# Most Anticipated Rurmored Sigma Lenses?



## Radiating (Feb 10, 2014)

Am I the only one incredibly psyched about the rumors that have been floating around about a few rumored (unannounced) Sigma lenses?

There have been rumors of several incredible ideas:

16-20mm f/2.0
24-70mm f/2.0
24mm f/1.4
135mm f/2.0 OS

Dear god, please make these lenses a reality.


----------



## Canon1 (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...


----------



## bvukich (Feb 10, 2014)

An "Art" refresh of the 85/1.4 would be very welcome.


----------



## arize84 (Feb 10, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...



I have used both Canon and Sigma 35 1.4; Sigma is noticeably better without the need for pixel peeping. The sigma 50 1.4 also compares very well to the Canon 50L from experience. You just have to pick the right lens range with Sigma


----------



## hemidesign (Feb 10, 2014)

I can't wait for the new Sigma 300 2.8 OS.. I hope to be like the new Canon 300 2.8 II IS in image quality.. perhaps, for 2/3 of price?


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 10, 2014)

bvukich said:


> An "Art" refresh of the 85/1.4 would be very welcome.



+1

They can keep the optical formula how it is. Maybe add IS.

Most importantly I want the the new build, QC, and dock compatibility.

A 135mm f/1.8 OS would also have my attention.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 10, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...



I don't think you can compare the old Sigma lenses to the new Sigma lenses. I'm still not convinced if they are worth the cheaper price either, as AF is very important to me and I compare them always to Canon lenses. But the Sigma that's more exciting then any other lens from any brand (except the 35 L II) is the new Sigma 50 f1.4 Art.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Feb 10, 2014)

Not really rumored but long lenses as 400 2.8 and 500 f4 would be VERY interesting. also a ultra-wide lense with a wide aperture. 14-24 16-35 ...


----------



## brad-man (Feb 10, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one incredibly psyched about the rumors that have been floating around about a few rumored (unannounced) Sigma lenses?
> ...



Likely it's very difficult (or impossible) to have a flat front element in a sharp-across-the-frame rectilinear uwa zoom. So you either get a convenient and lightweight, but not-so-sharp-off-center zoom, or a sharp but heavy bulbous scratch and flare monster that's inconvenient to filter.

Though if anyone can do it, my money would be on Sigma. Put me down for an 85/1.4 (with or without OS) and a 135/1.8 OS of the Art variety please...


----------



## infared (Feb 10, 2014)

arize84 said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
> ...



Arize...I agree. I own only the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (the ONLY Sigma lens that I would consider owning before the Art series and an apparent "new-leaf" transition of the company), and the new Art 35mm f/1.4 lens. Mine are both great lenses. I think it is fair to say that Sigma lens releases should be looked forward to, as all of their recent offerings have been impressive. I do think the rumored price on the new 50mm seems high, but I am excited to read the tests to see if it truly is an "Otus-type" performer. For now, it seems that this company has changed its ways and any new offerings are worth looking into, at least for this photographer. The results that I get from my 35mm are truly in the "WOW" area of the performance spectrum!


----------



## Zv (Feb 10, 2014)

bvukich said:


> An "Art" refresh of the 85/1.4 would be very welcome.



+1 the 85 refresh is on the wish list. I think the most anticipated was the 50 1.4 but that's coming soon so no worries! 

I would like to see a wide prime, maybe a 24 1.4 or something. Not sure if that was ever rumored. I also agree we don't need another 24-something. They already made one I can't see them making another one so soon.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 10, 2014)

bvukich said:


> An "Art" refresh of the 85/1.4 would be very welcome.



+1


----------



## vlim (Feb 10, 2014)

some new S lenses please ! the 120-300 2.8 is a great one so new lenses with higher focal range would be great... 400 f/ 4 or 4.5, 500 f/4 or 4.5 8)


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2014)

16-20 and 85 for me, I have the 35 and 24-105, love them


----------



## Badger (Feb 10, 2014)

I've never owned a Sigma lens, so I'm not sure if excitement is the word that jumps to my mind. Curiosity is probably more accurate. In my mind, the Sigma lenses don't necessarily outperform L lenses, they are just less expensive. So, if Sigma comes out with a lens of equal optical quality to an L lens for 2/3 the price, in my mind, its like having a 30% off sale on L lenses. Now, if they outperform, for 2/3 the price, I'm there!


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2014)

Badger said:


> I've never owned a Sigma lens, so I'm not sure if excitement is the word that jumps to my mind. Curiosity is probably more accurate. In my mind, the Sigma lenses don't necessarily outperform L lenses, they are just less expensive. So, if Sigma comes out with a lens of equal optical quality to an L lens for 2/3 the price, in my mind, its like having a 30% off sale on L lenses. Now, if they outperform, for 2/3 the price, I'm there!



Mine outperform their C counterparts for certain. But hey, that's only two lenses, For everything else I go for Canon


----------



## Radiating (Feb 10, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...



You can't compare the older Sigma lenses against the newer ones. Sigma has completely taken their company in a new direction, and for the past year has been the most exciting lens manufacturer there is. Instead of offering slightly worse lenses than mainline manufacturers for half the price, they are now making lenses that are the best in the world and gunning for performance like Zeiss and Leica while laughing at the offerings from the likes of Canon.

Their new 18-35mm f/1.8 is one of the the highest resolution crop zoom, if not the highest on the face of the planet (depending which copy is testes it's either the best or in the top 3), and has basically no image quality flaws. Wide open it beats or matches the big white zooms including the 200-400mm 1.4x on crop. And it's an f/1.8 zoom.

Their new 35mm f/1.4 was described as ushering in a new world order by reviewers.

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is noticeably sharper than the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II, and has much much less purple fringing with almost no difference in background blur.

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 OS lens has 29% more spacial resolution than the Canon 24-105mm (combined average of 24,28,35,50,70,85,105 focal lengths)




Viggo said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
> ...



Lens Rentals has said that Sigma's new lenses no longer have issues with defects and are basically the same as Canon or Nikon. I would trust a company that manages hundreds of Sigma lenses to know about their quality.

In fact if you look into the defect rate data the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L , which is an older design and therefore less reliable lens and compare it to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART you find that you are more likely to get a lens with autofocus defect on the Canon than you are likely to have ANY defect on the Sigma. So not only is the autofocus way more problem free, the whole lens is more reliable in every way.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 10, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
> ...



That could be, but without seeing a 15 year old 35 L alongside a 15 year old Sigma 35 art, it may or may not be correct.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > An "Art" refresh of the 85/1.4 would be very welcome.
> ...



nah wide open it could still use some optical work at f2 its amazing and i really only use 1.4 when i'm at high iso and NEED the extra light to keep iso down
1.4 still has a bit of CA and is noticably less sharp but the bokeh is really nice.

definately up for a new 85 f1.4 Art and stick OS on it while they are at it

and i'm hanging out to see this 24-70 f2.0 OS...


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 11, 2014)

Maybe they're waiting for the Otus 85mm to set a benchmark and go after that.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 11, 2014)

While I am sure it is lower on many tog's list, I would be very happy if Sigma came out with an Art version of their 180mm macro. It is already a good lens, but I bet it could be even better.


----------

