# Patent: Sigma 400mm f/2.8 OS Sport



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2015)

```
We’ve heard in the past that Sigma is working on super telephoto lenses, namely a 500mm f/4 OS. Now a patent has appeared for a 400mm f/2.8 OS lens from Sigma. I think the biggest challenge for Sigma in this area is going to be autofocus. Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2015-64436 (Google Translated)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.4.9</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.9.4</li>
</ul>
<p>Example 1</p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 390.00mm</li>
<li>Fno. 2.91</li>
<li>Total angle of view 2ω 6.29 °</li>
<li>Image height Y 21.63mm</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 353.00mm</li>
<li>Positive, positive positive and negative negative 5-group configuration</li>
<li>Inner Focus (fourth group)</li>
<li>Anti-vibration (part of the fifth group)</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-04-13" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>
```


----------



## TheJock (Apr 13, 2015)

I know it's a bit early to ask, but any idea of the price range???
I was just considering the 400L f5.6 but I'll be waiting now to see how this new Sigma works out with IQ!!!


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2015)

TheJock said:


> I know it's a bit early to ask, but any idea of the price range???
> I was just considering the 400L f5.6 but I'll be waiting now to see how this new Sigma works out with IQ!!!



I'm only guessing here, but if Canon's is $10,000 USD, I suspect a Sigma version would be in the $5000-$7000 range.


----------



## pwp (Apr 13, 2015)

CR is right, it will be all about the AF. It will have to be Sigma's finest ever AF performance. 
If the AF is rock solid and the price is set at a point to give Canon a fright, this lens will do well.

-pw


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 13, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.



Really? I always find the 400 f/2.8 ii a joy to use as it makes my work (in this case sport) look good. I am not sure if it is less forgiving, it's just that you have to get the settings right as you can't ask someone to score a goal, try or whatever again.


----------



## dolina (Apr 13, 2015)

Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.
> ...



Well, that's probably because you're using the Canon, and they're remarkable performers. The number of frames that miss on the 120-300 f/2.8 OS from Sigma is beyond frustrating when you compare it to the 300 f/2.8 or 200-400 from Canon. If you've never used the latter, you probably wouldn't be all that bothered by it.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2015)

dolina said:


> Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.



I don't think so, you can get the previous 400 f/2.8 IS for that price and it's a top notch performer.


----------



## MT Shooter (Apr 13, 2015)

One should always keep in mind the newest tuning technology of the Sigma Global Vision series lenses, it is fantastic to put it mildly. The "Sports" series lenses are ALL capable of this home tuning via the Sigma USB Dock system and the AF speed and accuracy can be very quickly and accurately adjusted to suit any shooters needs.

The comments about "missed shots" on the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 lens was sometimes true with the older version, but not the Sports version. Tuning takes that consideration totally off the table. I had a 80% or so keeper rate with the original version, but find a keeper rate of close to 98% with the Sport model after tuning it properly. 

Sigma is working hard at upgrading their entire lens selection to the Global Vision standard, which includes the Sport, Art and Contemporary lenses, all of which are home tunable to varying degrees depending upon the actual lens being tuned.

I have already sold my 500mm F4.5 and 800mm F5.6 Sigma lenses in preparation of buying the new series lenses when released. For the moment I am content to shoot with my Canon 600mm F4 and my Sigma 150-600mm Sport lenses.

For anyone who has used the new Sigma Global Vision lenses and the USB Dock system to fine tune them, the image quality is amazing. The tuning dock is a serious game changer for the longer focal length lenses and I feel it will force the entire industry to adopt a similar process to allow photographers to tune all their lenses to attain maximum efficiency from them, as well as the best image quality available from those lenses without having to send them to the factory for tuning. If Sigma can sell these dock for only $59, I am sure Canon could come up with a similar process for around $300-$400, if they really tried.


----------



## candc (Apr 13, 2015)

I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 13, 2015)

candc said:


> I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.



Exactly... If I spend $5000-$7000 on a lens, it needs to have AF performance that is better than "satisfactory", and that's going to be a big challenge for Sigma.

On an $899 wide prime? You can let some stuff go.


----------



## AJ (Apr 13, 2015)

candc said:


> I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.


A prime should be easier to tune than a zoom, though. You only have focusing distance as a variable, not focal length and focusing distance.


----------



## candyman (Apr 13, 2015)

AJ said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.
> ...




Well, though I have a very good working prime - 50mmArt - some people had problems with the 50mm AF performance. It is not only about center-point but it need to work perfect with all the AF-points. That seems to be some challenge for Sigma.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 13, 2015)

If the dock can make it work consistently, I think a few weekends of tweaking is worth saving $5,000.
As a prime lens it should be a lot easier than a zoom.

It will be interesting to see what kind of IQ they actually get, the 400f2.8 formula tends to be one of the worst for a Big White (at least wide open).
It's also worth keeping in mind that the 500f4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made and it cost a few grand less than the 400f2.8.
If Sigma makes one of those I would expect it to cost 20% less than their 400f2.8.
An extra stop of light, or an extra 100mm+$1,000 off?
The choice seems easy.
But on the other hand a wide aperture is the only thing that will keep your shutter speed up at sunset (prime time for wildlife).
On the other other hand I keep seeing people shoot at f8 or f11 regardless of the lens they have.
Decisions decisions...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 13, 2015)

dolina said:


> Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.



Its not a lens, its a patent. It doesn't focus at all, just a formula for the shape of glass. 

You can get a copy for free.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.
> ...



LOL. There is a splash of cold water in the face...


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 13, 2015)

I'll stick with my Canon 300 2.8 and just crop the hell out of the crisp image. :


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 13, 2015)

Just me, but I question Sigma's marketing strategy of "me too" lenses, where they just offer a different version of what the Big Boys already make. Wouldn't it be more FUN (and that's what it's all about anyway) if they would offer some wild stuff like: 10/2.8 or 12/2.8 UWA, 20/1.4 OS, 28/1.4 OS, 50/1.0, 85/1.0, 24-70/2.0 OS, and so on. Thinking about these things just makes my mouth water. Who would buy these? Who knows, but probably about the same market share as the aforementioned 400/2.8 OS.


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 13, 2015)

9VIII said:


> If the dock can make it work consistently, I think a few weekends of tweaking is worth saving $5,000.
> As a prime lens it should be a lot easier than a zoom.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what kind of IQ they actually get, the 400f2.8 formula tends to be one of the worst for a Big White (at least wide open).
> ...



The 400 f/2.8 IS II is Canon's second sharpest lens according to DXO mark. Only behind the 300 f/2.8IS II. I don't think it is a difficult optical formula to get right. DxO also shows its sharpest at wide open. The 400 f/2.8ISII is well ahead of any 500 f/4 Canon lens. The 400 can resolve 21 of the 22 MPs on the 5D3 where as the 500 f/4 IS II can only get 19MP. The 300 can get all 22MP. If you believe DxO numbers which are based on MTF.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 13, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> The number of frames that miss on the 120-300 f/2.8 OS from Sigma is beyond frustrating when you compare it to the 300 f/2.8 or 200-400 from Canon.


Eh?

I've used the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS (not the "Sport" incarnation) _hard_ for three+ years - with and without TCs - for birds, fast motorsport, rugby and soccer, on a number of bodies.

"_Missed frames_"? I don't think so. Never happens (that I can blame on the lens).

:


----------



## Talley (Apr 14, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Wow... hard to believe this. I sold my Canon 300mm IS V1 lens for the 120-300 OS non sport. My copy is just as good as the Canon. I have proof to back this up too if need be. Not saying all copies are equal but I have a very decent copy.

Love my sigma, will never let it go. (until it won't work with a new body  )


----------



## stochasticmotions (Apr 14, 2015)

I'm also pretty happy with my sigma 120-300 (not sport), which is used mostly for nature action shots with or without the canon 2X teleconverter. I'm sure the canon big white primes are faster in the autofocus department but I can't say I have missed many shots that were not my own doing.

This news is good, not just for the possibility of a choice in supertele primes but I am very hopeful that Sigma will come out with a stabilized 500 or 600 that won't cost as much as a car in the next couple of years. Choice is always good at least until money is no longer a factor 

Oh, yeah and if they ever come out with a stabilized sigmonster (300-800) with new glass it could be very special.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 14, 2015)

arbitrage said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > If the dock can make it work consistently, I think a few weekends of tweaking is worth saving $5,000.
> ...




Across the reviews I've seen the 400f2.8 is generally less sharp wide open.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1418/cat/10
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1368/cat/10


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2015)

A patent may eventually lead to an actual product given the right economic conditions.

When the patent is granted then it cannot be free.

Yes, you can get a used 400/2.8 at half the price but brand new is still brand new.

I spoke to someone who works for Pentax USA before and they told me that in terms of economies of scale the market couldnt support more than Canon & Nikon.

Perhaps times are changing...


TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


----------



## TeT (Apr 14, 2015)

dolina said:


> Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.



Really, I have seen some of the pictures that are attributed to you. Some very nice shots. Would you be happy with a reduction of 35% in keeper rate just because the lens cost you less. You may keep using it but you will gripe and groan about it every time you miss a good one...

Bad AF is frustrating period. I hope this one works out well. Sigma puts out some good glass, but inconsistant AF is their weakest point... if it doesn't focus as well it is not equivalent

anyone: does Sigma AF suffer on Nikon bodies as well ?

anyone: does the older sigma 120 300 out perform the 120 300 sport in focus accuracy? (everyone who loves it indicates theirs is the older model)


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 14, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > I know it's a bit early to ask, but any idea of the price range???
> ...



You can get the previous 400 f/2.8 IS for that price bracket and still it's a top notch performer. 120-300mm Sport sells for about $3,000 with is less than half of the 300/2.8 II. I'd only consider the 400mm 2.8 OS if below $5,000 and decent performance in line with the latest prime glasses produce by Sigma


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2015)

stochasticmotions said:


> I'm also pretty happy with my sigma 120-300 (not sport), which is used mostly for nature action shots with or without the canon 2X teleconverter. I'm sure the canon big white primes are faster in the autofocus department but I can't say I have missed many shots that were not my own doing.


The 120-300 has always struck me as an intriguing proposition, it's pretty often that I'd love to pull back a little or a lot while shooting with my EF 300 f/2.8is. But user responses to the 120-300 have been generally mixed. What I'm reading here today is the most positive user feedback I think I've seen. But the EF 300 f/2.8is is such class-glass it would be hard to make the switch unless the 120-300 in it's latest incarnation is genuinely rock-solid. I've also read that the 120-300 is more like 270-280mm at the long end. Is this the same with the 120-300 Sport?

-pw


----------



## dufflover (Apr 14, 2015)

Whilst I agree a lens costing many thousands demands a certain level of performance, I think expecting perfect AF (esp compared to the still much pricier Canon equivs) for the price might be a bit fanciful, at least from a price point of view because such lenses have basic physical requirements. If the AF was only as good as say the 120-300mm (or whatever their current best tele AF is), then that is pretty reasonable to me, even if the lens costs twice as much as those. Because that is not what makes a lens expensive.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.
> ...



I tried a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS along side a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 400mm f2.8 LIS. My findings are well documented on this forum. On paper specs, the Sigma looked very interesting. But in reality, it's OS and AF systems were toy like compared to the two Canon lenses. There isn't any web specified measurements for AF speed and accuracy. So most on line buyers and forum frequenters are unaware of night and day difference. With the Canon kit, I can track a moving fast bird coming towards me and get sharp, in focus images (say a puffin or razorbill flying with the wind). With Sigma, I couldn't even track a lazy sea gull...if I got a lock it was inconsistent. As I've said before, I'm done with Sigma and I've not seen any reason in recent releases to change my mind. What's the point of making great optics if they can't AF consistently? Your mileage might vary, but unlikely too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2015)

dolina said:


> Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.



Really? So 100 out of focus images is as important to you as 50 in focus ones? I don't see your logic. 
If a picture is worth a 1000 words, then all of the ones about an out of focus photo will be about the fact that this image is out of focus. If the photo is in focus... then all the comments will be about it's artistry, composition, exposure etc. An out of focus image has one destination...the trash can. In my mind, likewise with a lens brand which offers inconsistency regardless of how cheap it is. Canon don't charge what they do for their great white tele's because they can. It's a result of R&D, manufacturing, quality control and profit margin. If the Sigma is less, then so are all the elements in that chain and short cuts have been made. 

Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.



Wow that is a fantastic BIF image. Thanks for posting it.

-pw


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 14, 2015)

pwp said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.
> ...



Thank you and your welcome


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2015)

Mind you those images I made does not have Photoshop applied. Imagine if I was that Mastah-ful with it... how much non-$ I can make. 

Kidding aside "you get what you paid for". If you dont want a wasted trip suck it in and save up for a 1st party lens.

If all I could afford is a Sigma or any other 3rd party gear I honestly wouldn't complain that loudly if it was half the price of a Canon/Nikon.

If a BigMac was $4.00 (with tax) and someone were to offer me a burger (disclosed to contain mystery meat) for half the price and I accepted it then I honestly have no right to whine about it so long as I don't get sick or die.

I hope everyone is adult enough for straight talk. This is serious money being spoken of here and any sort of mollycoddling to "be nice & polite" is a disservice to anyone looking to buy gear.



TeT said:


> Really, I have seen some of the pictures that are attributed to you. Some very nice shots. Would you be happy with a reduction of 35% in keeper rate just because the lens cost you less. You may keep using it but you will gripe and groan about it every time you miss a good one...
> 
> Bad AF is frustrating period. I hope this one works out well. Sigma puts out some good glass, but inconsistant AF is their weakest point... if it doesn't focus as well it is not equivalent
> 
> ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2015)

dolina said:


> A patent may eventually lead to an actual product given the right economic conditions.
> 
> When the patent is granted then it cannot be free.
> 
> ...



Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.


----------



## dolina (Apr 14, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.


I salute those who will buy this thing. You got balls to put in that much cash on a Sigma.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2015)

dolina said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.
> ...



Hasn't it been more than a decade since any third party lenses have been made incompatible?
And even if Canon were to try something like that again, these lenses are all designed with upgradable firmware now.
Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.


----------



## dolina (Apr 17, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.


Shrinking dedicated still camera body & lens market and Sigma will come out with a full frame body?

;D

You're killing me.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2015)

dolina said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.
> ...



What they tried to sell was a $7,000 crop body with terrible high ISO performance and a new image format that produced files twice as big as anything seen before.
They've never tried to sell an ordinary full frame camera, we have no idea how the market would react.
Samsung seems to think there's room for them, so does Ricoh and all the Micro4/3 and other crop body manufacturers. Sony certainly hasn't given up yet.
Why in a shrinking market do we see more competition than ever before?
Because the barrier to entry is also lower than ever before, all the massive research funding Canon has actually isn't giving them a big advantage, except for lenses, which is where Sigma is already strong.
All they have to do is release a moderately competitive body and they'll have a system better than half the companies currently out there striving for market share.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 17, 2015)

dolina said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.
> ...



First you say it's a gamble using third party lenses and then that Sigma shouldn't even consider releasing a body of their own.
By your logic Sigma has no place in the market whatsoever and should close shop.


----------



## dolina (Apr 18, 2015)

9VIII said:


> First you say it's a gamble using third party lenses and then that Sigma shouldn't even consider releasing a body of their own.
> By your logic Sigma has no place in the market whatsoever and should close shop.


With 3rd party you get what you pay for. If it's a fraction of the price of 1st party then do not complain it isn't at parity.

I am asked if I am willing to accept a 30% reduced performance. *I would* if it means a reduction of 30% or more in pricing.

If you're going to close the gap towards 20% or more of better performance/quality then prepare to pay for 1st party pricing.

Everyone is going up market to hedge against a shrinking dedicated still camera hence the creation of "Art" and "Sport" lines with Sigma.

Sigma has a very lucrative position in the market and should not exit. I hope they stick around their mere presence is beneficial for 1st party buyers like myself as it keeps Canon on their toes even if I would never buy from them ever again.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 18, 2015)

dolina said:


> I am asked if I am willing to accept a 30% reduced performance. *I would* if it means a reduction of 30% or more in pricing.



Wow. That's quite a comment.


----------



## dolina (Apr 18, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I am asked if I am willing to accept a 30% reduced performance. *I would* if it means a reduction of 30% or more in pricing.
> ...



If I cant afford a Ferrari then I dont go around expecting a Toyota to be at par with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2015)

dolina said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



If I paid $750,000 for a Toyota, I'd expect it to perform.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2015/ferrari/laferrari/base_coupe/313/pricing/


----------



## dolina (Apr 18, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If I paid $750,000 for a Toyota, I'd expect it to perform.
> 
> http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2015/ferrari/laferrari/base_coupe/313/pricing/


Good on you for buying a $750,000 Toyota. ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2015)

dolina said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If I paid $750,000 for a Toyota, I'd expect it to perform.
> ...




It probably will come with their special upholstery stainproofing and a wax job.


----------



## dolina (Apr 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


But most probably a Pelican case.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 22, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Hasn't it been more than a decade since any third party lenses have been made incompatible?
> And even if Canon were to try something like that again, these lenses are all designed with upgradable firmware now.



Its going to happen!!

OOPS, it just did. A whole host of Sigma lenses were incorrectly reverse engineered and have issues on the T6i. Sigma is offering to fix the ones still in production, but any older ones that won't work are just throwaways.


----------

