# What's Next From Sigma? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 24, 2015)

```
<p>The recent announcement for the 20mm f/1.4 Art from Sigma was somewhat of a surprise, considering there’s already a 24mm f/1.4 Art. Though the 20mm perspective should provide enough difference from the 24mm to be a popular addition to the Art series line of lenses.</p>
<p>We’re told Sigma will continue to be aggressive with new lens releases into 2016 and that the following lenses should be expected some time during the year. 2016 is a Photokina year, and Sigma usually announces a good number of products for the German, bi-annual trade show.</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art</em>

This is easily the most requested addition to the Art series of lenses. Most, including us, expected it to be the next Art prime from Sigma. We’re told to expect it in the second half of 2016 and that the lens is in prototype form.</li>
<li><em>Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art OS</em>

Sigma is actively working on a 24-70 f/2.8 Art OS lens. We’re told it’s a completely new optical formula for the focal range from Sigma. With Nikon releasing a VR version of their 24-70 f/2.8, we expect Sigma to get on the stabilized bandwagon.</li>
<li><em>Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sport</em>

We’re told this lens has been in active development for quite some time and that Sigma is working diligently on the autofocus performance such a lens would demand. This could be a Photokina 2016 lens.</li>
</ul>
<p>Sigma is actively working on about 12 lenses we’re told and we should also expect a new art series wide angle prime, as well as new supertelephoto lenses over the next 12-18 months.</p>
<p>The bad news? There is no active development of a follow-up to the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8.</p>
```


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 24, 2015)

Ha ha, all nice and well. But ... Too late. Not interested any longeer in expensive big dat lenses for antiquated big fat mirrorslappers. Sigma better start to build lenses with short flange back for Sony mirrorless FF ...


----------



## DLD (Oct 24, 2015)

I'm very interested in a 70-200 2.8 OS Sport... Assuming it will be priced at the Tamron version or lower....
The current Sigma 70-200 isn't good enough and I don't really like the Tamron...

But didn't I read in an earlier rumor to "not hold our breaths" for a new 70-200?


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 24, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> The recent announcement for the 20mm f/1.4 Art from Sigma was somewhat of a surprise, considering there’s already a 24mm f/1.4 Art. Though the 20mm perspective should provide enough difference from the 24mm to be a popular addition to the Art series line of lenses.</p>
> <p>We’re told Sigma will continue to be aggressive with new lens releases into 2016 and that the following lenses should be expected some time during the year. 2016 is a Photokina year, and Sigma usually announces a good number of products for the German, bi-annual trade show.</p>
> <ul>
> <li><em>Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art</em>
> ...


If Sigma is working on another wide angle prime, what would it be? A 21, 24, and 35 already. Could next be a 14mm?


----------



## LeeBabySimms (Oct 24, 2015)

*135*

Meanwhile, they could sell a 135 Art to every professional Nikon shooter on the planet.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 24, 2015)

I'd like to hear more about the supertelephotos. This market could use a little stirring up.


----------



## adventureous (Oct 24, 2015)

*Re: 135*



LeeBabySimms said:


> Meanwhile, they could sell a 135 Art to every professional Nikon shooter on the planet.



What he said.


----------



## Silvertt7 (Oct 25, 2015)

*Re: 135*



LeeBabySimms said:


> Meanwhile, they could sell a 135 Art to every professional Nikon shooter on the planet.



I don't follow or own Nikon. Just curious why this is. Is the 70-200 for Nikon not sufficient?


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Ha ha, all nice and well. But ... Too late. Not interested any longeer in expensive big dat lenses for antiquated big fat mirrorslappers. Sigma better start to build lenses with short flange back for Sony mirrorless FF ...



But Sigma wants to make money, that's why they offer their lenses in Canikon fitments rather than Sony.
If they did offer their lenses in Sony mounts, their sales would be pretty pitiful in comparison and so it would lose money.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 25, 2015)

*Re: 135*



Silvertt7 said:


> LeeBabySimms said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, they could sell a 135 Art to every professional Nikon shooter on the planet.
> ...



Bokeh!

At portrait distances the Nikon 70-200 is notorious for having reduced magnification, that compacted with the aperture being a stop slower means that the Nikon 70-200 gets a lot of flack for portrait use.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 25, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> as well as new supertelephoto lenses over the next 12-18 months



OH BOY! OH BOY! OH BOY!


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2015)

I'm kind of surprised that Sigma would consider a new 70-200 "Sport" lens. The Tamron version isn't that much cheaper than the street price on the Canon and I would expect the Sigma to be at least as much. In my mind, there simply isn't enough cost savings to make a third-party lens attractive over the Canon.

In fact, I'm feeling that way about several of Sigmas "art" and "sports" lenses – they don't seem to offer enough of a discount over the Canon's to make it worthwhile to me.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 25, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>Sigma is actively working on about 12 lenses we’re told and we should also expect a new art series wide angle prime, as well as new supertelephoto lenses over the next 12-18 months.</p>
> <p>The bad news? There is no active development of a follow-up to the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8.</p>
> [/html]


I'd like to see the 85mm f1.4 Art, the 24-70mm f2.8 OS Art, the 14mm f2.8 Art and why not a 300mm f2.8 OS Sport?


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 25, 2015)

12 lenses? Then this should be a complete segment.
24-70 2.8 IS
70-200 2.8 IS
16-35/40 2.8
14mm 2.8
85mm 1.4
135mm 2.0
200mm 2.8
300mm 2.8
400mm 2.8
600mm 4.0
2 to go... maybe a 105 Macro Art? Maybe a 100mm f1.8?


----------



## infared (Oct 25, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> If Sigma is working on another wide angle prime, what would it be? A 21, 24, and 35 already. Could next be a 14mm?



That makes the most sense....but it could be a 28mm, no?


----------



## infared (Oct 25, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> 12 lenses? Then this should be a complete segment.
> 24-70 2.8 IS
> 70-200 2.8 IS
> 16-35/40 2.8
> ...



What about a 15mm fisheye?


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 25, 2015)

At this rate they should be producing a DSLR with optional Canon/Nikon mount and the new FF 42Mpix BI sony sensor. The system would have some of the best lenses, the best sensor, and dedicated one manufacturer AF front to back... that's all a very good start.

Would anyone here buy one?


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 25, 2015)

I'm certain that the comment about the 200-500 f/2.8 was intended as a joke, but that lens has been a bad joke ever since it was introduced. Sigma should make a 200-500 f/4 or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 max aperture from 200mm-350mm. It would have to be lighter and smaller than the 200-500 f/2.8. 

I own a 300 f/2.8 L IS Canon and, when I take it to auto or motorcycle races, I waste a lot of time installing and removing teleconverters. TC swapping isn't something that you want to do on a dusty motocross track. I've been waiting for credible reviews of the Sigma 150-600 Sport. If the reviews are bad, I may just break down and buy the 200-400 Canon lens, for about five times the price of the Sigma.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 25, 2015)

Bob Howland said:


> I'm certain that the comment about the 200-500 f/2.8 was intended as a joke, but that lens has been a bad joke ever since it was introduced. Sigma should make a 200-500 f/4 or, better yet, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that holds f/2.8 max aperture from 200mm-350mm. It would have to be lighter and smaller than the 200-500 f/2.8.
> 
> I own a 300 f/2.8 L IS Canon and, when I take it to auto or motorcycle races, I waste a lot of time installing and removing teleconverters. TC swapping isn't something that you want to do on a dusty motocross track. I've been waiting for credible reviews of the Sigma 150-600 Sport. If the reviews are bad, I may just break down and buy the 200-400 Canon lens, for about five times the price of the Sigma.


Seems like there are lots of reviews of the Sigma 150-600, I shot Kayakers for 1/2 a day against the Tamzooka that I own. Definitely sharper than the Tammy on the long end - which is where it seems you want it. My polite suggestion to you is to rent one and experience it for yourself. There are too many reviews out there to say at least one of them isn't credible.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Ha ha, all nice and well. But ... Too late. Not interested any longeer in expensive big dat lenses for antiquated big fat mirrorslappers. Sigma better start to build lenses with short flange back for Sony mirrorless FF ...



It's too late for me as well, but if it doesn't have a mirror, I won't buy it. EVFs still suck.

It's too late for me because I switched back to all-crop. Canon's decision to forego IS in the 24-70/2.8 II and Tamron's focusing problems with their 24-70/2.8 VC were a big part of this decision. Had there been a credible 24-70/2.8 OS, I might not have made that choice.

Being all crop has had too many advantages for me. It would take something incredibly compelling for me to go back to crop+full-frame (which is what I shot for many years) or all full-frame and a 24-35/2 or 24-70/2.8 OS are not enough.


----------



## luminaeus (Oct 25, 2015)

Corporations don't dump millions into research and development without checking the market first. Sigma's continued enthusiasm for the DSLR market ought to give you the hint that 'mirrorslappers' are going to be around for quite a while.

And... the utter absence of short flange distance from Sigma, Tokina, Tamrom, etc. ought to reflect their doubts as to whether these little bodies is just a fad or something that'll stick around.



AvTvM said:


> Ha ha, all nice and well. But ... Too late. Not interested any longeer in expensive big dat lenses for antiquated big fat mirrorslappers. Sigma better start to build lenses with short flange back for Sony mirrorless FF ...


----------



## Talley (Oct 25, 2015)

How about this for a curve....

11mm F4 ART prime lens for $899.


----------



## rbr (Oct 25, 2015)

A small lightweight 400 f5.6 with their OS for under $1K seems like an obvious choice for Sigma to introduce.


----------



## The Supplanter (Oct 25, 2015)

Sad there's no love for the ultra wide crop crowd.


----------



## that1guyy (Oct 25, 2015)

Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.


----------



## Viper28 (Oct 25, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> 12 lenses? Then this should be a complete segment.
> 24-70 2.8 IS
> 70-200 2.8 IS
> 16-35/40 2.8
> ...



I would certainly like to see what Sigma can do in the premier long lens class, not been overly impressed with there long lens to date but always willing to have another look if there price / performance is good


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 25, 2015)

rbr said:


> A small lightweight 400 f5.6 with their OS for under $1K seems like an obvious choice for Sigma to introduce.


Or how about a 500mm f/5.6 OS Sport for around 1500$ mark. I certainly would purchase that lens for occasional birding.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 25, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> rbr said:
> 
> 
> > A small lightweight 400 f5.6 with their OS for under $1K seems like an obvious choice for Sigma to introduce.
> ...



Sigma already produce 300 F2.8, 500 F4.5 and 300-800mm lenses - if these were brought up to date and priced sensibly then they could sell quite a few. 
Their 500 F4.5 is already reasonably good but with their newer AF systems, latest glass, OS?,dock for adjustments/updating and sensible pricing I think they could really steal a march on Canon/Nikon.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.



Fisheye? What's wrong with the ones they already have available? I had the 15mm, and it was absolutely outstanding.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2015)

PA_phoxerballzz said:


> Sad there's no love for the ultra wide crop crowd.



What I did was buy the Canon 8-15 on refurb. Outstanding lens on crop. Panorama lens at 8mm, full-frame fisheye at 9mm, 14mm rectilinear (after software correction) at 11mm, 22mm rectilinear (after software correction) at 15mm.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2015)

Talley said:


> How about this for a curve....
> 
> 11mm F4 ART prime lens for $899.



Be careful how you write that.


----------



## infared (Oct 26, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.


It may be worth buying a FF camera! They keep getting cheaper and cheaper!


----------



## infared (Oct 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > How about this for a curve....
> ...



Yes..he is flirting with G.A.S. LOL!


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 26, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> The recent announcement for the 20mm f/1.4 Art from Sigma was somewhat of a surprise, considering there’s already a 24mm f/1.4 Art....</p>
> We’re told Sigma will continue to be aggressive with new lens releases into 2016 and that the following lenses should be expected some time during the year. 2016 is a Photokina year, and Sigma usually announces a good number of products for the German, bi-annual trade show.</p>
> Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art…
> Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art OS…
> ...



I am not that interested in any of the actual lenses listed, though the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art does interest me most of those lenses listed above. I’m more interested in what Sigma is doing in terms of focus accuracy and consistency, which could possibly be borne out in a lens like the 85mm f/1.4 Art. “Watch this space”!



PA_phoxerballzz said:


> Sad there's no love for the ultra wide crop crowd.



Actually, Sigma has a lot of love for the ultra-wide angle (UWA) crop (APS-C) crowd! I have owned 2x Sigma UWA’s – the Sigma 10-20mm EX and now, the Sigma 8-16mm. Both are fantastic lenses – good to great IQ across the frame, and punch well above their weight. AF accuracy and consistency are not Sigma’s strong point, 

Also, although there is no specific mention of an Sigma UWA for crop, the original post (from CR) does not exclude that as a possibility, as it states: “Sigma is actively working on about 12 lenses…” and all 12 are not actually listed! (i.e. within the 12 possible new lenses coming up soon from Sigma, 1 or more maybe UWAs for crop!)

The only things that would potentially tempt me to think about upgrading my wonderful Sigma 8-16mm are:
-	OS – without any cost to IQ, with minimal price changes
-	Even wider (though 8mm on crop, around 12mm-13mm is amazingly wide, AND it’s very sharp right to the corners!)
-	Slightly faster, with little increase in size / weight

Let’s stay tuned!

Paul


----------



## sanj (Oct 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > How about this for a curve....
> ...



hahahha


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 26, 2015)

I'm waiting Sigma to update the 17-50mm F2.8 OS, with the same quality of 18-35mm Art.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> rbr said:
> 
> 
> > A small lightweight 400 f5.6 with their OS for under $1K seems like an obvious choice for Sigma to introduce.
> ...



IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking. 

The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?


400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x or 500 f/4L IS II = astronomically more expensive

So even if that Nikon is a 7/10 optically (haven't seen reviews yet), it will sell like hotcakes. IQ matters, of course, but it's hard to compare our 100-400 against this 200-500 if ours can't even _get_ to that FL...

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.
> 
> The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?
> 
> ...



Hello?

Tamron 150-600
Sigma 150-600C
Sigma 150-600S


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.
> 
> The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?
> 
> ...



Except that Nikon's own 80-400 is even more expensive than Canon's 100-400 II and doesn't perform as well, so it's own 200-500 is a bigger threat to it's 80-400 than it ever will be to Canon's 100-400 II. Nikon knows something for pricing the 200-500 that low.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.
> ...



I omitted those deliberately. For Nikon folks, first party AF (for basically the same price) eliminates those as equal-value options, no matter how sharp they are.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.
> ...



Nikon must have lost the 80-400 crowd with all the cheaper 150-600 lenses that have recently been offered, so that business may have been lost already.

I'm just saying that Canon has a hole in their lineup. See below. 

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I don't disagree that there is a hole, but I'm not sure if Canon finds it profitable to fill that hole. If Canon constrains the max aperture of the lens to f/5.6, then it can't match the 150-600 lenses for cost/value.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> I don't disagree that there is a hole, but I'm not sure if Canon finds it profitable to fill that hole. If Canon constrains the max aperture of the lens to f/5.6, then it can't match the 150-600 lenses for cost/value.



Slightly disagree. Canon doesn't need to outperform or even match the 3rd party glass -- they just need to show up and people will pony up the money for a name they trust and (more importantly) for reliable/consistent/fast first party AF routines. Sharpness and reach isn't everything -- confidence in your gear is part of the value proposition as well.

- A


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 26, 2015)

A 135 up to the same Art standards as the other lenses would be a nice addition.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Gee...and I thought we were in a thread about Sigma.

Most reports and tests indicate that these perform similarly to the 100-400L's in terms of focus accuracy, if not speed.


----------



## that1guyy (Oct 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.
> ...





infared said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.
> ...



Sorry for the confusion haha. Meant Sony FE, not Canon EF.


----------



## EOBeav (Oct 26, 2015)

DLD said:


> But didn't I read in an earlier rumor to "not hold our breaths" for a new 70-200?



That's why they call it a 'Rumors' forum.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2015)

EOBeav said:


> DLD said:
> 
> 
> > But didn't I read in an earlier rumor to "not hold our breaths" for a new 70-200?
> ...



I love Sigma's innovation and performance, but my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is so damn rock solid on virtually _every_ front -- IQ, ergonomics, focus speed/accuracy/consistency, build quality, etc. -- that I'd be hard-pressed to roll the dice on a Sigma lens for that need. Even if it's 10-20% sharper (which Sigma has been doing a lot lately), there are so many other things the Canon does near-perfectly that I really doubt I'd go after the Sigma unless they hit something completely out of the park.

I think they should avoid staple fast zoom lenses as (a) Canon updates those regularly, (b) the focusing expectations of fast zooms are possibly higher than they can deliver on, and (c) Tamron has already swooped in to claim the lower price point. 

I think Sigma should focus on fast primes, specialty lenses with a lower AF expectation (T/S, macro, etc.) or possibly zooms _in ranges that Canon doesn't see a future for_ that people want: 70-300 f/variable, 24-105 f/4 IS, or better yet, a 16-50 f/4 would be killer.

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I think Sigma should focus on fast primes, specialty lenses with a lower AF expectation (T/S, macro, etc.) or possibly zooms _in ranges that Canon doesn't see a future for_ that people want: 70-300 f/variable, 24-105 f/4 IS, or better yet, a 16-50 f/4 would be killer.
> 
> - A



Been saying that for a while myself. Hit them where they aren't. Don't make another 25-105/4.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 27, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > rbr said:
> ...



I like this line of thought. The 300mm does need an update - with better AF. But not heavier!

I would also like to see non-optically stabilized, non-AF primes. That formula works for Zeiss… Yes, I want Zeiss sharpness at a lower price. I love my Sigma 180 macro, but what a brick. And I do not use the AF or OS.


----------



## beckstoy (Oct 27, 2015)

Would anyone else here be interested to see Sigma's take on a 200 f2? Not as much wide appeal, but dang...I'd be interested!

As for today, I want to see what they can do at 85 and 135. I own 85 1.2L II, and it's spectacular, but if Sigma's offering is amazing, I'd consider selling it and pocketing the difference. 

The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 27, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.



You don't outperform the 135L and you don't undercut the price of the 135L.

You match its performance & price and _beat it with features_. Give it weather sealing and IS and it will sell very, very well.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Oct 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.
> ...



A rumor from long ago spoke of such a lens which included an f/1.8 aperture. While it will supposedly have OS (IS), being an Art lens it will not be weather sealed. I suspect it would indeed sell very well.


----------



## Policar (Oct 28, 2015)

35-70mm f1.8 for DX/EF-S/APS-C...


----------

