Patent: Sigma 400mm f/2.8 OS Sport

[Canon Rumors]

We’ve heard in the past that Sigma is working on super telephoto lenses, namely a 500mm f/4 OS. Now a patent has appeared for a 400mm f/2.8 OS lens from Sigma. I think the biggest challenge for Sigma in this area is going to be autofocus. Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.</p>
<p><strong>Patent Publication No. 2015-64436 (Google Translated)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Published 2015.4.9</li>
<li>Filing date 2013.9.4</li>
</ul>
<p>Example 1</p>
<ul>
<li>Focal length 390.00mm</li>
<li>Fno. 2.91</li>
<li>Total angle of view 2ω 6.29 °</li>
<li>Image height Y 21.63mm</li>
<li>Overall length of the lens 353.00mm</li>
<li>Positive, positive positive and negative negative 5-group configuration</li>
<li>Inner Focus (fourth group)</li>
<li>Anti-vibration (part of the fifth group)</li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-04-13" target="_blank">EG</a>]</p>

 

[TheJock]

I know it's a bit early to ask, but any idea of the price range???
I was just considering the 400L f5.6 but I'll be waiting now to see how this new Sigma works out with IQ!!!

 

[Canon Rumors]

I know it's a bit early to ask, but any idea of the price range???
I was just considering the 400L f5.6 but I'll be waiting now to see how this new Sigma works out with IQ!!!

I'm only guessing here, but if Canon's is $10,000 USD, I suspect a Sigma version would be in the $5000-$7000 range.

 

[pwp]

CR is right, it will be all about the AF. It will have to be Sigma's finest ever AF performance.
If the AF is rock solid and the price is set at a point to give Canon a fright, this lens will do well.

-pw

 

[expatinasia]

Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.

Really? I always find the 400 f/2.8 ii a joy to use as it makes my work (in this case sport) look good. I am not sure if it is less forgiving, it's just that you have to get the settings right as you can't ask someone to score a goal, try or whatever again.

 

[dolina]

Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Super telephoto lenses are the least forgiving when it comes to focus accuracy in most situations.

Really? I always find the 400 f/2.8 ii a joy to use as it makes my work (in this case sport) look good. I am not sure if it is less forgiving, it's just that you have to get the settings right as you can't ask someone to score a goal, try or whatever again.

Well, that's probably because you're using the Canon, and they're remarkable performers. The number of frames that miss on the 120-300 f/2.8 OS from Sigma is beyond frustrating when you compare it to the 300 f/2.8 or 200-400 from Canon. If you've never used the latter, you probably wouldn't be all that bothered by it.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.

I don't think so, you can get the previous 400 f/2.8 IS for that price and it's a top notch performer.

 

[MT Shooter]

One should always keep in mind the newest tuning technology of the Sigma Global Vision series lenses, it is fantastic to put it mildly. The "Sports" series lenses are ALL capable of this home tuning via the Sigma USB Dock system and the AF speed and accuracy can be very quickly and accurately adjusted to suit any shooters needs.

The comments about "missed shots" on the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 lens was sometimes true with the older version, but not the Sports version. Tuning takes that consideration totally off the table. I had a 80% or so keeper rate with the original version, but find a keeper rate of close to 98% with the Sport model after tuning it properly.

Sigma is working hard at upgrading their entire lens selection to the Global Vision standard, which includes the Sport, Art and Contemporary lenses, all of which are home tunable to varying degrees depending upon the actual lens being tuned.

I have already sold my 500mm F4.5 and 800mm F5.6 Sigma lenses in preparation of buying the new series lenses when released. For the moment I am content to shoot with my Canon 600mm F4 and my Sigma 150-600mm Sport lenses.

For anyone who has used the new Sigma Global Vision lenses and the USB Dock system to fine tune them, the image quality is amazing. The tuning dock is a serious game changer for the longer focal length lenses and I feel it will force the entire industry to adopt a similar process to allow photographers to tune all their lenses to attain maximum efficiency from them, as well as the best image quality available from those lenses without having to send them to the factory for tuning. If Sigma can sell these dock for only $59, I am sure Canon could come up with a similar process for around $300-$400, if they really tried.

 

[candc]

I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.

Exactly... If I spend $5000-$7000 on a lens, it needs to have AF performance that is better than "satisfactory", and that's going to be a big challenge for Sigma.

On an $899 wide prime? You can let some stuff go.

 

[AJ]

I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.

A prime should be easier to tune than a zoom, though. You only have focusing distance as a variable, not focal length and focusing distance.

 

[candyman]

I have the 120-300 sport and like it but I agree about the AF problems. It took me a lot of time and effort fiddling with the dock to get it performing adequately. Then the AF is "sartisfactory" but not as good as the best canon lenses. For that reason I would only rexccomend it to someone if they are willing to spend a lot of time tuning it.

A prime should be easier to tune than a zoom, though. You only have focusing distance as a variable, not focal length and focusing distance.

Well, though I have a very good working prime - 50mmArt - some people had problems with the 50mm AF performance. It is not only about center-point but it need to work perfect with all the AF-points. That seems to be some challenge for Sigma.

 

[9VIII]

If the dock can make it work consistently, I think a few weekends of tweaking is worth saving $5,000.
As a prime lens it should be a lot easier than a zoom.

It will be interesting to see what kind of IQ they actually get, the 400f2.8 formula tends to be one of the worst for a Big White (at least wide open).
It's also worth keeping in mind that the 500f4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made and it cost a few grand less than the 400f2.8.
If Sigma makes one of those I would expect it to cost 20% less than their 400f2.8.
An extra stop of light, or an extra 100mm+$1,000 off?
The choice seems easy.
But on the other hand a wide aperture is the only thing that will keep your shutter speed up at sunset (prime time for wildlife).
On the other other hand I keep seeing people shoot at f8 or f11 regardless of the lens they have.
Decisions decisions...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.

Its not a lens, its a patent. It doesn't focus at all, just a formula for the shape of glass.

You can get a copy for free.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Whoever whines about the AF, OS or IQ of this lens should be labelled an idiot if they are able to buy it for half the price of a Nikon or Canon equivalent.

Its not a lens, its a patent. It doesn't focus at all, just a formula for the shape of glass.

You can get a copy for free.

LOL. There is a splash of cold water in the face...

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I'll stick with my Canon 300 2.8 and just crop the hell out of the crisp image. :

 

[JumboShrimp]

Just me, but I question Sigma's marketing strategy of "me too" lenses, where they just offer a different version of what the Big Boys already make. Wouldn't it be more FUN (and that's what it's all about anyway) if they would offer some wild stuff like: 10/2.8 or 12/2.8 UWA, 20/1.4 OS, 28/1.4 OS, 50/1.0, 85/1.0, 24-70/2.0 OS, and so on. Thinking about these things just makes my mouth water. Who would buy these? Who knows, but probably about the same market share as the aforementioned 400/2.8 OS.

 

[arbitrage]

If the dock can make it work consistently, I think a few weekends of tweaking is worth saving $5,000.
As a prime lens it should be a lot easier than a zoom.

It will be interesting to see what kind of IQ they actually get, the 400f2.8 formula tends to be one of the worst for a Big White (at least wide open).
It's also worth keeping in mind that the 500f4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made and it cost a few grand less than the 400f2.8.
If Sigma makes one of those I would expect it to cost 20% less than their 400f2.8.
An extra stop of light, or an extra 100mm+$1,000 off?
The choice seems easy.
But on the other hand a wide aperture is the only thing that will keep your shutter speed up at sunset (prime time for wildlife).
On the other other hand I keep seeing people shoot at f8 or f11 regardless of the lens they have.
Decisions decisions...

The 400 f/2.8 IS II is Canon's second sharpest lens according to DXO mark. Only behind the 300 f/2.8IS II. I don't think it is a difficult optical formula to get right. DxO also shows its sharpest at wide open. The 400 f/2.8ISII is well ahead of any 500 f/4 Canon lens. The 400 can resolve 21 of the 22 MPs on the 5D3 where as the 500 f/4 IS II can only get 19MP. The 300 can get all 22MP. If you believe DxO numbers which are based on MTF.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The number of frames that miss on the 120-300 f/2.8 OS from Sigma is beyond frustrating when you compare it to the 300 f/2.8 or 200-400 from Canon.

Eh?

I've used the Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS (not the "Sport" incarnation) hard for three+ years - with and without TCs - for birds, fast motorsport, rugby and soccer, on a number of bodies.

"Missed frames"? I don't think so. Never happens (that I can blame on the lens).

: