# Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 22, 2014)

```
<p>Sigma  has  opened  up  about  their  future  plans  to  Focus-Numerique  and  what  sorts  of  lenses  and  products  they  are,  and  are  not  developing.</p>
<ul>
<li>Sigma  will  update  their  24-70mm  f/2.8  EX  DG  HSM  (with  an  f/2  version?)  and  70-200mm  f/2.8  EX  DG  OS  HSM  lenses.</li>
<li>Sigma’s  next  DSLR  will  have  a  brand  new  design  philosophy.</li>
<li>Sigma  is  not  interested  in  developing  a  new  mirrorless  interchangeable  camera  for  now.</li>
</ul>
<p>Source:  [<a  href="http://photorumors.com/2014/09/21/sigmas-future-plans-new-24-70mm-and-70-200mm-f2-8-lenses-and-more/"  target="_blank">PR</a>]  /  [<a  href="http://www.focus-numerique.com/sigma-rencontre-kazuto-yamaki-news-5725.html"  target="_blank">FN</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span  style="color:  #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p>  </p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Sigma’s next DSLR will...
> Sigma is not interested in developing a new mirrorless interchangeable camera for now.



The dSLR is dead. Long live the mirrorslapper!! :


----------



## docsmith (Sep 22, 2014)

Just release the 24 mm f1.4A. You know you want too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2014)

A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!


----------



## DJE (Sep 22, 2014)

Nice to know that there will be more quality lens options for Canon bodies. I'm liking their 24-105 enough that I plan on purchasing more Sigma "A" and "C" glass.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!



i understand that it is very difficult, but i don't know why. i know that a 24-70 1.4 would be everyone's dream lens, and i know that it probably won't ever happen. is that solely because of the size and weight (and cost) that the lens would be, or is it just too difficult/impossible to do?


----------



## Too_Many_Hobbies (Sep 22, 2014)

If the IQ can come close to the equivalent Canon lens (especially when used with the 1.4 and 2 teleconverters) then I will get the 70-200 assuming there is a significant price difference.

If there really will be a 24-70 F2 then I would love to get that lens too. Right now my most used lens is the Canon 24-105, but 2 extra stops for inside would be fantastic. Currently I will put on the Sigma 35A or Canon 50 1.4 inside, but will not often shoot more open than 2.0 given the very thin DOF wide open.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 22, 2014)

dilbert said:


> But neither denial or confirmation on a 85/Art prime and other lenses. That's a shame.



Agreed. I'm seriously in the market for an 85mm. I want the portrait capabilities of the 85/1.2L, but the AF of the 85/1.8. If the 85 Art can land somewhere in the middle, it could save me having to buy both.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 22, 2014)

bvukich said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But neither denial or confirmation on a 85/Art prime and other lenses. That's a shame.
> ...



I don't understand why Sigma would not want to publish a list of planned lenses. Sigma wants people to buy their lenses over buying the manufacturer's lenses. 

But if a Canon customer is looking for an 85mm, they have a limited number of choices.

1. Buy a Canon lens because it exists (not good for Sigma business)
2. Wait to see if/when Sigma decides to let potential customers know what is planned.

Sigma should not be surprised if potential customers choose option 1.

That's what I did. I was looking for an 85mm. An 85mm Sigma Art would make me very happy, but since I don't know if/when Sigma will sell an 85mm A lens... I went with the camera brand.. because it was there and was good enough. I am happy with my purchase, but I might be happier IF sigma came out with their own 85 and it tested as well as the 35. 

But if I knew that Sigma was coming out with an 85mm A lens in 4-6 months, I might be willing to wait a bit and see the reviews. I might even wait until the Sigma came out and give Sigma my money (ain't that the whole idea Sigma?)

Sorry Sigma, I WAS looking for an 85mm. I ain't no more. With my budget, it is very unlikely I will buy another 85.

But I am not going to hold off on building my lens kit in hope that perhaps, maybe, might, who knows if Sigma is coming out with their own 85.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 22, 2014)

"A zoom or prime [fixed focal lenght] lens?
Yamaki: Both. Well, we are still studying it. We're not sure we can release it to the market. A new product is quite risky. Sometimes we have to give up in the middle of the development. We were very fortunate to complete the 18-35mm f1.8 design."

This looks to me like they are trying to do the 24-70/2. It would be new, and it is related to the 18-35/1.8 by being a fast zoom.


----------



## Rick (Sep 22, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Just release the 24 mm f1.4A. You know you want too.



Yes please.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 22, 2014)

Sigma's existing non-art 85mm f/1.4 lens is said to be extremely sharp - not at Otus levels, but what is? So if you need a 85mm now, you could consider it as well as the two Canon offerings at f/1.8 and f/1.2


----------



## Zv (Sep 22, 2014)

keithfullermusic said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!
> ...



It's likely possible to make it but IQ would probably suck. Just look at what it takes to make a decent 50mm f/1.4 that's sharp wide open and has minimal CA etc. now try and imagine the complexities of achieving that over a focal range from very wide to short telephoto. With all the extra glass to correct the aberrations it would make it really heavy too. So you'd have a large, heavy, (prob) slow AF zoom lens that's overpriced and performs quite poorly. Doesn't sound like any dream lens I want. There have to be compromises and I guess they're trying to find that sweet spot. Maybe it's f/2 or maybe f/2.8? Who knows, at least they're trying and that's the real exciting part!


----------



## enraginangel (Sep 22, 2014)

I was expecting Sigma to release the 24-70 f2 OS at Photokina this year. Saying that they won't announce it til next year means that it won't be available to purchase for quite some time after announcement. It's a good thing I'm broke because I couldn't afford it now anyway. I was considering getting the Canon 24-70mm Mark II and complete my lens purchases forever. (The photo bug fever has worn off on me)


----------



## slclick (Sep 22, 2014)

The Tri Elmer design would be groundbreaking in a Sigma price point


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!


I don't know why no one makes a 35-85mm f/2. It would be better range for free-hand portraiture. I struggle to identify little details through the viewfinder at 24mm. At 35mm I can more easily see if X is crooked this or Y is untidy. Plus 85mm f/2 is better to blur the background than 70mm f/2.

Just my 2c worth.


----------



## meli (Sep 22, 2014)

Sigma's 24-70 & 70-200 are mediocre at best and need an update and that'll come in 2.8 i believe. Although I'd be all over a 24-70/2 it doesnt make market sense and it'll probably be a niche piece. I think a 24-50/2 or 28-50/2 seems more plausible.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Sep 22, 2014)

More like a detour...


----------



## moreorless (Sep 22, 2014)

meli said:


> Sigma's 24-70 & 70-200 are mediocre at best and need an update and that'll come in 2.8 i believe. Although I'd be all over a 24-70/2 it doesnt make market sense and it'll probably be a niche piece. I think a 24-50/2 or 28-50/2 seems more plausible.



That would be my guess, a 24-70mm F/2 would likely be too large/expensive to get a significant market, as you say I think any F/2 zoom would likely be shorter range.

As far as DSLR's go I think Sigma should try and get there sensors into something more the size of a rebel at a much lower price than the SD1. Right now it just seems a waste of a sensor that punches above its size at base ISO IQ to have it in a FF size and price body.


----------



## lo lite (Sep 23, 2014)

docsmith said:


> Just release the 24 mm f1.4A. You know you want too.



No, Sigma, don't listen to him! I urgently need a 20mm one first, preferably at f/1.4 (or at f/1.8 if that's not possible). I know, there currently is a 20mm f/1.8 in their lineup, but that lens is dated, it could need some refresh, at least a HSM motor.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 23, 2014)

How about hiring some Chinese hackers to gain access to the Canon autofocus algorithms? All the sharpness in the world does me no good if my images are not precisely focused.

Manual focus? No way! Have you ever tried to get a nude model to hold perfectly still and smile while you manually focused your favorite portrait lens?


----------



## slclick (Sep 23, 2014)

"Make what I want, make what I want!"


riiiiiiiiiiiiight


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 23, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Manual focus? No way! Have you ever tried to get a nude model to hold perfectly still and smile while you manually focused your favorite portrait lens?



Actually yes I have. If she is a good model she will be able to do it very well. Even an inexperienced model can try to "stay still for 3 seconds". ;D


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 23, 2014)

This is good news. I tried the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and it isn't good. The 70-200mm 2.8 is also not too good.. both have slow and hunting af plus the vignetting is severe. A 24-70mm f2?? That sounds amazing, not sure that would be so for my wallet.. ;D They need to refresh their wide angle zooms as well.. the 10-20mm range. Put weathersealing for the the 24-70, 70-200 and I think with their recent quality, that's a real killer set of lenses.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> This is good news. I tried the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and it isn't good. The 70-200mm 2.8 is also not too good.. both have slow and hunting af plus the vignetting is severe.



Which 70-200 did you use? I've got the 70-200 2.8 HSM (non OS) and I've used it to shoot a ton of basketball. The AF is fantastic. Maybe the Canon vII is a bit faster, I don't know, but to describe the Sigma as "slow and hunting" is utter hyperbole to the point of being disingenuous. I don't see any vignetting to speak of, although I'm shooting APS-H and usually cropped for composition.

Frankly, I'm pretty sick of the constant FUD surrounding Sigma AF. I've used several of their lenses, I currently own two, and none of them had any issues with AF that aren't also commonly found in Canon's own lenses or those of any other manufacturer, for that matter. The only people who ever seem to have issues seem to always have them with every single Sigma lens, over multiple copies, and just happen to always be big Canon fanboys whereas people who aren't invested in My Team fanboyism never seem to have any problems. Its really weird! And by this point so many people have been trained by the internet to expect AF problems with Sigma lenses that every time they miss focus the lens gets the blame, no matter what the actual reason might be. This doesn't happen with Canon lenses when they miss - its always operator error or "just the way it is". 

As far as I'm concerned, Sigma makes great lenses that are 95% of the quality of the Canon equivalent at, often, half the price. Some of the newer Global Vision line is actually significantly better and still cheaper. Since, in the mind of the fanboy, Canon _must_ be the best, _always_, there must be a downside, therefore Sigma can't AF. It gets pretty annoying.


----------



## TeT (Sep 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!



what a monster it will be ... sure some advanced materials will reduce the weight but size and volume of glass alone will make it a ginormous zoom...


----------



## beckstoy (Sep 23, 2014)

Where the heck are the 85 and 135 Art lenses?

...dang... Hurry up, Sigma!


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 24, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!
> ...



Really I also would love to have a 35-85mm f/2. A f/2.8 would do as well. I just saw that there used to be a vivtar 35-85 f/2.8 once upon a time (not sure if the f/2.8 was a constant max aperture or variable). So the plan exists. Only a modern execution is the point here.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 24, 2014)

Here's why I'd rather have a 24-70/2 than a 35-85/2.

A 35-85/2 is a "bag-o-primes". I have a 35/1.4L and an 85/1.8. So, at first glance, it sounds great.

But, it doesn't replace a standard zoom because it doesn't go wide enough. So I'd still need a 24-something (24-105, 24-70/2.8, whatever).

A 24-70/2 would serve the purpose of both lenses and the difference in perspective from the change in location to maintain constant framing between 70mm and 85mm is subtle, as is the difference in subject isolation.


----------



## axtstern (Sep 24, 2014)

> Quote from: neuroanatomist on September 22, 2014, 06:29:50 AM
> 
> A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!
> 
> ...



In my opinion there is a big chance that any future 2.0 zoom will start from 35mm and that it will be APS again... In the past Sigma had the tendency to make one lens seamless to start where other lenses stopped.

Looks like nobody besides me liked the old 50-150 2.8 but compared with their recent monster this was a very elegant lens. For many years no other manufacturer had something to fit seamless to the 17-50 2.8 class. So a 18-35 1.8 to hand over to a 35- whatever 2.0 would make sense in my eyes.

Now if you want to try the longer end of 2.8: I have a Tamron 28-105 1:2.8 lying around. Short but fat beast of glass with the now quiet baroque design of Tamron in the 90ties. AF speed and sound is of the same age but I still love to use it's flexibility at weddings. The lens is located in Germany but if you are serious just mail me.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 24, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Here's why I'd rather have a 24-70/2 than a 35-85/2.
> 
> A 35-85/2 is a "bag-o-primes". I have a 35/1.4L and an 85/1.8. So, at first glance, it sounds great.
> 
> ...



Of course different lenses suits different shooting styles and purposes.

However, if 35-85 is a bag of primes then so is 24-70 or even 24-105.

It is all about who finds which FCs useful. I seldom find anything below 28mm to be interesting. 35mm is as much wide as I want to go while 85 is just sufficiently long. Having said that would not I prefer a 24-105mm f/2.8 over everything else? Of course I would, but sadly that is also not going to materialize. 

Hopefully the 24-105mm f/4 from Sigma is at least as good as 24-105 f/4 of Canon.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 24, 2014)

axtstern said:


> In my opinion there is a big chance that any future 2.0 zoom will start from 35mm and that it will be APS again... In the past Sigma had the tendency to make one lens seamless to start where other lenses stopped.
> 
> Looks like nobody besides me liked the old 50-150 2.8 but compared with their recent monster this was a very elegant lens. For many years no other manufacturer had something to fit seamless to the 17-50 2.8 class. So a 18-35 1.8 to hand over to a 35- whatever 2.0 would make sense in my eyes.
> 
> Now if you want to try the longer end of 2.8: I have a Tamron 28-105 1:2.8 lying around. Short but fat beast of glass with the now quiet baroque design of Tamron in the 90ties. AF speed and sound is of the same age but I still love to use it's flexibility at weddings. The lens is located in Germany but if you are serious just mail me.



Last year or around that time I got interested in the 50-150mm of Sigma. For my APS-C XXD cameras this seemed to be a good option. I wanted to know about its quality and raised the question here in CR. But did not get much first hand reply - seemed no one was using it. 

Good to know that you think (quite logically actually) that 35-xx mm f/2 or f/2.8 may actually be reality.

By the way thanks for information on 28-105. I saw that lens couple of times on ebay. But as you said the design (and presumed performance) seems to be too old. However, if tamron would come up with something like that again I would definitely be interested (especially given that their 70-300 is right now my most favoured lens).


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 24, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!
> ...



I never thought of that before. I'd definitely be interested in a 35-85mm.

The _only_ slight downfall I can think is that with a 24-70mm, the 24mm is a bit weak. 35mm lands closer to the middle of the zoom range making it perform a bit better. If a lens was 35mm widest, the 35mm would also be a bit weak.

Interesting idea though. I want to see one!


----------



## slclick (Sep 25, 2014)

Here's what I think the CEO was hinting at....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/461971-USA/Leica_11642_Tri_Elmar_M_16_18_21mm_f_4_Asph.html


----------



## cellomaster27 (Sep 25, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > cellomaster27 said:
> ...



From my personal experience, the 24-70mm had very slow af and had enough hunting to make it annoying. The 70-200mm just didn't impress me and it was the OS version. It could have been a copy issue but what I used is what I'm going off of. That's all. And yes, the AF on those two lenses were slow.. haha Without a doubt, when sigma revamps them, it'll probably be on par or better than canon equivalents. Since the global vision thing, yes, their lenses are of something you should have in your arsenal. I'm speaking of lenses years before.


----------

