# Sigma 500 f/4 Patent



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 9, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/sigma-500-f4-patent/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/sigma-500-f4-patent/"></a></div>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/more-sigma-primes-coming-cr1/">previously reported</a> Sigma would be updating some of their large primes.</p>
<p>[<a href="http://photorumors.com/2011/04/08/sigma-patents-500mm-f4-lens/#more-9606">PR</a>] via [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2011-04-08">EG</a>] & Ã‚ have posted a patent for a new Sigma 500 f/4 supertelephoto lens.</p>
<p>With the price of the new Canon offerings, thereâ€™s going to be lots of room for other companies to make big glass more affordable.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Information:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Patent: 2011-70043</li>
<li>Patent filing date: Sept 28, 2009</li>
<li>Focal length: 489.9938</li>
<li>Aperture: 4.1004</li>
<li>Angle of view: 5.0498 Ã‚Â°</li>
<li>Back Focus 90.3449mm</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## hutjeflut (Apr 9, 2011)

_With the price of the new Canon offerings, thereâ€™s going to be lots of room for other companies to make big glass more affordable._

cant agree more canon is totaly kicking itself out of the market with the prices of there new lens releases there really a lot mor expencive the the competition and it has me wondering if its still worth getting canon lenses or any canon gear for that matter..
the 580 has gotten almost 25% more expencive over the past 5 months the 7D body is still the same price as it was on the release date the only thing that noticibly dropped in price fast is the 100MM IS macro wich went from 980 to 790 euro.

if this is a trend that continues to go on canon will have a difficult time in the future as its harder and harder to make money with photography and these massive price rises arent helping.
for example the old 70-200 F2.8 is was 1550 euro (1750 now) the new one was sits at about 2100 euro thats a massive price increase for something already really expencive.

ah well we will see what it brings us in the future and lets hope the competition dishes out some nice gear that can finaly compare to canons focus speed and IQ for little less


----------



## HughHowey (Apr 9, 2011)

hutjeflut said:


> _With the price of the new Canon offerings, thereâ€™s going to be lots of room for other companies to make big glass more affordable._
> 
> cant agree more canon is totaly kicking itself out of the market with the prices of there new lens releases there really a lot mor expencive the the competition and it has me wondering if its still worth getting canon lenses or any canon gear for that matter..
> the 580 has gotten almost 25% more expencive over the past 5 months the 7D body is still the same price as it was on the release date the only thing that noticibly dropped in price fast is the 100MM IS macro wich went from 980 to 790 euro.
> ...



Most of these increases (or inability to lower prices on bodies over time) have to do with the Yen getting stronger. Companies outside of Japan can compete in the European and American markets due to this, and there isn't a whole lot Canon can do.


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 9, 2011)

Sigma has not been shy about the prices on their new models either. The cost of larg pieces of exotic glass, and the cost of critical assembly obviously makes them expensive, but I think that the selling price is well over the cost to build, probably by a factor of 3 or 4.

Having been in the precision manufacturing industry, I know that the anciliary costs do drive up the selling price, but perhaps there is not enough competition to force a more reasonable price level?


----------



## Flake (Apr 10, 2011)

Funny but I don;t think I've ever seen a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 other than in the camera shop but then with Canons offering at Â£5300 after the price rises and Sigma at Â£3500, maybe the difference just wasn't great enough. Then there's the slight difference of f.5 which just seems to suggest that the Sigma isn't really quite as good as the real deal, it doesn't hold its value as well either.

At this focal length the competition is a bit stiff, the products are all very expensive and Sigma offer an 800mm f/5.6 for not a lot more, or the well regarded 300 - 800mm f/5.6 zoom which is around the same price as the Canon 500mm.

For a 500mm f/4 to succeed it would have to be cheap enough for people to be attracted away from Canon, and then the extra stop to be attractive to people who might be considering the other long lenses in Sigmas line up.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 10, 2011)

hutjeflut said:


> for example the old 70-200 F2.8 is was 1550 euro (1750 now) the new one was sits at about 2100 euro thats a massive price increase for something already really expencive.



Expensive is quite relative - think of it as a tool of trade, like a lathe or mill, or closer: the rent for a versatile studio or the car to get to the location, even the gas bill.
That lens is only about 20â‚¬ per month. 

The problem with making money aren't the equipment prices but amateurs who sell under price just to get published. That guy covers a 5 hour event for 15â‚¬ and free admission, why should we pay you more?


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 15, 2011)

I buy my sigmas used. Even though they are cheaper to start, they take a big hit in price with the first owner. A new Canon or Nikon will not loos much in value just off the showroom floor, so I buy those new. (when i can afford it)


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 15, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> I buy my sigmas used. Even though they are cheaper to start, they take a big hit in price with the first owner. A new Canon or Nikon will not loos much in value just off the showroom floor, so I buy those new. (when i can afford it)



You are right!

I've also found more problems with some brands of used 3rd party lenses (except Tokina), and I've bought lots of old lenses. I keep an eye on our local Craigslist, and when I see a high end lens selling for too little, I buy it and use it until I decide if I am going to keep it permanently, or sell it when another good buy comes along. I do not lose money doing this, and I get to test and use dozens of lenses long enough to learn their strengths and weaknesses. My experiences with the lenses is usually pretty well identical to the lens reviews, but I like to see for myself.

Something new just today, I just brought a 250mm f/5.6 Zeiss for Hassleblad lens ($200). Now, I'm waiting for a adapter to arrive so I can compare it to my other lenses. I ordered M42 and Olympus OM adapters as well, I have lots of those lenses around. I want to try my 28mm OM on my Canon bodies as well as some of the old M42 lenses which are not popular brands, but should be good ones.

Maybe I'll put up a page on my web site to compare them. It takes a lot of care to do a good job with MF lenses, so its something I have to wait to find time to do it.


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 17, 2011)

Competition isn't about performance, and damn the price. Competition is about both, which is why I think Canon should upgrade non-L primes as well. As example, the 35mm f/2 could be improved even without changing the glass elements, e.g. by adding USM.


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 18, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Competition isn't about performance, and damn the price. Competition is about both, which is why I think Canon should upgrade non-L primes as well. As example, the 35mm f/2 could be improved even without changing the glass elements, e.g. by adding USM.



I absolutely agree. I was a little worried when Canon gave the newer 100mm macro the L badge as it looked to me like a strategy of replacing non-L lenses with L's. Thankfully, they didn't discontinue the non-L version but all the same, when was the last time a full-frame non-L prime was updated and remained non-L? It seems that every new full-frame lens is an L.


----------

