Patent: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sport

[Canon Rumors]

A patent showing the optical formula for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-75828</p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2016.5.12</li>
<li>Filing date 2014.10.8</li>
<li>Zoom ratio 2.67</li>
<li>Focal length 72.41 118.50 193.38</li>
<li>F-number 2.92 2.92 2.92</li>
<li>Full angle of view 2ω 33.58 20.51 12.56</li>
<li>The image height Y 21.63 21.63 21.63</li>
<li>The total lens length 250.00 250.00 250.00</li>
</ul>
<p>This lens along with a new 24-70mm f/2.8 OS Art have been long expected from Sigma.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Maui5150]

{YAWN}

Where is the 85mm ART (1.2 or 1.4 would be FAB)

 

[pwp]

This would have to be 100% awesome quality with Sigma's best ever AF to compete head on with the King, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII.

-pw

 

[wsmith96]

This would have to be 100% awesome quality with Sigma's best ever AF to compete head on with the King, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII.

-pw

I am doubtful that this will displace the mkII as the king. The mkII is just that good. We'll see though - sigma's been turning out some great glass lately. If they could just resolve their AF quirks.

 

[dufflover]

Bit surprising they didn't do this sooner the more I think about it given it's one of the most commonly used (or at least wanted) lenses. Or maybe it's just taken them all this time to find an optical formula worth patenting against the current competition

 

[Luds34]

This would have to be 100% awesome quality with Sigma's best ever AF to compete head on with the King, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII.

-pw

I am doubtful that this will displace the mkII as the king. The mkII is just that good. We'll see though - sigma's been turning out some great glass lately. If they could just resolve their AF quirks.

I agree, even if the IQ is better, at what point is the IQ so good that it isn't really a factor in the purchase decision? No, I'm going to guess, even if the AF is really really good, it will still only be 9/10 of what the Canon is and therefore the Canon will be the better purchase.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

This would have to be 100% awesome quality with Sigma's best ever AF to compete head on with the King, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII.

Even the current Sigma 70-200mm OS does just that - I shoot regularly with a very capable 'tog who uses the Canon lens, and I match him frame for frame (both using 7D Mk IIs) with my Siggy.

(Sorry to speak from actual first-hand experience there).

 

[Keith_Reeder]

{YAWN}

Where is the 85mm ART (1.2 or 1.4 would be FAB)

They won't make your selfies and cat pictures any better...

 

[ScottyP]

When the Canon lens was $2500 there was room for a good Sigma in that range at a 40% discount vs the Canon. Now you can usually get the Canon for $1,800 if you look. Just on the price question, I'm not sure too many people would pass on the especially excellent Canon version unless the Siggy could be substantially cheaper, like $1200 or so. Don't know if they can go that cheap though.

Nikon has a good 70-200 too. Maybe the other camera makers are more vulnerable to a Siggy 70-200?

 

[wsmith96]

Bit surprising they didn't do this sooner the more I think about it given it's one of the most commonly used (or at least wanted) lenses. Or maybe it's just taken them all this time to find an optical formula worth patenting against the current competition

I'm also surprised that it's not f/2. I think that Sigma was smart not to come out with this lens earlier. They focused on areas where there were opportunities against canon's offerings, but now those are becoming more scarce. It also gave them time to perfect their offering as it will have to be very compelling to dislodge the established canon base.

 

[BobHope]

A 70-200 f2.8 *has* to have stellar AF accuracy, tight integration with the cameras autofocus system for tracking, and excellent VR.

And it is precisely these areas that Sigma struggle with.

I have a few newer Sigma lenses, the 180mm f2.8 Macro, the 50mm Art, and whilst the optics are the best in the market all the other features lag far behind. My current 70-200 MURDERS the Sigma 180mm and 50mm Art on those three aspects.

On a macro lens and a walkaround 50mm, the optics make it forgivable. On a 70-200 ? unless you are going to use it for portraits Sigma will have to try very hard to match Canon or Nikon 70-200's

 

[pvalpha]

This would have to be 100% awesome quality with Sigma's best ever AF to compete head on with the King, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII.

By the time they come out with the Sport we'll probably start hearing solid rumors about the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS III. And the Sigma lens that comes out, even if it matches the quality of the current EF-70-200 f/2.8 IS II, will likely be heavier, bigger, and still have an AF that is "oh so close" yet so far away as it dances that little jig at the end. Don't get me wrong, Sigma's Global Vision design makes a beautiful lens. And if you twiddle with the dock enough I'm sure you can tweak it to your shooting styles. But the price of the more recent Sigmas hasn't been so much lower than the Canon glass that you wouldn't feel like waiting for a Canon sale instead. Especially on the 70-200.

Our workplace has the current Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM. I liked the lens a lot. But it also failed to hit the mark... a lot. It was better than anything I had at the time (a couple older EF lenses, the nifty fifty, and the 18-135 stm kit), of course. And it encouraged me that I really wanted a 70-200 in my bag. So I dumped the $$$ and went for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

I suck. I know I suck. And no lens or camera nor massive amount of photoshop will ever change that. Only time and experience. So me saying anything positive or negative about either lens is neither here or there. However... I do love the images from the Canon. And despite it weighing a ton - I find myself actively looking for things to take pictures of because they just look that awesome. This lens only left my camera when I needed a wide-angle shot recently and I've been carrying it with me everywhere. (of course, that could be purchase bias, but... I'm having a blast!)

(full disclosure, I'm a tech geek who enjoys geeking out and speculating about everything tech, especially photography tech)

 

[yorgasor]

Bit surprising they didn't do this sooner the more I think about it given it's one of the most commonly used (or at least wanted) lenses. Or maybe it's just taken them all this time to find an optical formula worth patenting against the current competition

I'm also surprised that it's not f/2. I think that Sigma was smart not to come out with this lens earlier. They focused on areas where there were opportunities against canon's offerings, but now those are becoming more scarce. It also gave them time to perfect their offering as it will have to be very compelling to dislodge the established canon base.

Do you realize how big the lens would be to be f/2? Look at the Canon 200mm f/2, the front lens is huge and has some serious weight to it. Now add some zoomable optics in there and the thing gets even bigger. The lens would also run $4-6k with glass that size. Are you sure you want it to be f/2?

 

[FramerMCB]

When the Canon lens was $2500 there was room for a good Sigma in that range at a 40% discount vs the Canon. Now you can usually get the Canon for $1,800 if you look. Just on the price question, I'm not sure too many people would pass on the especially excellent Canon version unless the Siggy could be substantially cheaper, like $1200 or so. Don't know if they can go that cheap though.

Nikon has a good 70-200 too. Maybe the other camera makers are more vulnerable to a Siggy 70-200?

I've read reviews that the newer Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC is quite a stellar performer. And it comes in at $1,499.

 

[ScottyP]

When the Canon lens was $2500 there was room for a good Sigma in that range at a 40% discount vs the Canon. Now you can usually get the Canon for $1,800 if you look. Just on the price question, I'm not sure too many people would pass on the especially excellent Canon version unless the Siggy could be substantially cheaper, like $1200 or so. Don't know if they can go that cheap though.

Nikon has a good 70-200 too. Maybe the other camera makers are more vulnerable to a Siggy 70-200?

I've read reviews that the newer Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC is quite a stellar performer. And it comes in at $1,499.

Interesting comparison. The big stores have the Tammy at $1500 but there are other smaller places, plus eBay, selling it for $1050 to $1150.

I wonder how the Tamron is selling in the Canon mount in particular. The Sony 70-200 2.8 goes for $2,900 retail. Maybe it will be easier for 3rd parties to undercut the Sony lens than the Canon if the Sony it costs that bleeding much.
The current Siggy lists at $1150 street but eBay grey copies sell for $900.

 

[wsmith96]

Bit surprising they didn't do this sooner the more I think about it given it's one of the most commonly used (or at least wanted) lenses. Or maybe it's just taken them all this time to find an optical formula worth patenting against the current competition

I'm also surprised that it's not f/2. I think that Sigma was smart not to come out with this lens earlier. They focused on areas where there were opportunities against canon's offerings, but now those are becoming more scarce. It also gave them time to perfect their offering as it will have to be very compelling to dislodge the established canon base.

Do you realize how big the lens would be to be f/2? Look at the Canon 200mm f/2, the front lens is huge and has some serious weight to it. Now add some zoomable optics in there and the thing gets even bigger. The lens would also run $4-6k with glass that size. Are you sure you want it to be f/2?

Yes I do realize how big it would be. I didn't say I wanted it to be f/2 - just that I was surprised that Sigma didn't try to make it an f/2 based upon what they've been doing on their zooms.

 

[syder]

When the Canon lens was $2500 there was room for a good Sigma in that range at a 40% discount vs the Canon. Now you can usually get the Canon for $1,800 if you look. Just on the price question, I'm not sure too many people would pass on the especially excellent Canon version unless the Siggy could be substantially cheaper, like $1200 or so. Don't know if they can go that cheap though.

Nikon has a good 70-200 too. Maybe the other camera makers are more vulnerable to a Siggy 70-200?

I've read reviews that the newer Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC is quite a stellar performer. And it comes in at $1,499.

Interesting comparison. The big stores have the Tammy at $1500 but there are other smaller places, plus eBay, selling it for $1050 to $1150.

I wonder how the Tamron is selling in the Canon mount in particular. The Sony 70-200 2.8 goes for $2,900 retail. Maybe it will be easier for 3rd parties to undercut the Sony lens than the Canon if the Sony it costs that bleeding much.
The current Siggy lists at $1150 street but eBay grey copies sell for $900.

I have the Canon mkII at home, and it's one of my most used lenses, but bought six of the Tamron 70-200 VC for work (teaching at a university). In NZD it works out as about 90% of the performance for 50-60% of the price, which when we were buying sets of lenses worked out as enough of a saving to buy a load of extra primes.

If you really need the very slightly better image quality, and very slightly faster focusing (and if you're a pro shooting sports then there's a strong case that you do) then the Canon is probably worth the extra money. If you're not making money off the images though the Tamron is a fantastic lens for a lot less money.

Between those two options Sigma will have to do something pretty special to present a compelling alternative. But then their Art lenses have been optically fantastic recently, so let's wait and see eh.

 

[Ozarker]

But which mounts will it be available in?

The Canadian Mounted

 

[Wizardly]

The two embodiments for APS-C sized 50-175mm f/2.8 lenses look very interesting.

 

[Alex_M]

A patent showing the optical formula for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens has appeared.</p>
<p>Patent Publication No. 2016-75828</p>
<ul>
...........
<li>The total lens length 250.00 250.00 250.00</li>

</ul>
.....

250mm total length is... massive. I am suprised no one noticed. Nearly 1.4 times length increase from the old Sigma, Tamron or Canon offerings. Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sports stands only 40 mm longer than that, but is huge and nearly 3.5kg heavy. There must be an important reason why Sigma choose to go for such an extreme measures to achieve their goal. I suspect that large than 77mm front filter size is almost given and weight in 2kg plus territory is likely.
It seems that we are going to see another unique lens from Sigma.