# Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sport & Sigma 70-200 f/4 OS Contemporary Coming? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2017)

```
We’re told that Sigma will be announcing two new 70-200mm lens in the early part of 2018. One of the lenses will be a 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS Art series lens, and the other a 70-200mm f/4 DG OS contemporary lens.</p>
<p>The 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS Sport has been rumored for quite some time, but this is the first time we’ve heard about an f/4 contemporary version.</p>


<p>This sort of announcement would make some sense for CP+ in February, I’m not sure CES in January is the place to announce these lenses.</p>
<p>This comes from an unknown source, so treat it accordingly.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## slclick (Dec 10, 2017)

The Canon f/4L IS version is at a high bar, if Sigma could put it's better AF (85, 135) 
motor in there...well, we'll see, right?


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 10, 2017)

slclick said:


> The Canon f/4L IS version is at a high bar, if Sigma could put it's better AF (85, 135)
> motor in there...well, we'll see, right?


AF motor found in 180mm OS Macro isn't too bad either.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 10, 2017)

I assume we're using the terms Art and Sport interchangeably when talking about rumoured Sigma lenses above the Contemporary price-bracket, right?


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 10, 2017)

Khufu said:


> I assume we're using the terms Art and Sport interchangeably when talking about rumoured Sigma lenses above the Contemporary price-bracket, right?


No, Sigma uses all three very specifically. All 'sport' lenses are fully weather sealed, whereas not all 'art' lenses are. All 'art' lenses have the full array of coatings and specialist elements that Sigma currently offers to optimise optical quality; not all 'sport' lenses have every single construction technique employed.

Contemporary = size and price
Art = optical quality
Sport = mechanical quality

It's pretty simple to understand.


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 10, 2017)

I hope that these will have a "macro" designation.


----------



## slclick (Dec 10, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> I hope that these will have a "macro" designation.



I'd rather have their main purpose to be higher end then be muddled down by multitasking. Do one thing well instead of many mediocre. Now I know that my earlier comment of hoping for a better AF motor like the 85/135 is unrealistic since a prime motor is very different than that for a zoom however it seems Sigma has grown in leaps and bounds in this area in the past two years so it might still hold somewhat true.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 11, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > I assume we're using the terms Art and Sport interchangeably when talking about rumoured Sigma lenses above the Contemporary price-bracket, right?
> ...



I believe Khufu is referring to the CR story which does use sport and art interchangeably in referring to the higher end 70-200. Most likely a typo, but I had to read it a couple of times to figure out just how many lenses CR guy was referring to. It appears he wrote “Art” when I’m guessing he meant to write “Sport.”


----------



## picturefan (Dec 11, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > Contemporary = size and price
> ...


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 11, 2017)

picturefan said:


> *?
> It would be easy to understand if they would build their top notch lenses (=A) in best mechanical quality (=S). Everything else doesn't seem to be "pretty simple to understand".*


A Canon 7Dmk2 is a mechanically better camera then the old 5Dmk2, but the 5Dmk2 still produces higher-quality files than the 7Dmk2. You understand this concept, yes? Then you shouldn't have any trouble understanding the same division in lenses. It's the same deal. One thing is optimised for one type of quality, and another is optimised for a different type of quality.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 11, 2017)

I’m pretty sure “Art” and “Sport” are nothing more than marketing labels to help attract customers of a given demographic.
Which is probably more effective than labelling everything “EX”.

I do question whether some lenses are a little cheap for the “Art” label.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 11, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I’m pretty sure “Art” and “Sport” are nothing more than marketing labels to help attract customers of a given demographic.
> Which is probably more effective than labelling everything “EX”.
> 
> I do question whether some lenses are a little cheap for the “Art” label.


Replace the word "art" with "L" and you've got what many people have been saying about Canon for decades, yet here we still are.


----------



## slclick (Dec 11, 2017)

It's very easy to differentiate. Sure, there will be an odd duck here or there but all in all it makes sense.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 12, 2017)

unfocused said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Khufu said:
> ...


Some posts on this thread seem to be blinkered by pomposity; they all appear to be attributed to the same username too :

Also: 5D2 and 7D2 were never contemporaries; 1D and 1Ds series would have been a more apt analogy, if it weren't for that pesky 1Dx coming in and ruining things with all its convergence and what-not...


----------



## andrei1989 (Dec 12, 2017)

aaaanywho...to bring you back on topic...

the 2.8 S will happen for sure and will be around the same price as the tamron 70-200 G2..let's wait and see how the optical performance will be 

the 70-200 f4 C will be interesting to see. Contemporary means it shouldn't be in the same league as the canon 70-200 f4 L, but sigma surprised us with the 100-400 (optical performance at least) compared to the canon 100-400. Also, price-wise, the canon f4 can be had for ~700€ second hand, if the sigma launches at a similar price point then it will be hard to resist


----------



## danski0224 (Dec 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> I'd rather have their main purpose to be higher end then be muddled down by multitasking. Do one thing well instead of many mediocre. Now I know that my earlier comment of hoping for a better AF motor like the 85/135 is unrealistic since a prime motor is very different than that for a zoom however it seems Sigma has grown in leaps and bounds in this area in the past two years so it might still hold somewhat true.



The macro designation on a prior 70-200 is more "close focus" than true macro, much like the Canon 100-400.


----------



## Khufu (Dec 12, 2017)

danski0224 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather have their main purpose to be higher end then be muddled down by multitasking. Do one thing well instead of many mediocre. Now I know that my earlier comment of hoping for a better AF motor like the 85/135 is unrealistic since a prime motor is very different than that for a zoom however it seems Sigma has grown in leaps and bounds in this area in the past two years so it might still hold somewhat true.
> ...


The old 24mm f/1.8 DG MACRO isn't technically macro in magnification either, but it focuses right infront of the lens and produces amazing results! The new f/1.4 ART version doesn't do that...


----------



## picturefan (Dec 12, 2017)

Let's hope Sigma will bring their best techniques to the lenses. In my opinion, both the 2.8 and 4.0, need to be as "good" as the competitors offerings. Of course, the 70-200 2.8 L IS II is hard to beat, but Tamron's new one seems to be nearly as good, so Sigma has a new benchmark. Also, both new Sigma offerings should provide a kind of weather-sealing. Tamron has coupled good lenses with good mechanics. Sigma's Art lenses has lack of weathersealing. For me a no-go.

I do think that Sigma's Global Vision line brought back the company to serious competition, but I also think that their best lenses should have best optics *plus* best mechanics ("A+S combined").
I would never compare Eos 5DmkII with 7DmkII (FF vs. APSC; 2008 vs. 2014). Apples and oranges. But I think that all newer Eos 5D should have same build-quality as 7DmkII.


----------

