A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16852"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16852">Tweet</a></div>
<p>A summary with the probability of upcoming Sigma lenses has appeared on sigma-rumors.com. Most of the lenses mentioned have been written about here in the past. Sigma’s focus over the last 2 years has been on high quality and affordable offerings, there’s no reason to think that won’t continue.</p>
<p>The most likely lenses to appear next would be:</p>
<ul>
<li>24mm f/1.4 DG ART</li>
<li>85mm f/1.4 DG ART</li>
</ul>
<p>Both of these lenses have a chance to appear at Photokina in a couple of months. I’d say the 85mm f/1.4 is a given, but the 24mm f/1.4 could fall to later this year or early 2015. With Zeiss expected to announce their Otus 85mm f/1.4 in September, Sigma could play spoiler with an optically great lens with autofocus at a much cheaper price.</p>
<p>The other lenses according to the site with the highest probability of happening are:</p>
<ul>
<li>24-70mm f/2 DG ART</li>
<li>300-600mm f/? OS Sport</li>
</ul>
<p>We’ve heard about both of these in the past, and I’m inclined to believe the supertelephoto zoom is definitely something Sigma is developing. The 24-70mm f/2, I’m not 100% sure on. If Sigma wants to differentiate themselves from the Canon and Nikon offerings, then such a lens would do the trick.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/07/next-sigma-lenses-cameras-big-rumor-post/" target="_blank">Read more at the Sigma Rumors roundup</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Maui5150]

Both 85 f/1.4 and 300-600 F/? would be sweet and have a nice following.

85 f/1.4 would get me to toss my Canon f1.8, just don't shoot it enough to justify the f/1.2 but want a little more...

As much as the Tamron 150-600 looks like a solid compromise lens and biggest bang for buck around, a 300-600, especially if comes in with a fixed of f/5.6 or there abouts even F/4.5-5.6 and anywhere close to $3.5K or less would be hard to beat... Now that price is asking for a lot, but given the 120-300 f/2.8 is $3.5K still might be doable. The 500 is $5K so probably asking too much...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....

 

[ajperk]

While I think they will put out an admirable 85mm f/1.4 lens, I am personally hoping to see a 135mm f/2 (or 1.8?) from Sigma in the not too distant future. A 24-70mm lens with a constant f/2 aperture sounds pretty awesome, but (even with Sigma's relatively reasonable pricing so far) I imagine it will definitely be north of $1000 and maybe even $1500 which is a bit outside my budget for at least the next couple of years still.

 

[seamonster]

well, even $1500 MSRP is still less than the canon offering and you know that even if Sigma's 24-70 f/2 isn't as sharp wide open, you can be damn sure that it will be or even better when equivalent aperture.

I was surprised that the 50mm EX wasn't the first to get the ART treatment - the president of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens but really glad they took their time with it to get it right.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

The cost of new "white glass" is beyond most of us now. Sigma has proven it can make a competing lens in the lower prime and zoom range. Cost versus performance is the key to success here. The market for under 200mm is flooded with options. Sigma needs to go big and fast if they want to capture the market. Attacking the longer lens market makes good marketing sense. A competing lens for Canon's 200-400 would be a smart move. Quality has to be the #1 objective to break into this "deep pockets" territory. Personally, I think they should not attempt going past 500mm at the top end due to f stop considerations. I think that's why Canon stopped at 400mm. If you can deal with the light loss of an extender, Canon's flip in 1.4x makes perfect sense. If Sigma wants to deliver a knock-out punch, The perfect range would look more like 150-300mm f2.8-f4 with a flip in 2x converter resulting in a 300-600mm.
If Sigma could produce that lens at the quality/cost breakaway point, they would break into a huge market.

 

[ajperk]

well, even $1500 MSRP is still less than the canon offering and you know that even if Sigma's 24-70 f/2 isn't as sharp wide open, you can be damn sure that it will be or even better when equivalent aperture.

I was surprised that the 50mm EX wasn't the first to get the ART treatment - the president of Sigma has said himself that its his favorite lens but really glad they took their time with it to get it right.

I definitely have no qualms, in an objective sense, with the lens carrying a $1500 price tag (or even more for that matter), just that it will likely be outside of my budget. Even it if isn't sharp corner to corner wide-open, given Sigma's recent releases I absolutely believe it'll be pretty excellent in the center at f/2 (where many many people will be placing their subjects at such an aperture anyway), and given what they seem to have been able to pull off at f/1.4 on the recent 50mm lens they may indeed be able to get corner to corner sharpness at f/2.

 

[Khalai]

I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.

 

[Dantana]

I just simply cannot believe in the fanthom 24-70/2 Art lens. Look at the current 2.8 offering - size and weight. Do you really want 1,5 kg lens with 86+mm front lens diameter? I'm glad with ~800g of the current 24-70/2.8L II, even still, sometimes feels a bit on the heavier size.

You beat me to it. That lens would be a beast. I think we are more likely to see good 24-70 2.8 in the Art line at a competitive price, possibly with IS. Sigma hasn't chosen to go faster on the 35 or 50 than Canon. They have concentrated on sharpness and build quality.

 

[Plainsman]

Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

 

[Lee Jay]

A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.

If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it. But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me. I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what I've done.

 

[ecka]

My missing Art lens list is:
Sigma 12mm f/2.8 DG ART
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 DG ART
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG MACRO (1:3-ish) ART
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG ART
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART
Sigma 100-300 f/4 DG OS ART

 

[kkelis]

I believe i am one of the few interested in the 24mm f/1.4. If they make it as good as their 35mm in terms of sharpness and vignetting wide open, and if the coma is well controlled, it will be a beautiful lens for wide angle astro photography.
The coma on the current canon 24mm f/1.4 LII is awful even when stopped down at f/2 and i dont believe a new 24mm LIII is coming from canon in the next 2-3 years.

 

[Loswr]

A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.

If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it. But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me. I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what IvI've done.

Might be fine...if Sigma doesn't botch the reverse-engineering of the Canon AF system as they do all too often.

The 24-105L is a decent lens, actually quite good if you can shoot in the f/8-f/11 range, but not as good at apertures wider than f/5.6. For me, a standard zoom is usually used for people or on a tripod, so IS is essentially useless...I'm quite happy with the stellar IQ of the 24-70/2.8L II.

 

[AlanF]

Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.

 

[that1guyy]

Just a nitpick, but wouldn't a 24-70 f2 fall under their "CONTEMPORARY" line and not ART?

 

[that1guyy]

A 24-70/2 OS is the only one of these that would excite me. The 18-35/1.8 seems to indicate Sigma could go this way. As long as it were around 70-200/2.8 size or smaller, that would be fine.

If the Canon 24-70/2.8 had IS, I might have considered it. But without IS, all of them are non-starters for me. I'll just keep my 24-105 in that case, which is exactly what IvI've done.

You mean as they DID, all too often, not do. The AF issues with Sigma 35 and 50 are in line with any lens, including that of your precious Canon lenses.
Might be fine...if Sigma doesn't botch the reverse-engineering of the Canon AF system as they do all too often.

The 24-105L is a decent lens, actually quite good if you can shoot in the f/8-f/11 range, but not as good at apertures wider than f/5.6. For me, a standard zoom is usually used for people or on a tripod, so IS is essentially useless...I'm quite happy with the stellar IQ of the 24-70/2.8L II.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

hmmmmm...I rather like the sound of a 24-70mm f/2 DG ART....

that sucker might be size of the 300 2.8 IS!

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

They could make the 24-70 F2 with a little hook to the rear, that way when your arms fall off trying to shoot with it you can hang it on your light stand and use it as a sand bag.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

Just a nitpick, but wouldn't a 24-70 f2 fall under their "CONTEMPORARY" line and not ART?

Definitely Art, definitely not their lower spec / price Contemporary range.

I'm still unclear whether there is any substance in the 24-70mm f/2 rumour or whether it's based wholly on that photoshopped fake pic that did the rounds a while ago. Sigma considered 18-35mm the broadest zoom range they could do on a high quality f/1.8 AP-S lens. How realistic is it to suppose Sigma now has an optical formula promising similar quality in a full-frame f/2 2.9x wide-to-telephoto zoom?