Big Sigma Primes [CR2]

[fegari]

Good point. Perhaps the Art line is for apertures larger than 2.8. With the upcoming release of the 18-35mm f/1.8, we know that Sigma doesn't play by the rules. The new superteles might just be faster than 2.8. Wouldn't that be a kick. Don't know about the weight though.

If Sigma were to do an optically, even maybe mechanically competitive 300, 400, 500 & 600 I think it'll be unlikelly they'll be any faster than the Canon counterparts. I mean, Sigma is really upping their game with the recent releases but the laws of physics are the same all around Japan...an hypotetical 300f2, 400f2, 500f2.8 will be monster 10Kg lenses with uber gigantic front element diameterss, unpractical for 90+% of the people they might be in fact trying to reach.

 

[CarlTN]

Guessing the availability of these future large Sigma telephoto lenses is a year off or more. Regarding their optical or overall quality...it won't matter to some photogs how good these are. They still won't be up to Canon's level in their minds. Sigma is simply a red-headed stepchild, only worthy of scorn. As constant and eternal as the tides...and it's especially true if the Sigma lens costs less than the similar Canon model.

I'm considering purchasing three lenses over the next couple of months, and none of them are made by Canon...but these will be used on a Canon camera. One of these is a Sigma, the 35mm...the others Rokinon and Tamron. The only brand of these which I have no personal experience with yet, is Tamron.

I currently own three canon lenses, one Voigtlander, and one Sigma...and have bought and sold several other Sigmas in the past. The only lens I've ever used that was (slightly) "decentered" was a Tokina. The only time I've been published (so far), was using a Sigma lens...a rather critically maligned one at that. It was still practically Zeiss-level optically, compared to the absurd Canon 18-55 kit lens it replaced. I sold that Sigma for the same price I paid for it, new...after owning it for three years. The buyer was overjoyed to get it! Apparently word got out how good a value it was, especially after it was replaced with an optically inferior model with "OS".

I've never used a Sigma lens with a painted finish...but Sigma is not the only brand who has painted their metal lenses in the past...and then the paint flakes off. That's why most modern DSLR lenses don't have a painted finish, nowadays...

 

[AlanF]

Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.

EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS

The Canon 400/4 DO is very expensive and is slightly mediocre optically.
I was thinking that Sigma could wisely ignore the 10 year old DO concept and give us a conventional sharp wide open 400/4.

The Canon 300mm f/2.8 II with the 1.4x TC III is an f/4 420mm, with IQ at least as good as the 200-400mm, and with the 2xTC at 600mm slightly better than the 200-400 with its 1.4xTC TC flipped in. Sigma would have to match the Canon pricing, weight and quality of the 300mm combinations competing with the Sigma native primes.

 

[CarlTN]

Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.

EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS

The Canon 400/4 DO is very expensive and is slightly mediocre optically.
I was thinking that Sigma could wisely ignore the 10 year old DO concept and give us a conventional sharp wide open 400/4.

There was a recent rumor about new Canon DO lens patents or designs, and people seem to want that. It's possible new technology can wring higher optical performance from the DO technique...or not.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Mr Sigma - go for a 400/4.
All the other lens fl/apertures combinations are covered by the big boys.

EF 400mm 4.0 DO IS

The Canon 400/4 DO is very expensive and is slightly mediocre optically.
I was thinking that Sigma could wisely ignore the 10 year old DO concept and give us a conventional sharp wide open 400/4.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html

Plus:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732111-USA/Canon_4410B002_Extender_EF_2X_III.html



Gets you a 200/2 and a 400/4 with no future AF compatibility worries and high resale if you need; all for $6500 USD.

 

[roadrunner]

Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).

Their new nomenclature is terrible. In my opinion, they should have just stuck to two lines. One for top of the line (Art to compete with Canon's L, perhaps?) and the rest. Alas, their art line has been great so far, so I can't criticize them too much.

 

[sagittariansrock]

+1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :

Or, like an expensive line of lens being called "luxury" (L)?

 

[CarlTN]

+1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :

Or, like an expensive line of lens being called "luxury" (L)?

+1, the new nomenclature is not "silly" at all. It is however an obvious marketing ploy...what matters is the product itself. But certainly calling something "art" is not earthshattering. If they had used "turbo", then that would have been silly. Art can certainly be generated from Sigma lenses.

 

[brad-man]

+1 I like the 'new' quality (and will probably get the 35 mm this year), but I think the nomenclature is just plain silly, and amateuristic too. Just like a car manufacturer printing 'Off Road" on a 4x4, 'Street' on a passenger car, 'Town' on something small and compact, just so you wouldn't get the wrong model by mistake :

Or, like an expensive line of lens being called "luxury" (L)?

+1, the new nomenclature is not "silly" at all. It is however an obvious marketing ploy...what matters is the product itself. But certainly calling something "art" is not earthshattering. If they had used "turbo", then that would have been silly. Art can certainly be generated from Sigma lenses.

+1 Call me shallow if you will, but it's by far the best looking lens I own (and I own quite a few). Art is the perfect designation.