Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]

[RLPhoto]

.
How do you improve on the 135L?

F/1.8 and IS.

Lol. I feel like 98% of your posts are about a 135mm 1.8 OS

I hope canon is listening to me screaming in my tiniest sliver of the Internets. The 135L is darn near the perfect general tele lens for my uses. With a bump in specs, I'd be willing to pay 85LII prices for it.

 

[7enderbender]

It's great if there are more choices. I'm happy with my 135L and don't want OS/IS. BUT if Sigma delivers something with similar optical qualities with better build quality/less plastic I'd be curious at least.

I've never been too thrilled with the cheap feel of the EF lenses (coming from Canon FD). So there is a market for things that feel more solid.

 

[deleteme]

Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat

Some have speculated they may introduce a m4/3 camera with their Foveon sensor. It would add interest to the format but they need to play a lot of catch up to meet the usability expectations of current M4/3 users.

 

[AJ]

Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat

Yeah I never understood why Sigma has their own lens mount. Who's going to invest in an arsenal of Sigma-mount lenses? Not me, even if they put out a decent body at a decent price. Much better to have bodies with Canon and Nikon mounts. That way a Sigma camera can mount more lenses ( = more camera sales) and Sigma can simplify its lens lineup by having fewer lens mounts ( = more profit).

 

[NancyP]

I would welcome an APS-C Foveon SLR with good Live View, and I would go nuts over either a full frame Foveon SLR with Live View or any format Foveon SLR with Canon EF mount and Live View. Most of all, I would go bonkers over an upgrade of the current Sigma Photo Pro RAW converter to encompass some of the tools standard on Lightroom. The actual RAW conversion of the current SPP is fine, its monochrome is excellent, but can you believe - no cropping - no localized adjustments.

I love my Sigma DP Merrills 1, 2, 3 compact fixed-lens cameras - the files are really nice for landscape work, the subtlety of colors is wonderful. These cameras are definitely special-use cameras, due to the very poor performance at ISO greater than 400, and due to somewhat compromised dynamic range even compared to Canon sensors. My real dream is for the Foveon sensor to be brought to a 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 camera back compatible with view cameras with extensive movements. That would be a large format killer for landscape. It would also cost nearly as much as the Green Bazooka, with a good camera (Arca-Swiss for preference) and 3 good lenses attached.

As my other interests include wildlife photography, Canon SLRs are still going to be in my camera bag. Consider me a fangirl of the 400mm f/5.6L.

 

[mrsfotografie]

We love an aggressive Sigma when they make Art lenses.

+1 8) 8)

 

[Bruce Photography]

Very good. The more competition and choices, better for the consumer.

+1

I'm surprised so many people here are slightly negative to another great lens entering the market. If it sucks, it sucks and people will go back to their 135L. If it amazes, like the Siggy 35mm 1.4, well...

...doesn't a rising tide lift all boats? Choice is good, and good for our craft.

+1. For my D7100 I was really pleased with the Sigma Art 18-35 1.8. I first bought the Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens and was very pleased (it was a full frame) but the 18-35 1.8 is just great. I wish Sigma had a 16-35 F1.8 full frame for both Nikon and Canon. This new series of Global lenses by Sigma with the USB dock is a great idea and I hope all lens makers follows suit. Sigma right now is the first lens maker with the dock and a zoom lens that actually works similar with primes at the 1.8 level. What a wonderful feel these lenses have.

 

[candc]

Very good. The more competition and choices, better for the consumer.

+1

I'm surprised so many people here are slightly negative to another great lens entering the market. If it sucks, it sucks and people will go back to their 135L. If it amazes, like the Siggy 35mm 1.4, well...

...doesn't a rising tide lift all boats? Choice is good, and good for our craft.

+1. For my D7100 I was really pleased with the Sigma Art 18-35 1.8. I first bought the Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens and was very pleased (it was a full frame) but the 18-35 1.8 is just great. I wish Sigma had a 16-35 F1.8 full frame for both Nikon and Canon. This new series of Global lenses by Sigma with the USB dock is a great idea and I hope all lens makers follows suit. Sigma right now is the first lens maker with the dock and a zoom lens that actually works similar with primes at the 1.8 level. What a wonderful feel these lenses have.

The 18-35 makes a really good 35 f/1.8 lens on full frame also, it vignettes but not that bad at 35, about 28 mm and the corners go black. Same thing with the 8-16, it works on ff pretty good at 16

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

.
How do you improve on the 135L?

add IS and remove longitudinal CA and make it even crisper still (seems hard to believe, but I believe Zeiss already has one that is crisper at the wider apertures)

135L is good though, very good, other than some longitudinal CA

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My 135L is a lens I'd like to update, but not even the Zeiss is quite there in performance/value ratio (I would go for an Otus level one if they ever do that!). My biggest beef with the L is the longitudinal colour is rather poorly corrected. Can we have a true APO or better design please?

Wow, you are the first person I ever heard of complain about the longitudinal (axial) CA from a 135L, can you post some images of yours that demonstrate this?

???

I've seen people bring up longitudinal CA regarding the 135L all over the place. It's basically the one issue with it that people bring up.

 

[zim]

but there’s a possibility of a big DSLR announcement.

This is the most interesting part of this to me, I remember posting about their body strategy before.
Imagine if they release a 6d equivalent body, in all ways except a little better AF you know one that allows you to photograph your children running about, not exactly unreasonable for that price point, that would really put the cat among the pigeons.

 

[privatebydesign]

My 135L is a lens I'd like to update, but not even the Zeiss is quite there in performance/value ratio (I would go for an Otus level one if they ever do that!). My biggest beef with the L is the longitudinal colour is rather poorly corrected. Can we have a true APO or better design please?

Wow, you are the first person I ever heard of complain about the longitudinal (axial) CA from a 135L, can you post some images of yours that demonstrate this?

???

I've seen people bring up longitudinal CA regarding the 135L all over the place. It's basically the one issue with it that people bring up.

I have seen people bring up all kinds of things, they very rarely have images to back the claims up. I have posted hundreds of illustrative images in threads like this.

What I was asking for was actual images where axial CA has ruined the shot and was not easily fixable in post. Lateral CA is a completely different problem that has no practical post correction, axial, unless very pronounced, is not.

 

[lol]

Wow, you are the first person I ever heard of complain about the longitudinal (axial) CA from a 135L, can you post some images of yours that demonstrate this?

Too lazy to fish them out, as obviously they didn't make the priority keep list.

I should add I'm probably not the biggest demographic for this category lens. For normal shots, you can easily see green/magenta on high contrast transitions which are a characteristic of longitudinal CA. I can live with that, or manually photoshop it if I feel like it.

Where it can not be ignored is for astrophotography. Having pin points of light across the whole frame is near enough the ultimate stress test for any lens. Where the 135L fails is that while the green/blue focal points are close enough, the red channel is way off in comparison. As such, I tend to only use it with narrowband colour filters.

 

[privatebydesign]

Wow, you are the first person I ever heard of complain about the longitudinal (axial) CA from a 135L, can you post some images of yours that demonstrate this?

Too lazy to fish them out, as obviously they didn't make the priority keep list.

I should add I'm probably not the biggest demographic for this category lens. For normal shots, you can easily see green/magenta on high contrast transitions which are a characteristic of longitudinal CA. I can live with that, or manually photoshop it if I feel like it.

Where it can not be ignored is for astrophotography. Having pin points of light across the whole frame is near enough the ultimate stress test for any lens. Where the 135L fails is that while the green/blue focal points are close enough, the red channel is way off in comparison. As such, I tend to only use it with narrowband colour filters.

Don;t believe the first, sorry. I have seen too many images from the 135 f2 to give much credence.

I do 100% believe the astrophotography issue though. I remember reading a review of the 200 f2 where the guy was very disappointed in how bad most of his Canon lenses were for that field. He said the 200 f2.8 was considerably better for the task than the 200 f2, so I am not surprised you find the 135 f2 a disappointment.

As you said, a comparatively small demographic, but one where that particular lens does show its design objectives to be out of sync for that user base. Even if "they" make the perfect lens, it won't be perfect for everyone Just look at the complaints about the MkII 70-200 f2.8IS as not having the smooth Bokeh of the MkI from the portrait shooters while the sports shooters rave about the faster AF and sharper images from the MkII.........

 

[lol]

Maybe the 200mm f/1.8L was better for the guy disappointed with the 200mm f/2L I've certainly heard good things about the 200mm f/2.8 too, although "only" f/2.8 and for the more serious they stop down slightly from there anyway.

Back to the 135L, I guess we have different tolerances to aberrations. As said, I can live with it on the 135L for normal use, although still wish it wasn't there. If the Sigma is better for a similar ball park cost, I'll probably make the switch. If it costs more, it better be a LOT better, but that doesn't sound like the Sigma we know.

 

[privatebydesign]

Maybe the 200mm f/1.8L was better for the guy disappointed with the 200mm f/2L I've certainly heard good things about the 200mm f/2.8 too, although "only" f/2.8 and for the more serious they stop down slightly from there anyway.

Back to the 135L, I guess we have different tolerances to aberrations. As said, I can live with it on the 135L for normal use, although still wish it wasn't there. If the Sigma is better for a similar ball park cost, I'll probably make the switch. If it costs more, it better be a LOT better, but that doesn't sound like the Sigma we know.

No he didn't rate the 200 1.8 for astrophotography either. Here is the link, http://www.welsh-house.net/andy/review200f2.html he does reference the 135 and 200 f1.8 and 200 f2.8.

 

[AdamJ]

Am I alone in finding lateral CA easier to correct in post than axial CA? I'd be happy to learn how to correct axial CA reliably.

 

[9VIII]

There's lots to improve on the 135L. If all Sigma did was improve corner performance wide open I would be happy. A shorter MFD would be nice too.

Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat

Interesting, but they'd need to ditch the Foveon sensor and go regular. Too large a data file not to have any real improvement in resolution, at least not that ive read anywhere outside the Sigma website. Or maybe non-Bayer like Fuji's x-trans. That would be exciting indeed.

What if Sigma made a Canon EF mount camera with a Sony sensor. So-sigma? Sig-ony? Sig-can-nony?

I'd rather see them to with the non-Bayer design though.

I think part of the whole reason their Foveon camera didn't take off was that it was a crop sensor. Originally they were asking 1D prices for an APS-C camera, that just doesn't fly.
If they can put out a 20MP full frame Foveon sensor (60MP counting individual sub pixels), upgrade the autofocus, make sure it has lots of dials and price it to compete with the D800, I think they would have a winner.

 

[wickidwombat]

.
How do you improve on the 135L?

I agree but adding OS / IS is a big assist for this lens IMO

however its going to take some amazing optics to out perform the 135 f2L at a pure optical level

 

[privatebydesign]

Am I alone in finding lateral CA easier to correct in post than axial CA? I'd be happy to learn how to correct axial CA reliably.

Are you sure you have them the right way round?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-corrections.htm

The control panel in Lightroom-Develop-Lens Corrections-Color is all about correcting fringing, this can manifest from either lateral or axial CA. Though it can deal with blooming too, the colours are normally different. Lateral is two colours with red/magenta and green/yellow, axial is normally purple, as is blooming.

Just click the box! If that doesn't do the job very well adjusting the range and colour of the sliders will normally sort it out very well. You can even use the picker to select the exact tone of your problem CA/blooming.


Below are two images that illustrate dealing with lateral CA, the image is enlarged 200% and then a screen shot of the image and the control box.