# A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 8, 2014)

```
<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=16852"></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=16852">Tweet</a></div>
<p>A summary with the probability of upcoming Sigma lenses has appeared on sigma-rumors.com. Most of the lenses mentioned have been written about here in the past. Sigma’s focus over the last 2 years has been on high quality and affordable offerings, there’s no reason to think that won’t continue.</p>
<p>The most likely lenses to appear next would be:</p>
<ul>
<li>24mm f/1.4 DG ART</li>
<li>85mm f/1.4 DG ART</li>
</ul>
<p>Both of these lenses have a chance to appear at Photokina in a couple of months. I’d say the 85mm f/1.4 is a given, but the 24mm f/1.4 could fall to later this year or early 2015. With Zeiss expected to announce their Otus 85mm f/1.4 in September, Sigma could play spoiler with an optically great lens with autofocus at a much cheaper price.</p>
<p>The other lenses according to the site with the highest probability of happening are:</p>
<ul>
<li>24-70mm f/2 DG ART</li>
<li>300-600mm f/? OS Sport</li>
</ul>
<p>We’ve heard about both of these in the past, and I’m inclined to believe the supertelephoto zoom is definitely something Sigma is developing. The 24-70mm f/2, I’m not 100% sure on. If Sigma wants to differentiate themselves from the Canon and Nikon offerings, then such a lens would do the trick.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/07/next-sigma-lenses-cameras-big-rumor-post/" target="_blank">Read more at the Sigma Rumors roundup</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Maui5150 (Jul 8, 2014)

Both 85 f/1.4 and 300-600 F/? would be sweet and have a nice following. 

85 f/1.4 would get me to toss my Canon f1.8, just don't shoot it enough to justify the f/1.2 but want a little more... 

As much as the Tamron 150-600 looks like a solid compromise lens and biggest bang for buck around, a 300-600, especially if comes in with a fixed of f/5.6 or there abouts even F/4.5-5.6 and anywhere close to $3.5K or less would be hard to beat... Now that price is asking for a lot, but given the 120-300 f/2.8 is $3.5K still might be doable. The 500 is $5K so probably asking too much...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 8, 2014)

hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....


----------



## ajperk (Jul 8, 2014)

While I think they will put out an admirable 85mm f/1.4 lens, I am personally hoping to see a 135mm f/2 (or 1.8?) from Sigma in the not too distant future. A 24-70mm lens with a constant f/2 aperture sounds pretty awesome, but (even with Sigma's relatively reasonable pricing so far) I imagine it will definitely be north of $1000 and maybe even $1500 which is a bit outside my budget for at least the next couple of years still.


----------



## seamonster (Jul 8, 2014)

well, even $1500 MSRP is still less than the canon offering and you know that even if Sigma's 24-70 f/2 isn't as sharp wide open, you can be damn sure that it will be or even better when equivalent aperture.

I was surprised that the 50mm EX wasn't the first to get the ART treatment - the president of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens but really glad they took their time with it to get it right.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 8, 2014)

The cost of new "white glass" is beyond most of us now. Sigma has proven it can make a competing lens in the lower prime and zoom range. Cost versus performance is the key to success here. The market for under 200mm is flooded with options. Sigma needs to go big and fast if they want to capture the market. Attacking the longer lens market makes good marketing sense. A competing lens for Canon's 200-400 would be a smart move. Quality has to be the #1 objective to break into this "deep pockets" territory. Personally, I think they should not attempt going past 500mm at the top end due to f stop considerations. I think that's why Canon stopped at 400mm. If you can deal with the light loss of an extender, Canon's flip in 1.4x makes perfect sense. If Sigma wants to deliver a knock-out punch, The perfect range would look more like 150-300mm f2.8-f4 with a flip in 2x converter resulting in a 300-600mm.
If Sigma could produce that lens at the quality/cost breakaway point, they would break into a huge market.


----------



## ajperk (Jul 8, 2014)

seamonster said:


> well, even $1500 MSRP is still less than the canon offering and you know that even if Sigma's 24-70 f/2 isn't as sharp wide open, you can be damn sure that it will be or even better when equivalent aperture.
> 
> I was surprised that the 50mm EX wasn't the first to get the ART treatment - the president of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens but really glad they took their time with it to get it right.



I definitely have no qualms, in an objective sense, with the lens carrying a $1500 price tag (or even more for that matter), just that it will likely be outside of my budget. Even it if isn't sharp corner to corner wide-open, given Sigma's recent releases I absolutely believe it'll be pretty excellent in the center at f/2 (where many many people will be placing their subjects at such an aperture anyway), and given what they seem to have been able to pull off at f/1.4 on the recent 50mm lens they may indeed be able to get corner to corner sharpness at f/2.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 8, 2014)

I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.


----------



## Dantana (Jul 8, 2014)

Khalai said:


> I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.



You beat me to it. That lens would be a beast. I think we are more likely to see good 24-70 2.8 in the Art line at a competitive price, possibly with IS. Sigma hasn't chosen to go faster on the 35 or 50 than Canon. They have concentrated on sharpness and build quality.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 8, 2014)

Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 8, 2014)

A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.

If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it. But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me. I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what I've done.


----------



## ecka (Jul 8, 2014)

My _missing_ Art lens list is:
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART
Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART


----------



## kkelis (Jul 8, 2014)

I believe i am one of the few interested in the 24mm f/1.4. If they make it as good as their 35mm in terms of sharpness and vignetting wide open, and if the coma is well controlled, it will be a beautiful lens for wide angle astro photography.
The coma on the current canon 24mm f/1.4 LII is awful even when stopped down at f/2 and i dont believe a new 24mm LIII is coming from canon in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.
> 
> If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it. But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me. I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what IvI've done.



Might be fine...if Sigma doesn't botch the reverse-engineering of the Canon AF system as they do all too often.

The 24-105L is a decent lens, actually quite good if you can shoot in the f/8-f/11 range, but not as good at apertures wider than f/5.6. For me, a standard zoom is usually used for people or on a tripod, so IS is essentially useless...I'm quite happy with the stellar IQ of the 24-70/2.8L II.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 8, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.
> 
> With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.
> 
> Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.



Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 8, 2014)

Just a nitpick, but wouldn't a 24-70 f2 fall under their "CONTEMPORARY" line and not ART?


----------



## that1guyy (Jul 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 8, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....



that sucker might be size of the 300 2.8 IS!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Jul 8, 2014)

They could make the 24-70 F2 with a little hook to the rear, that way when your arms fall off trying to shoot with it you can hang it on your light stand and use it as a sand bag.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Jul 9, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Just a nitpick, but wouldn't a 24-70 f2 fall under their "CONTEMPORARY" line and not ART?



Definitely Art, definitely not their lower spec / price Contemporary range.

I'm still unclear whether there is any substance in the 24-70mm f/2 rumour or whether it's based wholly on that photoshopped fake pic that did the rounds a while ago. Sigma considered 18-35mm the broadest zoom range they could do on a high quality f/1.8 AP-S lens. How realistic is it to suppose Sigma now has an optical formula promising similar quality in a full-frame f/2 2.9x wide-to-telephoto zoom?


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Jul 9, 2014)

ecka said:


> My _missing_ Art lens list is:
> Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
> Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
> Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
> ...



+1 to all of the above. My picks would be 20mm f/1.8 and 135mm OS, only because they'd fill the gaps in my current prime collection.

Sigma's previous 100-300mm f/4 was, by most accounts, a superb lens, and much smaller, lighter and easier to handle than the 120-300 f/2.8. I'd love to see the 100-300mm f/4 given Sigma's Global Vision treatment.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 9, 2014)

KeithBreazeal said:


> The cost of new "white glass" is beyond most of us now. Sigma has proven it can make a competing lens in the lower prime and zoom range. Cost versus performance is the key to success here. The market for under 200mm is flooded with options. Sigma needs to go big and fast if they want to capture the market. Attacking the longer lens market makes good marketing sense. A competing lens for Canon's 200-400 would be a smart move. Quality has to be the #1 objective to break into this "deep pockets" territory. Personally, I think they should not attempt going past 500mm at the top end due to f stop considerations. I think that's why Canon stopped at 400mm. If you can deal with the light loss of an extender, Canon's flip in 1.4x makes perfect sense. If Sigma wants to deliver a knock-out punch, The perfect range would look more like 150-300mm f2.8-f4 with a flip in 2x converter resulting in a 300-600mm.
> If Sigma could produce that lens at the quality/cost breakaway point, they would break into a huge market.



I don't like the IQ degradation with extenders. Yes they work ok, but you're far better off without.

I think the 200-400 and Sigma 300-600 are in different markets. One is sports shooter's dream, the other is a wildlife lens with added flexibility.
If they want to compete with the 200-400 they should make a 200-400. Of course what I really want from Sigma is a 600mm prime, but apparently zoom sells so I'll just have to suck it up (if the new Canon 800mm is over $15K I'm going to cry).


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 9, 2014)

A 300-600 f/4 would be huge. An f/4.5 slightly smaller but might create problems when used with TC's, especially the 2X, i.e., 600-1200 f/9 wouldn't be usable with 1Dx AF while a 600-1200 f/8 would. A 300-600 f/5.6 wouldn't be usable at all with a 2X TC. The problems are even worse with camera bodies that only AF with lenses f/5.6 or faster.

So, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, why not a 200-500 f/2.8-4, that holds f/2.8 max aperture from 200mm to 350mm? And why not a 300-800 f/4-5.6 that holds f/4 from 300mm to 560mm?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 9, 2014)

The two I'm most hoping for are the 24mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8/2 OS. The 85mm would be welcome but I have a Vivitar (Rokinon/Samyang) 85mm f/1.4 that I'm extremely happy with (which is strange, as its contrast is pretty bad and flare control non-existent, but I just love the aesthetic it gives; very filmic). I'd also love a 24-70 f/2, and I wouldn't care how heavy or big it is. However, I'd still be stoked if they put out a 24-70 f/2.8 OS offering, as I do video a lot. 

Additionally, if any of you checked out sigma-rumors they also have this exciting lens listed:

*16-20mm f/2 DG Art* - listed as "60%" likely.

I would *LOVE* a fast uwa zoom like that. I shoot concerts a lot from the pit and I need the fastest glass I can get. They did list other focal lengths as possible (16-24, 14-20) but with a f/2 constant aperture I imagine they'd have to keep the zoom range short. 16-24 would be ideal for me. Wouldn't have to get a 24mm f/1.4 in that case!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 9, 2014)

Appeared secret images of the new
Sigma 24-70mm F2 OS


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2014)

Sigma 135mm f/1.8 OS Art. Aghhhhh..... 

It be a shutup and take my money moment.


----------



## Grummbeerbauer (Jul 9, 2014)

I am looking for some halfway affordable longer zoom for occasional birding/wildlife/airshow shooting. The Tamron 150-600 almost had me convinced, but at least on APS-C the long end seems to be bad enough that one should probably use it as an 150-500. That puts me off and the fact that it is on backorder everywhere in .de. :
If Sigma had something in that range (200-600mm?) with better IQ at the long end than the Tamron while keeping the price at a reasonable level (<2000), I might be tempted. I wouldn't even mind f6.3 at the long end if wide-open performance was acceptable.


----------



## Isurus (Jul 9, 2014)

I was hoping for some primes to compete with Canon's 400/500/600mm primes. A 300-600 would be interesting, but it likely won't be f/4 throughout; probably something like the Tamron instead as the weight would get too significant. Ah well; I can still hope for something in the future.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2014)

Isurus said:


> I was hoping for some primes to compete with Canon's 400/500/600mm primes. A 300-600 would be interesting, but it likely won't be f/4 throughout; probably something like the Tamron instead as the weight would get too significant. Ah well; I can still hope for something in the future.



I'm sure they are coming, although I doubt they will deisng a 400mm f2.8.
Their 500mm f4.5 is a well regarded lens and one which seriously do with an update. An IS unit, opening up to f4 and the ability to take teleconverters without Af issues and weather sealed should do the trick.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Isurus said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping for some primes to compete with Canon's 400/500/600mm primes. A 300-600 would be interesting, but it likely won't be f/4 throughout; probably something like the Tamron instead as the weight would get too significant. Ah well; I can still hope for something in the future.
> ...



The current Sigma big primes are over-heavy, over-priced (£4799 for the 500 f/4.5 and £5499 for the 800/5.6) under-perform in MTF and lack IS. To compete with Canon they will have to improve hugely and keep the price really down. When you want the ultimate, a £1000 here or there in £5000-8000 is not usually a deal breaker. I would like an ultra-light very sharp 400, 500 or 600 f/5.6 at a competitive price and leave the f/2.8 and f/4 to Canon.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 9, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.
> ...




...when you add a Canon 2x TC to the 300/2.8II then the weight difference is not very much.

If you include the Canon 2x and 1.4x TCs the cost difference in favour of the Sigma could be considerable.

Canon's answer to this lens is the 200-400 which will reach 560 with built in TC. But this is an elite lens aimed at people with very deep pockets. 

This Sigma could replace a lot of lenses in one package : 300/4, 400/5.6, 100-400, 400/4DO ....etc.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 9, 2014)

Part of the problem in going head to head with the Big Whites is that users want super-fast and reliable autofocus. That is a challenge for any third party manufacturer, although Sigma has done the sensible thing and created the dock, so that new firmware can be loaded at any time. OEM engineers make sure that all lenses are back compatible with older cameras and vice versa. Sigma doesn't have OEM protocols, so the necessary reverse engineering into hardware has left some older Sigma lenses unable to function on newer cameras. Now at least there is a hope of Sigma engineers catching up with newer camera models.

The 300-600 would be the successor to the 300-800 Sigmonster - big.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 9, 2014)

ecka said:


> My _missing_ Art lens list is:
> Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
> Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
> Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
> ...



Missing in this list is the 28mm, or is 28mm a dead prime focal length?


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jul 9, 2014)

Why all the Sigma reporting here, isn't this _Canon _ Rumors? :


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....



But you probably wouldn't like the weight. Or vignetting. Or price (ymmv). Really, this won't happen, where's a reason the rest of the world builds f2.8 zooms - "faster" means accepting a unbalance not compatible with mass market production/sales. 



Pieces Of E said:


> Why all the Sigma reporting here, isn't this _Canon _ Rumors? :



All the talk about premium 3rd party lenses proves that Canon doesn't manage to hit the enthusiast's "sweet spot" recently, though they probably don't care as their IS video primes and high-end primes/zooms will get them excellent revenues.

My problem is: If you use these lenses, why use a Canon camera body? Well, yes, rt flashes and Magic Lantern, but beyond that?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> My problem is: If you use these lenses, why use a Canon camera body? Well, yes, rt flashes and Magic Lantern, but beyond that?



Ergonomics.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > My problem is: If you use these lenses, why use a Canon camera body? Well, yes, rt flashes and Magic Lantern, but beyond that?
> ...



I agree, but then again I've never shot with a Nikon for a longer time and I'm inclined to believe millions of people *are* able to adjust to them :-> ... and the difference between a right-hand 60d/6d design vs. a "pro" dual-hand joystick 5d3/1dx is probably as large as towards another brand.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Still, there was something 'natural' about the Canon bodies when I was looking for a DSLR. Nikon somehow always confuses me. That said, Sony isn't all that great either. I wish my NEX-6 had a better menu structure, and an easier way to do exposure compensation. The A7(r) looks like it is massively better. However I'm not ready for a full-frame mirrorless... Yet.

OTOH, on that NEX, I'm using (old) Canon lenses on a third party body. How's that?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


The Canon 300/28 II with 2xTC III weighs 2.675 kg, which is 0.715 kg or 1lb 9 oz lighter than the Sigma 120-300mm, which some of would find to be quite significant held at the end of a camera.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jul 9, 2014)

24mm ART lens sounds very tempting.


----------



## ecka (Jul 9, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > My _missing_ Art lens list is:
> ...



As a prime shooter, I don't really miss anything in-between 24mm and 35mm FLs . Sigma has the old 28/1.8 DG Macro in their line up, which isn't that great on FF (actually, none of the 3 are). If I remember correctly, they released all three (20/1.8, 24/1.8 and 28/1.8 ) at the same time some 15 years ago. So, if they decide to remake all three lenses for their Art lineup, then 28mm would get the least of my attention, unless it would be superior optically by a reasonable amount. For me, something like a single 21/1.8 DG Art would be perfect .


----------



## garyknrd (Jul 9, 2014)

I am personally really excited about the 300-600mm lens. Will have to wait and see what it is. And a few reviews. Having two of Sigmas telephoto lenses, and using them with the FANTASTIC Pentax K-3. I am in heaven. I love it so much I sent all the gear into C.R.I.S. to get calibrated together. Might pick up a GH4 to go with the Sigma lenses for video.. 
I am just about to buy the 18-35 1.8.. In Pentax mount... If AF is ok.. I will be in heaven... 

Man I am hoping Canon really knocks my socks off with the 7D II..


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....
> ...



Which is, apparently, why no one builds a 70-200/2.8, a 120-300/2.8, a 300/2.8 prime, a 200/2 prime, or anything bigger than a 24-70/2.8.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...




....but actually to get the flexibility of a 300-600 you would need to carry the extra 1.4xTC in your kitbag so the weight difference is actually pretty negligible...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 10, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Sigma 135mm f/1.8 OS Art. Aghhhhh.....
> 
> It be a shutup and take my money moment.



That would be sweet. Sad, since I recently purchased a 85mm that I like.. but at that time there was no rumour of a Sigma 85. Sigh. 

Note to Sigma, if you publish a list of future lenses, it gives potential customers the infomation they need to schedule their lens purchases. 

I guess I will wait for the 135. I have never shot a 135 prime before but I hear good things about that FL.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 10, 2014)

ecka said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Actually the 20mm is a rear focus design and it doesn't change length when focusing. That makes it a bit of a different beast from its 24 and 28 mm siblings that have a front focusing design. I'm really satisfied with my copy by the way - it's a solid piece of glass that interestingly can generate quite nice bokeh when you use its near focusing ability.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jul 10, 2014)

Why do people keep thinking that a 24-70mm f/2 is even remotely likely?

Have they not held the already behemoth Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2 or Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, both which require 82mm filter threads just to sharply render that zoom range at 2.8?

Have they not noticed that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is only a 2x zoom, not a 3x, and that it only needs to worry about a largest diaphragm of 35 / 1.8 and an APS-C image circle? (HUGE difference from 70mm f/2 with an FX image circle!!)

Whether or not they actually make one, my point is that existing facts point to their being absolutely zero possibility / likelihood of it happening. The whole thing was started as wishful thinking, and remains nothing more than just wishful thinking / urban myth, to this day.

Now a 16-24mm or 18-28mm f/1.8 FX, THAT I could get behind. 

=Matt=


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 10, 2014)

Matthew Saville said:


> Why do people keep thinking that a 24-70mm f/2 is even remotely likely?



Hope dies last and if there is nothing really looking forwards to (clean iso 12800, f2 zooms, ...) you won't be able to satisfy your gear acquisition syndrome in the future, meaning severe withdrawal symptoms in the future.


----------



## ecka (Jul 10, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
And yeah, that macro feature is a very nice and unique selling point. I hope Sigma will include it in their next 24mm.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

ecka said:


> Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
> And yeah, that macro feature is a very nice and unique selling point. I hope Sigma will include it in their next 24mm.




That feature alone make the 20mm Sigma a lens worth having IMHO. I consider it one of my specialty/fun lenses that may not win any technical awards but it sure is a great creative tool if used wisely. 

I've attached two samples shot with this lens that show its capabilities. Both shot with a 5D MkII.


----------



## ecka (Jul 11, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I didn't find any decent samples from Ʃ20mm f/1.8 when I was looking for something really wide and the reviews weren't very promising either. So I just skipped it and grabbed a Samyang 14/2.8UMC. However, I was considering the 12-24mm DG HSM zoom too, but Sigma's QC was awful back then. Crazy copy variation lottery wasn't very tempting, rather scary. Maybe Art version of 12-24mm is more realistic and reasonable expectation. The new(ish) Sigma 8-16mm DC HSM is very good.
> ...



Nice shots. But when I look closely I see f/8, the uniqueness is lost  and the 20mm doesn't have that feature, or does it? I think it is 1:4+ at MFD, similar to many other wide angle lenses like 17-40L.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 11, 2014)

ecka said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



The MFD is shorter; 0.2m.

Attached: f/2.5, f/1.8. Hand held.

It is a lens I use rarely, so it's fine by my standards.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 12, 2014)

Matthew Saville said:


> Why do people keep thinking that a 24-70mm f/2 is even remotely likely?
> 
> Have they not held the already behemoth Canon 24-70 2.8 mk2 or Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, both which require 82mm filter threads just to sharply render that zoom range at 2.8?



They are modestly sized lenses. Not big at all.



> Have they not noticed that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is only a 2x zoom, not a 3x, and that it only needs to worry about a largest diaphragm of 35 / 1.8 and an APS-C image circle? (HUGE difference from 70mm f/2 with an FX image circle!!)



18mm f/1.8 on crop is a harder thing to get to than 24mm and f/2. This is because Sigma's crop lenses don't reach into the body like EF-s lenses do, so they have to have the regular back focus distance of a full-frame lens. This makes 18mm much more strongly retrofocus than 24mm, and f/1.8 is still faster than f/2. I doubt much in the 18-35 is driven by the aperture at the long end, and 70/2 is still only 35mm, which isn't very much aperture. My 85/1.8 is silly tiny and has 47mm of aperture.


----------



## ecka (Jul 13, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens . Could be GAS infection.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 14, 2014)

ecka said:


> Nice sky in the second one. Now I can't stop thinking about this lens . Could be GAS infection.



That's the way GAS works, anyway if you think your creativity is enhanced by such a lens, you should go ahead and buy one. I personally think the new price is a bit steep at the moment (€619 in the Netherlands, somehow this lens is getting more and more expensive to buy new) but it's a good lens to pick up second hand if you can find a nice and clean copy.


----------



## lexptr (Aug 12, 2014)

ecka said:


> My _missing_ Art lens list is:
> Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
> Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
> Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
> ...


The Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART is an interesting option. I have the old one, but it is the worst lens I have and the only one of my lenses I would prefer not to buy. It is capable to give very good results. Sometimes... Look at any birds on my website: www.len-lex.com/gallery.asp - all ware taken with that lens. But sometimes it just keeps failing. E.g. I shoot in good light from tripod with remote release and fine-focusing with liveview, fast shutter, no wind or earthquakes, but the result is damn blurry! Very inconsistent. Maybe it is just a bad copy. Anyway, with current level of Sigma's lenses it is very interesting to see such lens reworked. And OS would be a very useful thing on it. Kinda love and hate story, which probably would be better with the renewed version 
And if we speak about birding – 100-300 is too short actually. Even with TC x1.4. So the rumored 300-600mm f/? OS Sport would also be interesting. I hope it will be constant f/4. It is not an easy task, but really isn't something impossible for Sigma. What I would be even more interested to see is a refresh of their super-telephoto primes! I do hope one day to get something like 500mm f/4 IS, but Canon's options are insanely expensive. Something IQ-comparable from Sigma for half the price and I'm in!


----------



## ecka (Aug 14, 2014)

lexptr said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > My _missing_ Art lens list is:
> ...



Yes, I remember all the old Σ100-300/4 reviews being very controversial, due to obvious reasons like bad QC and copy variation. Now, the new Σ120-300/2.8 is just crazy good (for a sigma zoom  ), even with TCs. IMHO, the updated Σ100-300/4 (or 300-600mm) should be really good.


----------

