# Four New Sigma Lenses Leak Ahead of CP+



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2017)

```
Four new Sigma lenses have leaked out ahead of CP+</p>
<ul>
<li>Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art (wow, we were wrong!)</li>
<li>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art</li>
<li>Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art</li>
<li>Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary</li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-28421 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535207783.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535207783-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535266567.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535266567-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535266567-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535266567-226x225.jpg 226w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535275095.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535275095-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon portrait'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535286479.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wp-1487535286479-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## James Larsen (Feb 19, 2017)

Who would've thought they'd try a 14mm f/1.8 for FF? Wow. 
I'm really interested in the 24-70 OS Art, given that it's a good performer at a good price. The 135mm might be something I'll consider if it's priced reasonably.

Tamron & Sigma have really been putting out great gear recently!


----------



## NorbR (Feb 19, 2017)

There's only one lens that interests me in that list, but oh how it interests me ... ;D
14mm f/1.8 ... I'm still drooling a bit. 

Now anxiously waiting for the price ... :-\


----------



## pmjm (Feb 19, 2017)

I can't wait to see how the 24-70 stacks up against the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 19, 2017)

14 f1.8...

there's only one thing to say

Coma?.. come on Sigma, a full-res wide-open astro-shot in the sample images please.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 19, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> 14 f1.8...
> 
> there's only one thing to say
> 
> Coma?.. come on Sigma, a full-res wide-open astro-shot in the sample images please.



The coma would have to pretty terrible to be worse than a current 14mm 2.8. You can stop it down a whole stop, and it's still faster.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 19, 2017)

Wow, it's happening! Need a pre-order link for the 135 1.8 asap


----------



## applecider (Feb 19, 2017)

14mm f1.8 full frame? 

I've been trying to find a Samyang 14mm f2.4 premium for sale glad now that that has not happened.

As others have said show us the coma or not.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 19, 2017)

Here's hoping the size reflects the price.
We still don't know the characteristics of that 14mm lens, the Samyang is really good so Sigma has a high bar to aim for.

I could buy all four of these.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 19, 2017)

applecider said:


> 14mm f1.8 full frame?
> 
> I've been trying to find a Samyang 14mm f2.4 premium for sale glad now that that has not happened.
> 
> As others have said show us the coma or not.



I'm waiting for the Samyang to get a lensrentals teardown.. now with this Sigma there could be real choice.

Roger, do you have any plans?


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 19, 2017)

14 F1.8 comes with non filterable front element, it looks that way. 
135 F1.8 looks exactly like 85 F1.4 Art. Could be just an up scaled Version of the 85 Art. 
Front element looks massive. 95mm?
P.S. nope, filter size is 82mm according to the photo.. I am shaking my head in disbelieve. 85 Art comes with 86 mm filter size and 135 Art with 82mm one. doesn't quite make sense.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Feb 19, 2017)

Wow! I'm really excited for all four lenses!! The 24-70mm just might end up in my bag.. as well as the 135mm. Great job Sigma!


----------



## nightscape123 (Feb 19, 2017)

How big does a 14mm lens need to be to be f/1.8? It's got to be HUGE to let in that much light...


----------



## arbitrage (Feb 20, 2017)

nightscape123 said:


> How big does a 14mm lens need to be to be f/1.8? It's got to be HUGE to let in that much light...



Fred Miranda did a rough comparison just based on size of lens mounts to the 12-24....it is going to be nice and big....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1476324/1#13928618


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one before. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..



pmjm said:


> I can't wait to see how the 24-70 stacks up against the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am very interested to see how this pans out as the benchmark for IQ in this class is the Canon 24-70 2.8L. All the others fall short in some way much to the despair of those who hope for a more affordable alternative.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > 14 f1.8...
> ...


1 stop down means 2.4 - 2.5 which equals samyang 14mm 2.4 that can be used wide open.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 20, 2017)

I am interested in 14 f/1.4 and the 24-70 if it has better IQ than Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii. I am mainly behind sharpness. I would not care about size or weight. 135 well I just got the Canon 135 f/2 few months ago. So I may not jump on it for a while.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 20, 2017)

Normalnorm said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..
> ...



you mean the Canon 24-70 f2.8L ii correct? I never used the 1st version but read lot of reviews suggesting the 1st version produced soft images. I would expect the Sigma to be at least level the IQ of Canon 24-70 f2.8L ii. At that point the OS adds more value to it. Obviously the price point also plays a major role. Going by the history I would think Sigma will cost less than the 2nd (current) version of Canon


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 20, 2017)

only lens I am interested in is that 100-400, judging by absence of lens collar that lens should be less than 1kg in weight. Hoping the price is below $1000 mark.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

I am looking at the 100-400 Sigma Art lens photo and it does look like an internally (or with a slightly extending barrel) focusing lens to me. I hope that was true.



Chaitanya said:


> only lens I am interested in is that 100-400, judging by absence of lens collar that lens should be less than 1kg in weight. Hoping the price is below $1000 mark.


----------



## EdwardNJ (Feb 20, 2017)

applecider said:


> 14mm f1.8 full frame?
> 
> I've been trying to find a Samyang 14mm f2.4 premium for sale glad now that that has not happened.
> 
> As others have said show us the coma or not.



The Samyang/Rokinon XP 2.4 is just under 1K, I doubt this one will be in the same price range though due to the aperture and the AF. I'm sure Sigma knows this is a lens for Astro nerds, so hopefully coma won't be an issue otherwise it will be a big disappointment. 

I am also really excited about the 24-70 2.8 OS, since the Canon L version has been out there for a few years already, I'm hoping the Sigma Art version will offer better IQ for less $.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I am looking at the 100-400 Sigma Art lens photo and it does look like an internally (or with a slightly extending barrel) focusing lens to me. I hope that was true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


100-400 seen here is a contemporary lens, also so far there havent been any supertele lenses in Art lineup but all in Sport or Contemporary lineup. Hopefully Sigma will release a Sport version of the C lens with faster aperture and better build(albeit at higher price point).


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

ooops, my bad. Contemporary, not Art, of course! I have got few two many things on my hand at the moment. But does it appear to you that this 100-400 C lens could be internally focusing in fact?


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> ooops, my bad. Contemporary, not Art, of course! I have got few two many things on my hand at the moment. But does it appear to you that this 100-400 C lens could be internally focusing in fact?


focusing seems to be internal but zooming is not. Though the lens is quite compact enough to replace 70-300mm for most people.


----------



## AJ (Feb 20, 2017)

Wow! That's awesome!!

And what's Canon doing again? Overhauling the EF-S 18-55? :


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> 14 F1.8 comes with non filterable front element, it looks that way.



Is there a 14mm f/*2*.8 that doesn't?


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

it was merely an observation as this is a rumor website after all.



Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > 14 F1.8 comes with non filterable front element, it looks that way.
> ...


----------



## sanj (Feb 20, 2017)

Must admire Sigma for fighting for it's place in the market by steadily coming out with interesting lenses.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

Impressive looking paperweights.. I'll pass..


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

I am not surprised you have. but don't worry, I am sure that Tamron will be coming out with something more suitable for your style of shooting. And because you shoot with crop camera (correct me if I am being wrong), these lenses are of no use to you anyway. 

And, sorry, I cannot resist:

Don't embarrass yourself by calling these lenses an "Impressive looking paperweights". You have not even seen the product. 




ExodistPhotography said:


> Impressive looking paperweights.. I'll pass..


----------



## CanonGuy (Feb 20, 2017)

Soooo pumped! Time to sell.all my canon lenses except the 100-400. Well-done sigma. Well done.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 20, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > 14 F1.8 comes with non filterable front element, it looks that way.
> ...



There is a 15mm / f/2.4 from IRIX which isn't exactly 14mm 2.8 with AF but maybe an alternative taking 95mm filters, gelatine filters and having a lens hood with polarizer access window + weather sealing.
Price is roughly 600 EUR for the light version (more plastic) or 750 for the heavy (duty) version (more metal).

The open thing: IQ comparison of these alternatives ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

no, not yet. wait until Sigma released 100-400 Sports: weather protected, metal barrel, faster AF and then sell 
70-200 Sports will be just an icing on the cake when it was released later this year.
nuh, just kidding.. if you are events, wedding, action pro tog, you are better of with Canon gear for service and support reason. I know that Sigma service here in Melbourne, Australia is very good but that is not universal nd depends on your locality.




CanonGuy said:


> Soooo pumped! Time to sell.all my canon lenses except the 100-400. Well-done sigma. Well done.


----------



## CanonGuy (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> no, not yet. wait until Sigma released 100-400 Sports: weather protected, metal barrel, faster AF and then sell
> 70-200 Sports will be just an icing on the cake when it was released later this year.
> nuh, just kidding.. if you are events, wedding, action pro tog, you are better of with Canon gear for service and support reason. I know that Sigma service here in Melbourne, Australia is very good but that is not universal nd depends on your locality.
> 
> ...



I am solely a wedding photographer. I mainly use 35, 50 and 85 art, Canon 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 135. And I carry canon 100-400 just during trips. I have been extremely happy with sigma and will prolly replace Canon 16-35, 24-70 and 135 with the new releases. I just love the sharpness and contrast of sigma lenses. Again, well done sigma.

Canon needed someone on their neck. Kinda disgusted with the price of new Canon lenses (except 16-35 f4)


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Feb 20, 2017)

I am really looking forward to the 100-400 C, which might be the better option to the 150-600 (which are often too long for my use cases). Let's just hope the quality is there (and doesn't fall apart on the long end like the 150-600s, in particular the C).


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

There is no direct Sigma Art replacement for Canon 16-35 F2.8 / F4 glass yet. Just for now. And yes, Bravo Sigma!



CanonGuy said:


> I have been extremely happy with sigma and will prolly replace Canon 16-35, 24-70 and 135 with the new releases.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2017)

I hope the 100-400 is optimised for 400mm, unlike the Panasonic Leica 100-400mm, or how the 150-600mm drops off at 600mm.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 20, 2017)

Really impressing and interesting addition to their portfolio.
I'm sure that all four will deliver really good IQ.
Question will be if they can improve their AF performance on Canon furthermore.

My highest interest is in the open aperture performance of the 135 mm. 
Let's see what Sigma did here with sharpness vs. bokeh performance 8)


----------



## sigh (Feb 20, 2017)

Looks like I might be selling my Samyang 14mm XP.


----------



## sanj (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Impressive looking paperweights.. I'll pass..



You too funny!


----------



## hne (Feb 20, 2017)

AJ said:


> Wow! That's awesome!!
> 
> And what's Canon doing again? Overhauling the EF-S 18-55? :



From a business perspective, overhauling the best-selling product in a way that lowers its physical volume (shipping cost, storage cost), weight (shipping cost) and manufacturing complexity (cost, cost and more cost) can be an absolutely splendid idea. Spend a million dollars shaving off two dollars production/storage/shipping cost from each lens that you sell a million of per year and you've got the investment back in 6 months. Leaves a lot of room for putting people on longer term dev projects.

If Canon didn't do these kit lens revisions, we might well see way less high end lenses coming out.


----------



## sanj (Feb 20, 2017)

AJ said:


> Wow! That's awesome!!
> 
> And what's Canon doing again? Overhauling the EF-S 18-55? :



Unfair. Canon has released several interesting lenses constantly.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I am not surprised you have. but don't worry, I am sure that Tamron will be coming out with something more suitable for your style of shooting. And because you shoot with crop camera (correct me if I am being wrong), these lenses are of no use to you anyway.


Wow, you think these focal ranges or lenses would not be optically great for an APS-C camera? That is a very ridiculous. 
14mm at f/1.8 would be a great night photo lens. Thats a 22.8mm on Canon (which is still very wide) and at f/1.8 you could get some great night sky images. BTW. I have the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and it works great on all my APS-C bodies. 
24-70mm is a 38mm to 112mm. Still a great walk around lens focal range. 
135mm is a 216mm equivalent. Exceptional focal range for portraits. 
Then 100-400mm is a 160 to 640mm, great focal range for wildlife. 

To claim just becuase someone uses a APS-C body that these lenses are not a fit for them is.. well to be honest.. Stupid and a very newb-ish statement. 

This all falls back to the mind set that most NEW photographers have that mindset that if someone is not sporting the latest full frame camera then they are not a professional or not knowledgable about photography. Or that they can not take quality photos. Which can not be further from the truth. 



> Don't embarrass yourself by calling these lenses an "Impressive looking paperweights". You have not even seen the product.


Do not embarrass yourself by assuming they are anything other then impressive looking paperweights. You have not even seen the product. 

I am sure these lenses will be optically fantastic as they pretty much always are. But Sigma as a whole has major quality control issues with their focusing systems. Even more so on Canon bodies. Nikon users have fewer issues and there is pretty much no issues with focusing on any mirrorless body like Sony's A7 or A6xxx series.
Thats not personal opinion. Thats facts.. Like it or lump it. I could care less.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 20, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> only lens I am interested in is that 100-400, judging by absence of lens collar that lens should be less than 1kg in weight. Hoping the price is below $1000 mark.



the initial price might be somewhere close to 1k $/€ but it will drop significantly since the 150-600 is currently ~900€

i'm also looking forward to this lens and i hope it will repplace my tamron 70-300


----------



## Joakim (Feb 20, 2017)

I mostly shoot at 70mm or more (mostly above 200mm actually) and have rarely looked at wide angle lenses.

What makes the 14mm 1.8 so special?


----------



## vscd (Feb 20, 2017)

There is no "OS" on the Picture of the 24-70 2.8. For me this would be point to buy or not to buy.


----------



## FlorentC (Feb 20, 2017)

vscd said:


> There is no "OS" on the Picture of the 24-70 2.8. For me this would be point to buy or not to buy.



There is no "OS" on the 100-400 either. Sigma just doesn't specify it on their lenses.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 20, 2017)

Blackout said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "OS" on the Picture of the 24-70 2.8. For me this would be point to buy or not to buy.
> ...



you can clearly see the OS buttons on the lens, it's just not written on them
http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/#more-87431


----------



## vscd (Feb 20, 2017)

Ah, thank you. That's in fact good news... now please let it be in the same league as the 24-70L 2.8 II and with a price around $899-$999  Would be the first lens I preordered since ages because my 24-70L got broken a long time ago. But let's see the reviews...

The only thing Sigmalenses always lacked is weathersealing, but maybe they surprise us there, too.


----------



## traveller (Feb 20, 2017)

The main determining factor for my purchasing decision on any of these lenses will be AF accuracy. It's all very well having a lens that returns great MTF50 results on a test chart when manually focused in live view, if you always intend to manual focus in live view. In the real world, just a slight AF miss softens an image far more dramatically than a few lp/mm of difference ever would. 

Normally I wouldn't bother to raise this as a concern, but achieving consistent AF accuracy still seems to be an Achilles heel of Sigma lenses (at least on Canon bodies). The Sigma Art primes in particular, don't seem to have covered themselves in glory in this respect. For a lot of my shooting, there is no second chance if the image review shows the lens missed focus.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

Joakim said:


> I mostly shoot at 70mm or more (mostly above 200mm actually) and have rarely looked at wide angle lenses.
> 
> What makes the 14mm 1.8 so special?



It would be the first wide angle at that wide of an aperture. Most are f/2.8. Samyang/Rokinon has a f/2.4.
Astrophotographers love fast wide angles for night photos. Reason being is that when you photo the night sky like the stars. The Earth is still spinning and the longer the exposure the more the stars actually start getting egg shaped and can even look like comets if its very long. So to keep the shutter speed low, your forced to bring the ISO up since your likely already using f/2.8 or faster anyway. So you often end up using ISO800 on a f/2.8 lens on good night. If this new lens is sharp and has no coma at f/1.8 you could easily use an ISO of 400 or even ISO320 (or about). Which would drastically reduce high ISO noise. Hope this helps.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Joakim said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly shoot at 70mm or more (mostly above 200mm actually) and have rarely looked at wide angle lenses.
> ...


I believe you omitted a zero in your ISO examples...


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 20, 2017)

I'm surprised and disappointed that the 135mm Art won't have OS. A 135mm prime for my shooting needs is a nice-to-have lens rather than an essential. I might have gone for it with OS to make it a more useful low-light telephoto but as it is, I'll probably pass. I might one day pick up a Canon 135mm for occasional studio / tripod use, if only for its legendary drawing and bokeh quality.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

I believe you omitted a zero in your ISO examples...
[/quote]

Nope I normally use ISO800 to ISO1600 and still keep my shutter speeds at about 10s. Light pollution and weather conditions can also highly effect what ISO you have to use.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

nothing to do with new model of camera or not. I shoot with 2 x 6D bodies for better HIGH ISO. and nothing to do with lenses not being optically great on aps-c. these lenses are totally overkill for APS-C sensor and they were desinged for much wider circle of confusion. hence size and weight - and price.
one can succesfully use them on the APS-C, but is that optimal solution? no, it is not.

you will be much better served with SIgma 18-35 F1.8, 50-100 F1.8 combo - native APS-C lenses.

wide would you use humongous 14 F1.8 FF lens with bulbous front element? just to get 22mm FF equivalent on the crop? that is plain silly. there are smaller apc-s variants that provides a wide AOV in much smaller package.
24-70 on APS-C is bit too long on the wide end for events. thats for starter. again, you will be better served with 18-35 F1.8 there.

135 F1.8 is also a bit too long if you were to use the lens for portraiture. you are better served with 85 F1.4 on a crop camera.

yes, 100-400 is good for wild life on crop cameras. as you say,
now explain why do you think that these lenses are paper weight.

therer is nothing wrong with Sigma quality control. absolutely nothing. Sigma has released Art lenses with unreliable AF system in the past. that has changed and proof is in the pudding. I produced a well documented evidence of Sigma new AF system being consitent. SO may be it is a good time for you to change the tune. the old one sounds a bit like a broken record.



> and there is pretty much no issues with focusing on any mirrorless body like Sony's A7 or A6xxx series.



yes, because mirrorless bodies detect AF state right on the sensor. Was that new for you?

and in the outset: you have no buisiness in calling me names in the future. 
And dont you ever call me Mate. I am not your mate. And never will be.







ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I am not surprised you have. but don't worry, I am sure that Tamron will be coming out with something more suitable for your style of shooting. And because you shoot with crop camera (correct me if I am being wrong), these lenses are of no use to you anyway.
> ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 20, 2017)

Sigma have really stepped up to the plate and Kazuto Yamaki their CEO is a real ball of fire I had the pleasure of meeting him at Photokina last year. They do have issues in some lenses with the ultrasonic motors & accuracy that let optical designs down but I'm sure they will be looking to resolve those especially given Tamron new 70-200mm zoom performance in this area. 

Canon have been complacent with certain lenses (50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 20mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8 all in need of updating) whereas the two new 16-35mm (f2.8 & f4) are outstanding lenses as is the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 MKII and indeed the 35mm f1.4 MKII. Canon however have larger resources and charge higher prices so they need to put more effort into addressing weaknesses.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 20, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Canon have been complacent with certain lenses (50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.2, 20mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8 all in need of updating) whereas the two new 16-35mm (f2.8 & f4) are outstanding lenses as is the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 MKII and indeed the 35mm f1.4 MKII. Canon however have larger resources and charge higher prices so they need to put more effort into addressing weaknesses.


Canon has been complacent with lot more lenses: 60mm Macro, 180mm macro, most of the EF-S lineup, etc... it seems like Sigma and Tamron both have cashed in on the complacency of Nikon and Canon not only by improving the optics but also filling the blanks left by them.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you omitted a zero in your ISO examples...
> ...


In what conditions do you shoot astro with such low iso?


----------



## bholliman (Feb 20, 2017)

Sigma and Tamron are rolling out new lenses at a surprising clip.

Auto focus issues reported on the ART lenses (maybe corrected with the 85mm f/1.4 ART?) have kept me away so far. Nothing on this list that particularly interest me, but I'm sure the 14mm would be of huge interest to astro photographers, assuming the coma is well controlled.

If nothing else, the high quality of the recent Tamron and Sigma offerings is pushing Canon to stay on their game, which is good for those of use using OEM glass.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2017)

I do not want to sound pessimistic but the Sigma 20mm 1.4 sucked comawise (at 1.4 and a little less at 2.0).

http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

So I hope they worked hard enough this time to minimize coma because a coma free 14mm 1.8 would be HUGE! (pun not intended) for astrophotography.

I was thinking Samyang 14 2.4 but now I will wait (Anyway I astro shoot during summer...)


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 20, 2017)

•Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

An odd max aperture range. slower than Canon's 100-400s. f/6.3 at the long end (when does it reach f/6.3?) might limit it's AF performance.

Wonder if this is a play for mirrorless systems of the future.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 20, 2017)

tron said:


> I do not want to sound pessimistic but the Sigma 20mm 1.4 sucked comawise (at 1.4 and a little less at 2.0).
> 
> http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
> 
> ...


Ditto. Also the vignetting is likely to be very high on a 14mm f/1.8 at the wide apertures.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 20, 2017)

Alow me to comment on the usability of 14mm 1.8 on a crop camera.

it will be usable, definitively and it will most likely give very good results.

But using a ultra wide lens as a moderately wide lens on crop is a waste of effort, which may be reflected be beeing uneconomical.

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF. Asuming this lens will not be a cheap one, it would be interesting to buy a 6d or used 5d3 and a 24.2.8 IS instead, which gives image stabilisation on top. There may be similar examples with different wide angel lenses, so for somebody who considers this style of high quality lenses a FF body is a logical investment.

For Tele lenses, the situation is very different, a 80d with 55-250 lens gives similar view like a FF body with a 100-400 lens, but is much cheaper and lighter. Just in bad light and for subject isolation, the FF body offers unbeatable advantage, but in this combination for a very high price and weight


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 20, 2017)

hendrik-sg said:


> 14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.



It will be equivalent to f/2.8 in terms of depth of field, and f/1.8 in terms of exposure.

How many photographers buy an ultra wide lens for the bokeh or shallow depth of field?


----------



## heretikeen (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one before. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First time ever I heard that. Usual opinion is that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC blows the first Canon 24-70 2.8 out of the water, and as an owner I second that opinion.


----------



## Joakim (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Joakim said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly shoot at 70mm or more (mostly above 200mm actually) and have rarely looked at wide angle lenses.
> ...



Thanks!

Is there anything about the physics of making such a lens that has made no one make it yet or just the fact that a 14mm prime is going to have a fairly narrow market?


----------



## midluk (Feb 20, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > 14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.
> ...


It's f/1.8 for the exposure if you go by the ISO numbers on the camera. But if you go by the noise performance, it is close to f/2.8. 
f/1.8 with ISO x on crop will give you roughly the same noise as f/2.8 with ISO 2.5*x on FF.


----------



## sanj (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > nothing to do with new model of camera or not. I shoot with 2 x 6D bodies for better HIGH ISO. and nothing to do with lenses not being optically great on aps-c. these lenses are totally overkill for APS-C sensor and they were desinged for much wider circle of confusion. hence size and weight - and price.
> ...



Mate is a nice word.


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2017)

midluk said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > hendrik-sg said:
> ...


+1

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 20, 2017)

There's a reason we haven't seen a rectilinear 14/1.8 on FF before: it is really, really difficult to make it perform well in all respects. Judging from the terrible wide-open coma of the 50/1.4 Art, 35/1.4 Art, and 20/1.4 Art, I would not be too hopeful about the 14/1.8 Art, unfortunately. It's like hoping for a miracle.

Besides, coma is not everything that needs to be acceptable - the Samyang 14/2.4 has extremely low coma wide open (yay!) but the vignetting is unfortunately also very strong (boo!). To effectively expose 2-3 stops lower in the corners makes the slight increased exposure in the centre, compared to a 14/2.8 lens, less compelling. A 14/1.8 ought to be even more challenging both coma- and vignetting-wise.

It is probably best to await comprehensive reviews for the Sigma 14/1.8 Art. I would be extremely happy if it performs well, but until convinced I will stick to the Samyang XP 14/2.4, which is an impressive lens in all regards except vignetting, where I find it sub-par compared to the competition.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> P.S. nope, filter size is 82mm according to the photo.. I am shaking my head in disbelieve. 85 Art comes with 86 mm filter size and 135 Art with 82mm one. doesn't quite make sense.


Why not? Wider-angle lenses often need larger front filters to vignette less. Depends on the specific design, of course, but definitely not strange IMO.


----------



## epsiloneri (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> I am looking at the 100-400 Sigma Art lens photo and it does look like an internally (or with a slightly extending barrel) focusing lens to me. I hope that was true.


Don't keep your hopes high, the 100-400 will with all likelihood extend, unless they use some fresnel-like optics, which I very much doubt.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

rs said:


> Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light



Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light
> ...



Thank you for this knowledge. Knowledge is my primary reason for reading this forum.


----------



## msatter (Feb 20, 2017)

These days everything 'leaks' in one way or an other : mostly it is done on purpose and we the readers believe blindly that this is not wanted that we know it already. We are being played!

If you want to someone to do something then you forbid it and that person will see it as something special and see not the reality any more as long the forbidden is seen.

Maybe it is time to renamed CononRumours to CanonLeaks or even better LeakyCanonStuff

Sigh....


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE..


LOL, you can't reason with an idiot, which is what he is. A self-appointed photo "expert" trading on his number of followers. The other day he said that Canon refuses to even repair gray-market gear or sell parts to repair shops. 

As for the new lenses, they all seem intriguing...and I wonder if the 100-400 zooms internally. Perhaps that's why they went with f/5-6.3, which would be pretty cool if that's the case.


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...



Please re-read the original quote to put my comment in context. I was reiterating that 14/1.8 on 1.6x crop camera is equivalent of 22/2.8 on FF, in terms of both depth of field and captured light.

As 14/1.8 on crop or 22/2.8 on FF both have the same FoV, the only way to make an equivalent photo is to compose the same shot - in other words, no stepping further back. DoF is much greater than a theoretical 22/1.8 FF lens.

Similarly speaking, less light is captured by the smaller sensor. Sensor size is everything, and the size of pixels is irrelevant unlesss you're pixel peeping. Display or print images taken with different MP but equal size sensors at the same size, and the only time a difference will appear is if the enlargement is high enough to warrant extra pixels. What does make a difference (just as in the film days) is the surface area which captures the light.

Think of the light intensity (lens brightness) as being like how strong the rain is, and the sensor size as being how large a diameter the bucket is. Quite clearly, the rain doesn't get any harder with a wider bucket, but you do capture more water in a given time. You can use any other analogy you like - the sun and a solar panel, the wind and a wind turbine etc, its all the same. Given the same tech, more can be captured with a bigger surface area.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light
> ...



The previous posters are talking about two lenses of different focal lengths, 14mm on crop vs 22mm on FF so that you stand at the same distance from the target and don't have to move back for crop. You are talking about something different, lenses of the same focal length. A 22mm f/2.8 lens for FF has nearly the same diameter and hence area of entrance pupil as a 14mm f/1.8 lens on APS-C so both collect the same amount of light and both spread it over the whole sensor (2.8/1.8 ~ 22/14 ~1.6 = crop factor). Accordingly, they should have the same overall signal/noise ratio if you are under conditions where noise is determined only by the number of photons hitting the sensor. (S/N = sqrt [number of photons]). If they both have the same number of mpx, then each smaller pixel on APS-C should receive the same number of photons as its larger equivalent on FF and have the same S/N attributable to fluctuations in photon flux.


----------



## goldenhusky (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light
> ...



Yep it clears up that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## midluk (Feb 20, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light
> ...


Who talked about moving the camera? You can't keep the framing constant while moving the camera. It will work for one plane in the image, but not for foreground and background simultaneously. The whole equivalence is about keeping the camera position constant but changing the focal length to compensate for the change in sensor size. With this change in focal length (at a constant f-number) also the absolute lens diameter changes, which on the one hand changes DOF (the outer parts of the lens cause the blur on out of focus areas) and on the other hand the amount of collected photons. To also keep the lens diameter constant, you also have to scale the f-number with the crop-factor.
If you really insist on moving your camera, then it is the apparent lens diameter as seen by the subject that is the important factor and which decreases with distance and could be counteracted by the same scaling of the f-number.



ExodistPhotography said:


> Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..


Just because Tony Northrup says something does not necessarily mean it is wrong.

It's not the larger pixels that give you lower noise. For the same light per pixel (disregarding saturation) smaller pixels are actually advantageous. When the photons are absorbed, they produce a charge in the pixel capacitance. The more photons hit a pixel, the higher the charge is and the higher the voltage in the pixel capacitance, which is then ultimately digitized and gives the raw pixel value. For the same light per pixel (as long as no saturation occurs) you will get a higher voltage and therefore slightly less noise for smaller pixels with lower pixel capacitance.

Also a larger antenna on a radio does not necessarily get you a better signal. The length of the antenna has to match the wavelength.

Disregarding readout noise (where small pixels can be an advantage), the noise in the image is determined by shot noise, which means a fluctuation in the number of photons. Here the (relative) fluctuation is lower with more photons.

For the same framing, the same camera position and the same f-number, a FF sensor does really capture more light, because as I wrote above the longer focal length gives you a bigger lens area. Or for the same lens area (to capture the same amount of light and have the same DOF) you have to adjust the f-number.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 20, 2017)

Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.



mackguyver said:


> and I wonder if the 100-400 zooms internally. Perhaps that's why they went with f/5-6.3, which would be pretty cool if that's the case.



Could this be? I won't have a external zoom that huffs dust and moisture, and I really want longer than 200mm.


----------



## andrei1989 (Feb 20, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it does not zoom internally, neither does the canon 100-400
i posted this link again a while back
http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/

longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4 

..or the discontinued sigma 100-300 f4, which i bought and am now sending back

as for the age-old debate of crop factor: there is a separate topic for this! this is about the rumored sigma lens. also, sensor size does not change physical properties of the lens


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.
> ...


Thanks for the information and the link and I'm a happy Canon 100-400 II owner...


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2017)

I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.

The 100-400 is all about being able to reach 400mm in a compact, usable package. Lacking OS just detracts from its usability. I won't be surprised if its succeeded in a short time frame by a stabilised version.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2017)

rs said:


> I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.
> 
> The 100-400 is all about being able to reach 400mm in a compact, usable package. Lacking OS just detracts from its usability. I won't be surprised if its succeeded in a short time frame by a stabilised version.


?

Four new Sigma lenses have leaked out ahead of CP+
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art (wow, we were wrong!)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG *OS *HSM Art
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG *OS *HSM Contemporary


----------



## rs (Feb 20, 2017)

mackguyver said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.
> ...



I stand corrected. Thanks for that!

I was basing that on the overhead views of the lenses labelling, and no OS in the name there. The side views with the OS switches are in line with the text in the article. Thanks


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 20, 2017)

andrei1989 said:


> i posted this link again a while back
> http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/
> 
> longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4
> ...



Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

listen, I suggest you stop insulting me. i never suggest you shoot portraits with 18-35 lens
aps-c sensor is not well suited for Astro due to High Iso limitations, limiting AOV, etc. I know how exposure works. I never called you newbie. I do not need 101 photography education. yes, you called me mate on number of occasions, it is too bad you insulted a person and do not recall you did. I have no interest in researching your channel or further interaction with you in my life. I kindly ask you to go about your life and never ever seek to contact me in any way possible.



ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > nothing to do with new model of camera or not. I shoot with 2 x 6D bodies for better HIGH ISO. and nothing to do with lenses not being optically great on aps-c. these lenses are totally overkill for APS-C sensor and they were desinged for much wider circle of confusion. hence size and weight - and price.
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

yes, it might be better than Canon 24-70 version 1. It is certainly not as good as the Canon 24-70 II though. 

there are couple of issues that I experienced with the Tamron 24-70 VC that are apparently common:

1. VC has to be switched off if i had to shoot at faster than 1/70s shutter or the resulting image is blury.
Tamron service centre confirmed that having VC switched off for faster shutter speed is a requirement.

2. I was very displeased with the Bokeh shape of the Tamron 24-70. It is onion ring shaped and looks a bit ordinary.

3. Sharpness is not the best towards the long end of the focal range.

4. low light AF speed performance is a bit ordinary as well.


hence my bet: Sigma is going to kill Tamron 24-70 VC optical performance. it is just a speculation, forward thinking projections, estimations. that's all.

Disclaimer: I own Canon 24-70L II lens and owned Tamron 24-70 VC in the past.



heretikeen said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one before. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..
> ...


----------



## Ryananthony (Feb 20, 2017)

How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.




Alex_M said:


> yes, it might be better than Canon 24-70 version 1. It is certainly not as good as the Canon 24-70 II though.
> 
> there are couple of issues that I experienced with the Tamron 24-70 VC that are apparently common:
> 
> ...


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.



chrysoberyl said:


> Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 20, 2017)

very solid, consistent for the central AF point i use (Canon 6D). never skipped a bit. focus hunting at times in low light but not a single badly OOF image. AF speed slower than Canon L glass , of course. I ended up having VC switched off at all time to avoid dreaded blur from VC affecting the image at higher shutter speed. Very inconvenient indeed.

here is a low light shot (AF assistance is ON):









Ryananthony said:


> How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 20, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 120-300 is an awesome lens indeed. That lens was a reason why I switched from the A7r2 to 5dsr. The poor Sony couldn't handle AF via the Metabones adapter, so I decided to give a 5dsr a try. The AF performance was a huge surprise for me. A fantastic lens, very versatile, the AF is fast and accurate. The only downside for me was the weight - I was too WEAK to handle it and had to buy a 300 II instead. Today I would totally kept the Sigma.


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2017)

see if you can get a hold of Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports - internally zooming lens. decent lens. heavy!

I sorely miss my Sigma 120-300. 




andrei1989 said:


> longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4
> 
> ..or the discontinued sigma 100-300 f4, which i bought and am now sending back


----------



## Diko (Feb 21, 2017)

Judging by SIMGA's prime 50mm ART version the focus would be slower. However most probably the 24-70 would be sharper with better perceived resolution than the Canon second version of that glass.

The question is how slower would it be.The ultimate event glass is important to be fast. The Canon 70-200 II is amazingly fast beast. I hope SIMGMA would manage to be a good competition in both focus speed and price.

Because I need a new 24-70!


----------



## tr573 (Feb 21, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.



My experience with that lens was that I could have the AF tuned for the central grouping of points OR the outer groupings of points , but not both at the same time. Likewise for the 15-30. This was on the 5ds and 7d2


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2017)

heavy is an understatement  
I wrecked my left shoulder and lower back shooting hand held with it. Had to let it go sadly. 
I am sure that Sigma will release 300, 400 Sports wide aperture primes relatively soon anyway. 500mm is to long for my applications. I can certainly use 300/2.8 if well priced and Sigma Sports quality.

P.S. very nice shot, Jopa! seems like all natural light but coming from an unusual angle? is that a pool of water behind the model that acts as a supersized reflector and reflects a fair bit of light back in to the scene? 





Jopa said:


> The 120-300 is an awesome lens indeed. That lens was a reason why I switched from the A7r2 to 5dsr. The poor Sony couldn't handle AF via the Metabones adapter, so I decided to give a 5dsr a try. The AF performance was a huge surprise for me. A fantastic lens, very versatile, the AF is fast and accurate. The only downside for me was the weight - I was too WEAK to handle it and had to buy a 300 II instead. Today I would totally kept the Sigma.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 21, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> heavy is an understatement
> I wrecked my left shoulder and lower back shooting hand held with it. Had to let it go sadly.
> I am sure that Sigma will release 300, 400 Sports wide aperture primes relatively soon anyway. 500mm is to long for my applications. I can certainly use 300/2.8 if well priced and Sigma Sports quality.



Ha ha, a week ago had no problem shooting a 600/4 on a 1d body handheld for 2 hours  My success in-focus ratio is 1 to 100 though, so I may need to change my technique LOL. 
Anyway, now I feel like the 120-300 should be easy to handle. Remember our recent discussion about the on-camera strobe via the BBX(L)? It won't be much difference compared to the Sigma I think.




Alex_M said:


> P.S. very nice shot, Jopa! seems like all natural light but coming from an unusual angle? is that a pool of water behind the model that acts as a supersized reflector and reflects a fair bit of light back in to the scene?



Thank you Alex! Yes, that was natural light and then lifted shadows in PP, shot @ 300mm. I'm not sure, maybe 300mm gives slightly unusual look? It is a lake in the background, but I think it was a wrong choice to put a blonde person into a bright environment. Well, what's done can't be undone


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2017)

yep, just be careful. get a monopod or something. don't risk it.
yeah, the BBX(L) setup . bit easier to handle as you do not have to extend your arm forward to support a front heavy 3.5kg lens. 

the lake in the background does the trick likely. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the back lighting of your subject. I can feel her skin glowing. very sensual setting there, Jopa. Contrast is obviously not at maximum levels but it works for me underpinning her feminine nature. I am sure that others will also provide their opinion on the subject matter. 



Jopa said:


> Ha ha, a week ago had no problem shooting a 600/4 on a 1d body handheld for 2 hours  My success in-focus ratio is 1 to 100 though, so I may need to change my technique LOL.
> Anyway, now I feel like the 120-300 should be easy to handle. Remember our recent discussion about the on-camera strobe via the BBX(L)? It won't be much difference compared to the Sigma I think.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 21, 2017)

if the performance are good as usual from the previous Sigma releases. I am gonna rob a bank! ;D

Hope Sigma don't release a "Sport" version of the 100-400mm else I would have headache choosing between the Sigma and Canon....

:


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2017)

you better start your savings. Sports version of 100-400 is a very probable lens to expect in near future.



Ah-Keong said:


> if the performance are good as usual from the previous Sigma releases. I am gonna rob a bank! ;D
> 
> Hope Sigma don't release a "Sport" version of the 100-400mm else I would have headache choosing between the Sigma and Canon....
> 
> :


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 21, 2017)

Alex_M said:


> you better start your savings. Sports version of 100-400 is a very probable lens to expect in near future.



Think I shall follow your advice. The hardworking folks at Sigma is really burning with passion.
Thanks Sigma!

I like the black Sigma glass on black Canon body. 8)

:


----------



## douglaurent (Feb 21, 2017)

Pretty much every Sigma release is a complete joy looking at the quality and price.
Pretty much every Canon release sucks in terms of quality/features or price.


----------



## sanj (Feb 21, 2017)

I use the 150-600 sports all the time for fast moving wildlife and have NO issues with focus. Not one bit.


----------



## infared (Feb 21, 2017)

I almost fell out of my chair! FOUR new lenses? WOW! ALL 4 lenses are interesting...the 14mm f/1.8 at the top of the list. I would not expect the coma to be very good guys, I have the 20mm f/1.4 ART (which I absolutely love), but the coma is not that great on that lens..(not horrible...but not "great").....but it has so many great qualities it's still a winner.
Would love to see the 14mm ART AF lens compared to the new Samyang/ Rokinon f/2.4 MF lens. Both are very interesting prospects. Patience will be a must waiting for that!


----------



## streestandtheatres (Feb 21, 2017)

I just bought the 85 and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Interesting to see the 135 is very nearly the same weight, shorter and squatter, with a smaller filter size and one less element. I wonder what the MTFs will look like?! EDIT: MTFs here (the chart for the 135 looks more than a bit impressive): http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/21/announced-sigma-14mm-f1-8-dg-hsm-art-135mm-f1-8-dg-hsm-art-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-hsm-os-art-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dg-hsm-os.aspx/


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2017)

The specs are now on the Global Sigma site in English http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_100_400_5_63/

The MTF data are good. At 0.5-0.6 kg less than the Canon 100-400mm II it could be very attractive to me as a lightweight lens. I don't like the absence of a tripod ring since it would have to be held on a Black Rapid strap just by the camera mount. I always use both the camera and lens mounts to spread the load and to have the safety of a second mount if one becomes attached. And I like to steady the lens on a shelf in a hide, on a fence etc using the mount. On the M5, the lens adapter mount would be another anchor point.

I'll almost certainly buy this lightweight lens as I had been toying with the idea of having a Panasonic 100-400 f/6.3 plus G80 but now I can use the Sigma with my M5.


----------



## hne (Feb 21, 2017)

Size and weight like the Canon 70-300L with an extra inch paid for the 400mm and slightly closer focusing. Not that I see much use of focal lengths above 100mm in my photography, but... I'm actually a bit excited.



AlanF said:


> The specs are now on the Global Sigma site in English http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/contemporary/c_100_400_5_63/
> 
> The MTF data are good. At 0.5-0.6 kg less than the Canon 100-400mm II it could be very attractive to me as a lightweight lens. I don't like the absence of a tripod ring since it would have to be held on a Black Rapid strap just by the camera mount. I always use both the camera and lens mounts to spread the load and to have the safety of a second mount if one becomes attached. And I like to steady the lens on a shelf in a hide, on a fence etc using the mount. On the M5, the lens adapter mount would be another anchor point.
> 
> I'll almost certainly buy this lightweight lens as I had been toying with the idea of having a Panasonic 100-400 f/6.3 plus G80 but now I can use the Sigma with my M5.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Feb 21, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7094553685/sigma-announces-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-lens

cool! :


----------



## Alex_M (Feb 21, 2017)

i ask you kindly to delete this post. the sooner the better.



ExodistPhotography said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > listen, I suggest you stop insulting me. i never suggest you shoot portraits with 18-35 lens
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 21, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.
> ...



Good to hear! I distinctly recall what a writer referred to as the 'saga' in resolving the AF problems. After reading the time and effort put into it, I lost interest. It sounds like those problems have been resolved. Hmm...it is now at $300 off.


----------

