Four New Sigma Lenses Leak Ahead of CP+

[midluk]

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.

Who talked about moving the camera? You can't keep the framing constant while moving the camera. It will work for one plane in the image, but not for foreground and background simultaneously. The whole equivalence is about keeping the camera position constant but changing the focal length to compensate for the change in sensor size. With this change in focal length (at a constant f-number) also the absolute lens diameter changes, which on the one hand changes DOF (the outer parts of the lens cause the blur on out of focus areas) and on the other hand the amount of collected photons. To also keep the lens diameter constant, you also have to scale the f-number with the crop-factor.
If you really insist on moving your camera, then it is the apparent lens diameter as seen by the subject that is the important factor and which decreases with distance and could be counteracted by the same scaling of the f-number.

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..

Just because Tony Northrup says something does not necessarily mean it is wrong.

It's not the larger pixels that give you lower noise. For the same light per pixel (disregarding saturation) smaller pixels are actually advantageous. When the photons are absorbed, they produce a charge in the pixel capacitance. The more photons hit a pixel, the higher the charge is and the higher the voltage in the pixel capacitance, which is then ultimately digitized and gives the raw pixel value. For the same light per pixel (as long as no saturation occurs) you will get a higher voltage and therefore slightly less noise for smaller pixels with lower pixel capacitance.

Also a larger antenna on a radio does not necessarily get you a better signal. The length of the antenna has to match the wavelength.

Disregarding readout noise (where small pixels can be an advantage), the noise in the image is determined by shot noise, which means a fluctuation in the number of photons. Here the (relative) fluctuation is lower with more photons.

For the same framing, the same camera position and the same f-number, a FF sensor does really capture more light, because as I wrote above the longer focal length gives you a bigger lens area. Or for the same lens area (to capture the same amount of light and have the same DOF) you have to adjust the f-number.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.

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.

Could this be? I won't have a external zoom that huffs dust and moisture, and I really want longer than 200mm.

 

[andrei1989]

Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.

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.

Could this be? I won't have a external zoom that huffs dust and moisture, and I really want longer than 200mm.

it does not zoom internally, neither does the canon 100-400
i posted this link again a while back
http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/

longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4

..or the discontinued sigma 100-300 f4, which i bought and am now sending back

as for the age-old debate of crop factor: there is a separate topic for this! this is about the rumored sigma lens. also, sensor size does not change physical properties of the lens

 

[mackguyver]

Wow - you tech guys are making my head hurt! But that's a good thing; it means knowledge is forcing it's way in.

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.

Could this be? I won't have a external zoom that huffs dust and moisture, and I really want longer than 200mm.

it does not zoom internally, neither does the canon 100-400
i posted this link again a while back
http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/

Thanks for the information and the link and I'm a happy Canon 100-400 II owner...

 

[rs]

I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.

The 100-400 is all about being able to reach 400mm in a compact, usable package. Lacking OS just detracts from its usability. I won't be surprised if its succeeded in a short time frame by a stabilised version.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.

The 100-400 is all about being able to reach 400mm in a compact, usable package. Lacking OS just detracts from its usability. I won't be surprised if its succeeded in a short time frame by a stabilised version.

?

Four new Sigma lenses have leaked out ahead of CP+
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art (wow, we were wrong!)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

 

[rs]

I'm surprised not one of these lenses has OS. I'd have thought it would be a given on the 100-400, quite likely on the 24-70, and even a possibility on the 135/1.8.

The 100-400 is all about being able to reach 400mm in a compact, usable package. Lacking OS just detracts from its usability. I won't be surprised if its succeeded in a short time frame by a stabilised version.

?

Four new Sigma lenses have leaked out ahead of CP+
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art (wow, we were wrong!)
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

I stand corrected. Thanks for that!

I was basing that on the overhead views of the lenses labelling, and no OS in the name there. The side views with the OS switches are in line with the text in the article. Thanks

 

[chrysoberyl]

i posted this link again a while back
http://photorumors.com/2017/02/19/pictures-leaked-of-the-three-new-sigma-art-and-one-contemporary-lenses/

longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4

..or the discontinued sigma 100-300 f4, which i bought and am now sending back

Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.

 

[Alex_M]

listen, I suggest you stop insulting me. i never suggest you shoot portraits with 18-35 lens
aps-c sensor is not well suited for Astro due to High Iso limitations, limiting AOV, etc. I know how exposure works. I never called you newbie. I do not need 101 photography education. yes, you called me mate on number of occasions, it is too bad you insulted a person and do not recall you did. I have no interest in researching your channel or further interaction with you in my life. I kindly ask you to go about your life and never ever seek to contact me in any way possible.

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...

 

[Alex_M]

yes, it might be better than Canon 24-70 version 1. It is certainly not as good as the Canon 24-70 II though.

there are couple of issues that I experienced with the Tamron 24-70 VC that are apparently common:

1. VC has to be switched off if i had to shoot at faster than 1/70s shutter or the resulting image is blury.
Tamron service centre confirmed that having VC switched off for faster shutter speed is a requirement.

2. I was very displeased with the Bokeh shape of the Tamron 24-70. It is onion ring shaped and looks a bit ordinary.

3. Sharpness is not the best towards the long end of the focal range.

4. low light AF speed performance is a bit ordinary as well.


hence my bet: Sigma is going to kill Tamron 24-70 VC optical performance. it is just a speculation, forward thinking projections, estimations. that's all.

Disclaimer: I own Canon 24-70L II lens and owned Tamron 24-70 VC in the past.

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.

 

[Ryananthony]

How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.

yes, it might be better than Canon 24-70 version 1. It is certainly not as good as the Canon 24-70 II though.

there are couple of issues that I experienced with the Tamron 24-70 VC that are apparently common:

1. VC has to be switched off if i had to shoot at faster than 1/70s shutter or the resulting image is blury.
Tamron service centre confirmed that having VC switched off for faster shutter speed is a requirement.

2. I was very displeased with the Bokeh shape of the Tamron 24-70. It is onion ring shaped and looks a bit ordinary.

3. Sharpness is not the best towards the long end of the focal range.

4. low light AF speed performance is a bit ordinary as well.


hence my bet: Sigma is going to kill Tamron 24-70 VC optical performance. it is just a speculation, forward thinking projections, estimations. that's all.

Disclaimer: I own Canon 24-70L II lens and owned Tamron 24-70 VC in the past.

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.

 

[Alex_M]

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.

Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.

 

[Alex_M]

very solid, consistent for the central AF point i use (Canon 6D). never skipped a bit. focus hunting at times in low light but not a single badly OOF image. AF speed slower than Canon L glass , of course. I ended up having VC switched off at all time to avoid dreaded blur from VC affecting the image at higher shutter speed. Very inconvenient indeed.

here is a low light shot (AF assistance is ON):

How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.

 

[Jopa]

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports has no issue with AF consistency. literary none. I can confirm the lens AF performance is rock solid. you refer to AF inconsistency of first generation of Sigma Art lenses. Sport lenses never had such an issue.

Ick! Thanks for posting - again. One other option: the Sigma 120-300 2.8. It has a rather bad rep for AF, so it is not for me.

The 120-300 is an awesome lens indeed. That lens was a reason why I switched from the A7r2 to 5dsr. The poor Sony couldn't handle AF via the Metabones adapter, so I decided to give a 5dsr a try. The AF performance was a huge surprise for me. A fantastic lens, very versatile, the AF is fast and accurate. The only downside for me was the weight - I was too WEAK to handle it and had to buy a 300 II instead. Today I would totally kept the Sigma.

 

[Alex_M]

see if you can get a hold of Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports - internally zooming lens. decent lens. heavy!

I sorely miss my Sigma 120-300.

longer than 200 and internally zooming you have to either use a TC or get the canon 200-400 f4

..or the discontinued sigma 100-300 f4, which i bought and am now sending back

 

[Diko]

Judging by SIMGA's prime 50mm ART version the focus would be slower. However most probably the 24-70 would be sharper with better perceived resolution than the Canon second version of that glass.

The question is how slower would it be.The ultimate event glass is important to be fast. The Canon 70-200 II is amazingly fast beast. I hope SIMGMA would manage to be a good competition in both focus speed and price.

Because I need a new 24-70!

 

[tr573]

How was focus accuracy? A good friend of mine has the Tamron 24-70 and claims his focus is all over the place.

My experience with that lens was that I could have the AF tuned for the central grouping of points OR the outer groupings of points , but not both at the same time. Likewise for the 15-30. This was on the 5ds and 7d2

 

[Alex_M]

heavy is an understatement
I wrecked my left shoulder and lower back shooting hand held with it. Had to let it go sadly.
I am sure that Sigma will release 300, 400 Sports wide aperture primes relatively soon anyway. 500mm is to long for my applications. I can certainly use 300/2.8 if well priced and Sigma Sports quality.

P.S. very nice shot, Jopa! seems like all natural light but coming from an unusual angle? is that a pool of water behind the model that acts as a supersized reflector and reflects a fair bit of light back in to the scene?

The 120-300 is an awesome lens indeed. That lens was a reason why I switched from the A7r2 to 5dsr. The poor Sony couldn't handle AF via the Metabones adapter, so I decided to give a 5dsr a try. The AF performance was a huge surprise for me. A fantastic lens, very versatile, the AF is fast and accurate. The only downside for me was the weight - I was too WEAK to handle it and had to buy a 300 II instead. Today I would totally kept the Sigma.

 

[Jopa]

heavy is an understatement
I wrecked my left shoulder and lower back shooting hand held with it. Had to let it go sadly.
I am sure that Sigma will release 300, 400 Sports wide aperture primes relatively soon anyway. 500mm is to long for my applications. I can certainly use 300/2.8 if well priced and Sigma Sports quality.

Ha ha, a week ago had no problem shooting a 600/4 on a 1d body handheld for 2 hours My success in-focus ratio is 1 to 100 though, so I may need to change my technique LOL.
Anyway, now I feel like the 120-300 should be easy to handle. Remember our recent discussion about the on-camera strobe via the BBX(L)? It won't be much difference compared to the Sigma I think.

P.S. very nice shot, Jopa! seems like all natural light but coming from an unusual angle? is that a pool of water behind the model that acts as a supersized reflector and reflects a fair bit of light back in to the scene?

Thank you Alex! Yes, that was natural light and then lifted shadows in PP, shot @ 300mm. I'm not sure, maybe 300mm gives slightly unusual look? It is a lake in the background, but I think it was a wrong choice to put a blonde person into a bright environment. Well, what's done can't be undone

 

[Alex_M]

yep, just be careful. get a monopod or something. don't risk it.
yeah, the BBX(L) setup . bit easier to handle as you do not have to extend your arm forward to support a front heavy 3.5kg lens.

the lake in the background does the trick likely. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the back lighting of your subject. I can feel her skin glowing. very sensual setting there, Jopa. Contrast is obviously not at maximum levels but it works for me underpinning her feminine nature. I am sure that others will also provide their opinion on the subject matter.

Ha ha, a week ago had no problem shooting a 600/4 on a 1d body handheld for 2 hours My success in-focus ratio is 1 to 100 though, so I may need to change my technique LOL.
Anyway, now I feel like the 120-300 should be easy to handle. Remember our recent discussion about the on-camera strobe via the BBX(L)? It won't be much difference compared to the Sigma I think.

P.S. very nice shot, Jopa! seems like all natural light but coming from an unusual angle? is that a pool of water behind the model that acts as a supersized reflector and reflects a fair bit of light back in to the scene?

Thank you Alex! Yes, that was natural light and then lifted shadows in PP, shot @ 300mm. I'm not sure, maybe 300mm gives slightly unusual look? It is a lake in the background, but I think it was a wrong choice to put a blonde person into a bright environment. Well, what's done can't be undone