Rumored Sigma Lenses Coming in the Next Year

[AmbientLight]

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.

Say, isn't 40mm or 50mm somewhat long as your minimum focal length? Okay, I admit I am shooting at 24mm pretty often so I may be somewhat biased here, but what's your setup for going wide or your use case for not going any wider than 40mm? It is clear that from a lens design standpoint a normal-to medium tele lens would have some advantages, but for me a general purpose lens must be a 24-something. How do you deal with that more limited focal length range?

 

[dadgummit]

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.

Personally I think of the 70-300mm L as a walk around lens so if there could be a 24-70 f2 at about that size and weight (1050g), have smooth bokeh and cost about $1400 I would be happy with that. Personally I love my copy of the 24-105 so It would take more than one stop of aperture to get me to switch especially with the smaller zoom range.

 

[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.

Say, isn't 40mm or 50mm somewhat long as your minimum focal length? Okay, I admit I am shooting at 24mm pretty often so I may be somewhat biased here, but what's your setup for going wide or your use case for not going any wider than 40mm? It is clear that from a lens design standpoint a normal-to medium tele lens would have some advantages, but for me a general purpose lens must be a 24-something. How do you deal with that more limited focal length range?

As far as taking pictures of people goes, you definitely don't want to go much shorter. I guess 35mm is common enough for street shots, but 40mm still gets plenty of area around your subject. Just a few days ago I got a nice shot indoors with multiple people using the Pancake, I didn't run out of room and the people didn't look distorted.
If I want something too much wider than that chances are it's a panorama and I would do almost as well stitching photos together. I know it's ugly, but it can also do things a single lens can't. This kind of reminds me of the dynamic range debate (if you don't have enough just take multiple exposures).
I can definitely see it being nice to go wider but as far as capturing things from a normal human perspective goes 40-50mm is lots.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Most of the OEM lens designers are on one of about 4 teams, a team might be working on more than one lens, but there is a very limited ability to churn out a bunch of different designs each year.

I'd say that Sigma has likely built up numerous lens design teams. This takes time and money to do, so its not something a Canon or Nikon can suddenly match.

 

[candyman]

Love to see a release of a Sigma 135 f1.8 OS and comparison with the canon 135 f/2. If good enough, I may exchange my canon 135 with the sigma. Also curious about the 50 f/1.4 Art. I loved the original sigma 50 f/1.4 on the APS-C (did not have focus issues) but disliked it on the FF.

 

[Plainsman]

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

Dream on!!

Unfortunately there seems to be a gentleman's agreement (cartel??) between Can Nik Son Sig etc not to produce a quality image stabilised 400/5.6 (or even a 400/4 non DO) so as not to impact on their consumer 400mm zoom sales.

 

[vlim]

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.

+1 but i think that for these big lenses the huge difference (beside the price) will be the weight (and hopfully not weather sealing). the Sigma lenses will be really heavier for sure...

 

[Lee Jay]

24-85/2.8 OS with 77mm filter threads would be top of my list. Canon's is too expensive and lacks IS, Tamron has 82mm filter threads (not a show stopper, but a little issue). I'd really love the extra length on the long end compared to either of the others.

 

[discojuggernaut]

I wonder why these lenses aren't commonly produced:

400/f4
500/5.6
600/5.6

while these are:
200/f2
300/f2.8

It seems like they'd be about the same size, which just happens to be about the max one could reasonably handhold. (disclaimer: i have Canon 300 2.8 IS with both mkII extenders and a FF and crop body)

 

[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.

The 24-105 range on f4.0 is actually close to perfect for walk around. Don't know that I've ever really care for the extra reach of the Nikon (24-120) and I suspect that going wider (20-105 or something) would be too hard.

While I agree that 24-105 is an ideal walk around zoom length, I would rather loose a bit on the long end (down to 85) in order to gain a stop of light both for low light abuility and bokeh.

 

[Rotorhead88]

I am looking forward to seeing a new 50mm. I have never been truly happy with my current sigma 50mm f/1.4 unfortunately.

 

[robbinzo]

And if the 24-70 actually is an f2, that would probably be on my camera most of the time.

I agree. I would buy a 24-70 OS HSM in a heartbeat. Image stabilisation and f/2? That would be an interesting comparison to Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 II L.
I think what Sigma are doing is very exciting - and will also be very good for us consumers.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

And if the 24-70 actually is an f2, that would probably be on my camera most of the time.

I agree. I would buy a 24-70 OS HSM in a heartbeat. Image stabilisation and f/2? That would be an interesting comparison to Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 II L.
I think what Sigma are doing is very exciting - and will also be very good for us consumers.

I think I would need to see it in the flesh, take some photos with it and try it out. If it weighs a ton, isn't sharp or has IF issues then I'd want to pass on it. But if it ticks all those boxes then yes it could be a very interesting lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

In the 90's Canon developed a trial copy of a 24-105mm f2.8 which was apparently very good optically. But it was the size and weight of a 70-200 f2.8 and was viewed a too big and bulky for what it offered by those who tried it. Lets face it for f2.8 gear there is little reason to overlap focal ranges, 24-70 / 70-200/ 300 is the usual split.