Patent: Sigma 400mm f/2.8 OS Sport

[Talley]

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.

Wow... hard to believe this. I sold my Canon 300mm IS V1 lens for the 120-300 OS non sport. My copy is just as good as the Canon. I have proof to back this up too if need be. Not saying all copies are equal but I have a very decent copy.

Love my sigma, will never let it go. (until it won't work with a new body )

 

[stochasticmotions]

I'm also pretty happy with my sigma 120-300 (not sport), which is used mostly for nature action shots with or without the canon 2X teleconverter. I'm sure the canon big white primes are faster in the autofocus department but I can't say I have missed many shots that were not my own doing.

This news is good, not just for the possibility of a choice in supertele primes but I am very hopeful that Sigma will come out with a stabilized 500 or 600 that won't cost as much as a car in the next couple of years. Choice is always good at least until money is no longer a factor

Oh, yeah and if they ever come out with a stabilized sigmonster (300-800) with new glass it could be very special.

 

[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...

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.

Across the reviews I've seen the 400f2.8 is generally less sharp wide open.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1418/cat/10
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1368/cat/10

 

[dolina]

A patent may eventually lead to an actual product given the right economic conditions.

When the patent is granted then it cannot be free.

Yes, you can get a used 400/2.8 at half the price but brand new is still brand new.

I spoke to someone who works for Pentax USA before and they told me that in terms of economies of scale the market couldnt support more than Canon & Nikon.

Perhaps times are changing...

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...

 

[TeT]

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.

Really, I have seen some of the pictures that are attributed to you. Some very nice shots. Would you be happy with a reduction of 35% in keeper rate just because the lens cost you less. You may keep using it but you will gripe and groan about it every time you miss a good one...

Bad AF is frustrating period. I hope this one works out well. Sigma puts out some good glass, but inconsistant AF is their weakest point... if it doesn't focus as well it is not equivalent

anyone: does Sigma AF suffer on Nikon bodies as well ?

anyone: does the older sigma 120 300 out perform the 120 300 sport in focus accuracy? (everyone who loves it indicates theirs is the older model)

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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.

You can get the previous 400 f/2.8 IS for that price bracket and still it's a top notch performer. 120-300mm Sport sells for about $3,000 with is less than half of the 300/2.8 II. I'd only consider the 400mm 2.8 OS if below $5,000 and decent performance in line with the latest prime glasses produce by Sigma

 

[pwp]

I'm also pretty happy with my sigma 120-300 (not sport), which is used mostly for nature action shots with or without the canon 2X teleconverter. I'm sure the canon big white primes are faster in the autofocus department but I can't say I have missed many shots that were not my own doing.

The 120-300 has always struck me as an intriguing proposition, it's pretty often that I'd love to pull back a little or a lot while shooting with my EF 300 f/2.8is. But user responses to the 120-300 have been generally mixed. What I'm reading here today is the most positive user feedback I think I've seen. But the EF 300 f/2.8is is such class-glass it would be hard to make the switch unless the 120-300 in it's latest incarnation is genuinely rock-solid. I've also read that the 120-300 is more like 270-280mm at the long end. Is this the same with the 120-300 Sport?

-pw

 

[dufflover]

Whilst I agree a lens costing many thousands demands a certain level of performance, I think expecting perfect AF (esp compared to the still much pricier Canon equivs) for the price might be a bit fanciful, at least from a price point of view because such lenses have basic physical requirements. If the AF was only as good as say the 120-300mm (or whatever their current best tele AF is), then that is pretty reasonable to me, even if the lens costs twice as much as those. Because that is not what makes a lens expensive.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I tried a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS along side a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II and a 400mm f2.8 LIS. My findings are well documented on this forum. On paper specs, the Sigma looked very interesting. But in reality, it's OS and AF systems were toy like compared to the two Canon lenses. There isn't any web specified measurements for AF speed and accuracy. So most on line buyers and forum frequenters are unaware of night and day difference. With the Canon kit, I can track a moving fast bird coming towards me and get sharp, in focus images (say a puffin or razorbill flying with the wind). With Sigma, I couldn't even track a lazy sea gull...if I got a lock it was inconsistent. As I've said before, I'm done with Sigma and I've not seen any reason in recent releases to change my mind. What's the point of making great optics if they can't AF consistently? Your mileage might vary, but unlikely too.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

Really? So 100 out of focus images is as important to you as 50 in focus ones? I don't see your logic.
If a picture is worth a 1000 words, then all of the ones about an out of focus photo will be about the fact that this image is out of focus. If the photo is in focus... then all the comments will be about it's artistry, composition, exposure etc. An out of focus image has one destination...the trash can. In my mind, likewise with a lens brand which offers inconsistency regardless of how cheap it is. Canon don't charge what they do for their great white tele's because they can. It's a result of R&D, manufacturing, quality control and profit margin. If the Sigma is less, then so are all the elements in that chain and short cuts have been made.

Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.

 

[pwp]

Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.

Wow that is a fantastic BIF image. Thanks for posting it.

-pw

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Here's a wild Ganet hovering about to land. 400mm f2.8 5DIII, 1/25th sec.

Wow that is a fantastic BIF image. Thanks for posting it.

-pw

Thank you and your welcome

 

[dolina]

Mind you those images I made does not have Photoshop applied. Imagine if I was that Mastah-ful with it... how much non-$ I can make.

Kidding aside "you get what you paid for". If you dont want a wasted trip suck it in and save up for a 1st party lens.

If all I could afford is a Sigma or any other 3rd party gear I honestly wouldn't complain that loudly if it was half the price of a Canon/Nikon.

If a BigMac was $4.00 (with tax) and someone were to offer me a burger (disclosed to contain mystery meat) for half the price and I accepted it then I honestly have no right to whine about it so long as I don't get sick or die.

I hope everyone is adult enough for straight talk. This is serious money being spoken of here and any sort of mollycoddling to "be nice & polite" is a disservice to anyone looking to buy gear.

Really, I have seen some of the pictures that are attributed to you. Some very nice shots. Would you be happy with a reduction of 35% in keeper rate just because the lens cost you less. You may keep using it but you will gripe and groan about it every time you miss a good one...

Bad AF is frustrating period. I hope this one works out well. Sigma puts out some good glass, but inconsistant AF is their weakest point... if it doesn't focus as well it is not equivalent

anyone: does Sigma AF suffer on Nikon bodies as well ?

anyone: does the older sigma 120 300 out perform the 120 300 sport in focus accuracy? (everyone who loves it indicates theirs is the older model)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A patent may eventually lead to an actual product given the right economic conditions.

When the patent is granted then it cannot be free.

Yes, you can get a used 400/2.8 at half the price but brand new is still brand new.

I spoke to someone who works for Pentax USA before and they told me that in terms of economies of scale the market couldnt support more than Canon & Nikon.

Perhaps times are changing...

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...

Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[dolina]

Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.

I salute those who will buy this thing. You got balls to put in that much cash on a Sigma.

 

[9VIII]

Its true that a lens design can be based on a patent, but it can be manual or autofocus, or even fixed focus and until there is actually a product, I'm not going to worry about it.

I salute those who will buy this thing. You got balls to put in that much cash on a Sigma.

Hasn't it been more than a decade since any third party lenses have been made incompatible?
And even if Canon were to try something like that again, these lenses are all designed with upgradable firmware now.
Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.

 

[dolina]

Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.

Shrinking dedicated still camera body & lens market and Sigma will come out with a full frame body?

;D

You're killing me.

 

[9VIII]

Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.

Shrinking dedicated still camera body & lens market and Sigma will come out with a full frame body?

;D

You're killing me.

What they tried to sell was a $7,000 crop body with terrible high ISO performance and a new image format that produced files twice as big as anything seen before.
They've never tried to sell an ordinary full frame camera, we have no idea how the market would react.
Samsung seems to think there's room for them, so does Ricoh and all the Micro4/3 and other crop body manufacturers. Sony certainly hasn't given up yet.
Why in a shrinking market do we see more competition than ever before?
Because the barrier to entry is also lower than ever before, all the massive research funding Canon has actually isn't giving them a big advantage, except for lenses, which is where Sigma is already strong.
All they have to do is release a moderately competitive body and they'll have a system better than half the companies currently out there striving for market share.

 

[9VIII]

Every time this gets mentioned it just punctuates how much of a bad gamble the Foveon sensor was, if they could put a full frame body with decent autofocus on the market it would make things really interesting.

Shrinking dedicated still camera body & lens market and Sigma will come out with a full frame body?

;D

You're killing me.

First you say it's a gamble using third party lenses and then that Sigma shouldn't even consider releasing a body of their own.
By your logic Sigma has no place in the market whatsoever and should close shop.

 

[dolina]

First you say it's a gamble using third party lenses and then that Sigma shouldn't even consider releasing a body of their own.
By your logic Sigma has no place in the market whatsoever and should close shop.

With 3rd party you get what you pay for. If it's a fraction of the price of 1st party then do not complain it isn't at parity.

I am asked if I am willing to accept a 30% reduced performance. I would if it means a reduction of 30% or more in pricing.

If you're going to close the gap towards 20% or more of better performance/quality then prepare to pay for 1st party pricing.

Everyone is going up market to hedge against a shrinking dedicated still camera hence the creation of "Art" and "Sport" lines with Sigma.

Sigma has a very lucrative position in the market and should not exit. I hope they stick around their mere presence is beneficial for 1st party buyers like myself as it keeps Canon on their toes even if I would never buy from them ever again.