Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 Art

[mb66energy]

[...]

We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.

I agree with your statement, but I think that here at CR we have a good collection of photographers who combine a high addiction to photography (artistic AND / OR technical) without the need to do it professionally. And IMO a lens weighting ~ 1500 grams and costing ~ 1200 $/EUR/... is more or less addressed to that marked. I think about a wildlife photographer with a 100-400 mm zoom + 7D M ii who want's to extend his/her portfolio by some low light photography.

On the other hand a full frame body is in the region of 1200 $/EUR new (or 500 $/EUR second hand) and is welcome e.g. for my style of photography: I like low contrast subjects like sth. in the fog, cloudscapes where the cleaner output of FF sensors rules. And the region between 40...50 - 135...200mm isn't populated with to many options and there is no option if you want or need f/2.8 for e.g. 50-135 or f/4.0 40-200 WITH IMAGE STABILIZER (for universality) and good close up capability (at least 1:4). But perhaps I am one of the few people who think (in terms of 35mm + equiv) about 40...50 as moderate wide angle and 135...200 as moderate tele and because of that there is no real market

 

[AlmostDecent]

We tend to forget around here that the majority of DSLRs out in the wild have APS-C, not FF, sensors. We at Canon Rumors by no means represent the average photographer.

Yes, and no. I think the Canon Rumors lurkers do represent the average photographer.... willing to spend $1500 on a high-end and very heavy lens. Most lower-end APS-C shooters will be looking for one of those vastly cheaper (and lighter) 18-300 f/4.5-6.3 style lenses.

 

[Berowne]

Who will spend so much money for a crop only lens? "Enthusiasts", who will save money in purchasing a crop-body will probably not do that.

For what purpose, for shooting indoor sport - and with a fast sigma? Then AF must be very reliable. Will it be? Most probably not.

 

[slclick]

No price has been announced as of yet. These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time. Otus anyone?

 

[mb66energy]

No price has been announced as of yet. These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time. Otus anyone?

Price is 167400 Yen according to Chaitanya's link - meaning that the suggested retail price will be around 1500 $/EUR ...

 

[grainier]

It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.

Good point, but did you consider the weight in your HAND? The difference between 50A (800g) and 50-100A (1400g) is big on paper and even bigger when handholding. I can work with the weight and volume of my 70d with grip and 18-35A, but using the 50-150OS (which weight is comparable to the new 50-100A) is another thing, with that combo I have to make many breaks.

This whole weight thing is overblown, imo. I have no problems with shooting a period of hockey with 7-2/2.8, and trust me, I am no Ahnuld. Far from it.

 

[grainier]

Most lower-end APS-C shooters will be looking for one of those vastly cheaper (and lighter) 18-300 f/4.5-6.3 style lenses.

None of the people I know, who I would classify as casual low end shooters have anything beyond t3i and 18-55/55-250.

 

[slclick]

It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.

Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II
...

80-160 equivalent.

This isn't the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200/2.8.

It is a new lens. New focal lengths.

It is a 50-100/1.8.

80-160 equivalent.

 

[3kramd5]

These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.

So what's the cost of the lens this competes with?

(Hint: there isn't one)

 

[slclick]

These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.

So what's the cost of the lens this competes with?

(Hint: there isn't one)

That is like a version of sarcasm where one is putting the cart before the horse!

 

[ExodistPhotography]

I am super excited about this lens. As a photographer that only uses APS-C camera I have been in hopes that Sigma would refresh the 50-150 for a while now. To get a 50-100mm at f/1.8 is actually better. I do a lot of portrait head shots and WOW this is perfect. I have the Canon 50mm STM and its amazing lens for the price, I also have the Canon 85mm f/1.8. But its showing its age. This new lens will replace both if it performs as well as my 18-35art. For those worried about 35mm to 50mm gap, LOL just walk 3 feet . Seriously I have OCD as well and wished it was a smaller or no gap in the zoom ranges. But I much rather not sacrifice image quality over it. Anyway 167k yen... Likely around $1400 USD, not sure. But if its under $1500 I will be getting this lens, right after I pick up the new 80D also..

 

[The Supplanter]

As an owner of the 18-35/1.8 who just switched back to all-crop from crop+full-frame, I think I'll pass on this one. I already have a 50/1.8STM and a 70-200/2.8L IS II. While I'd probably use this lens, it's likely not worth the money when it so overlaps with my already-existing fast lenses, especially if it doesn't have stabilization.

I'm with ya, dude. Looks like we have similar equipment.

I don't really have a need for this lens, but I hope it performs well. And I'm happy Sigma is looking out for the crop people!

 

[9VIII]

Looking at the specs for the Canon 70-200f2.8ISII, the Sigma 50-100 actually weighs exactly the same, has bigger filter threads, and is only 28mm shorter. I don't think it's a stretch to call it a 70-200f2.8 equivalent. It's just missing 40mm tele and 10mm on the wide end.
The lack of stabilisation doesn't bother me very much since IS just makes a moving subject even more blurry if your shutter speed isn't too fast to begin with. And it's another thing to potentially break as time goes on.

 

[allpet]

It will replace my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and Sigma 85mm 1.4 that i use for indoor sports photography with my 7D2 and give me some flexibility. The load in my bag will be about the same.

Good point, but did you consider the weight in your HAND? The difference between 50A (800g) and 50-100A (1400g) is big on paper and even bigger when handholding. I can work with the weight and volume of my 70d with grip and 18-35A, but using the 50-150OS (which weight is comparable to the new 50-100A) is another thing, with that combo I have to make many breaks.

On top, the new 50-100A obviously comes without OS, so I stick with 50-150OS. But for those not owning the 50-150OS, the new lens may be a good option.

For my sport - taekwondo - there are lots of breaks so I have no worries.

So go for it and please report your experience

Let's see the price first...

 

[Talley]

Looking at the specs for the Canon 70-200f2.8ISII, the Sigma 50-100 actually weighs exactly the same, has bigger filter threads, and is only 28mm shorter. I don't think it's a stretch to call it a 70-200f2.8 equivalent. It's just missing 40mm tele and 10mm on the wide end.
The lack of stabilisation doesn't bother me very much since IS just makes a moving subject even more blurry if your shutter speed isn't too fast to begin with. And it's another thing to potentially break as time goes on.

true. helps shutter... should be good for those 7D2 users.

 

[Lee Jay]

These price conjectures for Sigma aren't inline with recent offerings history. Sigma undercuts it's competitors by almost half each and every time.

So what's the cost of the lens this competes with?

Well, I have a 70-200/2.8L IS II already so, for me, this lens competes with a full-frame camera to go with my existing 70-200.

 

[et31]

What? Finally a 50-100mm f/1.4 full frame lens from Sigma? This is great! I'm going to....oh! I see...one of those. Just kidding. I am glad that Sigma is really improving the lens availability line-up and actively competing against all the other companies.

On a side note, maybe I need to create my own $500,000 start-up company and design this lens and a series of f/1.2 - 1.4 zoom lenses that all the other companies do not want to make. Weight complaints? How about capturing an image that really matters!...with at least 5-10 stops of vibration reduction / control.;D

Let me finish my optical engineering graduate degree and see everyone in about a decade. :
Remember this bad lens that rocked the lens world a few years ago? Now think even bigger! ;D
Can't....hold it....steady...much....longer!....must.....have.....bokeh!!!!!

 

[Steve Balcombe]

It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.

Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II
...

This isn't the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200/2.8.

Correct - it's actually worse than that, which was my point.

 

[slclick]

It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.

Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II
...

This isn't the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200/2.8.

Correct - it's actually worse than that, which was my point.

Worse in which way?

Am I agreeing with dilbert?

Less can be more. I wouldn't trade my 24-35 (because of my shooting styles and other lenses which compliment and contrast with it) for one with a longer FL.

So, your worse might be someone else's better. It's an idea which is tough for some to swallow here.

Akin to "CANON NEEDS TO MAKE A CAMERA BUILT TO MY SPEC'S"

 

[Lee Jay]

It is a 2x zoom lens. And if they had of delivered 130mm, people would have said "why not 150mm (3x)?" So Sigma have stuck to a plan.

Sure, but the full frame equivalent, the 70-200/2.8: IS II
...

This isn't the APS-C equivalent of the 70-200/2.8.

Correct - it's actually worse than that, which was my point.

Worse in which way?

Less range - 80-160 versus 70-200.
No IS.
Sigma focusing versus Canon focusing.