# Rumored Sigma Lenses Coming in the Next Year



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 9, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14342"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14342">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Is Sigma getting serious?

</strong>Below is a list compiled by [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2013/09/08/list-of-new-sigma-lenses-rumored-to-be-announced-in-2014" target="_blank">PR</a>] about possible lens announcements by Sigma before the Photokina show in September 2014. Most of these lenses we’ve already posted about, but once you put them in a list, it appears Sigma has their work cut out for them.</p>
<p>Announcements don’t necessarily mean availability before next year, especially with the big super telephoto lenses.</p>
<ul>
<li>Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS</li>
<li>Sigma 24-70mm f/2 OS HSM (Could be 2.8)</li>
<li>Sigma 300mm f/2.8 OS</li>
<li>Sigma 400mm f/2.8 OS</li>
<li>Sigma 500mm f/4 OS</li>
<li>Sigma 600mm f/4 OS</li>
<li>Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS</li>
<li>Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG ART</li>
<li>Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## candyman (Sep 9, 2013)

With the quality of the previous released Sigma lenses...serious Canon competition!


----------



## TLN (Sep 9, 2013)

Really waiting for that 24mm lens.
Or for a nice UWA zoom from sigma.


----------



## vlim (Sep 9, 2013)

it would be huge even if only half of these lenses rumored are really available next year !!! and at the same quality, sharpness and great pricing than the 120-300 2.8, 35 1.4 or the 18-35 1.8, it would be great, a new 300 2.8 OS for 3.5/4K would interested me a lot !


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 9, 2013)

I spy a 135mm os(is) 1.8!!!  super excited.


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 9, 2013)

Cool, here is to hoping the 50 1.4 is good with no focus issues. The canon 50's are either way too fragile or too expensive/ quirky (1.2 version). The old sigma 50 has great IQ but after 4 copies I gave up playing the lottery.

The 24-70 f2 would be interesting. I love my 24-105 but a 2 stop light advantage would be worth the switch, if it turned out to be only a f2.8 then I would just keep what I have (with the low light ability of the 5d3 one stop is just not enough to bother switching).


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 9, 2013)

400mm f2.8 OS - keep it under $3k. :


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 9, 2013)

135 f/1.8 you say?

Jim


----------



## CR00 (Sep 9, 2013)

I guess I will need to start saving money for some of them. I wonder what Canon will do.


----------



## RomainF (Sep 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> 400mm f2.8 OS - keep it under $3k. :



I'm dreaming too.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 9, 2013)

I can see myself picking up half the lenses on that list. Not immediately, but eventually.

I still need a 50mm for times when 85mm is too much (if Samyang would make a 50mm first then I would get that).
The 135f1.8OS would be amazing for indoor events, as is the 300f2.8.
I still need a proper supertelephoto lens (AF must be nearly perfect if I'm going to get a Sigma though).
And if the 24-70 actually is an f2, that would probably be on my camera most of the time.


----------



## LuCoOc (Sep 9, 2013)

A 24-70 2.0 would be big and heavy. Maybe they will make a 24-50 2.0 to keep price and weight down.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 9, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14342"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14342">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>Is Sigma getting serious?
> 
> </strong>Below is a list compiled by [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2013/09/08/list-of-new-sigma-lenses-rumored-to-be-announced-in-2014" target="_blank">PR</a>] about possible lens announcements by Sigma before the Photokina show in September 2014. Most of these lenses we’ve already posted about, but once you put them in a list, it appears Sigma has their work cut out for them.</p>
> ...



Heck yes they're getting serious! Really really excited about this. We'll have more to choose from and not have so many standards based off of canon or Nikon lenses. Haha!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 9, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS</li>
> <li>Sigma 24-70mm f/2 OS HSM (Could be 2.8)</li>
> <li>Sigma 300mm f/2.8 OS</li>
> <li>Sigma 400mm f/2.8 OS</li>
> ...


That is an impressive list ... must admit that Sigma has gone from a "so so" third party lens maker to a serious challenger to the 2 big boys ... I just received my second Sigma 150-500mm OS lens yesterday for my Nikon D7100 (I still have the first one which I'm using on my Canon 5D MK III) ... between the first 150-500 OS model and what I received yesterday there are some really neat improvements in terms of build quality ... the newer one has better build materials, even the front and rear lens caps are used from the ART series lenses ... Sigma lens caps are now far superior to anything Canon or Nikon provides even with their very best lenses.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 9, 2013)

a 400 f/4 OS would have been nice... killed a lot of canon and nikon sales.


----------



## madspihl (Sep 9, 2013)

ok... WHAT?

135mm f/1.8 with stabilization. Hello 

Here's hoping that 1) this list is not completely dreamed up and 2) that the 135mm will come true and that it will be optically as great as the latest Sigma offerings.


----------



## tatsu (Sep 9, 2013)

Just *looking* at that list made my wallet hurt.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Sep 9, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> A 24-70 2.0 would be big and heavy. Maybe they will make a 24-50 2.0 to keep price and weight down.



That's kind of what people were saying about the 18-35mm F/1.8, and it's neither too big or too heavy. But the limited range in zoom honestly doesn't makes it very useful. But keeping the range down definitely kept the weight and size down, so will Sigma make it a similar class lens, but shorter range, or actually 2.8, which is much needed in their own lineup with the disappointing 24-70 2.8 they offer. Just by having OS it'd stand along with Tamron. But so far Sigma doesn't offer weather sealing, and if they want to expand and get pros and enthusiasts to take more interest that's where they need to head


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 9, 2013)

Wow! I want 24mm, 400mm, and 600mm. :'(


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 9, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> LuCoOc said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-70 2.0 would be big and heavy. Maybe they will make a 24-50 2.0 to keep price and weight down.
> ...



Is it difficult to have weather sealing on lenses? Non extending zoom lenses too? I hear of rubber gaskets etc.. It seems like its just something they charge a lot for on pro lenses. I could be really wrong on this. Anyone have knowledge on this? Thx


----------



## Terry Rogers (Sep 9, 2013)

Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 9, 2013)

The 300/2.8 OS looks tasty!

Could be the same price or maybe cheaper than a used EOS 300/2.8 IS I but with OS equivalent to IS II.


----------



## PhotoCat (Sep 9, 2013)

Where is the 85/1.4 OS ART?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 9, 2013)

Terry Rogers said:


> Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.



28mm wouldn't be wide enough in my opinion, but 24-90 would be amazing, particularly if it were a legit 90mm. That would make it a much more viable portrait lens, too. I love my Tamron 24-70 VC, but it is really a 23-65mm. Great on the wide end, but the long end isn't really what you would call long.

I'm very interested in some of these lenses, too. Right now I only use legacy glass in the 50mm range (couple of Helios lenses as well as a SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8), but I would interested in a great modern 50mm without the quirks. I love my 135L, but having OS/IS on a lens like that would really be helpful in my event work. I might even be interested in one of the teles if it weren't too outrageously priced. Looks exciting.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Sep 9, 2013)

RLPhoto is gonna be all over that 135mm f1.8. I hope that's what they announce at photokina, I've always wished for stabilization on my Canon 135L for when i went street shooting at night with it.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 9, 2013)

The last EF lens I bought was the 70-200vll last march. Unless Canon comes down in their pricing, that _may_ be the last Canon lens I ever buy (_M-mount_ pancakes excluded).

All I really covet are a 135, a 300 f/2.8 and the TS-E 24. I suspect Sigma will nicely cover the first two, and the third is really out of my price/need range anyway. These are interesting times indeed.


----------



## jthomson (Sep 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> 400mm f2.8 OS - keep it under $3k. :



Since their current 300mm f2.8 is already 3.4K a 400mm f2.8 is likely to be closer to 6K. It would still be half the price of a Canon.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Sep 9, 2013)

The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me. If the 400mm is in the $5k range and somewhat comparable to Canon's, that would be a great long-term goal.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 10, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me. If the 400mm is in the $5k range and somewhat comparable to Canon's, that would be a great long-term goal.



Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS II is 11K. I think the reasonable price for Sigma 400mm should be about 6K if the IQ of it is close or equal to Canon version.


----------



## pwp (Sep 10, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> RLPhoto is gonna be all over that 135mm f1.8. I hope that's what they announce at photokina, I've always wished for stabilization on my Canon 135L for when I went street shooting at night with it.


Some people reach for the beta-blockers, but I don't have the steadiest hands on the block and the lack of IS on my 135 f/2 is one of the main reasons it is for sale, pushed aside by the stabilized 70-200 f/2.8isII. 

Given Sigma's recent form, A1 sharpness is a given. If the 135 f/1.8 OS ships without Sigma's annoying AF issues then this lens will be a _killer_. 

-PW


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 10, 2013)

Terry Rogers said:


> Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.


Technically it is possible to make a 24-90mm F2.8 lens, and it is also possible make a 35-70mm F1.8. : The question is whether the size, weight and price are competitive to sell well, given the other options in the market. A lens 24-90mm F1.8 is the dream of many people, but if costs $ 4000, weighs 3 lbs and is the size of a juice jug, in fact, would be a nightmare to use it. :'( Not everything that can be done must be done.


----------



## kobeson (Sep 10, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me.



Me too - with image quality up to Sigma's recent lenses, this could be a great release and you would think it would be priced below Canon's 24-70f4.


----------



## garyknrd (Sep 10, 2013)

If this happens. Wow, .. Having lenses I can change the mount on is a dream lens.


----------



## Woody (Sep 10, 2013)

Unless and until these Sigma lenses are able to focus reliably on any Canon camera body I throw at them, I have no interest. Speaking from my recent experience with Sigma AF.


----------



## sushyam (Sep 10, 2013)

Although not on the list, maybe a 400mm f5.6 before canon updates its version to V2.0?


----------



## drjlo (Sep 10, 2013)

Here's hoping 50 f1.4 ART is sharp at f/1.4.


----------



## baldaran (Sep 10, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:
 

> Technically it is possible to make a 24-90mm F2.8 lens, and it is also possible make a 35-70mm F1.8. :



I really would like to see a Sigma 35-70 F2.0 APS-C lens as companion for the 18-35. Would be really useful for portraits. Do you think it is possible to realize such a lens at the same (or even lower) weight and size as the 18-35 lens?


----------



## untitled10 (Sep 10, 2013)

LuCoOc said:


> A 24-70 2.0 would be big and heavy. Maybe they will make a 24-50 2.0 to keep price and weight down.



I would personally prefer an think would be more feasible, a 35-70mm
I if you need to go to 24 you might as well use a specific wide angle zoom, general zooms used to start at 35 anyway, do we need to go any wider for a portrait, or even many common landscapes?


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Sep 10, 2013)

Terry Rogers said:


> Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.


I am not a professional, but I'll get a shot at answering.
If we are talking about a high quality FF lens, then a FF 24-90/F2.8 would need to weigh between 1kg and 1.2kg minimum. It follows that this would not be a "walkabout" lens, as such lense by definition needs to be smaller, lighter and unobtrusive. The industry has responded to this demand long time ago - in the film days. The best choices tend to be 24-105/F3.5-4.5 or 24-105/F4. They tend to weigh from 400g to 600g and are really a good walkabout compromise.
Note that, as the ISO sensitivity of the sensors increased enormously with modern sensors, the absolute need of having bright lens decreased. When all you had was a nominal 64 ISO film and no lens stabilisation then the difference between F2.8 and F4 might have been of a shot or no shot. Today you can get serviceable photo at ISO 12,800. 
On the other hand the demand for better sharpness and contrast from full aperture opening *and* across the whole image field *and* for all focal length is now very strong - again driven by the excellent, high resolution sensors.
I am hoping that the rumored Sigma 24-105/F4 lens will be exactly like this - sharp and high contrast from F4 across the whole image and for all focal lengths. And if it had stabilisation then it would be my ideal lens.
By the way, your ideal focal length for portrait 85/90mm is not the same as my ideal focal length for portrait - 135mm. Again, this points to the fact that there is no such thing as an "ideal" lens. They are designed and manufactured mechano-optical devices and like all technical solutions each carries its own set of trade-offs. The art is to select a device that fits your real needs and budget.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm pretty sure that if your aim was to keep costs down then the widest focal length should be no shorter than 40mm, as going less than that means adding retrofocus lenses. Ideally they would make a full frame 50-150 to go with their current crop only model.
Just to cover my base needs even 50-80f2 would still be great.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 10, 2013)

9VIII said:


> I'm pretty sure that if your aim was to keep costs down then the widest focal length should be no shorter than 40mm, as going less than that means adding retrofocus lenses. Ideally they would make a full frame 50-150 to go with their current crop only model.
> Just to cover my base needs even 50-80f2 would still be great.



Say, isn't 40mm or 50mm somewhat long as your minimum focal length? Okay, I admit I am shooting at 24mm pretty often so I may be somewhat biased here, but what's your setup for going wide or your use case for not going any wider than 40mm? It is clear that from a lens design standpoint a normal-to medium tele lens would have some advantages, but for me a general purpose lens must be a 24-something. How do you deal with that more limited focal length range?


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 10, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.
> ...




Personally I think of the 70-300mm L as a walk around lens so if there could be a 24-70 f2 at about that size and weight (1050g), have smooth bokeh and cost about $1400 I would be happy with that. Personally I love my copy of the 24-105 so It would take more than one stop of aperture to get me to switch especially with the smaller zoom range.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 10, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure that if your aim was to keep costs down then the widest focal length should be no shorter than 40mm, as going less than that means adding retrofocus lenses. Ideally they would make a full frame 50-150 to go with their current crop only model.
> ...



As far as taking pictures of people goes, you definitely don't want to go much shorter. I guess 35mm is common enough for street shots, but 40mm still gets plenty of area around your subject. Just a few days ago I got a nice shot indoors with multiple people using the Pancake, I didn't run out of room and the people didn't look distorted.
If I want something too much wider than that chances are it's a panorama and I would do almost as well stitching photos together. I know it's ugly, but it can also do things a single lens can't. This kind of reminds me of the dynamic range debate (if you don't have enough just take multiple exposures).
I can definitely see it being nice to go wider but as far as capturing things from a normal human perspective goes 40-50mm is lots.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2013)

Most of the OEM lens designers are on one of about 4 teams, a team might be working on more than one lens, but there is a very limited ability to churn out a bunch of different designs each year. 

I'd say that Sigma has likely built up numerous lens design teams. This takes time and money to do, so its not something a Canon or Nikon can suddenly match.


----------



## candyman (Sep 11, 2013)

Love to see a release of a Sigma 135 f1.8 OS and comparison with the canon 135 f/2. If good enough, I may exchange my canon 135 with the sigma. Also curious about the 50 f/1.4 Art. I loved the original sigma 50 f/1.4 on the APS-C (did not have focus issues) but disliked it on the FF.


----------



## Plainsman (Sep 11, 2013)

sushyam said:


> Although not on the list, maybe a 400mm f5.6 before canon updates its version to V2.0?



Dream on!!

Unfortunately there seems to be a gentleman's agreement (cartel??) between Can Nik Son Sig etc not to produce a quality image stabilised 400/5.6 (or even a 400/4 non DO) so as not to impact on their consumer 400mm zoom sales.


----------



## vlim (Sep 11, 2013)

> Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS II is 11K. I think the reasonable price for Sigma 400mm should be about 6K if the IQ of it is close or equal to Canon version.



+1 but i think that for these big lenses the huge difference (beside the price) will be the weight (and hopfully not weather sealing). the Sigma lenses will be really heavier for sure...


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 11, 2013)

24-85/2.8 OS with 77mm filter threads would be top of my list. Canon's is too expensive and lacks IS, Tamron has 82mm filter threads (not a show stopper, but a little issue). I'd really love the extra length on the long end compared to either of the others.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Sep 13, 2013)

I wonder why these lenses aren't commonly produced:

400/f4
500/5.6
600/5.6

while these are:
200/f2
300/f2.8

It seems like they'd be about the same size, which just happens to be about the max one could reasonably handhold. (disclaimer: i have Canon 300 2.8 IS with both mkII extenders and a FF and crop body)


----------



## Terry Rogers (Sep 14, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.
> ...



While I agree that 24-105 is an ideal walk around zoom length, I would rather loose a bit on the long end (down to 85) in order to gain a stop of light both for low light abuility and bokeh.


----------



## Rotorhead88 (Sep 14, 2013)

I am looking forward to seeing a new 50mm. I have never been truly happy with my current sigma 50mm f/1.4 unfortunately.


----------



## robbinzo (Sep 14, 2013)

9VIII said:


> And if the 24-70 actually is an f2, that would probably be on my camera most of the time.



I agree. I would buy a 24-70 OS HSM in a heartbeat. Image stabilisation and f/2? That would be an interesting comparison to Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 II L.
I think what Sigma are doing is very exciting - and will also be very good for us consumers.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 14, 2013)

robbinzo said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > And if the 24-70 actually is an f2, that would probably be on my camera most of the time.
> ...



I think I would need to see it in the flesh, take some photos with it and try it out. If it weighs a ton, isn't sharp or has IF issues then I'd want to pass on it. But if it ticks all those boxes then yes it could be a very interesting lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 14, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.
> ...


In the 90's Canon developed a trial copy of a 24-105mm f2.8 which was apparently very good optically. But it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 and was viewed a too big and bulky for what it offered by those who tried it. Lets face it for f2.8 gear there is little reason to overlap focal ranges, 24-70 / 70-200/ 300 is the usual split.


----------

