# Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 Art



## Chaitanya (Feb 19, 2016)

Sigma is teasing 50-100mm f1.8 lens according to new rumours. here is the link:

http://digicame-info.com/2016/02/50-100mm-f18-dc-hsm-art.html


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 19, 2016)

Holy shit. This changes everything for me... Hahaha


----------



## NorbR (Feb 19, 2016)

So it's a crop lens ... Too bad, I was hoping for another fast FF zoom. 
Oh well, my wallet's relieved, at least. 

And damn, Sigma keeps shaking things up. Kudos to them.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 19, 2016)

Interesting announcement, and a very interesting lens (provided it focuses more accurately than the 18-35). I think Sigma is smart to keep developing advanced lenses for APS-C. It is easier to do extreme things with the reduced image circle and, more importantly, no one else is doing it. It allows them to make the "L series" for APS-C - an area where the big boys are too busy trying to protect their higher end lenses.

We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Feb 19, 2016)

For crop sensors. I'm out. Damn it, Sigma.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 19, 2016)

50 to 100 at F1.8.... Hey Sigma, do you need someone to test it? ? ?


----------



## nhz (Feb 19, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Interesting announcement, and a very interesting lens (provided it focuses more accurately than the 18-35). I think Sigma is smart to keep developing advanced lenses for APS-C. It is easier to do extreme things with the reduced image circle and, more importantly, no one else is doing it. It allows them to make the "L series" for APS-C - an area where the big boys are too busy trying to protect their higher end lenses.
> 
> We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.



Interesting how Sigma keep pushing the boundaries and trying new designs, but how useful is it in practice? A Canon 1.8/50 and 2/100mm together are much lighter (the zoom weighs 1.5 kg!) and smaller. And although the Sigma likely beats them in optical quality the two primes cover FF ...


----------



## Besisika (Feb 19, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> For crop sensors. I'm out. Damn it, Sigma.


Indeed! +1


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 19, 2016)

sounds like a perfect portrait zoom lens for the crop sensor? 80-160 FF equivalent. Perfect companion to the excellent Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC Art lens.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 19, 2016)

Yes please.


----------



## AlmostDecent (Feb 19, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Interesting announcement, and a very interesting lens (provided it focuses more accurately than the 18-35). I think Sigma is smart to keep developing advanced lenses for APS-C. It is easier to do extreme things with the reduced image circle and, more importantly, no one else is doing it. It allows them to make the "L series" for APS-C - an area where the big boys are too busy trying to protect their higher end lenses.
> 
> We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.



If the AF is good, it could be a dream lens for sports shooters using cameras such as the 7D II or D500. The f/1.8 will save them over a full stop over rival options, and they even get the same portraiture DOF as the FF shooters get with a 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## allpet (Feb 19, 2016)

YES!!!


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 19, 2016)

nhz said:


> Interesting how Sigma keep pushing the boundaries and trying new designs, but how useful is it in practice? A Canon 1.8/50 and 2/100mm together are much lighter (the zoom weighs 1.5 kg!) and smaller. And although the Sigma likely beats them in optical quality the two primes cover FF ...



How useful? Very. If you want a zoom lens, that is. Similarly, the solution of using a 50/1.8 and 100/2 is an AWFUL idea... if you want a zoom lens.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 19, 2016)

AlmostDecent said:


> If the AF is good, it could be a dream lens for sports shooters using cameras such as the 7D II or D500. The f/1.8 will save them over a full stop over rival options, and they even get the same portraiture DOF as the FF shooters get with a 70-200 f/2.8.


I think this way too. There's just a few things that doesn't quite work. First it's a bit short at 100mm.. 50-120mm/2.0 would have been better option (or even 130mm). Second there appears to be no weather sealing, that is a 'sport' class thing anyhow isn't it. And third, it's a sigma. How well does the AF work?


----------



## allpet (Feb 19, 2016)

It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 19, 2016)

> Lens construction (elements/groups) 21/15
> Filter size 82
> Minimum focus distance 95mm
> Aperture blades 9
> ...



Wow. I can predict what people would say now: "For $1.5K I'd buy an L lens instead." ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

Wow! Sigma continues to rethink the lens system. Kudos!

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ... It allows them to make the "L series" for APS-C - an area where the big boys are too busy trying to protect their higher end lenses.
> 
> We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.


+1 Dustin


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 19, 2016)

Am glad to see a company such as Sigma not treating APS-C shooters like red head step children. The plethora of 3.5-5.6 variable lenses is old.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 19, 2016)

In Canon crop terms, this is 80-160f2.8 Full Frame equivalent, very respectable.
Maximum magnification is "lower" but I'm not entirely sure how crop sensors factor into magnification specs. If that's 1:6.7 in Full Frame terms then this lens is still going to be slightly better for small subjects than a Canon 70-200f2.8 on Full Frame.

Here's hoping they can improve on the performance of the 18-35A. This will be a phenomenal lens if they do.


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 19, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Here's hoping they can improve on the performance of the 18-35A. This will be a phenomenal lens if they do.



Not that I'm questioning your statesment above but from a "real world" scenario of those who don't know how to read a MTF chart, are the shortcomings of this lens noticeable to the average person? The 18-35mm that is?

As soon as the price is released I may be offloading a tokina zoom and sigma 50mm to consolidate my lens collection.


----------



## Cory (Feb 19, 2016)

Love the thought, but the 85 1.8 and a few steps here and there cover a lot of ground. Not ruling it out though since I do like that "Sigma" look and this might offer it in that "portrait" range where it's very useful.


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 19, 2016)

Cory said:


> Love the thought, but the 85 1.8 and a few steps here and there cover a lot of ground. Not ruling it out though since I do like that "Sigma" look and this might offer it in that "portrait" range where it's very useful.



This lens would totally eliminate the need to have a 50 & 85mm prime. That's just my 2 cents though. Barring any major hiccups with performance issues. (CA and sharpness issues)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2016)

As an owner of the 18-35/1.8 who just switched back to all-crop from crop+full-frame, I think I'll pass on this one. I already have a 50/1.8STM and a 70-200/2.8L IS II. While I'd probably use this lens, it's likely not worth the money when it so overlaps with my already-existing fast lenses, especially if it doesn't have stabilization.


----------



## cpreston (Feb 20, 2016)

The 18-35 f/1.8 is a brilliant lens for video. Parfocal, no lens breathing, maintained transmission while zooming. When it was released, it was very hard to find for awhile. I'm guessing that Sigma is hoping to capitalize on that market. If the 50-100 matches the performance of the 18-35, I would guess it would see relatively well. That 35mm to 50mm hole could use to be filled, though.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 20, 2016)

I am expecting Sigma to upgrade their 17-50mm f2.8 to either something like f2 or 15-80 f2.8 zoom. Somehow Sigma and Canon both of them are avoiding this upgrade. My another requirement is walkable 35mm f2 IS equivalent crop prime. Looks like Sigma is very successful with 18-35 zoom.


----------



## Nininini (Feb 20, 2016)

WOW, nice


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

I raise a glass to all my 1.6x shooting friends. Enjoy!


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2016)

Nuh.. street price will be more like US$750.00. Japanese prices are .. different 



Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> > ... The site suggests a price of ¥167,400 (~$1500) and a launch date of April 22nd.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. I can predict what people would say now: "For $1.5K I'd buy an L lens instead." ;D


----------



## dufflover (Feb 20, 2016)

Whilst their premium fast crop lenses like the 18-35mm and this 50-100mm aren't my type of lenses (like portraits, etc.) it's great to see them develop them and give these great choices for APS-C shooters.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Feb 20, 2016)

Too big. Too heavy. My shoulders just can't take this weight and bulk any longer. Too bad.


----------



## grainier (Feb 20, 2016)

SpartanII said:


> This lens would totally eliminate the need to have a 50 & 85mm prime. That's just my 2 cents though. Barring any major hiccups with performance issues. (CA and sharpness issues)



Will it also eliminate the need for redundancy?


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 20, 2016)

grainier said:


> SpartanII said:
> 
> 
> > This lens would totally eliminate the need to have a 50 & 85mm prime. That's just my 2 cents though. Barring any major hiccups with performance issues. (CA and sharpness issues)
> ...



Ha! I can totally justify redundancy keeping a tokina 50-135 and a sigma 50mm. I did want to get a 85mm f/1.8 but this new product will greatly help with wanting consolidate. I mainly shoot f/4 to 8 for the most part for portraiture. However there be a need for me to shoot 2.8 and perhaps wider for work I will be doing soon.


----------



## FlorentC (Feb 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sigma has 18-35/1.8, this will be 50-100/1.8, creating a 35-50 hole for their next APS-C zoom.





cpreston said:


> That 35mm to 50mm hole could use to be filled, though.



Seriously, is that so important? They don't need to cover every single focal length, and won't make another lens just for the 36-49mm range. People will do with 35mm and 50mm.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 20, 2016)

Blackout said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma has 18-35/1.8, this will be 50-100/1.8, creating a 35-50 hole for their next APS-C zoom.
> ...



I wouldn't mind seeing a 40-50mm f1.4 just for kicks (needs to be over 40mm to avoid retrofocusing), but I agree that the 15mm between these two lenses isn't important.
But really I'd rather see a 50mm f1.0 prime than a super short f1.4 zoom.


----------



## troy19 (Feb 20, 2016)

allpet said:


> It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.


Good point, but did you consider the weight in your HAND? The difference between 50A (800g) and 50-100A (1400g) is big on paper and even bigger when handholding. I can work with the weight and volume of my 70d with grip and 18-35A, but using the 50-150OS (which weight is comparable to the new 50-100A) is another thing, with that combo I have to make many breaks.

On top, the new 50-100A obviously comes without OS, so I stick with 50-150OS. But for those not owning the 50-150OS, the new lens may be a good option.


----------



## allpet (Feb 20, 2016)

troy19 said:


> allpet said:
> 
> 
> > It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.
> ...



For my sport - taekwondo - there are lots of breaks so I have no worries.


----------



## troy19 (Feb 20, 2016)

allpet said:


> troy19 said:
> 
> 
> > allpet said:
> ...



So go for it and please report your experience


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.


Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II, is almost 3x (and has IS to boot). This lens is a great achievement by Sigma, but it's also an example of how trying to make 1.6x crop truly equivalent to full frame is often less effective than simply switching to full frame.

I'm an exclusively crop shooter BTW, so this is not a case of "do what I do", because I don't!


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 20, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Nuh.. street price will be more like US$750.00. Japanese prices are .. different
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which source said US$750??? Heck, I'd get this lens for that price, weight be damned.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> [...]
> 
> We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at *Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer*.



I agree with your statement, but I think that here at CR we have a good collection of photographers who combine a high addiction to photography (artistic AND / OR technical) without the need to do it professionally. And IMO a lens weighting ~ 1500 grams and costing ~ 1200 $/EUR/... is more or less addressed to that marked. I think about a wildlife photographer with a 100-400 mm zoom + 7D M ii who want's to extend his/her portfolio by some low light photography.

On the other hand a full frame body is in the region of 1200 $/EUR new (or 500 $/EUR second hand) and is welcome e.g. for my style of photography: I like low contrast subjects like sth. in the fog, cloudscapes where the cleaner output of FF sensors rules. And the region between 40...50 - 135...200mm isn't populated with to many options and there is no option if you want or need f/2.8 for e.g. 50-135 or f/4.0 40-200 WITH IMAGE STABILIZER (for universality) and good close up capability (at least 1:4). But perhaps I am one of the few people who think (in terms of 35mm + equiv) about 40...50 as moderate wide angle and 135...200 as moderate tele and because of that there is no real market


----------



## AlmostDecent (Feb 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.



Yes, and no. I think the Canon Rumors lurkers do represent the average photographer.... willing to spend $1500 on a high-end and very heavy lens. Most lower-end APS-C shooters will be looking for one of those vastly cheaper (and lighter) 18-300 f/4.5-6.3 style lenses.


----------



## Berowne (Feb 20, 2016)

Who will spend so much money for a crop only lens? "Enthusiasts", who will save money in purchasing a crop-body will probably not do that. 

For what purpose, for shooting indoor sport - and with a fast sigma? Then AF must be very reliable. Will it be? Most probably not.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

No price has been announced as of yet. These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time. Otus anyone?


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 20, 2016)

slclick said:


> No price has been announced as of yet. These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time. Otus anyone?



Price is 167400 Yen according to Chaitanya's link - meaning that the suggested retail price will be around 1500 $/EUR ...


----------



## grainier (Feb 20, 2016)

troy19 said:


> allpet said:
> 
> 
> > It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.
> ...



This whole weight thing is overblown, imo. I have no problems with shooting a period of hockey with 7-2/2.8, and trust me, I am no Ahnuld. Far from it.


----------



## grainier (Feb 20, 2016)

AlmostDecent said:


> Most lower-end APS-C shooters will be looking for one of those vastly cheaper (and lighter) 18-300 f/4.5-6.3 style lenses.



None of the people I know, who I would classify as casual low end shooters have anything beyond t3i and 18-55/55-250.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



80-160 equivalent.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2016)

slclick said:


> These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.



So what's the cost of the lens this competes with?

(Hint: there isn't one)


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.
> ...



That is like a version of sarcasm where one is putting the cart before the horse!


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2016)

I am super excited about this lens. As a photographer that only uses APS-C camera I have been in hopes that Sigma would refresh the 50-150 for a while now. To get a 50-100mm at f/1.8 is actually better. I do a lot of portrait head shots and WOW this is perfect. I have the Canon 50mm STM and its amazing lens for the price, I also have the Canon 85mm f/1.8. But its showing its age. This new lens will replace both if it performs as well as my 18-35art. For those worried about 35mm to 50mm gap, LOL just walk 3 feet . Seriously I have OCD as well and wished it was a smaller or no gap in the zoom ranges. But I much rather not sacrifice image quality over it. Anyway 167k yen... Likely around $1400 USD, not sure. But if its under $1500 I will be getting this lens, right after I pick up the new 80D also..


----------



## The Supplanter (Feb 20, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> As an owner of the 18-35/1.8 who just switched back to all-crop from crop+full-frame, I think I'll pass on this one. I already have a 50/1.8STM and a 70-200/2.8L IS II. While I'd probably use this lens, it's likely not worth the money when it so overlaps with my already-existing fast lenses, especially if it doesn't have stabilization.



I'm with ya, dude. Looks like we have similar equipment. 

I don't really have a need for this lens, but I hope it performs well. And I'm happy Sigma is looking out for the crop people!


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 20, 2016)

Looking at the specs for the Canon 70-200f2.8ISII, the Sigma 50-100 actually weighs exactly the same, has bigger filter threads, and is only 28mm shorter. I don't think it's a stretch to call it a 70-200f2.8 equivalent. It's just missing 40mm tele and 10mm on the wide end.
The lack of stabilisation doesn't bother me very much since IS just makes a moving subject even more blurry if your shutter speed isn't too fast to begin with. And it's another thing to potentially break as time goes on.


----------



## allpet (Feb 20, 2016)

troy19 said:


> allpet said:
> 
> 
> > troy19 said:
> ...


Let's see the price first...


----------



## Talley (Feb 20, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Looking at the specs for the Canon 70-200f2.8ISII, the Sigma 50-100 actually weighs exactly the same, has bigger filter threads, and is only 28mm shorter. I don't think it's a stretch to call it a 70-200f2.8 equivalent. It's just missing 40mm tele and 10mm on the wide end.
> The lack of stabilisation doesn't bother me very much since IS just makes a moving subject even more blurry if your shutter speed isn't too fast to begin with. And it's another thing to potentially break as time goes on.



true. helps shutter... should be good for those 7D2 users.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.
> ...



Well, I have a 70-200/2.8L IS II already so, for me, this lens competes with a full-frame camera to go with my existing 70-200.


----------



## et31 (Feb 20, 2016)

What? Finally a 50-100mm f/1.4 full frame lens from Sigma? This is great! I'm going to....oh! I see...one of those.  Just kidding. I am glad that Sigma is really improving the lens availability line-up and actively competing against all the other companies.

On a side note, maybe I need to create my own $500,000 start-up company and design this lens and a series of f/1.2 - 1.4 zoom lenses that all the other companies do not want to make. Weight complaints? How about capturing an image that really matters!...with at least 5-10 stops of vibration reduction / control.;D 

Let me finish my optical engineering graduate degree and see everyone in about a decade. :
Remember this bad lens that rocked the lens world a few years ago? Now think even bigger! ;D
Can't....hold it....steady...much....longer!....must.....have.....bokeh!!!!!


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Feb 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Correct - it's actually worse than that, which was my point.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Am I agreeing with dilbert?

Less can be more. I wouldn't trade my 24-35 (because of my shooting styles and other lenses which compliment and contrast with it) for one with a longer FL. 

So, your worse might be someone else's better. It's an idea which is tough for some to swallow here. 

Akin to "CANON NEEDS TO MAKE A CAMERA BUILT TO MY SPEC'S"


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Less range - 80-160 versus 70-200.
No IS.
Sigma focusing versus Canon focusing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2016)

Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.

But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.


----------



## winfel (Feb 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof



You mean the right thing but just for the sake of correctnes. It has of course MORE depth of field. Effectively thre will not be much difference between 2.8 and 2.88 though, so it will be virtualy the same DOF.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2016)

winfel said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof
> ...



Yes you are correct of course!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So, less range is less useful.



> The 16-35/f4L has less range than the 17-40/f4L but you will be hard pressed to find anyone that says the 17-40 is better.



The 50-100/1.8 on crop is not faster than the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame. So that was an irrelevant comparison.



> This is not the 70-200/2.8 for APS-C, it is a 50-100/1.8 for APS-C.



It's the closest thing to a 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but it's not as good - less range, about the same "speed" (light collection), no IS.


----------



## Nininini (Feb 21, 2016)

What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated. 

Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.

The majority of APS-C owners do not own full frame cameras, do not plan to ever buy full frame cameras, have no desire to use full frame cameras and often can't justify the price of full frame cameras and lenses, so the fact there is a full frame equivalent is irrelevant.


----------



## 1nterl0per (Feb 21, 2016)

Kudo to Sigma for giving consumers options that OEM doesn't offer. However, we have to wait and see if the 50-100mm f/1.8 + an APS-C body can compete against an FF body such as the Canon 6D + 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS dollar for dollar vs. IQ.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2016)

Nininini said:


> What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.
> 
> Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.
> 
> The majority of APS-C owners do not own full frame cameras, do not plan to ever buy full frame cameras, have no desire to use full frame cameras and often can't justify the price of full frame cameras and lenses, so the fact there is a full frame equivalent is irrelevant.



If we had a Full Frame SL1 I would agree, but in my case I had a 5D2 and I got rid of it in favor of just using crop, because I love the balance of the 400f5.6 with a compact 500 gram body.
And, the sensors will always be cheaper too. In my case that means saving about $3,500 (the price difference between a Rebel and a Canadian 5DS), and that disparity will probably never go away.
If I could get a Full Frame Rebel or a 500 gram 6D I would be jumping for joy, but until that point I'll be shooting crop, and it's nice to have some lenses that maximize the performance of my body of choice.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 21, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> sounds like a perfect portrait zoom lens for the crop sensor? 80-160 FF equivalent. Perfect companion to the excellent Sigma 18-35 1.8 DC Art lens.


Sigma keeps shaking things up. This is a perfect portrait lens. It'll be a good excuse to get my 7DII


----------



## anden (Feb 21, 2016)

Excellent!

I am shooting school sports and family with 7D2 and mostly 50-150 2.8 OS, 50 1.4 Art, and 85 1.8 (and 10-22). The flexibility of the zoom is awesome but in some venues the lighting really requires 1.8, so I am looking forward to trying this lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 21, 2016)

Sigmas new APS-C lens line up seems too me like an alternative to upgrading to FF, for APS-C users. The next time a 7DII owner asks on this forum is he should upgrade to FF, some will ask why, since you get practically the some DOF and same noise with the 50-100 f/1.8 as with a 70-200 f/2.8 in FF. 

Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.


----------



## whothafunk (Feb 21, 2016)

The only problem is the shallow depth of field - with the 1.8 is too big compared to the 2.8. 

Say you're shooting a soccer player who is leaning forward while running. Because you use center focusing point due the superb focusing abilities (dual cross type), you focus on his belly, meaning his face will be severely blurred, which is no no.

I find it funny when seeing people shooting indoor sports with the 50 1.4 because they can use low ISO. But what the hell, what exactly is in focus?


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 21, 2016)

What the heck is this less zoom range is less effective mess? If that was the logic everyone would be using only 18-300mm or 28-300mm (cough full frame peeps) and every other lens on the market would not be useful? Seriously thats about ill logical as it comes. A lot is to be said about sharpness and less chroma.. Seriously though just get a superzoom for walk-abouts and a 18-35mm and this new 50-100mm for when you need quality..


----------



## dufflover (Feb 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.
> ...


Thank you finally someone mentioned this point too! To me it is supposed to be an APS-C version of an FF equivalent, just like the 18-35mm is alternative to someone shelling out for a FF+24-70, this is the alternative to doing that and a 70-200mm (it's basically a 70-200 on a Speedbooster - 70/1.4 ~50, 200/1.4 ~ 125mm). Fine so it's an 80-160mm equivalent on an FF camera ... now tell me how that's relevant to the person who only has a crop body and can either put on a 70-200mm/2.8 or a 50-100mm/1.8 - if they want the wider aperture, guess what it wins. 

Though the lack of OS is a little surprising, not that I'm trying to claim it's easy either; just an average modern tele feature, usually.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2016)

sigma 24-35 2.0 dg price: $999 - Amazon
sigma 18-35 1.6 dc price: $799 - Amazon

50-100 dc will be $100-200 more expensive than 18-35, but should be a bit cheaper that 24-35 dg ( full frame)

in real terms, price for 18-35 in Australia is US$550.00 (brand new, 2 years warranty)
price for 24-35 in Australia is US$707.00 (brand new, two years warranty).





> Which source said US$750??? Heck, I'd get this lens for that price, weight be damned.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 21, 2016)

Back when I shot crop cameras, I was clamoring for something exactly like this: a fast short-tele 2x zoom that is not ungainly heavy by nature of being exclusively APS-C. (Internally, it might be a 70-135 f/2.5 with a backwards 1.4x TC).

But now I've moved on to the 6D...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2016)

I beg to differ.. 50 mm , F1.4 on APS-C crop camera and at 6 m distance to subject, Depth of Field:

Total 0.77 m
In front of subject 0.36 m 
Behind subject 0.41 m

I would be happy with that.



dilbert said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## lightthief (Feb 21, 2016)

Nininini said:


> What does it matter if there is a full frame equivalent? Why is this even being debated.
> 
> Why do people always need to mention there is a "full frame equivalent" in APS-C threads, as if it somehow threatens the full frame market.



I think, not everybody does this, because they are "evil". At least, i am not - but i did the same calculation. 3.5 years ago, i used only APS-C and i had a good feeling, what does a focal length mean. But know, i use FF only. If someone talks about focal lengths on APS-C, i transfer them to FF-numbers. This helps me to get a idea of for what this lens can be used in my photography.

It is the same thing like meters/feet, celsius and fahrenheit, kg and lbs,... everybody lives in a system of units and numbers and everybody knows "his" system better than others peoples system. If you ask me, how long is one side of my room, i estimate it in meters and calculate it into feet for you.

Nothing "bad" here.

Back to the 50-100: Well done, Sigma!
I like this new ideas of lenses. I hope, Canon remembers their 3 or 4 years old patent of that 55-110 2.0 IS.

lightthief


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 21, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > So, less range is less useful.
> ...



The 16-35/2.8 isn't faster than the 17-40/4?

Most of the reason the 16-35 is preferred is that it's a whole stop faster.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



There are two 16-35's. The two of of were thinking of different versions. (f/2.8 vs f/4)


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 21, 2016)

slclick said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Still a major difference - one has IS, one does not.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 21, 2016)

Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?


It might but you'll vignette like a mutha.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 21, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.



You complain that it's already too heavy and yet you also complain that the zoom range is too small??? You do understand if Sigma increases the range while maintaining constant f/1.8 it would make the lens heavier (unless they use exotic materials/design); and then we're back to the usual refrain of "it's too expensive, I'd rather get an L lens instead so I won't have any AF issues..." :


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 21, 2016)

Where can I buy that Canon full-frame 80-160mm f/2.8 for $750 I keep reading about?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Feb 21, 2016)

Gosh guys, this is only like a 100-200mm f/4 equivalent...on medium format. So it's not really impressive and I don't see why anyone would want it...because I only judge a lens based on a format that it wasn't even designed for and seem to forget that converted values are meaningless in terms of exposure. Don't even get me started on the 8x10 equivalent! :


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 21, 2016)

Lighter weight, bigger zoom range, reasonably priced, better optical quality--> Pick any 3.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

Ugh, typical... someone releases an item no one else makes and there's nothing but bitching. As if you'll be forced to buy it and use nothing else. Next time maybe Sigma will knock on your door and spend 3 hours without discussing your photographic gear needs.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2016)

slclick said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Can these lenses be mounted on full frame? Just out of interest. Like, you probably wouldn't want to, but is there a physical impediment?
> ...



The 18-35A looks best at 1:1 on Full Frame, and 4:3 gives you some nice "artsitic" looking dark corners. At full 35mm width the vegnetting is black across the entire side of the frame.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 21, 2016)

9VIII said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Thanks! I guess it could be mounted on a very high res FF sensor and the centre crop would still be useable. Not that it's a very practical setup


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 21, 2016)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think the zoom range on Sigma 18-35 and 50-100 is too small, and I don't see a strong reason for my own shooting, to chose them over a prime lens. I don't think the 18-35 go wide enough either. Further, both lenses are a bit to heavy, I think.
> ...



Weight is a compriomise for sure, but sometimes lenses in the same focal lenghts and apertures actually have different weigth. 

I do think that choosing f/2 instead, and thereby save some weight could be a better compromise. Point is, I would be put off by the weight if I were to buy one, and therfore I'm not sure the marketing strategy behind this lens is the best.


----------



## hubie (Feb 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.
> 
> But there are a lot of APS users out there and Canon are not making compelling lenses specifically for them, so good luck to Sigma.



Excuse me, but this lens still has 1.8 aperture. So only because you have to rearrange your framing and therefore lose a bit of DOF because you have to step back, there is still more cd/cm² available on the sensor at f/1.8 than at f/2.8. That's the danger with all this unscientific calculations (as tony northrup is famous for to throw in here and then) in order to make a comparison between FF and APS-C... people get confused. You will have more than a stop of brighter illumination, so the noise performance of a smaller sensor can be compensated quite a bit.


----------



## veng (Feb 21, 2016)

You know it's something special when all the FF fan-boys are so threatened that they come out of the work to say why their FF is just as good.


----------



## veng (Feb 21, 2016)

Oh, and this with an SL1 is 3lbs lighter than a 6D and 70-200


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2016)

scyrene said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



That was my plan until I found out that the 5DS costs $1,000 more than a 5D3. The 5DS has 1:1 and 4:3 crop modes that sound like it would be perfect, but for a $1,000 premium, no thanks.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 21, 2016)

hubie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.
> ...



I'm not sure that you actually disagreed with anything.
The point is crop sensors have an extra stop worth of noise, actually it's 1.39 stops worth on Canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

And you can see the results for yourself:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=819&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=963&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

Even at ISO 6400 the 7D2 isn't quite comparable with the 6D at 12800.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=819&Test=0&ISO=12800&CameraComp=963&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

Which makes me very, very glad that Sigma is actually making these f1.8 (1.33 stops faster than f2.8 ) and not just f2.0.


There is one other little thing that people don't often talk about in regard to Full Frame lenses though, the T-stops are rarely anything close to the f-stops, and if DXO is to be believed, the Sigma 18-35A actually has a T-stop of 1.8.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon

Where the Canon 16-35f2.8LII has a T-stop of 3.4.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

Even the Sigma 50A has a T-stop of 1.8.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

I've never verified this myself, and it's hard to say what the 50mm Art would be rated at if they treated it like a crop sensor since I'm guessing that the T-stop is primarily affected by vignetting, but potentially the high transmission value of the Sigma 18-35A, and the 50-100A if it follows suit, could be something that gives it an even bigger advantage than the numbers on the box would suggest.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 21, 2016)

9VIII said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Oh right? Here relative prices are a little different. The 5DS isn't much more than the 5D3 even now, just over £300 different at the cheapest retailer I know of and only ~£500 at a standard retailer.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 22, 2016)

hubie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes a Canon APS 50-100mm f1.8 has a Full Frame equivalence of a 80-160mm f2.88. So less range and less dof, factor in the greater than one stop of noise advantage a ff camera has for the apparent EV difference of the aperture to get a faster shutter speed and it seems like a strange lens.
> ...



Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).

Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I noted that now, but it's still not a relevant comparison because the 16-35/4L has IS, and the 17-40L doesn't. It's also newer and better optically. It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).
> 
> Overall, this lens will likely produce similar IQ to the 70-200/2.8 on full-frame, but the 70-200+FF combo is wider, longer and has IS.



Unless that extra stop results in motion blur on the FF camera. 
IMO the IQ difference is hardly detectable but motion blur really is.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2016)

This is a remarkable feat of optical engineering. One that Sigma is becoming well known and regarded for.

The carping about effective aperture and the FL range is a bit churlish as no other manufacturer has created such remarkable products. In addition, it is an APS-C lens and as such competes against other APS-C lenses.

Complaining that it is not like this FF lens or that FF lens is like complaining that any FF lens is not like this or that MF lens. They are for different formats and make their format more valuable to their respective users.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 22, 2016)

Normalnorm said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).
> ...


How's that going to happen?


----------



## dufflover (Feb 22, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.



It's also highly unlikely anyone who buys this already owns an FF camera, so what is your point?

The very basis of these "complaints" all revolve around how everyone has an FF camera. Not sure if that's arrogance or ignorance sometimes.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Feb 22, 2016)

I can't wait to see the reviews and hope that the AF is functional on a 7DII. Canon seems to have blocked the ability of the 18-35 in that body, hopefully Sigma has worked around it for this new lens. My two zooms are the 17-55/2.8 and 100-400II. I use a 50/1.2 and 135/2.0 for DOF work, the 135 also doubles nicely for a sports lens. I find the 50 seldom is used, as it alone is not great for a walk around, and unfortunately those are the time that I've captured most impromptu portraits of the kids with the 17-55. 

I'd recently been thinking a 6D to make the primes and my TS-E more effective, but that is more money spent. This lens could potentially improve my range and put money in my pocket if I part with the primes.

I once had a 70-200/2.8 (sold to get the 100-400), and found it wasn't any good out "adventuring" with the kids, as often they would get too close. 50-100 would likely be perfect combined with a 24 pancake in the pocket just in case.


----------



## axtstern (Feb 22, 2016)

When using a tool (a lens to bend light) I can't tell if I feel more like an Artist or an Architekt/Engineer.
Maybe for this reason the Tools which allow creativity on one side and deliver the Feedback Loop of a precision Instrument always catch my heart.

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is such a lens and from the Pictures the 50-100 1.8 will deliver the same.

When swapping the 5D3 (And I mentioned this a few times already: I have kicked out the Canon L lenses and walk arround with a Tamron 2.8 Combo that covers 15-70 mmm in 2.8 and VCD) with a crop (most likely the 80D in the future) I intend to save weight and bulk. Now Comes Sigma and makes me fill a bag with the two 1.8 Zooms. Soo I loose a lot on the wide end (15mm fullframe versus 18 mm Crop), loose the Stabilisation (for which I have paid a lot) and get a lot of weight in return... but these lenses bring the fun back into taking pictures. Smooth Zooming, Smooth Focusing, the gun metal Feeling of the tubus and Overall shape that whispers 21st century design.. I love it.

For those who can#t understand what I try to express: Spent 30$ on a Rotring 600 






http://www.amazon.com/rOtring-Mechanical-Pencil-Silver-Barrel/dp/B00AZX1P9C/ref=sr_1_2?s=office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1456155529&sr=1-2&keywords=rotring+600

and you know what I mean 

So those who say that a 50-100 Crop is inferior to a whatsoever FF lens... you miss the point.

A quarter century ago I had fun with the TAmron 35-105 2.8 (an ugly plastic beast by modern Standards)
15 years ago I had fun with the Sigma 50-1150 2.8
And this year it will be the 50-100 to toy with.... each time a lens which allowed to do things you could not do before. Each time a challenge to create something in a new way...

Thanks to all you unknown engineers out there to marvel me with the Tools you create


----------



## scrup (Feb 22, 2016)

Most people here have limited budgets so look at this lens from a value proposition.

What is the best bang for buck on paper. 

Its fast, has zoom, presumably excellent optics.

But its expensive, heavy, only works correctly on crop cameras, third party manufacturer, no IS.

These 5 points limit the target market for this lens greatly.
Yes there is no other competitor, but if you have 1500 to spend, there are many other lenses to get before buying this one.

Interestingly if one of the 5 points I mentioned was changed, then this would probably be a killer lens.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 22, 2016)

NorbR said:


> So it's a crop lens ... Too bad, I was hoping for another fast FF zoom.
> Oh well, my wallet's relieved, at least.
> 
> And damn, Sigma keeps shaking things up. Kudos to them.



Me [email protected]!!

WTF didn't they do this as a full frame lens!!??


cayenne


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



And it is, but the difference is smaller (at the ends 6% better and 14% worse versus 14% worse and 25% worse) and it's compensated for by better optics and IS.



> It's also newer and better optically.
> 
> 
> > It's highly unlikely the 50-100 on crop either has IS or is better optically than the 70-200/2.8L IS II is on full-frame.
> ...



I seriously doubt the 50-100 on crop will out-perform the 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame since the later is so outstanding. At best, Sigma could hope for a tie.

And the new Sigma still lacks IS which is a much, much bigger deal in this lens than it is in the 18-35/1.8 (which I own). I went and looked, and about 75% of my shots with my 18-35/1.8 on crop and my 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame, when in limited light, were at 1/60th or slower. I'm obviously using the IS on the 70-200 quite a lot to match the shutter speeds of the much wider 18-35/1.8. In other words, IS in this range is a really big deal.


----------



## Dipzero (Feb 22, 2016)

According to the Austrian Sigma Facebook site there is something new every hour between 8 and 12
https://facebook.com/473936136018474/photos/a.473958612682893.1073741830.473936136018474/1011012705644145/?type=3&source=48 
I'm so excited, maybe a 135 1.8?


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 22, 2016)

cayenne said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > So it's a crop lens ... Too bad, I was hoping for another fast FF zoom.
> ...



Because it would be completely infeasible? Or at least would be so much bigger, heavier and more expensive that nobody would buy it.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 22, 2016)

Proscribo said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 23, 2016)

Normalnorm said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Total light captured is what matters for image quality, not light per unit area. That's why f/2.8 on full-frame is about the same as f/1.8 on 1.6-crop ( 1.8*1.6~=2.8 ).
> ...



Missing the point. The 1 1/3 stop difference in f-stop is about exactly compensated by a 1 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance, and for exactly the reason that both lenses (f/1.8 on crop and f/2.8 on full-frame) cause the same total amount of light to be captured.

So, shutter speed and noise are the same, but the full-frame 70-200 has IS, and the crop 50-100 doesn't.


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 23, 2016)

I'm happy this lens is priced at $1099. I will be cost prohibitive for me at the moment and i'm forced to keep working my tokina 50-135mm until I can seriously justify an upgrade.

Looks like pre-orders are available.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234029-REG/sigma_693954_50_100mm_f_1_8_dc_hsm.html


----------



## hubie (Feb 23, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> hubie said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Well, I would say, the amount of light gathered per pixel (with comparable sensor technology) is what counts. So if you get more than twice of the amount of light with one aperture more, your pixels, that are 1/1.6 of the size of a FF sensor should at least deliver comparable SN-performance.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 23, 2016)

SpartanII said:


> I'm happy this lens is priced at $1099. I will be cost prohibitive for me at the moment and i'm forced to keep working my tokina 50-135mm until I can seriously justify an upgrade.
> 
> Looks like pre-orders are available.
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1234029-REG/sigma_693954_50_100mm_f_1_8_dc_hsm.html



Excellent. Sweet price, if IQ is clean wide open then this thing will be a bargain.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 23, 2016)

hubie said:


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



That's still an oversimplification.

High ISO noise on the 5DS is comparable to the 1DX when you downsample to the same resolution.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=779&Test=2&ISO=12800&CameraComp=980&TestComp=1&ISOComp=12800

The 1DX has a slight advantage, but this is as good a demonstration as any that many small pixels can combine to make a low-noise image.
Sure, a smaller pixel will hit the point of providing no useful information in a signal before a large pixel will, but practically speaking, no-one will be using either of those images for anything but security footage.
High resolution images can be manipulated into giving almost equivalent performance in low light, but low resolution sensors can't give you high detail in good light.
The best argument for a low resolution sensor is simply convenience. The only way to make real, flexible, full quality small RAW files is with a low resolution sensor, and depending on your target image size a low resolution body may be the best thing you can get.
Actually I wish Canon would start making 12MP Rebels (with 4K of course), but it's certainly not because there's anything wrong with small pixels.


----------



## dufflover (Feb 23, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> I seriously doubt the 50-100 on crop will out-perform the 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame since the later is so outstanding. At best, Sigma could hope for a tie.



Why do you persist with this comparison?
In that case, will you also include a comparison on price? A crop owner can spend $1500 on this lens, or however many thousands more for a 5D3 (after all if they have a 7/70 a 6D is pathetically slow) and 70-200 II?

Better get CarlMillerPhoto to throw in more MF and 8x10 comparisons ...


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 23, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> *I* went and looked, and about 75% of *my* shots with my 18-35/1.8 on crop and *my *70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame, when in limited light, were at 1/60th or slower. *I'm* obviously using the IS on the 70-200 quite a lot to match the shutter speeds of the much wider 18-35/1.8. In other words, IS in this range is a really big deal *to me*.



fixed that for you.


----------



## scrup (Feb 23, 2016)

I love the banter on these camera forums. Its make for interesting reads.

Anyway a 5dmark2 that came out in 2008 still probably has better IQ than a soon to be released 80D.

full frame >> crop >> m4/3 >> 1 inch >> compacts >> phone


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 23, 2016)

TexPhoto said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



You can mount Sigma "crop" lenses on Canon FF and 1.3X crop cameras. Tamron as well. The zooms do "vignette like a mutha" at widest setting but zoomed about 1/2 way are acceptable on FF in my experience. I bought a Tamron 11-17 f2.8 to shoot basketball with and it did a really nice job on a 1DS Mark IV. The image cir gel is of course wide enough for a 1.5X crop Nikon, and as it turns out fine on the 1.3X. I did mount it on FF, and the results a 11mm are kind of cool.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 23, 2016)

hubie said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > hubie said:
> ...



And you'd be right if you only look at the pixels rather than the image.



> So if you get more than twice of the amount of light with one aperture more, your pixels, that are 1/1.6 of the size of a FF sensor should at least deliver comparable SN-performance.



Yeah...that's just all false. For overall image quality, it's the total light captured not the light per pixel that matters. Think of the total light captured as a pizza. How you slice it up doesn't change how much pizza you get. In fact, especially at moderately high ISO, smaller pixels generally beat bigger ones for overall image quality, but only for secondary reasons.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 23, 2016)

dufflover said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt the 50-100 on crop will out-perform the 70-200/2.8L IS II on full-frame since the later is so outstanding. At best, Sigma could hope for a tie.
> ...



Sure. Since I'm a crop owner, and would (and do) own the 70-200/2.8L IS regardless, this lens is $1099 at B&H while a 6D is $1399. So, $300 difference to get a wider, longer option with IS.


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 23, 2016)

I'm inclined to say keep a cool head in regards to this APS-C vs FF lens war. Remember the fuss when Sigma released a 18-35mm for crop and shortly after they released a 24-35mm for FF?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 23, 2016)

SpartanII said:


> I'm inclined to say keep a cool head in regards to this APS-C vs FF lens war. Remember the fuss when Sigma released a 18-35mm for crop and shortly after they released a 24-35mm for FF?


It makes sense if Sigma launch a 35-70mm F2 Art (or 35-80mm), for full frame.
In the future, perhaps a 85-135mm F2 :


----------



## SpartanII (Feb 23, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> SpartanII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm inclined to say keep a cool head in regards to this APS-C vs FF lens war. Remember the fuss when Sigma released a 18-35mm for crop and shortly after they released a 24-35mm for FF?
> ...



I do not think it is beyond the realm of possibility. 85-175mm f/2 perhaps. The 18-35mm is a 1.8 and the FF offerinf (24-35mm) was a 2.0. Could be a pattern.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 23, 2016)

SpartanII said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > SpartanII said:
> ...


When I look at the front element size in the Canon 200mm F2L, I'm afraid to imagine how big it would be in a 85-175mm F2 ...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 23, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> SpartanII said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I actually think a 100-200mm f2.0 zoom would be a good seller.
The 150-600 Sport already has a 105mm filter thread.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 24, 2016)

Take a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, install a 1.4x TC backwards in the base, & you get a 50-143 f/2.0 zoom.

http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2

(if you don't mind reducing the image circle size to APS-C


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2016)

funkboy said:


> Take a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, install a 1.4x TC backwards in the base, & you get a 50-143 f/2.0 zoom.
> 
> http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2
> 
> (if you don't mind reducing the image circle size to APS-C



Combine the price of a 70-200f2.8 with Metabones and your cheapest option for that is still going to cost nearly twice as much as the 50-100A.
(Ok, Tamron does make a decent 70-200f2.8 for about $750, but the adapter still puts you over the cost of the Sigma.)

Price to performance, Sigma offers a good value proposition.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 24, 2016)

funkboy said:


> Take a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom, install a 1.4x TC backwards in the base, & you get a 50-143 f/2.0 zoom.
> 
> http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-E-BT2
> 
> (if you don't mind reducing the image circle size to APS-C



And shooting with a Sony.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 25, 2016)

Ugh, I'm not suggesting that people _do_ this, simply that this is usually how short fast large-aperture zooms are usually made: a manufacturer takes e.g. a longer f/2.8 zoom design & inserts a reverse TC element...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 25, 2016)

funkboy said:


> Ugh, I'm not suggesting that people _do_ this, simply that this is usually how short fast large-aperture zooms are usually made: a manufacturer takes e.g. a longer f/2.8 zoom design & inserts a reverse TC element...



Isn't Sigma is the only one who has ever made a fast aperture zoom? How can you say "usually' about something that has only happened twice? But even that was basically the same design used for two lenses, so really there's only one fast aperture zoom lens formula ever put on the market (that's considering the 18-35A and 24-35A as being similar enough to count as one design, and the 50-100A isn't out yet).

Unless you know of some other industry that commonly uses f2.0 zoom lenses, I would love to hear about it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 25, 2016)

9VIII said:


> funkboy said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh, I'm not suggesting that people _do_ this, simply that this is usually how short fast large-aperture zooms are usually made: a manufacturer takes e.g. a longer f/2.8 zoom design & inserts a reverse TC element...
> ...



There's the Olympus 35-100 f/2, and a whole bunch of fixed-lens cameras with zoom lenses faster than f/2.8 and 1" sensors.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 25, 2016)

[


9VIII said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > When I look at the front element size in the Canon 200mm F2L, I'm afraid to imagine how big it would be in a 85-175mm F2 ...
> ...



The Canon 200mm f/2 prime over 5.5 lb. A zoom is going be heavier assuming they don't "cheat" too much on rounding the max aperture and focal length. Weight-wise, I'd guess the zoom would fall closer to the Sigma 150-600S at 7.1 lb than Canon's 5.5 lb. That is a lot of weight for that short of a focal length for a focal length not usually used off a tripod. I can't see a market that large for this...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 26, 2016)

Lee Jay said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > funkboy said:
> ...



Right, yes the fixed lens market does have a lot of those.




Random Orbits said:


> [
> 
> 
> 9VIII said:
> ...



Sigma does make the 120-300f2.8, and it is 7.5lbs. I have to wonder if a plain 100-200f2.0 zoom without stabiliser might not be quite as bulky, though the front element would be a bit bigger.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909812-REG/Sigma_137101_120_300mm_f_2_8_DG_OS.html#Specification

But really you're right, at this point forget the zoom, one of the next biggest announcements that I'm waiting to hear about from Sigma is a new set of Global Vision telephoto primes.


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 3, 2016)

Very interesting focal range - though I will only consider buying if made in Japan.

That's worth paying a bit extra for the better QC.


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 23, 2016)

has anyone preordered this lens?
i've seen that the first ones have already started to be delivered.
i'm interested in buying this but maybe in a few months or close to black friday/christmas sales...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 24, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> has anyone preordered this lens?
> i've seen that the first ones have already started to be delivered.
> i'm interested in buying this but maybe in a few months or close to black friday/christmas sales...



One will be heading my way shortly (probably after B&H returns from holidays) for review.


----------

