Rumored Sigma Lenses Coming in the Next Year

[Terry Rogers]

Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.

 

[Plainsman]

The 300/2.8 OS looks tasty!

Could be the same price or maybe cheaper than a used EOS 300/2.8 IS I but with OS equivalent to IS II.

 

[PhotoCat]

Where is the 85/1.4 OS ART?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.

28mm wouldn't be wide enough in my opinion, but 24-90 would be amazing, particularly if it were a legit 90mm. That would make it a much more viable portrait lens, too. I love my Tamron 24-70 VC, but it is really a 23-65mm. Great on the wide end, but the long end isn't really what you would call long.

I'm very interested in some of these lenses, too. Right now I only use legacy glass in the 50mm range (couple of Helios lenses as well as a SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8), but I would interested in a great modern 50mm without the quirks. I love my 135L, but having OS/IS on a lens like that would really be helpful in my event work. I might even be interested in one of the teles if it weren't too outrageously priced. Looks exciting.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

RLPhoto is gonna be all over that 135mm f1.8. I hope that's what they announce at photokina, I've always wished for stabilization on my Canon 135L for when i went street shooting at night with it.

 

[brad-man]

The last EF lens I bought was the 70-200vll last march. Unless Canon comes down in their pricing, that may be the last Canon lens I ever buy (M-mount pancakes excluded).

All I really covet are a 135, a 300 f/2.8 and the TS-E 24. I suspect Sigma will nicely cover the first two, and the third is really out of my price/need range anyway. These are interesting times indeed.

 

[jthomson]

400mm f2.8 OS - keep it under $3k. :

Since their current 300mm f2.8 is already 3.4K a 400mm f2.8 is likely to be closer to 6K. It would still be half the price of a Canon.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me. If the 400mm is in the $5k range and somewhat comparable to Canon's, that would be a great long-term goal.

 

[cliffwang]

The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me. If the 400mm is in the $5k range and somewhat comparable to Canon's, that would be a great long-term goal.

Canon 400mm f/2.8 IS II is 11K. I think the reasonable price for Sigma 400mm should be about 6K if the IQ of it is close or equal to Canon version.

 

[pwp]

RLPhoto is gonna be all over that 135mm f1.8. I hope that's what they announce at photokina, I've always wished for stabilization on my Canon 135L for when I went street shooting at night with it.

Some people reach for the beta-blockers, but I don't have the steadiest hands on the block and the lack of IS on my 135 f/2 is one of the main reasons it is for sale, pushed aside by the stabilized 70-200 f/2.8isII.

Given Sigma's recent form, A1 sharpness is a given. If the 135 f/1.8 OS ships without Sigma's annoying AF issues then this lens will be a killer.

-PW

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.

Technically it is possible to make a 24-90mm F2.8 lens, and it is also possible make a 35-70mm F1.8. : The question is whether the size, weight and price are competitive to sell well, given the other options in the market. A lens 24-90mm F1.8 is the dream of many people, but if costs $ 4000, weighs 3 lbs and is the size of a juice jug, in fact, would be a nightmare to use it. :'( Not everything that can be done must be done.

 

[kobeson]

The 24-105mm looks interesting to me. Canon's 'L' comparable model has never impressed me.

Me too - with image quality up to Sigma's recent lenses, this could be a great release and you would think it would be priced below Canon's 24-70f4.

 

[garyknrd]

If this happens. Wow, .. Having lenses I can change the mount on is a dream lens.

 

[Woody]

Unless and until these Sigma lenses are able to focus reliably on any Canon camera body I throw at them, I have no interest. Speaking from my recent experience with Sigma AF.

 

[sushyam]

Although not on the list, maybe a 400mm f5.6 before canon updates its version to V2.0?

 

[drjlo]

Here's hoping 50 f1.4 ART is sharp at f/1.4.

 

[baldaran]

Technically it is possible to make a 24-90mm F2.8 lens, and it is also possible make a 35-70mm F1.8. :

I really would like to see a Sigma 35-70 F2.0 APS-C lens as companion for the 18-35. Would be really useful for portraits. Do you think it is possible to realize such a lens at the same (or even lower) weight and size as the 18-35 lens?

 

[untitled10]

A 24-70 2.0 would be big and heavy. Maybe they will make a 24-50 2.0 to keep price and weight down.

I would personally prefer an think would be more feasible, a 35-70mm
I if you need to go to 24 you might as well use a specific wide angle zoom, general zooms used to start at 35 anyway, do we need to go any wider for a portrait, or even many common landscapes?

 

[Chris Jankowski]

Professionals, please enlighten me. Would not a 24 - 90 2.8 or 28 - 90 2.8 be an "ideal" walk around lens. While I don't shoot full frame, I would imagine a lens of such focal length would be ideal for a general purpose lens given it's 2.8 (as opposed to f4) and is long enough to reach the "ideal" portrait focal length of 85/90mm.

I am not a professional, but I'll get a shot at answering.
If we are talking about a high quality FF lens, then a FF 24-90/F2.8 would need to weigh between 1kg and 1.2kg minimum. It follows that this would not be a "walkabout" lens, as such lense by definition needs to be smaller, lighter and unobtrusive. The industry has responded to this demand long time ago - in the film days. The best choices tend to be 24-105/F3.5-4.5 or 24-105/F4. They tend to weigh from 400g to 600g and are really a good walkabout compromise.
Note that, as the ISO sensitivity of the sensors increased enormously with modern sensors, the absolute need of having bright lens decreased. When all you had was a nominal 64 ISO film and no lens stabilisation then the difference between F2.8 and F4 might have been of a shot or no shot. Today you can get serviceable photo at ISO 12,800.
On the other hand the demand for better sharpness and contrast from full aperture opening and across the whole image field and for all focal length is now very strong - again driven by the excellent, high resolution sensors.
I am hoping that the rumored Sigma 24-105/F4 lens will be exactly like this - sharp and high contrast from F4 across the whole image and for all focal lengths. And if it had stabilisation then it would be my ideal lens.
By the way, your ideal focal length for portrait 85/90mm is not the same as my ideal focal length for portrait - 135mm. Again, this points to the fact that there is no such thing as an "ideal" lens. They are designed and manufactured mechano-optical devices and like all technical solutions each carries its own set of trade-offs. The art is to select a device that fits your real needs and budget.

 

[9VIII]

I'm pretty sure that if your aim was to keep costs down then the widest focal length should be no shorter than 40mm, as going less than that means adding retrofocus lenses. Ideally they would make a full frame 50-150 to go with their current crop only model.
Just to cover my base needs even 50-80f2 would still be great.