Patent: Sigma 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 Art Lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
ahsanford said:privatebydesign said:PhotographyFirst said:Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all.
It should be lighter and cheaper than the Canon though. Hopefully Sigma does better with the image quality this time around as the previous 12mm version was kind of crap. Even their 8-16 on crop does much better for image quality.
I would rather see a 14-24 f2.8 from Sigma. Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4. It would also be a cheaper option for Nikon shooters.
I agree that it will have a bulbous front element, but I don't see how a 14-24 f2.8 is a more useful landscape lens than an 11-24 f4, how many landscapes are shot at f2.8-4?
Astro astro astro. Besides that or environmental portraiture of yetis handheld in the dark, I'm hard pressed to think of anything else.
Also, 14-24 can likely be front filtered with an outrigger (Lee SW 150, Wonderpana, etc.) with only huge filters and not comically huge filters needed to get all the way to 11mm without vignetting. That's a small plus in my book.
- A
Astro and environmental portraits were not the question, though anybody who has shot environmental portraits with a 14mm or 11mm lens knows dof isn't the overriding issue, controlling projection distortion is.
As for filters, anything you can do with a 14-24mm you can do with an 11-24, just accept the vignetteing when you have to use filters wider than 14, you end up with the same images from both when using filters but have the extra width with the 11mm when you don't have to use filters.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Agree 100%, as would most of this forum.
I think the f/2.8 vs. f/4 is the real wildcard. If this forum had a choice of a 14-24 f/2.8 vs. an 11-24 f/4, we'd see a pretty fair split on opinion. Astro / sports / events folks would likely consider any f/4 lens as dead on arrival for their needs, whereas people shooting landscapes/architecture or hikers (concerned with weight) have no need at all for f/2.8.
- A
Upvote
0
And of course thats already covered by Canon (at about the same price point as what this would hit) and by third parties in a few reasonably priced forms (sigma 20, rokinon 14mm). And there's always the Zeiss lenses if you need peak performance.ahsanford said:
This just seems like an easy update for them to make. Do something that is 90% as good as Canons and you can make a profit. Their current 12-24 doesnt really do that and is from 2003. It's no good for them to have a lens out there that doesnt perform well when their reputation is on an upswing.
Upvote
0
The f5.6 aperture makes me hopeful that this will perform well on the wide end, and be reasonably priced.
I like how the Canon 11-24 looks on crop bodies a lot but it's just completely impractical in terms of cost, if Sigma can come close with center sharpness and low distortion then I'll probably pick one up. The last few Art lenses have overlapped with the 18-35 but this focal range is mostly new.
Ironically, the focal length equivalent for this lens on crop is 18-35mm.
I like how the Canon 11-24 looks on crop bodies a lot but it's just completely impractical in terms of cost, if Sigma can come close with center sharpness and low distortion then I'll probably pick one up. The last few Art lenses have overlapped with the 18-35 but this focal range is mostly new.
Ironically, the focal length equivalent for this lens on crop is 18-35mm.
Upvote
0
CanoKnight said:
If only. I'd be ecstatic if we could marry up Sigma's addiction to sharpness and innovative 'firsts' (f/1.8 crop zoom, f/2 standard zoom, 20mm f/1.4, etc.) with tried and true Canon build quality, weather sealing and first party AF routines.
Competition is always a good thing, though, so I'll happily await what Sigma rolls out next.
-A
Upvote
0
Talley said:
If that was an example of gauntlet throwing at me I'd piss myself laughing.
The gauntlet throwing reply to an 11-24 f4 is an 11-22 f4.5-5.6?
you guys are just too funny sometimes......
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:PhotographyFirst said:Not a chance in hell that this lens will take front threaded filters at all.
It should be lighter and cheaper than the Canon though. Hopefully Sigma does better with the image quality this time around as the previous 12mm version was kind of crap. Even their 8-16 on crop does much better for image quality.
I would rather see a 14-24 f2.8 from Sigma. Canon shooters have nothing in this range, which is arguably much more useful for landscape work than 11-24 f4. It would also be a cheaper option for Nikon shooters.
I agree that it will have a bulbous front element, but I don't see how a 14-24 f2.8 is a more useful landscape lens than an 11-24 f4, how many landscapes are shot at f2.8-4?
Astro landscape work. It's VERY popular these days. The Tamron 15-30 is a great example of a great do-it-all landscape lens.
For many of us back country landscape shooters who also have to pack in many days of camping gear, it is critical to have just one or at most two zoom lenses that cover everything really well.
F2.8 is also nice for a brighter viewfinder or LCD live view for using ND filters and working at dusk.
Upvote
0
preppyak said:
I meant in terms of zoom lenses.
No chance in hell I am putting any primes into my backpack when it is already sitting at 60-70+ lbs with camping gear.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:privatebydesign said:Talley said:
If that was an example of gauntlet throwing at me I'd piss myself laughing.
The gauntlet throwing reply to an 11-24 f4 is an 11-22 f4.5-5.6?
It might be a really cheap gauntlet, though...
Probably more of an oven mitt.
Upvote
0
Talley said:
In spite of Neuro's snobby comments..about Sigma lens quality, about Astro, etc.. I think that Sigma is offering cost-effective lenses consistently in the sweet spot of where many many photographers have an interest and where Canon has been spectacularly expensive. They offer a quality alternative at very affordable prices, comparatively. I bought the 20mm, 35mm and 50mm Arts and have been extremely happy with them after careful calibration on The Dock. I bet this new ultra wide angle zoom will be a cost effective alternative for many...I will be interesting to see what the IQ and price is.
Upvote
0
I find it ironic that the same people who down-rate Sigma's "challenge" to Canon as laughable yet in a different discussion happily say Canon know the market and that most of their money is in the lower end of cost spectrum, exactly where Sigma is offering their alternative products. Here's to more competition!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dufflover said:
Nothing ironic, merely a difference of understanding. Most of the Sigma lenses discussed on CR, including the 12-24mm lens similar to this patent, cost more than an xxxD kit with lens. That means most Sigma lenses are clearly not in the 'lower end of the cost spectrum' (despite being cheaper that similar Canon lenses). Most of Canon's sales are to people who buy an entry level kit with one or two lenses, and that's it – the body and lens sales milestones make that clear. The 'nifty-fifty' in its various incarnations is generally the most popular individual lens for Canon, and costs less than half of the cheapest Sigma lens for the Canon mount. So yes, Canon knows the market quite well, and most of their sales are in the lower end of that market. Most of Sigma's lens offerings do not fall into that category.
If you believe that discussions on this forum in are any way representative of the majority (or even a significant minority) of the dSLR market, that qualifies as "laughable."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
