# Big Sigma Primes [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 26, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14256"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14256">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Super Telephoto ART Calibre Lenses

</strong>We’re told Sigma is working on new 300 & 400 f/2.8 OS lenses as well as new 500 & 600 f/4 OS lenses. The lenses would incorporate Sigma’s new philosophy on quality, but at a much lesser price than the Canon or Nikon counterpart.</p>
<p>We could see an announcement on multiple large lenses sometime in 2014.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## brad-man (Aug 26, 2013)

I'm not sure about the weight of an Art supertele, but I'm confident about build and sharpness._ Go Sigma!_


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 26, 2013)

Making the 120-300/2.8 have the same optical quality with TCs as the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II would be top of my list.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 26, 2013)

At the risk of repeating myself, yet again, a 200-500 f/4 zoom lens would be a lot more useful to me than those primes!


----------



## viggen61 (Aug 26, 2013)

This could be interesting...


----------



## docsmith (Aug 26, 2013)

....a friend has their 150-500. I'll take the 100-400L over it any day. But, if they get the quality up...I can see myself buying my first Sigma lens....Either a 500 or 600 f/4 (or f/5.6) or a zoom that maxes out at 500 f/5.6....


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 26, 2013)

If these lenses good as 35mm ART, I will take one - 400mm f2.8 : : : : : : : :

Couldn't afford Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II :'( or at least, not shooting enough to spend $10,000ish on single lens.


----------



## streestandtheatres (Aug 26, 2013)

I love their 35mm and I about to buy the canon 400mm 5.6. I wonder if the Sigma 400 will be in my price range?! Thoughts??


----------



## silvestography (Aug 26, 2013)

Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).


----------



## Menace (Aug 26, 2013)

Should be interesting to how these compare to Canon offerings.


----------



## infared (Aug 26, 2013)

Cool!...bring it on!!! I love my Sigma35mm, f/1.4!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 26, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).



Why _Sport_? I believe_ Art_ signifies 2.8 or larger aperture. It would be a _Sport_ if it was a zoom with a variable aperture.


----------



## ScottyP (Aug 26, 2013)

Wow. I think they have everyone's attention here......


----------



## pwp (Aug 26, 2013)

Yes please! I can't justify dropping $12k on the Canon 400 f/2.8isII but if Sigma can make their 400 f/2.8 suitably appealing then I'd be a buyer, so long as the optics are right and it's nowhere near the weight & bulk of the old Canon 400f/2.8 which I've found to be a good performer, but the weight makes it a body-buster...I'm not Mr Muscles!

-PW


----------



## Zv (Aug 26, 2013)

Ooo I might be interested in a 300mm from Sigma! If they can make it affordable that is.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 26, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Why _Sport_? I believe_ Art_ signifies 2.8 or larger aperture. It would be a _Sport_ if it was a zoom with a variable aperture.



What??? What kind of a crazy name scheme is that? Sports are where constant aperture is more of a big deal ANYWHERE else.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Aug 26, 2013)

400 f2.8? Mmmmm.. Just read about the Canon 400mm f2.8... That's going to be a tough one to beat! Would love on though!


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 26, 2013)

I'd be interested in the 400 if it happened because I bet it would be great and would be 5-6 thousand less than the Canon. Really Canon 11k for a 400?


----------



## adhocphotographer (Aug 26, 2013)

OOoooooh... very interested in this!


----------



## brad-man (Aug 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Why _Sport_? I believe_ Art_ signifies 2.8 or larger aperture. It would be a _Sport_ if it was a zoom with a variable aperture.
> ...



Good point. Perhaps the _Art_ line is for apertures _larger_ than 2.8. With the upcoming release of the 18-35mm f/1.8, we know that Sigma doesn't play by the rules. The new superteles might just be _faster_ than 2.8. Wouldn't that be a kick. Don't know about the weight though.


----------



## qwerty (Aug 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Why _Sport_? I believe_ Art_ signifies 2.8 or larger aperture. It would be a _Sport_ if it was a zoom with a variable aperture.
> ...



Quick, someone tell Sigma that they listed their 120-300mm f/2.8 lens improperly on their website.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-dg-os-hsm-s
Oh, and on their press release when they announced their Sports line.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-corporation-announces-reorganization-of-lens-lineup-new-products-and-quality-control

(Their existing 300 f/2.8, etc. are also listed as sports lenses, though those predate their A/S/C designations)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/120-300mm-f28-dg-os-hsm-s

My guess is that the 35 f/1.4 (which is an art lens) got a lot of good press, so they (the rumor submitter) are piggybacking (likely inadvertently) on that fame.

Anyways, enough semantics. I am in the market for a 300 or 400 f/2.8, but good quality (Canon Mark 1 with IS) used versions are selling for $3k and up on eBay, which is a bit more than its worth to me. (The existing Sigma 300mm f/2.8 without OS/IS is a bit over 3k new.) I don't imagine the new and improved Sigmas will be any cheaper than that, so I am probably out as far as the new market it concerned. But, I am sure there will be plenty of people on this thread excited about the possibility of Sigma announcing a bargain. Still exciting though - I like to see competition.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 26, 2013)

I would love a 500mm f 2.8 is that performs as well as or better than the Canon V2 f4L, is smaller, weighs a lot less, and costs <= say 4K. 

I would also love a winning lotto ticket. 

We will see what Sigma brings, it is for sure great news. I may just start saving now. I agree with another poster that a zoom of say 200 or 300 to about 500 or so with a f 2.8 (fixed aperture) would be awesome.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 26, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).



+1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :


----------



## Gareth (Aug 26, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> I agree with another poster that a zoom of say 200 or 300 to about 500 or so with a f 2.8 (fixed aperture) would be awesome.



You might be surprised to learn that Sigma already makes a 200-500 f/2.8 zoom (and has for a while). Of course it costs 26k and weighs over 30 lbs...
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg


----------



## Eimajm (Aug 26, 2013)

Very interesting as I'm currently saving for Canon's offering. If they can match the optical and build quality of Canon's 500 MK I at £5-6K then I'll seriously consider one. I like the way Sigma is going.


----------



## xps (Aug 26, 2013)

It does not matter, which name they give those primes. 
What "counts" for me are an good IQ ( low CA, high resolution,...) and an fast AF.

+1 on the lower prices. It is good, that there will be a bit of price war. I know, that some of the guys here think, that only high-priced lenses are good lenses. But I believe that Canon adds an very big plus on the prices to optimize their profits. Nikon does it too... Now Sigma has the chance to increase their market share in these class of lenses. 

And if these Sigma lenses are just a little bit lower in IQ than their Canon counterparts, one of the 500mm lenses will be mine.....


----------



## Einstein333 (Aug 26, 2013)

*Re: We want high quality zooms!!*

IMHO zoom lenses (like the new Canon 200-400) have become so good that I prefer them over fixed focals! I prefer having the flexibility of a zoom over 2% of additional sharpness with a prime! How about a new high quality *200-600 f5.6 OS?*


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 26, 2013)

As a previous sigma 400/5.6 APO owner (which is no longer compatable with Canon AF), I've been a little wary of buying new Sigma lenses. But the recent announcement of the lens mount change service and updates via computer suggest that they are working hard to win me back. A quality, reasonably priced 300/2.8 or 500/4 would certainly get my attention.


----------



## vlim (Aug 26, 2013)

> Should be interesting to how these compare to Canon offerings



sharpness : might be a tie
build quality, weather sealed : Canon
weight : Canon
Price : Sigma

A 400 or 500 5.6 OS might be a great option for Sigma... Cheaper and lighter lenses.


----------



## Apop (Aug 26, 2013)

Good news!, if the 120-300 OS S sharpness and quality (TDP review) is any indication, I am sure that their primes will be winners if they can keep the price reasonable!

Adding a 500 or 600 to my 300 would be lovely, but canon's @ 10k and 11k is too much.
If sigma can pull it off do deliver sharp images and good build quality for 5-7k it might be an interesting alternative.


----------



## GuyF (Aug 26, 2013)

Considering I'm still ( :) about to pull the trigger on a 500mm f4 II, this news is a bit of a concern.

Mind you, will the Sigma have the same level of quality control as Canon? No.

Will the Sigma have 4-stops of IS? Maybe.

Will the Sigma be weather-sealed like the Canon? Can't see that happening.

Is the Canon more expensive just 'cos it's white and has "Canon" on the side? No...wait, yes....no, uh....

Without boring you with the details, the universe has thwarted me at every turn in my quest to get the 500mm. Perhaps fate is trying to tell me to wait for the Sigma 500mm f4 or even a 600mm if they do one.

(to be said in a tone of reverence and wonder) Oh great and powerful internet, what 500mm shall I ever own?


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 26, 2013)

Canon teles are fucking beast, just get them


----------



## AdamJ (Aug 26, 2013)

To those hoping that these superteles will be half the price of Canon, I doubt that: cheaper, undoubtedly, but my guess would be about 75% of the price of the Canon equivalent. Sigma currently has a 500mm f/4.5 which B&H sells for $5,000, slightly below half the price of the faster, lighter, optically superior, IS-equipped 500mm f/4 IS II. You can be sure that the new Sigma 500mm f/4 OS will not be $5,000 - more like $7,500 would be my guess.

So, to the guy about to pull the trigger on a Canon 400mm f/5.6, asking if the new Sigma 400mm f/2.8 is likely to be in his price range, well if your price range doesn't stretch to about $8,000 then probably not.

Regarding weather-sealing, if ever there were products for which Sigma should commit to proper weather-sealing, these new superteles are the ones. Honestly, I'd be amazed if they didn't get that part right.


----------



## RGF (Aug 26, 2013)

depending upon timing, I will look at sigma carefully. Would like to get a 600 II Jan 2014 though I doubt sigma will be out before then.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 26, 2013)

I have 5 of them and I love them. I can just set them up anywhere on a stand or with a modifier and snap away. I can control the power from the camera flash or transmitter. It is just too convenient to put like 4 or 5 flashes in a bag and be able to place them anywhere at an event. I never tried to overpower the sun or anything but I know it isn't great for that.


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 26, 2013)

Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
> All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.



Canon doesn't make a 400mm f/4 lens?


----------



## florianbieler.de (Aug 26, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
> All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.



EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS


----------



## Plainsman (Aug 26, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
> ...




The Canon 400/4 DO is very expensive and is slightly mediocre optically.
I was thinking that Sigma could wisely ignore the 10 year old DO concept and give us a conventional sharp wide open 400/4.


----------



## Stone (Aug 26, 2013)

I've been hoping for a Sigma 400 2.8 for quite a while. I have a fund to buy the Canon 400 2.8 but I'm not sure as a hobbyist I'll ever actually pull the trigger. ~$11K is a ton of money for something I wouldn't use very often, I'm sure the Siggy street price would be several thousand cheaper which would be much easier to swallow.


----------



## fegari (Aug 26, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Good point. Perhaps the _Art_ line is for apertures _larger_ than 2.8. With the upcoming release of the 18-35mm f/1.8, we know that Sigma doesn't play by the rules. The new superteles might just be _faster_ than 2.8. Wouldn't that be a kick. Don't know about the weight though.



If Sigma were to do an optically, even maybe mechanically competitive 300, 400, 500 & 600 I think it'll be unlikelly they'll be any faster than the Canon counterparts. I mean, Sigma is really upping their game with the recent releases but the laws of physics are the same all around Japan...an hypotetical 300f2, 400f2, 500f2.8 will be monster 10Kg lenses with uber gigantic front element diameterss, unpractical for 90+% of the people they might be in fact trying to reach.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 26, 2013)

Guessing the availability of these future large Sigma telephoto lenses is a year off or more. Regarding their optical or overall quality...it won't matter to some photogs how good these are. They still won't be up to Canon's level in their minds. Sigma is simply a red-headed stepchild, only worthy of scorn. As constant and eternal as the tides...and it's especially true if the Sigma lens costs less than the similar Canon model.

I'm considering purchasing three lenses over the next couple of months, and none of them are made by Canon...but these will be used on a Canon camera. One of these is a Sigma, the 35mm...the others Rokinon and Tamron. The only brand of these which I have no personal experience with yet, is Tamron.

I currently own three canon lenses, one Voigtlander, and one Sigma...and have bought and sold several other Sigmas in the past. The only lens I've ever used that was (slightly) "decentered" was a Tokina. The only time I've been published (so far), was using a Sigma lens...a rather critically maligned one at that. It was still practically Zeiss-level optically, compared to the absurd Canon 18-55 kit lens it replaced. I sold that Sigma for the same price I paid for it, new...after owning it for three years. The buyer was overjoyed to get it! Apparently word got out how good a value it was, especially after it was replaced with an optically inferior model with "OS". 

I've never used a Sigma lens with a painted finish...but Sigma is not the only brand who has painted their metal lenses in the past...and then the paint flakes off. That's why most modern DSLR lenses don't have a painted finish, nowadays...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



The Canon 300mm f/2.8 II with the 1.4x TC III is an f/4 420mm, with IQ at least as good as the 200-400mm, and with the 2xTC at 600mm slightly better than the 200-400 with its 1.4xTC TC flipped in. Sigma would have to match the Canon pricing, weight and quality of the 300mm combinations competing with the Sigma native primes.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 26, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



There was a recent rumor about new Canon DO lens patents or designs, and people seem to want that. It's possible new technology can wring higher optical performance from the DO technique...or not.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 27, 2013)

Plainsman said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...




http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html

Plus:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732111-USA/Canon_4410B002_Extender_EF_2X_III.html



Gets you a 200/2 and a 400/4 with no future AF compatibility worries and high resale if you need; all for $6500 USD.


----------



## roadrunner (Aug 27, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).



Their new nomenclature is terrible. In my opinion, they should have just stuck to two lines. One for top of the line (Art to compete with Canon's L, perhaps?) and the rest. Alas, their art line has been great so far, so I can't criticize them too much.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Aug 27, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> +1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :



Or, like an expensive line of lens being called "luxury" (L)?


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 27, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > +1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :
> ...



+1, the new nomenclature is not "silly" at all. It is however an obvious marketing ploy...what matters is the product itself. But certainly calling something "art" is not earthshattering. If they had used "turbo", then that would have been silly. Art can certainly be generated from Sigma lenses.


----------



## brad-man (Aug 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



+1 Call me shallow if you will, but it's by far the best looking lens I own (and I own quite a few). _Art_ is the perfect designation.


----------

