Patent: Sigma 200mm f/2 DG OS USM & 1.4 Teleconverter

[ahsanford]

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS sells for $3,399 so I expect a 200mm f/2 to sell around that price if not more!

But no one else sells that 120-300 lens. It is unique in that regard. Sigma can be bullish there and thumb their nose at folks struggling between a slow 70-300L, short 70-200L, or comically pricey 300 f/2.8L.

If this lens materializes, it will be pricey, but perhaps not as pricey as you think.

- A

 

[brad-man]

The 200 (assuming they build it, and they probably will) will likely be out of my price range for such a specialized lens. But I am still waiting for the mythical 135 f/1.8 OS. I'll likely bust open the piggy bank for that one. But like Dustin said, they'll need consistent AF for either of these.

 

[Don Haines]

Doesnt Sigma already offer 1.4x TC under their Sport line up?

Yes, they have a 1.4X and a 2X teleconverter..... but this one might be integrated into the lens....

 

[JoseB]

At least, the outside is identic to Canon!!! Must be good...

 

[9VIII]

Doesnt Sigma already offer 1.4x TC under their Sport line up?

Yes, they have a 1.4X and a 2X teleconverter..... but this one might be integrated into the lens....

Integrated might not be ideal, a lot of people probably just want a 200f2.0, but I do like the idea of shipping one with the lens for anything that costs over $3,000. A Teleconverter that's designed for a specific lens should do a better job, and the cost of the TC itself is probably minimal (no moving parts).

If would be super awesome if Sigma could make it a trend to include a dedicated Teleconverter with every Supertelephoto lens they make.

 

[Cali Capture]

it still has the old 2mode IS and is starting to look a bit dated.

Oh no... The old 2 mode IS kills it!!! The new 3 mode IS adds so much to the optical quality, it makes the images taken with the poor old 200 look like cr@p LOL

I would Imagine that the weight would be light w/ Canon also J. I'm by no means knocking the current lens, Just thinking as to what they may throw into a new one and if Canon will make a version II.

 

[Cali Capture]

Jopa, The 200mm f/2 is my short list of "next to get". I love fast lenses, do a lot of natural light work and sports. I've been holding of due to the rumor of a replacement which usually means a lower price on the existing or perhaps a reason to spend on the next. What do you use yours for most, Sports or Portrait? Do you Hand hold or Mount most often?

 

[IglooEater]

it still has the old 2mode IS and is starting to look a bit dated.

Oh no... The old 2 mode IS kills it!!! The new 3 mode IS adds so much to the optical quality, it makes the images taken with the poor old 200 look like cr@p LOL

Yup, and lacking that 3rd mode makes it utterly unusable for anything that moves. If you leave this lens in the studio on a tripod in good light it'll be okay but is useless otherwise without that 3rd mode. ;P

 

[slclick]

it still has the old 2mode IS and is starting to look a bit dated.

Oh no... The old 2 mode IS kills it!!! The new 3 mode IS adds so much to the optical quality, it makes the images taken with the poor old 200 look like cr@p LOL

Yup, and lacking that 3rd mode makes it utterly unusable for anything that moves. If you leave this lens in the studio on a tripod in good light it'll be okay but is useless otherwise without that 3rd mode. ;P

Utterly unusable was just used.

So now I wait for the responses.

I have no dog in this fight just the urge to chow on some popped corn when absolutes are thrown around on the forum.

 

[TexPhoto]

it still has the old 2mode IS and is starting to look a bit dated.

Oh no... The old 2 mode IS kills it!!! The new 3 mode IS adds so much to the optical quality, it makes the images taken with the poor old 200 look like cr@p LOL

Yup, and lacking that 3rd mode makes it utterly unusable for anything that moves. If you leave this lens in the studio on a tripod in good light it'll be okay but is useless otherwise without that 3rd mode. ;P

Utterly unusable was just used.

So now I wait for the responses.

I have no dog in this fight just the urge to chow on some popped corn when absolutes are thrown around on the forum.

Please forward all your useless lenses to me for proper disposal. If tan/white or bearing a red ring, please pack carefully and use Fed-Ex overnight.

Good to see Sigma pressure Canon. The results will be great.

 

[Cali Capture]

Geezzz! I guess I left some troll bait in my post! Like how only some of my post was used for quotes! Guess I hit a sore spot, Hope the Canon 200mm f/2 "II" doesn't come out lighter, faster (back to 1.8) w/ better focus speed & lower cost than what a troll bought it for :0

 

[TeT]

it still has the old 2mode IS and is starting to look a bit dated.

Oh no... The old 2 mode IS kills it!!! The new 3 mode IS adds so much to the optical quality, it makes the images taken with the poor old 200 look like cr@p LOL

The 200 2 L does look a little tired and old compared to many lenses coming out today. IS 2 to IS 3 was an upgrade.

 

[PeterAlex7]

I dont know why sigma in a hurry to announce that they want to join the professional level. They want to join the club but afaik they still have some issue with AF consistency with their current lenses. Will they sacrifice weatherproof for a cheaper 200 f2? I doubt professionals out there will glad with this idea or thinking this is the solution for them who wont spent 6k for a 200 f2 lenses.

And for canon, i hope they replace the 200 f2. Come with the 3rd IS generation, and sharpness like the 300 f2.8 II.

 

[ykn123]

Hm someone really complains about the sharpness of the 200 f2 from Canon ? Must be a bad copy - the lens is a legend if it comes to sharpness. And the IS - i'll use mine for indoor / outdoor sports to freeze motion - in the 1/2000s range. IS doesn't matter here. I would not spent 6K for just doing portraits (the 85 1.2 or 135 f2 are much better value for money then) - and even if, with f2 and a decent camera (ISO noise wise) you have enough light to shoot at 1/200 or so - and the IS is way good enough for this. (except you have a strong tremor)

 

[GuyF]

Currently owning the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and awaiting an Art version, I hadn't considered a 200mm f2 for portraits. Since Sigma's focus consistency can be quite poor, the thought of having just 4 or 5cm of "in-focusness" when shooting a subject, say, 4m away at f2 with a 200mm lens must be a bit of a concern.

Anyone got any Canon 200mm f2 portraits to demonstrate the really narrow depth of field such a lens gives?

(I used the two sites below to calculate depth of field for a given sensor size + lens + f-stop + distance to subject)

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

 

[JimmyJames]

Anyone got any Canon 200mm f2 portraits to demonstrate the really narrow depth of field such a lens gives?

https://500px.com/search?q=200L+lisa+holloway&type=photos&sort=relevance

 

[Andyx01]

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS sells for $3,399 so I expect a 200mm f/2 to sell around that price if not more!

But no one else sells that 120-300 lens. It is unique in that regard. Sigma can be bullish there and thumb their nose at folks struggling between a slow 70-300L, short 70-200L, or comically pricey 300 f/2.8L.

If this lens materializes, it will be pricey, but perhaps not as pricey as you think.

- A

My bet would be this will be priced at or around $2199

If they made it without IS (which I doubt they will) I could see it as low as $1499 give or take.

My bet is also that the focus speed and accuracy will perform accordingly.

Bottom line is if you are a pro that needs to capture the moment, you will want he Canon.

If you have some wiggle room and can afford a few missed shots, or your composure doesn't demand as much, the sigma will do just fine.

 

[Maiaibing]

Currently owning the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and awaiting an Art version, I hadn't considered a 200mm f2 for portraits. Since Sigma's focus consistency can be quite poor, the thought of having just 4 or 5cm of "in-focusness" when shooting a subject, say, 4m away at f2 with a 200mm lens must be a bit of a concern.

Anyone got any Canon 200mm f2 portraits to demonstrate the really narrow depth of field such a lens gives?

(I used the two sites below to calculate depth of field for a given sensor size + lens + f-stop + distance to subject)

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

In real life you have a little more tolerance with the same look and feel compared to the 135L. I remind people when they consider the 85L or the 134L that you get more wide open keepers with the 135L than the 85L with very much the same look and feel to the result. And conversely even more with the 200L f/2 II.

The two girls in full figure on a road shows this eminently well.

So there is a little room for variations in AF as your numbers also show.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Anyone got any Canon 200mm f2 portraits to demonstrate the really narrow depth of field such a lens gives?

https://500px.com/search?q=200L+lisa+holloway&type=photos&sort=relevance

Great example. Lisa really rocks the 200L and makes me jealous every time she posts!

 

[ahsanford]

Anyone got any Canon 200mm f2 portraits to demonstrate the really narrow depth of field such a lens gives?

https://500px.com/search?q=200L+lisa+holloway&type=photos&sort=relevance

Great example. Lisa really rocks the 200L and makes me jealous every time she posts!

Yep. I know people use that lens for sports, but every time I see 200 f/2L portraits I wonder why it's used for anything else.

- A