150. The aperture is probably already wide enough to cover F2 at the short end without increasing the size / weight of the lens, unless they have to add more elements to make the image look good at F2.
In 10 years, Sigma's gonna be spoken about the way we speak about Zeiss glass today. They're the biggest innovators in the space, making consistently excellent lenses.
Great lens but I don't think I would walk around with it as my daily. I still think the most versatile lens was on the compact Canon G1x mark ii with a 24-120mm f2.0-3.9. Once you zoomed out at f3.9, that background just melted away!
you do realize that it has a tiny 2x crop sensor with equivalent 24-120/3.9-7.5 lens, it's cell phone territory
@@ElementaryWatson-oxo You do realize that we are talking about a camera that came out 10yrs ago right? Just because cell phone tech has caught up, doesn't mean it's less capable. Not to mention that no cell phone is even capable of that zoom range in a single lens and lacks the physical controls the camera has.
It has a similar price to the tamron 35-150 would be very interesting to have a comparison, your thoughts?
@PetaPixel Does this lens have anything on Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8? Isn't that more versatile?
0:02 I checked the Sigma website and the compatible camera section and the Sony A7R5 is not mentioned.
Get well soon Jordan!!
Chris with the most cutest daughter ever, i just like her orange hair so much.
What is the small camera in the background?
kind of kicking myself because I just bought a tamron 28-75 G2, but at least I'm saving a lot of size and weight
Great Video as Always 🙂PS: @Jordan...Looks like you had time to get a pedicure before the foot picture was taken LOL did @Chris Niccolls talk you into that LOL 🙂get well soon 🙂
刚在京东下单了，明天就可以拿到新镜头了！
If you have to choose between this one and 24-70 ll what’s your pick?
It’s hard to say - if you’re shooting professionally for events & weddings either one you’re going to have to have at least one more camera / lens on you. With the 24-70 you’ll probably want to carry an 85/1.4 or 135/1.8 for reach and the bokeh, where’s the 28-105mm f2.8 you’ll probably want a 16-35 or 14/1.8 to cover your wide shots due to 28 not being wide enough for a lot of scenarios.
In either case, you can pick one you’re comfortable with for balancing on your body lol
GOOD REVIEW
I have a 24-70 F2.8 DG DN i ART, what do you think about buying 28-105 f2.8 for travelling abroad?
Massive weight increase does not seem worth it to loose some wide angle. Just crop into the 70mm shots.
24-70 is a lot more useful for travels, smaller, lighter and wide angle is a lot more useful, the 70-105mm is a dead range
Sorry Jordan! Get well soon!
24-135 f2.8-4.0 DG DN next please Sigma 🙏
ITS REAL?!!! I didn't believe this was going to happen😂
No comparison with 35-150?
They came out with this lens sometime in the 70s or early 80s and it was a pretty heavy lens. It also wasn't very sharp. And, without OS, it also loses a lot of its value. I had that lens and FWIW the Canon 24-105 L IS f/4 was a much more fun lens to use for photo walks. If I was a professional on a shoot, I would seriously consider shooting with 2 primes (24/1.4 and 85/1.4) if I wasn't satisfied with a max aperture of f/4.
Which one is good for a wedding ? Tamron 35-150 vs Sigma 28-105 ?? Would you like to compare videos among this too?
When would this lens be coming to Nikon Z-Mount?
Do you think this will be available for Canon RF?
Should I switch to this from Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM (not II)?
This lens is perfect for my stationary video camera. I do like the sigma 35-150mm but mang, starting at 35mm is a huge downside. And i rarely go to 150mm so this sigma 28-105mm will be perfect for my station camera.
Make it 24mm or wider at the wide end. Shave off as much as needed on the telephoto part. Then we're talking. 21-75mm would be marvelous.
@@Rafaelinux everybody has a pipe dream. Some want a 20-75/2.8 and others marvel at the 35-150/2.8. Sigma took the middle road and that's why this lens will be an instant hit. Because it is BALANCED!
@@warpspeed9877 it doesn't scratch the wide or tele itches, though. Not nearly here nor there
Sigma already has a perfect lens -- the new 24-70/2.8
Just wait until the 28-180 arrives from Tamron.
If that lens is a constant f2.8, I'm buying a full-frame camera just for that.
@@danieldougan269 it's a rumor and yes, 2.8.
How long is the wait tho.
Tamron 35-150 is still the better lens
I wish there was a 24-135/2.8-4 lens similar to the old Sigma -- everything can be very reasonable, range, size, weight, quality ...
This or the Tamron 35-150?
I was just about to pull the trigger on the Tamron but suddenly I’m not so sure anyone. We really are spoiled for choices now a days
for general events I would take 24-70 over any of those, but for manly portraiture the 35-150 makes a lot more sense
Get well soon Jordan .
Between Jordan's ankle, your rebar incident, and a certain editor slicing up their thumb, I'm really worried about what we need to do to keep you guys safe.
So no OIS? How about par focal?
I think the lack of OIS, mixed with the fact Tamron 35-150 is much more versatile
Ugh when are they going to make these in Z mount
Have y’all thrown away the plena as a unit of measurement??? This lens weighs exactly one plena!
Fun fact: Chris did this in one take
I don't know, but for me, it won't make sense to buy this lens(unless it's cheap and has internal focus). The TAMRON 35-150mm f2-2.8is a better lens choice for versatility.
Hope that they get us a Z mount version
This would've been a winner if it was 24 instead of 28, 28+ zooms just isn't wide enough otherwise I would've kept tamron 28-75 event work 😅
I wonder how this would perform with a Megadap ETZ21 adapter...
Damn you Gophers! Get well soon Jordan!
… hey Jordan … I can’t help thinking about the movie “Caddyshack” … LOLOL!! 😂🤣
Needed to be 24-100 and I’d instantly buy it! Sad
No Fuji X-mount?? C'mon Sigma, you're killing me.
Neat but I feel that the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 remains overall a better match
I'm seriously considering sell my R62 now.
Me too, the amount of third party lenses available for Sony is insane and the prices just about right
Canon is such a limited system, way more options with Sony and Nikon
This would be an insta-buy for me if it had OIS
I wouldn’t choose this before the Tamron 35-150.
I think the same.
I just want RF 1.4 lenses from Sigma :( But this is nice
Jordan "Injured in a tragic gopher hole accident" Drake
thanks ..I will not consider it. Sadly contrary to what used to be Sigma compact design trend ,now it has move to opposite direction for their newer lens larger , bigger & heavier & shorter in zoom range .It should has at least 18-120 or 28 -150
I wish this had been a 24-90 2.8. With 50-60mp sensors, 24mm is more important than 105mm.
I wish Sigma revived 24-135/2.8-4