Four New Sigma Lenses Leak Ahead of CP+

[tron]

I do not want to sound pessimistic but the Sigma 20mm 1.4 sucked comawise (at 1.4 and a little less at 2.0).

http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

So I hope they worked hard enough this time to minimize coma because a coma free 14mm 1.8 would be HUGE! (pun not intended) for astrophotography.

I was thinking Samyang 14 2.4 but now I will wait (Anyway I astro shoot during summer...)

 

[Random Orbits]

•Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

An odd max aperture range. slower than Canon's 100-400s. f/6.3 at the long end (when does it reach f/6.3?) might limit it's AF performance.

Wonder if this is a play for mirrorless systems of the future.

 

[BeenThere]

I do not want to sound pessimistic but the Sigma 20mm 1.4 sucked comawise (at 1.4 and a little less at 2.0).

http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

So I hope they worked hard enough this time to minimize coma because a coma free 14mm 1.8 would be HUGE! (pun not intended) for astrophotography.

I was thinking Samyang 14 2.4 but now I will wait (Anyway I astro shoot during summer...)

Ditto. Also the vignetting is likely to be very high on a 14mm f/1.8 at the wide apertures.

 

[hendrik-sg]

Alow me to comment on the usability of 14mm 1.8 on a crop camera.

it will be usable, definitively and it will most likely give very good results.

But using a ultra wide lens as a moderately wide lens on crop is a waste of effort, which may be reflected be beeing uneconomical.

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF. Asuming this lens will not be a cheap one, it would be interesting to buy a 6d or used 5d3 and a 24.2.8 IS instead, which gives image stabilisation on top. There may be similar examples with different wide angel lenses, so for somebody who considers this style of high quality lenses a FF body is a logical investment.

For Tele lenses, the situation is very different, a 80d with 55-250 lens gives similar view like a FF body with a 100-400 lens, but is much cheaper and lighter. Just in bad light and for subject isolation, the FF body offers unbeatable advantage, but in this combination for a very high price and weight

 

[Antono Refa]

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.

It will be equivalent to f/2.8 in terms of depth of field, and f/1.8 in terms of exposure.

How many photographers buy an ultra wide lens for the bokeh or shallow depth of field?

 

[heretikeen]

I can bet my home that Sigma 24-70 is going to absolutely and massively kill the Tamron 24-70 VC lens. I owned one before. It is not a stellar performer. Plain and simple..

I can't wait to see how the 24-70 stacks up against the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

First time ever I heard that. Usual opinion is that the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC blows the first Canon 24-70 2.8 out of the water, and as an owner I second that opinion.

 

[Joakim]

I mostly shoot at 70mm or more (mostly above 200mm actually) and have rarely looked at wide angle lenses.

What makes the 14mm 1.8 so special?

It would be the first wide angle at that wide of an aperture. Most are f/2.8. Samyang/Rokinon has a f/2.4.
Astrophotographers love fast wide angles for night photos. Reason being is that when you photo the night sky like the stars. The Earth is still spinning and the longer the exposure the more the stars actually start getting egg shaped and can even look like comets if its very long. So to keep the shutter speed low, your forced to bring the ISO up since your likely already using f/2.8 or faster anyway. So you often end up using ISO800 on a f/2.8 lens on good night. If this new lens is sharp and has no coma at f/1.8 you could easily use an ISO of 400 or even ISO320 (or about). Which would drastically reduce high ISO noise. Hope this helps.

Thanks!

Is there anything about the physics of making such a lens that has made no one make it yet or just the fact that a 14mm prime is going to have a fairly narrow market?

 

[midluk]

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.

It will be equivalent to f/2.8 in terms of depth of field, and f/1.8 in terms of exposure.

It's f/1.8 for the exposure if you go by the ISO numbers on the camera. But if you go by the noise performance, it is close to f/2.8.
f/1.8 with ISO x on crop will give you roughly the same noise as f/2.8 with ISO 2.5*x on FF.

 

[sanj]

nothing to do with new model of camera or not. I shoot with 2 x 6D bodies for better HIGH ISO. and nothing to do with lenses not being optically great on aps-c. these lenses are totally overkill for APS-C sensor and they were desinged for much wider circle of confusion. hence size and weight - and price.
one can succesfully use them on the APS-C, but is that optimal solution? no, it is not.

you will be much better served with SIgma 18-35 F1.8, 50-100 F1.8 combo - native APS-C lenses.

I own the 18-35mm BTW. NO its not best suited for me as I shoot portraits and this lens has screwed up AF system. If the 50-100 had a dependable focus system I would own it. But its just as screwed up.

wide would you use humongous 1........

and there is pretty much no issues with focusing on any mirrorless body like Sony's A7 or A6xxx series.

yes, because mirrorless bodies detect AF state right on the sensor. Was that new for you?

No its not news to me. Despite what you may think.

Why would anyone use a 14mm f/1.8 lens over a say the Canon 10mm f/3.5 lens..
Well lets look at this. You may learn something today.
With out you running to Google the 500 rule let me explain.
10mm equiv = 16mm. 500/16 = 31.25. So this mean a 10mm APS-C lens "should" be able to use a 30sec exposure before you get star trails. However higher resolution. The faster you will need the shutter speed to reduce it. Notice I said reduce. It never truly goes away unless the earth stops spinning.
A 14mm lens is a 22.4mm equivalent, 500/22.4 = 22.3 so we need a 22sec shutter speed here at least.
So the 10mm f/3.5 lens is 2 full stops slower then the 14mm f/1.8 lens.

What does this mean in real world terms? Lets take the 14mm lens since we know it must use at least a 22sec exposure before we get star trails. But for easy math lets just say we go down to 15secs. The 10mm lens can go up to a 30sec exposure. So the 10mm can use a longer exposure. However if our base for our exposure triangle was ISO1600, 30sec, f/3.5 for our 10mm lens. We could use an exposure of ISO800, 15sec, f/1.8 for our 14mm lens. So while we would loose 1 stop on the focal length, we still gain 2 stops from the faster aperture.
Photography 101...


Alex, you seem to think I am some newb. But before you make a bigger mockery of your self you should research me and take a look at my channel. While you would looking for a slick way to degrade what I have said on this forum today. I have been shooting clients in my studio.. ;-)

BTW, I do not recall calling you mate...

Mate is a nice word.

 

[rs]

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.

It will be equivalent to f/2.8 in terms of depth of field, and f/1.8 in terms of exposure.

It's f/1.8 for the exposure if you go by the ISO numbers on the camera. But if you go by the noise performance, it is close to f/2.8.
f/1.8 with ISO x on crop will give you roughly the same noise as f/2.8 with ISO 2.5*x on FF.

+1

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

 

[epsiloneri]

There's a reason we haven't seen a rectilinear 14/1.8 on FF before: it is really, really difficult to make it perform well in all respects. Judging from the terrible wide-open coma of the 50/1.4 Art, 35/1.4 Art, and 20/1.4 Art, I would not be too hopeful about the 14/1.8 Art, unfortunately. It's like hoping for a miracle.

Besides, coma is not everything that needs to be acceptable - the Samyang 14/2.4 has extremely low coma wide open (yay!) but the vignetting is unfortunately also very strong (boo!). To effectively expose 2-3 stops lower in the corners makes the slight increased exposure in the centre, compared to a 14/2.8 lens, less compelling. A 14/1.8 ought to be even more challenging both coma- and vignetting-wise.

It is probably best to await comprehensive reviews for the Sigma 14/1.8 Art. I would be extremely happy if it performs well, but until convinced I will stick to the Samyang XP 14/2.4, which is an impressive lens in all regards except vignetting, where I find it sub-par compared to the competition.

 

[epsiloneri]

P.S. nope, filter size is 82mm according to the photo.. I am shaking my head in disbelieve. 85 Art comes with 86 mm filter size and 135 Art with 82mm one. doesn't quite make sense.

Why not? Wider-angle lenses often need larger front filters to vignette less. Depends on the specific design, of course, but definitely not strange IMO.

 

[epsiloneri]

I am looking at the 100-400 Sigma Art lens photo and it does look like an internally (or with a slightly extending barrel) focusing lens to me. I hope that was true.

Don't keep your hopes high, the 100-400 will with all likelihood extend, unless they use some fresnel-like optics, which I very much doubt.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..

 

[chrysoberyl]

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..

Thank you for this knowledge. Knowledge is my primary reason for reading this forum.

 

[msatter]

These days everything 'leaks' in one way or an other : mostly it is done on purpose and we the readers believe blindly that this is not wanted that we know it already. We are being played!

If you want to someone to do something then you forbid it and that person will see it as something special and see not the reality any more as long the forbidden is seen.

Maybe it is time to renamed CononRumours to CanonLeaks or even better LeakyCanonStuff

Sigh....

 

[mackguyver]

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE..

LOL, you can't reason with an idiot, which is what he is. A self-appointed photo "expert" trading on his number of followers. The other day he said that Canon refuses to even repair gray-market gear or sell parts to repair shops.

As for the new lenses, they all seem intriguing...and I wonder if the 100-400 zooms internally. Perhaps that's why they went with f/5-6.3, which would be pretty cool if that's the case.

 

[rs]

14mm 1.8 on crop is similar as about 22mm 2.8 on FF.

It will be equivalent to f/2.8 in terms of depth of field, and f/1.8 in terms of exposure.

It's f/1.8 for the exposure if you go by the ISO numbers on the camera. But if you go by the noise performance, it is close to f/2.8.
f/1.8 with ISO x on crop will give you roughly the same noise as f/2.8 with ISO 2.5*x on FF.

+1

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..

Please re-read the original quote to put my comment in context. I was reiterating that 14/1.8 on 1.6x crop camera is equivalent of 22/2.8 on FF, in terms of both depth of field and captured light.

As 14/1.8 on crop or 22/2.8 on FF both have the same FoV, the only way to make an equivalent photo is to compose the same shot - in other words, no stepping further back. DoF is much greater than a theoretical 22/1.8 FF lens.

Similarly speaking, less light is captured by the smaller sensor. Sensor size is everything, and the size of pixels is irrelevant unlesss you're pixel peeping. Display or print images taken with different MP but equal size sensors at the same size, and the only time a difference will appear is if the enlargement is high enough to warrant extra pixels. What does make a difference (just as in the film days) is the surface area which captures the light.

Think of the light intensity (lens brightness) as being like how strong the rain is, and the sensor size as being how large a diameter the bucket is. Quite clearly, the rain doesn't get any harder with a wider bucket, but you do capture more water in a given time. You can use any other analogy you like - the sun and a solar panel, the wind and a wind turbine etc, its all the same. Given the same tech, more can be captured with a bigger surface area.

 

[AlanF]

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..

The previous posters are talking about two lenses of different focal lengths, 14mm on crop vs 22mm on FF so that you stand at the same distance from the target and don't have to move back for crop. You are talking about something different, lenses of the same focal length. A 22mm f/2.8 lens for FF has nearly the same diameter and hence area of entrance pupil as a 14mm f/1.8 lens on APS-C so both collect the same amount of light and both spread it over the whole sensor (2.8/1.8 ~ 22/14 ~1.6 = crop factor). Accordingly, they should have the same overall signal/noise ratio if you are under conditions where noise is determined only by the number of photons hitting the sensor. (S/N = sqrt [number of photons]). If they both have the same number of mpx, then each smaller pixel on APS-C should receive the same number of photons as its larger equivalent on FF and have the same S/N attributable to fluctuations in photon flux.

 

[goldenhusky]

Equivalent of f/2.8 in terms of depth of field and captured light

Only in depth of field. And that is only becuase you have to move further back from the subject to reframe and get your cropping the same as if it was on full frame. Not becuase of the sensor, just simply becuase you have to move back.

Now the amount of light captured is the same as full frame. This is BS from Tony Northrup. And yes I have told him so. He keeps saying bigger sensor = more light captured. FALSE.. Reason being as soon as the light hits a pixel on the sensor, it is converted to data. Period. End of story.. Each pixel works independently to capture light and then sends that data to the onboard system and that information is converted to an image. More MP gives you more data captured. Now a larger pixel like found on most FF bodies will get a cleaner signal and thus a cleaner over all image is produced. Just like a larger antenna on a radio gets a better signal. This is why the 5DS gets the same ISO performance as the 7DII and 70D. Becuase the pixel pitch is almost the the same 4 vs 4.1. Thus the Signal to Noise ratio is the same. But a 20MP FF sensor has huge pixels and thus a much much cleaner signal to noise ratio. I.E; like the 6D despite being slightly older tech..

Hope this clears this up..

Yep it clears up that you have no idea what you are talking about.