Patent: Sigma 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 Art Lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
P
Pookie
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
The best line I've heard on this site in years...
Loved the 10-20 from Sigma for crops for many years, sold it long ago so this would be a nice refresh. I have the 11-24 and a great lens but not my favorite. I would def be interested in seeing what they could do.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
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?you guys are just too funny sometimes......
It might be a really cheap gauntlet, though...
If it's a Sigma gauntlet...it'll be very heavy, soft around the edges and an unreliable AF system. If it's a Canon Gauntlet...it'll be bristling with cutting edge tech and be nearly perfect and very fit for purpose....but eye wateringly expensive....
Upvote
0
TeT said:
Not to me. I can shoot rectilinear from 8mm equivalent to 22mm equivalent, shoot in fisheye from a wide pano to 180 degree diagonal to a gentile but long fisheye. The really fun thing is adjusting the LR profile geometry slider between the two extremes of equisolid angle fisheye and rectilinear.
I find wider than 14mm equivalent almost always looks pretty screwy in full rectilinear. If I shoot wider than that I almost always put it in another projection than rectilinear.
Upvote
0
AJ said:
Lets see what they put together... It could appeal to Canon shooters as well; for it to be a winner (in regards to Canon shooters) it will have to compete with the 11 24 L Optically and be much much cheaper...
I imagine that Sigma lenses are much better received by the Nikon crowd (no AF issues {?})...
Upvote
0
Ah, the critical specification: Priceneuroanatomist 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...
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:Ah, the critical specification: Priceneuroanatomist 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...
Being a Sigma I'm sure it will be half if not less! With the same great performance Sigma is know for now days!
Upvote
0
I’ll add a quick post here.
I’m quite excited by what Sigma are doing lately, generally… and if this patent bears fruit with a good quality 11-22mm for FF (35mm), well done to them.
For several years, Sigma’s 12-24mm (both original and v2) held the crown as the king of ultra-wide FF zooms in terms of wideness. Centre sharpness was great (though image quality in the corners was not so great wide open). However stopped down, and using careful technique, great results were (are) achievable.
Canon’s 11-24mm L may have trumped in the FF ‘wide zoom’ department, but at a significant price premium. That’s price premium is not going to be within everybody’s budget.
Somewhat similarly, in APS-C land, Sigma produced two 10-20mm “EX” (quality) zooms, and the high quality 8-16mm. All these lenses have great build quality and HSM focusing (not quite as accurate as e.g. Canon’s 10-22mm USM – but focusing is far less critical for UWAs).
The Sigma 8-16mm is almost the ideal UWA (imho) for my Canon 7D. It’s very sharp, right into the corners (I’ve not seen any FF lens that can equal it). The biggest improvements would be a 4 stop IS. Less important to me, is to perhaps make the lens aperture slightly faster (but I don’t want a huge / heavy / expensive lens).
Let’s see what Sigma pull off here… an ‘Art’ 11-22mm for FF could make for a significant number of happy FF landscape and/or architecture photographers.
Paul 8)
I’m quite excited by what Sigma are doing lately, generally… and if this patent bears fruit with a good quality 11-22mm for FF (35mm), well done to them.
For several years, Sigma’s 12-24mm (both original and v2) held the crown as the king of ultra-wide FF zooms in terms of wideness. Centre sharpness was great (though image quality in the corners was not so great wide open). However stopped down, and using careful technique, great results were (are) achievable.
Canon’s 11-24mm L may have trumped in the FF ‘wide zoom’ department, but at a significant price premium. That’s price premium is not going to be within everybody’s budget.
Somewhat similarly, in APS-C land, Sigma produced two 10-20mm “EX” (quality) zooms, and the high quality 8-16mm. All these lenses have great build quality and HSM focusing (not quite as accurate as e.g. Canon’s 10-22mm USM – but focusing is far less critical for UWAs).
The Sigma 8-16mm is almost the ideal UWA (imho) for my Canon 7D. It’s very sharp, right into the corners (I’ve not seen any FF lens that can equal it). The biggest improvements would be a 4 stop IS. Less important to me, is to perhaps make the lens aperture slightly faster (but I don’t want a huge / heavy / expensive lens).
Let’s see what Sigma pull off here… an ‘Art’ 11-22mm for FF could make for a significant number of happy FF landscape and/or architecture photographers.
Paul 8)
Upvote
0
TeT said:
Unfortunately it seems like things just get more complicated.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2157462715/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-d5300
Remember that Nikon still has mechanical links in some lenses and bodies, and often a mechanical aperture.
Yes, they still sell lenses with mechanical AF in 2015.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_AF_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8D.html/mode/gsa
Of course people complained at the time but when Canon abandoned everything but the EF mount they created an incredibly stable ecosystem.
Nikon should retire or update all their old lenses and unify their products, it's just bizarre that they sell lenses that are incompatible with their own cameras.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
9VIII said:
Canon sells a lot of current lenses that are incompatible with their own bodies – EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies. That's not the case for Nikon, where you can mount DX lenses on FX bodies and they give you a cropped image but otherwise work fine. I'm not sure one is less bizzare than the other.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
No Nikon have way more issues than that, although the F mount has stayed consistent the electronics and mechanicals have not. For instance you can't use some ff lenses on some ff bodies, and there are all kinds of caveats and limitations for AF, metering and aperture control. It is a mess.
http://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
But the EF S is a high image quality cheap lens for the crop entry crowd (yes I know; not only the entry crowd uses them)
All of Canons lenses work with the bodies thet they are designed to fit on and there is not much confusion. Nikon can be a quagmire to the uninformed...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
TeT said:
The point is that most of that quagmire is with legacy lenses. In the last decade, Nikon has released one lens that's not compatible with all their digital bodies (and that was in 2007). Canon has released many lenses incompatible with their full lineup of dSLRs.
Your point about Canon EF-S and Nikon DX lenses being good quality lenses for the 'crop entry crowd' is quite relevant – of those in that crowd who eventually step up to FF, users of the latter have a collection of lenses which they can continue to use at the FoVs to which they're accustomed, while users of the former have a collection of...paperweights and doorstops.
Consider that the EF-S 55-250mm STM lens delivers really good IQ in a small, light, relatively inexpensive package. As a consumer, it would be great to have the option of a small/light/cheap lens delivering good IQ with an FoV 88-400mm for my FF camera. It would be even better given that I may already own the lens for my entry crop body. Of course, it's better for Canon that I have to buy a 100-400L, paying them twice for the same focal range...thus, it makes perfect sense that EF-S lenses aren't compatible with FF bodies (yes, I know that 10-xx lenses protrude into the mirror box, but that's clearly not a design requirement).
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
TeT said:
Overall I agree that the Canon system is less confusing...but I think it's also more limiting for more people (the converse of which might mean more profit for Canon).
The DX lenses I've handled have been a mixed bag. The Nikon versions generally have generally felt a bit lighter, but that's a subjective impression and if true doesn't necessarily mean lower build quality. To be honest, I haven't really used and have not owned any 'low end' dSLR lenses – when buying my first dSLR (a T1i/500D), I skipped the kit lens and instead bought the 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8 as my starter lenses. The only kit lenses I've owned are the M22/2 and M18-55, and those have a build/finish that's a step up from the EF-S kit lenses.
Upvote
0
Maybe it'll make more sense re-phrased a little.
Every EF mount lens that Canon sells is fully compatible with every EF mount body.
EF-S bodies just happen to also be fully compatible with EF lenses.
I probably just want Nikon to change the way they name lenses as much as anything.
Sometimes I do think it would be better to get rid of EF-S entirely though. That mount was created for the start of the Digital era, now that larger sensors aren't prehibitively expensive the reasoning behind it may not hold up as well.
Yes, smaller sensors will always come with proportionally lower cost, but at this point a larger sensor can be marketed in entry level bodies.
APS-H in a Rebel would make People think long and hard about choosing any other entry level body, and it would be great to see some pressure on the market to ship more full frame sensors.
Every EF mount lens that Canon sells is fully compatible with every EF mount body.
EF-S bodies just happen to also be fully compatible with EF lenses.
I probably just want Nikon to change the way they name lenses as much as anything.
Sometimes I do think it would be better to get rid of EF-S entirely though. That mount was created for the start of the Digital era, now that larger sensors aren't prehibitively expensive the reasoning behind it may not hold up as well.
Yes, smaller sensors will always come with proportionally lower cost, but at this point a larger sensor can be marketed in entry level bodies.
APS-H in a Rebel would make People think long and hard about choosing any other entry level body, and it would be great to see some pressure on the market to ship more full frame sensors.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
