New Sigma Lens: The ART 17-40mm f/1.8

The new Sigma ART 17–40mm ƒ/1.8 DC was introduced at 1:00 a.m. this morning. It harkens back to the early days of zooms, when many zooms had a range of only 2x. The range of this lens is only a little more at 2.35x. Generally when any lens has a distorted spec—weight and size, overlarge objective element, low range, high or low price, etc., it's a sign that some sort of special feature is present. The special feature of this lens is a fast constant maximum aperture. In a world where ƒ/2 zooms are still considered exotic (like the Canon RF 28–70mm ƒ/2L which is $300 off today and tomorrow in honor of B&H's Bild Show taking place at the Javits Center in NYC as we speak), the ƒ/1.8 maximum aperture of this lens is just that tiny bit faster. 

I question the cost of that. It's an APS-C lens, so the range is 25.5–60mm equivalent. Is that really a useful focal length range?

Slam it or tweak it
It seems to me there are two ways people tend to use zooms. One is where you use it as two lenses. For example, with a 28–85mm on 35mm, you slam it to 28mm when you need a wide angle of view, and wish it went a little wider; or, you slam it to 85mm when you need a telephoto angle of view, and wish it went a little longer. And you use it 80–90% of the time on those two extremes. Or, you use a zoom as an "adjustable normal," whereby you use a zoom lens somewhere in the middle of the range and adjust the zoom function to tailor it to the exact angle of view that you like best, then tweak it to purposes from there. That tends to be how I use zooms. Years ago, Pentax prototyped a lens with an exceedingly narrow range that was deliberately intended to be used that way, but I have a poor memory for numbers and forget the specs now. Hopefully Oracular Oren of Stately Oren Manor will chime in and provide, as he recalls all there is to recall and then a little bit more. The lens never saw production in any event. Although Pentax now has a beautiful 20–40mm (roughly 30–60mm-e) that seems intended to be used that way. 

YMMV, of course.

Slow lens fast
I also (perhaps I am in a contrarian mood today) somewhat question the need for speed. Despite the overpowering popularity of fast lenses now—everybody wants a brag-on lens—I have been photographing on FF with an ƒ/2.8 lens for some while now, and I can honestly say that I cannot remember even one time that I wished the lens was faster. I get the speed I need by ratcheting up the ISO a tad, and never have run out of room there either; ƒ/2.8 is the new ƒ/1.4 if you ask me. Of course I am now a fuddy-duddy, not a photo-ninja, so maybe YMMV there as well.

And I've said before that 60mm, or 60mm-e, is a particularly useless angle of view for me. It's simply a 50mm only worse. To me. When I say so, I hear from people who like and use that focal length. So they're out there. I still keep the Panasonic 12–35mm for Micro 4/3, even though it's been an age since I shot Micro 4/3, and even on that lens, the 70mm-e maximum range was a limitation. I've learned that I like a zoom that goes to at least 120mm-e on the long end for shooting with a zoom where I live now, where a lot of the pictures are farther away. The Panasonic-Leica Vario-Elmarit 12–60mm (24–120mm-e on Micro 4/3) seems perfect, although I have never owned it.

So it all depends on use-cases. Would you buy this lens? Would you try this lens?

Sigma ascendant
I'll bet it's yummy. I've become a big fan of Sigma. I keep kind of dreaming of a Leica SL3 with a set of Sigma Contemporary primes in L-mount. I don't need a camera like that, but the lack of any need or purpose has virtually never stopped me from dreaming about photography equipment. Cameras and especially lenses fire the endorphins for me, like gambling does for a gambling addict. I presume. I never gamble, except perhaps on life decisions. Bah-dum-pah.

The new Sigma ART costs $919, and comes in Fujifilm X, Canon RF, Sony E, and L-mount.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Dave: "Years ago, Pentax prototyped a lens with an exceedingly narrow range...." Wasn't it something like a 5–10mm range for that lens? (Just going from memory.) Found it here."

Mike replies: That's it. Can't believe I forgot that. The 35mm "Flexi," 33–39mm zoom.

hugh crawford: "These specs would have been really attractive for studio or location photography back when I was doing that sort of thing. You needed a constant aperture because you were using a bunch of pack and head strobes, and absolutely had to have all the exposures consistent because you were probably shooting E6. Moving around was probably difficult on location because there was stuff in the way, and in the studio moving around would get the set from the wrong angle or mess up the lighting so cropping in the camera was the thing, because E6 and art directors. Time was money, and literally if you had a few models. Rock stars and CEOs were even worse. Changing lenses meant that you had to do another clip test on the E6, and change lenses at the end of a roll or better yet have multiple bodies. I don't know if any of that applies today.

"Getting an acceptable 35mm Ectachrome for a printed page seems like crossing the Atlantic on a sailing ship these days."

Jim Simmons: "I shot a ton of architecture with a Pentax 55–100mm ƒ/4 zoom on a Pentax 67. That's a 27–50mm equivalent. Super sharp lens, not to mention huge and heavy. I probably did 90% of my architectural photography with that one lens. Oh, and it was perfectly rectilinear too, which was uncommon with zooms of that time. This Sigma feels like it could be a similarly useful lens."

ASW: "Regarding zoom lenses, I find that I'm a 'slammer' to the extremes with my telephoto zoom lenses, first a 70–210mm and later a 70–300mm, regardless of whether I was using them on my initial APS-C or later full-frame DSLR. Conversely, with my wider zoom lenses, first a combo of 12–24mm and 18–70mm DX lenses and later a combo of 18–35mm and 24–85mm FX lenses, I appreciate and utilize fine-scale adjustment for framing landscape photos and use the entire zoom range at relatively equal proportions."

Daniel: "This lens violates my sacred rule to always have the wrong lens on my camera at any given time."

Comments

[Bill Tyler]

The rage for giant maximum aperture, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the need to let in more light. Instead, a certain type of photographer relishes the ability to have almost the whole image out of focus due to limited depth of field. If that's what you like, great, go for it, and pay the price for heavy expensive glass, both in dollars and in back strain. Incidentally, this esthetic may have had a partial boost from a certain photo writer who introduced "bokeh" to America.

[William Lewis]

Somewhat interesting but I rather like my HD Pentax-DA 20-40mm F2.8-4 Limited DC WR more. 2.8 x 2.7 in & 10 oz on my K3. A little shorter range, a little slower but SO much smaller and easier to handle and the optical quality is exquisite.

Perhaps if I used a camera with one of those mounts I'd be more interested or if I didn't have such great glass for very usable cameras that changing isn't a temptation (no GAS? Who would have thought!) but in my world, that Limited lens does the job perfectly.

[Ed Hawco]

In my limited (and not necessarily reliable) experience, the "ART" in ART lenses is a euphemism for "creates images with abundant and pleasing bokeh," hence the fast apertures of pretty much all ART lenses.

[Dave]

"Years ago, Pentax prototyped a lens with an exceedingly narrow range"

Wasn't it something like a 5-10 mm range for that lens? (Just going from memory.)

Found it: https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3801880226_5a61fa551c_b.jpg

https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/747/104/p20.jpg

[Jeff]

A friend has the SL3; I prefer the ergonomics, menus and on/off switch of my SL2, which still has outstanding IQ and a healthy 47 MP. (They’re selling mint used for near $2k these days.) I now solely use it with the SL 24-90 zoom, the best zoom workhorse I’ve ever owned, covering 6 prime equivalents with no practical sacrifice in my prints. It serves as a complement to my more compact M system, typically using a 35mm or 50mm prime. The new SL 28-70 f/2.8 compact zoom, a more elegant design than the Sigma equivalent, has some appeal for a lighter, walk-around, weather sealed option. And not too expensive, by Leica standards.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I’ll bet this lens is “yummy”, too. I have been so impressed with Sigma’s lenses for the past few years! Literally moment before reading this post I received Sigma’s 28-70 f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary lens. (It’s Sigma’s lighter and MUCH less expensive version of Leica’s recently-announced Vario-Elmarit 28-70 f/2.8. Many say the Leica is actually Sigma’s lens.) I am immediately impressed by just how light this thing is! Upon receipt I almost thought the box was empty….really. This lens looks like it’s very much in the same spirit - a light, fast 24-ish - 60-ish frame for APS-C!

Yeah, yummy. Sigma is on quite a remarkable tear!

[Ken]

I am not in the target market for this lens, but in general, the older I get the less impressed I become with fast-aperture, large, heavy lenses -- big zooms least of all -- unless it is a telephoto that allows me to get closer to birds and wildlife. But that's for a very specific use. For everything else, smaller and lighter is preferable.

[Albert Smith]

I'm mostly a prime lens guy, but lately I have been using a zoom for my photographing of all the protests happening, including last weekend's "No Kings" event, which was my fifth protest. Initially, I used a wide-angle prime, which quickly became a limitation. Next I used a two lens kit (adding a short tele), offering more flexibility, but when I got home I found that during a lens change some dust got on my sensor.

So I broke out my Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4, and was rewarded with hundreds of great shots this Saturday. This Sigma looks great on paper, but it would not have been as effective for me this weekend because of the odd long end measurement. At 40mm, you'd be at a long normal range, and I shot way too many 55mm (84mm-e) portraits this weekend to accept a lens that doesn't go that long. I also shot most of my images somewhere between f/4 to f/8. Even 55mm at f/4 gave me great quality and just enough separation for the subject to pop. So I wouldn't need that fast aperture in a zoom, and I can switch to a prime with a faster f-stop if really needed.

My history with do-it-all zooms included the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my APS-C D300s. That lens was a bazooka, long, thick and heavy. It was (and is) optically great, but it is not a casual walking around lens. I found that sometimes a slower "less capable" lens could be more productive because you can actually carry it and get photos.

[hugh crawford]

Speaking of the Bild show, that's chutzpah for you. Bild is Yiddish for picture.

[R. Edelman]

The f1.8 is, as Nigel in the movie "This Is Spinal Tap" would say, taking it to eleven.

[KeithB]

"the ƒ/1.8 maximum aperture of this lens is just that tiny bit faster. "

Kind of like Spinal Tap: "It goes to 11!"

(You can see _This is Spinal Tap_ on the big screen near you, since it is a Fathom Event)

[Rick in CO]

As is Bild German for Picture.

[Soeren Engelbrecht]

Just got myself a very clean Zuiko 28-48/4.0 for my OM-2n. That was my dream lens, when i bought my first SLR (an OM 20) in 1995, but I had to settle for a Soligor 28-56/3.5-4.5 due to cost. 35 wasn’really wide enough for me.

In 2025, that Zuiko cost me all of 40 USD :-)

[David]

Mike, I have the same dream - a Leica SL and a couple of sigmas. I can’t stretch to a new SL3, but nearly grabbed an ex-demo SL2. I fear what would become of my otherwise excellent M43 system.

I have to keep reminding myself that I don’t have a need, a project, to use it on. In some ways I think resisting the urge has become my new project.

[David Raboin]

Despite its limitations, I can see a few use cases for the Sigma 17-40 F1.8. This lens could be useful for a seasoned prime shooter, someone who is used to shooting at any of the popular prime focal lengths: 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm. The 17-40 would give them added flexibility without sacrificing speed or image quality. Alternatively, this lens would be a nice option for a disciplined beginner, someone who wants to learn to take photos in the normal focal lengths and doesn't want to become dependant on ultra-wide or telephoto photography. 25-60mm is the zone of interestingness where most great photos are taken. Why not carry a high quality fast lens that covers this range exclusively?

Having said all that, I'll also make the counter argument. I started in photography in the bad old days of APS when the only available lenses were film era lenses designed for full frame cameras. At the time (2003), my first ever high quality lens was the Canon 17-40 F4 L. That lens took great looking photos, and it quickly became my main lens, but the limited zoom range was always a frustration. I was constantly switching to my 50mm plastic fantastic or my sigma 70-200 lenses. When I stepped up to full frame and a 24-70 zoom, I felt liberated.

[Gary Mortensen]

This lens makes me think of my fantasy Fujifilm lens: a 16mm – 32mm f2.8 (they’ll never make it, of course). It would need to be compact and I might have to settle for f4, which I could do. I’d want an aperture ring and “premium” performance, so I don’t imagine it would be cheap.
Would I like using this lens on my XT-4 more than I like using my X100 VI? I’ll never know…

[Daniel Speyer]

I have the Pentax 24-35mm f/3.5 zoom. It is a lovely small lens, and covers (for me) the two focal lengths I most prefer. (My preference is not to use zoom lens, and if i do, it's one with a short zoom range.)

But my case is mostly theatre photography, where I can and do bring 4 cameras. The zoom issue is not optical quality or lack of f/2, but rather I work better when I choose a camera+lens that projects the view I want onto the sensor, rather than adjusting the camera view to match the image I want. (So for pacing I likely have one zoom, but tend not to use it.)

[Larry Sandberg]

For twelve years I carried one or two tank-like Canon F-1s with 28- and 50 mm lenses. Having then grown tired of the weight and bulk, I went to a delightful Olympus OM-2 with the Zuiko 28-48 mm zoom lens. Not quite a pancake lens, but a short stack at most. The zoom ring had a short throw and I would instinctively set it to either extreme as I raised the camera to my eye. Eventually I did learn to shoot throughout the entire range, for better and worse.

[Richard John Tugwell]

Not for me, although I'm happy to see that the industry still feels encouraged enough to develop niche products for real cameras!

[Earl Dunbar]

For me on APS-C it would be a pretty useful range. (I find 50mm to be both to short and too long. Yes, I’m definitely an outlier.)

On “full frame” it would be absolutely perfect.

[Kodachromeguy]

An unusual zoom lens from Pentax that did go into production was the 24-35mm ƒ/3.5 Pentax-M. It had a fixed maximum ƒ/3.5, not variable like many later zoom lenses.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-M-24-35-mm-F3.5-Zoom-Lens.html

[Andre Y]

This lens is a mirrorless successor to their very popular 18-35/1.8 lens which was made for APS-C/DX crop DSLRs. Videographers loved that lens because of its speed and useful range for video. Panasonic makes a somewhat similar 10-25/1.7 and 25-50/1.7 lenses for micro 4/3, and both are very popular with videographers.

I also used the 18-35's bigger brother, the 50-100/1.8, on my Nikon D500 for my dance photos, and treated it as a flexible mid-tele prime: it was like a 135mm equivalent whose framing I could easily tweak on the fly. I think that's the best way to regard these 2x zooms: they're like a prime whose optical field of view you can adjust just a little bit to get the right framing, instead of a bag of primes like the wider-ranged zooms.

[Bahi P]

The Sigma reminds me of the Panasonic 10-25mm and 25-50mm ƒ/1.7 lenses for Micro Four Thirds. They carry Leica badges, for what that's worth. Both are big and expensive but reviewers seemed to think highly of them, despite the limited, 2x ranges. Constant apertures, too, and fast enough to be genuinely useful for MFT. I would love a fast MFT lens than gave me slighter wider than normal and extended to slightly longer. MFT lens support from the bigger manufacturers appears to be falling away. Oh well. If I used Canon RF, this Sigma zoom would be top of my list for a walk-around lens.

[Tom Burke]

This lens will never be for me - too big, too heavy, and too expensive. And I will never need f1.8 at those focal lengths. In fact, these days my quest is for greater depth of focus, not less. I frequently set up my camera on a tripod, take multiple images of my subject (typically a flower) with slightly different points of focus and then focus-stack them.

It always used to be said that one reason for buying an f1.4 lens was because images taken with that lens stopped down to f2 or f2.8 were better than images taken with an f2 (or f2.8) lens at its maximum. I'm not sure that's as true these days - a number of slower lenses are now available, especially zooms, where the maximum aperture gives the best results. My Canon 100-400 f5.6-f8 would be one of them. Not as good as Canon's 200-500, certainly, but a quarter the price.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

In response to Daniel, it’s not that he has the wrong lens on his camera, it’s that he’s in the wrong location at the wrong time for the lens :~)

[Mark Roberts]

For many years I've wished that someone would make a 1:1 macro lens with a very short zoom range, say 90-105mm. Just enough that you could tweak the framing a wildflower or something a without moving your tripod or having to carry a macro rail around.