# Sigma Sports Line Updates Next? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 30, 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=14600"></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=14600">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New 300 f/2.8 OS & 400 f/2.8 OS lenses coming?

</strong>We’ve been told again that Sigma will likely announce new “sport lenses” some time in 2014. The first two to come will be the 300mm f/2.8 OS and 400mm f/2.8 OS. One of these lenses may be in testing for the Sochi Olympics this winter. A new 500mm and 800mm zoom lens could also be on the horizon, but less is known about them at this time.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-10-29" target="_blank">recent patent for a 300 f/2.8 from Sigma</a> does make a good case for the updates.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 30, 2013)

300mm f/2.8 OS would be very interesting ONLY if it performed well with a TC like the Canon version (II) and not like the 120-300 f/2.8 OS....

On any rate it all depends on priceerformance ratio.... More options is always good!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 30, 2013)

Great, but what about a zoom to beat the 100-400 that Canon still haven't replaced?


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 30, 2013)

I hope they throw in $20.00 worth of weather sealing gaskets this time, so that if they come in optically as good as or better than the Canon versions and 1/2 the price we don't have to hear people saying how you have to figure the weather sealing is the deal killer.  

Actually, for lenses this long (300 to 800mm), the weather sealing is more important than on a 35mm prime, since you will be shooting it outside almost all the time. 

Good for Sigma, cutting again into the semi-monopoly with some healthy competition to stir innovation and price restraint.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 30, 2013)

i really like the new sigma lenses optically.

but for the supertele lenses i hope they have their things together when it comes to AF performance and precision.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 30, 2013)

Yawn. The tele market is already flooded with lenses, but we are still waiting for a sharp UWA-zoom from both Canon and Sigma.


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 30, 2013)

Best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been 3rd party competition in the 400mm 2.8 space. It will be interesting to see what Sigma can do for what price.

My preference would be to avoid 3rd party for most of the relative "bread and butter" lenses including a 300mm 2.8, but Canon's offerings are all problematic in some way. Used copies of version 1 (non-IS) are reasonably affordable, actually my favorite design (wish I'd never sold mine), but lacks IS and, more importantly, finding parts if repair is needed is likely to be difficult. Version 2 is still repaired by Canon and can be found at fairly decent prices, but I intensely hate the removable tripod collar that is susceptible to wear and grit which makes switch from vertical to horizontal on mono- or tripod a big irritation, at least in the copies I've rented.

And while I would not necessarily call the newest version extremely over-priced, speaking for myself only, I can't begin to justify the near 7000-dollar price tag. I'm at the place where I'd consider Sigma for the 300mm and might as well wait for their newest version.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2013)

I already own and use a 300 f/2.8 L IS Canon, often using it with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. Based on my experience photographing sports, mostly motorsports, in dusty environments, these are NOT the lenses that Sigma should be making. Instead, they should make a 200-500 f/4 zoom lens or, preferably, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 lens whose maximum aperture is f/2.8 in the range of 200 to 350mm. If they felt ambitious, they could make a 300-800 f/4-5.6 that is f/4 from 300 to 560mm.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 30, 2013)

I think these are a tough sell for Sigma...if I'm going to plunk down $5000 or more on a lens, I would want to know that it will always work on my Canon body....can Sigma guarantee that?

Also resale....at least a canon 300 2.8ii purchased for $6500 today will still probably be worth $5500 on the used market 5 or 10 years from now.


----------



## Stone (Oct 30, 2013)

I for one would seriously consider a 400 2.8 from Sigma, they've recently been putting out some stellar optics and I have no doubt they can do it again in the super-tele range. I wouldn't use the 400 enough to justify paying over $10K for the Canon, but I'd still like to have one and this would be a nice compromise.


----------



## jrbdmb (Oct 30, 2013)

If the current 120-300 2.8 zoom sells for $3500 or so, I'd expect the prime 300 2.8 to sell for no more than $3000, perhaps even $2500. Compared to the Canon 300 2.8 for $6800, I think this could tempt a lot of people, esp. those who actually have to buy their own lenses.

But I am a bit surprised that Sigma hasn't come out with updates for the 70-200 2.8 or 100-300 4.0, or as mentioned above an alternative to the ancient Canon 100-400.


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 30, 2013)

I agree with all of the sentiments so far.

I am about half way saved up for a Cano 300 2.8 L. I would be interested in a Sigma IF and only If the IQ matches Canon. Of course as everyone else stated, build quality, af performance must also be comparable. I can't see skimping on a few thousand dollars to have a lens that I will be unhappy with for years to come. I know that lens will just sit on a shelf, and I will regret the mistake.

sek


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 30, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> I agree with all of the sentiments so far.
> 
> I am about half way saved up for a Cano 300 2.8 L. I would be interested in a Sigma IF and only If the IQ matches Canon. Of course as everyone else stated, build quality, af performance must also be comparable. I can't see skimping on a few thousand dollars to have a lens that I will be unhappy with for years to come. I know that lens will just sit on a shelf, and I will regret the mistake.
> 
> sek


I agree with the comments as well and weather sealing is a big deal for a lens that doesn't just disappear into a camera bag. Sure, you can use a trash bag and such, but if Canon does it, Sigma should, too.

I looked long and hard at the 120-300 before buying the 300 f/2.8 IS II and my decision to buy the Canon was based on the following - I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, weather sealing, Canon name/build quality, USM, and most of all extender performance. I would rather have an amazing 300mm, excellent 420mm, and very good 600mm lens vs. Sigma's lesser performance.

Also, if you're spending several thousand dollars, why not get the best?


----------



## Northstar (Oct 30, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with all of the sentiments so far.
> ...



You both make good sense to me....totally agree.

Mack...I'm also impressed with my "excellent 420mm"...almost no change in IQ and af speed.


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 30, 2013)

Northstar said:


> I think these are a touch sell for Sigma...if I'm going to plunk down $5000 or more on a lens, I would want to know that it will always work on my Canon body....can Sigma guarantee that?



Guarantee? I'm not sure Canon can *GUARANTEE* that as technology mutates and matures over time, although presumably Canon will try harder. It looks like that is what Sigma is trying to accomplish with the USB lens dock that allows update of firmware and other tweaks. It remains to be seen how well that will work over the long haul, though.

I would probably be inclined to avoid Sigma lenses that were not compatible with the dock.



Northstar said:


> Also resale....at least a canon 300 2.8ii purchased for $6500 today will still probably be worth $5500 on the used market 5 or 10 years from now.



$5500 in 10 years sounds a little optimistic to me (unless it spends a lot more time on display in your china cabinet that out in the field on monopod), but yes, obviously the Canon lens will be worth more than a third party optic down the line.

But resale is such a foreign concept to me. Most lenses I have owned have been pretty much used to *DEATH.* My beloved 24-105 f/4.0L is the lens most showing it's age right now. I have to keep a constant grip on the zoom ring. If I have it pointed upward, it "falls" to 24mm, if it's pointed down, it "self-zooms" to 105mm. However, image quality is still great, and it gets used pretty much daily.

My only added concern with a Sigma lens might be that death could come a little sooner. I've never actually owned a Sigma lens, but I'm becoming more open to the idea all the time, especially as they release lenses nobody else makes like the 18-35 f/1.8 or 120-300 f/2.8.

If and when my 24-105 kroaks, that new Sigma 24-105 will get a look.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 30, 2013)

drummstikk said:


> My beloved 24-105 f/4.0L is the lens most showing it's age right now. I have to keep a constant grip on the zoom ring. If I have it pointed upward, it "falls" to 24mm, if it's pointed down, it "self-zooms" to 105mm. However, image quality is still great, and it gets used pretty much daily.


Take a rubber band from a head of broccoli, place it on the lens at the joint of the zoom ring and the lens body..... it gives extra friction and that stops the lens creep.


----------



## Tiedtke (Oct 30, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Yawn. The tele market is already flooded with lenses, but we are still waiting for a sharp UWA-zoom from both Canon and Sigma.



THIS!


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 30, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Mack...I'm also impressed with my "excellent 420mm"...almost no change in IQ and af speed.


Definitely, it's amazing and here's what sealed the deal for me:

Comparison 420mm @ f/4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=2

Comparison 600mm @ f/5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

There's no comparison, and when you stop down the Canon to f/8 at 600mm, it's very close to the Sigma at 300mm @ f/2.8 but with less distortion!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=844&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0


----------



## candc (Oct 30, 2013)

The sigma 120-300 sport is a really nice range on a crop body, here's a couple shot that I just took with and without a 2x promaster on a 70d, wireless to tablet and up to this site, very convienant also


----------



## candc (Oct 30, 2013)

600mm


----------



## Etienne (Oct 30, 2013)

Sigma is going from Stygma to Serious. Every photographer is watching them now.

I haven't pulled the trigger on any of their gear yet, but i am certainly happy about what they are doing. It seems only a matter of time before I own one or two Sigma lenses.

The first one will probably be the 18-35 f/1.8 . I am hoping to get a C100 if the prices ease up a bit more, and this lens is the only one of it's kind, it should be spectacular on the C100.

I must confess that after the price drop, I opted for the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, because IS is great for hand-held video, and it is half the size and weight of the Sigma. I love the Canon 35! I probably would have loved the sigma too, but I wanted the light weight and IS. The IQ on the Canon is great too! 

:-\ I have a terminal case of "Lens-Lust" 8)


----------



## brad-man (Oct 30, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > My beloved 24-105 f/4.0L is the lens most showing it's age right now. I have to keep a constant grip on the zoom ring. If I have it pointed upward, it "falls" to 24mm, if it's pointed down, it "self-zooms" to 105mm. However, image quality is still great, and it gets used pretty much daily.
> ...



I hate broccoli! While the rubber band idea is cute, they just don't make them like they used to. They have a tendency to rot and fall apart and stick to stuff. You want a silicone band. The type that are to be worn on the wrist will do. Else, you can do what I did and fork out a little cash:

http://stores.ebay.com/Lens-Band/Canon-24-105mm-/_i.html?_fsub=2682133013&_sid=12777043&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322

I have the 35 and I just can't wait to see how these teles perform. I have coveted a 300 f/2.8 (with IS) for a long time, just couldn't justify it.


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 31, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> drummstikk said:
> 
> 
> > My beloved 24-105 f/4.0L is the lens most showing it's age right now. I have to keep a constant grip on the zoom ring. If I have it pointed upward, it "falls" to 24mm, if it's pointed down, it "self-zooms" to 105mm. However, image quality is still great, and it gets used pretty much daily.
> ...



Hmmm. . .

I'm a dedicated improviser, but that's one I didn't think of. Props also to Brad-man for the silicone band idea. My wife had one of those laying around from a fund raiser at her work some months back. I worked it into place on the lens and no more "auto-zoom." Makes it a little stiff to turn by hand, but it beats the alternative.

All this reminds me of the vacuum cleaner drive belt some of us used to augment the skinny, undernourished focus ring on the original Nikkor 180 2.8 AF lens back in the late 80's. (Yes, at one time I had an inappropriate relationship with a pair of FM2's. I was young and I needed the money. . .)


----------



## drummstikk (Oct 31, 2013)

brad-man said:


> You want a silicone band. The type that are to be worn on the wrist will do.



Nice.


----------

