Specifications for the 5 upcoming Sigma lenses have leaked

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark II
Jul 20, 2010
6,996
53
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
#1
We learned this past week that Sigma will be announcing five new ahead of Photokina, which begins on September 26, 2018.
Below are the specifications for the upcoming lenses.
Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art

Lens construction: 12 groups 17 elements (including 2 FLD lenses and 3 SLD lenses)
Minimum focusing distance: 28 cm
Maximum photographing magnification: 1: 5.4
Filter diameter: 77mm
Size: 82.8mm x 107.7mm
Weight: To be determined
Mount: Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Sony E

Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM | Art

Lenses developed to meet the requirements of the high-end cinerene lens
Lens construction: 12 groups 16 elements (3 FLD lenses and 3 SLD lenses included)
Minimum focusing distance: 40cm
Maximum shooting magnification: 1: 6.5
Filter diameter: 82mm
Size: 87.8mm x 131mm
Weight: 1200g
Mount: Sigma, Canon, Nikon, Sony E

Sigma 70-200mm...


Continue reading...
 
Last edited:
May 8, 2015
276
14
#9
You really should have included the source—Nokishita, as usual—when posting this. That's someone else's work you've copied & pasted; naming and linking them is the least you should do.

Anyway.

Well, Sigma have made it quite clear over the last few years that they don't give a second thought to weight or size. Want to travel light? Sigma doesn't care. Want to fit your entire kit in a shoulder bag? Sigma doesn't care. Want to use screw-in filters? Sigma doesn't care.
Usually the optical quality and price is enough to justify it, but I do think they have recently gone overboard. The 105mm f/1.4, we were told, has the gigantic front element and weighs as much as a 70-200 in order to reduce vignetting. In reality it has almost exactly the same vignetting as the much smaller and lighter Nikon 105mm f/1.4. The Sigma 85mm is an optically superb lens, but there are several other 85-135mm lenses which outclass it while also being smaller.

I really want a pro-grade, fast 28mm lens for Canon. But that's a focal length I want because I grew up with it as the de facto walkaround lens. That's a focal length I like for environmental portraits, not studio portraits. 83x108mm and a 77mm filter thread mean it's almost certainly going to be over the 1kg mark. For a totally neutral, extra-high-quality 65mm lens I may use for a full-body shot in the studio, 77mm filters and 1kg+ bulk is fine. For a 28mm lens to use in the middle of a crowded trade show or bringing around a stately home? Nope. Nope, nope. Nope nope nope nopenope. Nope.

I mean, I expected it to be large, but that's taking the piss.


Good news is, as I mentioned on the last post about these lenses, I've handled the 56mm a while back and not only is it relatively light (especially by Sigma standards) but it's also extremely high-quality, despite the 'C' badge which I know a lot of people don't trust. Of all these, that is the lens which is really going to make a significant difference to the market.


I suppose I'll have to keep my fingers crossed Tamron will be inspired and make a more practical 28mm, since they do already have a quality 45mm. Lord knows Canon's had a 28mm f/1.4L patent forever and never acted on it...

60-600 is only 140g less than the new Canon/Sony 400/2.8s....what a pig of a lens....
Yes, but that's a case of the new 400mm primes being exceptionally light, and a 60-600 zoom having so much range that there's really no way it wouldn't be heavy. That's not a lens which is ever going to be used handheld, anyway, so I don't see it as much of a problem. If someone needs that kind of insane range in a zoom, they're not going to mind the size of it.
 
Likes: Sharlin

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,055
281
#10
They could have made it a kg lighter. The Sigma 150-600mm S weighs 3.155 kg with hood compared with 2.025 kg for the C version. The S is built like a tank and has a very inconvenient 105mm diameter front element compared with a 95mm on the C. There is little to choose between the two optically. Sigma presumably have done the market research but I feel a cheaper lightweight C 60-600mm would have more appeal.
 
Likes: Talys
Jul 16, 2017
77
11
Hamburg, Germany
#11
You really should have included the source—Nokishita, as usual—when posting this. That's someone else's work you've copied & pasted; naming and linking them is the least you should do.
It says Source Nokishita right below the post for me on Chrome mobile. And I am certain that was the case from the moment it went up, not added after your reply.

Just wanted to highlight this, since giving credits is somewhat rare one the Internet these days, so it shouldn't be ignored when its done.

Anyway, reading the weight of that 40mm shocked me a little bit. I have the 35mm 1.4 Art and delivers optical Quality that frequently amazes me - at about 670g. I'm curious what sort of improvements justify increasing that by almost 100%. I doubt the extra 5mm are to blame for it.

I always imagine Sigma coming up with the Art Series like: "What if 35mm... but big?" The thought must have continued for this one: "What if 35mm 1.4 Art... but BIG?" :LOL:
 
Nov 10, 2016
29
7
#12
I suppose I'll have to keep my fingers crossed Tamron will be inspired and make a more practical 28mm, since they do already have a quality 45mm. Lord knows Canon's had a 28mm f/1.4L patent forever and never acted on it...


Yes, but that's a case of the new 400mm primes being exceptionally light, and a 60-600 zoom having so much range that there's really no way it wouldn't be heavy. That's not a lens which is ever going to be used handheld, anyway, so I don't see it as much of a problem. If someone needs that kind of insane range in a zoom, they're not going to mind the size of it.
I was looking at the Tamron 45mm f/1.4 yesterday at a Tamron event. Focus is too slow on my 5DIV for what I need. I agree that a 28mm f/1.4 would be a great lens after looking at some images from my 24-70mm f/2.8L II from a party that lit Chinese flying wish lanterns. My favorite environmental shots were at 28mm compared to others at 35mm and I could have used f/1.4 in the very dark field.

The 150-600mm lenses are a little long when the wildlife comes in close for a portrait session. A sharp, quick AF 60-600mm would be very popular in Alaska regardless of the weight. This lens will be great for everything from birds, bears and whales to excursions into Denali National Park. One body with one heavy lens is still lighter than 2 bodies with with two lenses to cover the same focal range around your neck. This lens will be on my buy list if it has a good AF hit rate and is as sharp as others in its class.
 
Dec 30, 2016
13
8
#13
Those Sigmas are way to big and heavy. Is it really necessary? Look at the new Sony 24mm f/1.4. That is an ok size. And still nice and sharp. But the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 is 1200 grams! And uses 82mm filters?? Come on....
 
May 8, 2015
276
14
#14
It says Source Nokishita right below the post for me on Chrome mobile. And I am certain that was the case from the moment it went up, not added after your reply.

Just wanted to highlight this, since giving credits is somewhat rare one the Internet these days, so it shouldn't be ignored when its done.
I just checked on mobile and you're right, it is there when viewing on my phone; but it's still not there here on desktop. So either way, something needs to be done.

I was looking at the Tamron 45mm f/1.4 yesterday at a Tamron event. Focus is too slow on my 5DIV for what I need.
I found it fast enough, albeit I've mostly used it on a 1DX2 (which delivers more power to the motors than the 5D4) and a 5D3 back when the lens launched (which always had slower focus on all lenses anyway). Regardless, the main selling point of the Tamron 45 to me is it's one of the few 'standard' primes with IS and weather sealing and, most importantly, it's got the most consistent edge-to-edge quality; only the strictest and most unrealistic of lab tests show any difference between the corners and the centre and there's zero distortion. That's become Tamron's whole thing. They're not record-breakers, but they're the most consistent.
 
Likes: FramerMCB
Feb 13, 2013
286
11
36
Czech Republic
#15
I don't get the "S" line. It contains high grade pro lenses like 500/4, 120-300/2.8 and now 70-200/2.8 - those look like lenses for action shooting. But also mediocre 150-600/6.3 and now even 60-600/6.3. Zoom range is definitely going in the wrong direction and the max aperture as well.

Definition of "S" line now seems to be everything which has focal length above 135 and is not made of plastic.
 
Jul 5, 2013
33
1
#16
I don't get the "S" line. It contains high grade pro lenses like 500/4, 120-300/2.8 and now 70-200/2.8 - those look like lenses for action shooting. But also mediocre 150-600/6.3 and now even 60-600/6.3. Zoom range is definitely going in the wrong direction and the max aperture as well.

Definition of "S" line now seems to be everything which has focal length above 135 and is not made of plastic.
The "mediocre" 150-600 allows you to do handhold wildlife shooting for hours. That's very action oriented for me.
 

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,097
33
#17
I don't get the "S" line. It contains high grade pro lenses like 500/4, 120-300/2.8 and now 70-200/2.8 - those look like lenses for action shooting. But also mediocre 150-600/6.3 and now even 60-600/6.3. Zoom range is definitely going in the wrong direction and the max aperture as well.

Definition of "S" line now seems to be everything which has focal length above 135 and is not made of plastic.
Marketing. Being marked as a "C" is Sigma's scarlet letter.
 
May 8, 2015
276
14
#19
I don't get the "S" line. It contains high grade pro lenses like 500/4, 120-300/2.8 and now 70-200/2.8 - those look like lenses for action shooting. But also mediocre 150-600/6.3 and now even 60-600/6.3. Zoom range is definitely going in the wrong direction and the max aperture as well.
The 150-600 Sport is far from mediocre. It's the only third-party telephoto zoom that I've found actually competes with the first-party equivalents. It's basically on par with the excellent Canon 100-400mkII; it's not quite as optically clear on an APS-C body, but they're equal in practice on a 35mm body, you're getting significantly more reach, and it's optically better than the 100-400 on a 1.4x. The AF is also nearly on first-party levels, extremely competent on appropriate bodies.

It does fall behind if you're photographing test charts in a lab, but guess what, footballers don't wear test charts on their shirts and birds aren't carrying test charts in their beaks.

Definition of "S" line now seems to be everything which has focal length above 135 and is not made of plastic.
The definition of the Sport line is anything which is 1) fully sealed, 2) prioritises mid- to infinity-focus optic quality, and 3) prioritises operation over optics. (Not that any of the Sport lenses so far are optically weak in any way.) The aspects Sport lenses don't care about are size, weight, price, and optic quality at minimum focus.
For reference, Contemporary is about getting under certain size and price points for the focal length/aperture combination, and Art is about prioritising optic quality at mid- to minimum-focus distances. It's a little more nuanced than that, but it's not really hard to tell why a lens fits into which category.
 
Likes: Michael Clark

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,267
256
Canada
#20
well.......

They had a 50-500 and the optics were soft..... but it sold well.....

They now have a 60-600 and the optics are soft, but this time they have their 150-600 to compete with, a lens with better optics. The question will be, just how many people are willing to trade a bit of sharpness for a bit of convenience...