Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art listed in Belarus for $790

[ahsanford]

Put another random rumor in the Sigma 50 art blender:

http://www.slrlounge.com/new-sigma-50mm-f1-4-790-according-official-dealer

http://petapixel.com/2014/03/18/sigmas-official-dealer-belarus-says-50mm-art-lens-will-cost-790/

http://www.canonwatch.com/price-sigma-50mm-f1-4-ex-dg-art-lens-790/

- A

 

[jdramirez]

I know Sigma is a 2nd tier brand... but if the lens is really that good, they would be giving it away at $800. Especially when their main competition is the Otus which is $4000. Is Ford really going charge $10,000 for a mid-size sedan because Honda is selling their's at $20,000?

Not to mention, the 50 art would come in at a lower price than the 35 art?

 

[MLfan3]

this lens and some other high quality Sigma Zeiss lenses are the reasons why I just sold all my Nikon gear.
you may not be able to use some of the best Sigmas and Zeiss primes on Nikon any more, Nikon tries very very hard to just restrict use of third party lenses.

I think it will hurt Nikon since this will really narrow F mount ecosystem.
anyway, I briefly tried it at CP+ event in Yokohama this feb , it is big but not as big as my Zeiss 135mm f2 APO or 100mm f2.
it is about the same size as the Canon 135mm f2L , the Sigma is a bit shorter in length , though.
it felt about as heavy as my 100L macro lens or my Nikon 85mm f1.4G, I could not use my SD card in my 6D at the time , so I do not really know how sharp it really is, but it seemed very very sharp and well corrected.
I think if it is really this cheap , I would get 2 of these.
but what I really want to see from Sigma is a new Art line of 85mm f1.4 lens.
I like the 85mm L I had it but it was just too fat to hold and kind of awkward in real life use.
I also had Zeiss 85mmf1.4ZF2 but it was not a sharp lens at f1.4, and I sold it.
I am also interested in a great AF 135mm f2 prime but I think it is extremely tough to beat the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO,which is the sharpest lens I have ever used(sharper than the Leica 125mm f2.5 S mount lens).

 

[tianxiaozhang]

I know Sigma is a 2nd tier brand... but if the lens is really that good, they would be giving it away at $800. Especially when their main competition is the Otus which is $4000. Is Ford really going charge $10,000 for a mid-size sedan because Honda is selling their's at $20,000?

Not to mention, the 50 art would come in at a lower price than the 35 art?

Makes sense but how great would it be if it's really 790... I'll order one the day it comes out..

 

[sagittariansrock]

This will kill sales of Canon's 50/1.2L - even at its current rebate price of $1,469.00. The Sigma is almost half the price of the "L".

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

 

[CarlTN]

If this is true and Sigma actually don't sell the lens for more than $790, then it won't matter how good it is optically, or if it autofocuses adequately. It will be slammed by all the Canonnites on here. If they would charge $1200 or more, it would be taken more seriously (assuming it actually is optically good). Plain and simple, to appeal to a Cannonite, you have to evoke enough snob appeal. Certainly the 35 Art is still slammed for its autofocus performance.

 

[Grumbaki]

How much is VAT in Belaruss? That might be the tax free price which puts it close to 1K in most western EU countries. Just saying.

 

[infared]

If this is true and Sigma actually don't sell the lens for more than $790, then it won't matter how good it is optically, or if it autofocuses adequately. It will be slammed by all the Canonnites on here. If they would charge $1200 or more, it would be taken more seriously (assuming it actually is optically good). Plain and simple, to appeal to a Cannonite, you have to evoke enough snob appeal. Certainly the 35 Art is still slammed for its autofocus performance.

I have to agree with you. I own the new Sigma 35mm Art and it is a lens that just WOWS me every time I upload images from a card that has been in the same camera that the lens is attached to. (I own the original Sigma 50mm and although I like the lens a lot, especially compared to its competition it is not a WOW lens). I also own some incredible "L" glass and Zeiss, so I am in no way attached to one manufacturer, but I do look for the what I consider to be the best I can buy when I purchase a lens that covers a certain range of needs.
Now we are all in here talking about a lens that we know very little about, but that some of us have great expectations for (with good reason as all preliminary indicators are very positive), and this pricing info has me very excited about this upcoming lens offering...heck... this is a 50mm with 13 elements in it riding a wave of new lenses from a company that clearly has had a turnaround in its business ethic, but there will be those few in here that will vehemently deny this reality...I have to admit that somehow this fact will cause me great glee each time I snap the bayonet of my new art 50mm onto my 5DIII! . If this pricing info is correct, it will be like icing on the cake. This is the one lens that I am excited about this year and it is about time that FF has a reasonable priced, great performing "normal" lens. Why has this taken so long? You will not see this possibility from Canon..... and Nikon just offered their own overpriced embarrassment (the new 58mm f/1.4), in this basic lens segment (?????), rendering...smendering LOL! It costs too much money and it is mediocre at best for a 2014 lens. So, if Sigma delivers in this price range I believe there will be a lot of smiling image makers in the upcoming months. This is getting exciting!

 

[infared]

If this is true and Sigma actually don't sell the lens for more than $790, then it won't matter how good it is optically, or if it autofocuses adequately. It will be slammed by all the Canonnites on here. If they would charge $1200 or more, it would be taken more seriously (assuming it actually is optically good). Plain and simple, to appeal to a Cannonite, you have to evoke enough snob appeal. Certainly the 35 Art is still slammed for its autofocus performance.

No, even if it cost $2000 and was half the price of the Zeiss Otus it would still be shunned because Sigma have a history of making bad lenses and everyone has a bad story to tell and thus nobody should go back. That people have bad experiences with Canon and Canon gear is irrelevant because there's that word "Canon" on it.

Truth be known...Sigma has a tainted past...but I repeatedly see a new leaf turned in the last two years. Let's live in the present.

 

[Eldar]

If you take $790 and consider what that must pay for, it becomes a bit difficult to believe that this lens can compete with the Otus in any way.

(If memory serves me right) 10 lens elements, of which 3 are SLD and one aspherical, a fast reliable AF system, housing, hoods and caps and casing and profit ... I fail to see how it is possible to produce a high quality product, with tolerances to compete with L-series, Otus and others, for that money, no matter how efficient you are or how cheap your labor is.

I'd be delighted if they prove me wrong. That would make this lens a significant game changer!

 

[Grumbaki]

Sigma has a tainted past...

That's why I believe they can be inclined to hit a big one while renouncing part of the margin. 35 art was the trial and the initiation of the new move, this can be the reputation changer and the step into the "big"league (they'll still be 3rd party and not Zeiss ).

790 USD, even tax free, is still a bit low...now make that 790 EUR + taxes and you get above the 35L but still under the competition to score that big hit. (why the hell would a belarus list in either currency don't ask me!)

 

[drjlo]

This will kill sales of Canon's 50/1.2L - even at its current rebate price of $1,469.00. The Sigma is almost half the price of the "L".

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

Although I hope and pray the Sigma 50 ART turns out to be a great lens, with perfect AF and no third-party issues, my own needs revolve more around the overall "look and feel" and color than sheer sharpness. This is why 35L fits my own needs better than Sigma 35 ART, so I understand that "guy" who loves his 35L.

I truly hope the Sigma 50 ART can bring lively colors and subject separation/"pop" from wonderful background bokeh, then I will replace my 50L with it.

 

[infared]

This will kill sales of Canon's 50/1.2L - even at its current rebate price of $1,469.00. The Sigma is almost half the price of the "L".

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

Although I hope and pray the Sigma 50 ART turns out to be a great lens, with perfect AF and no third-party issues, my own needs revolve more around the overall "look and feel" and color than sheer sharpness. This is why 35L fits my own needs better than Sigma 35 ART, so I understand that "guy" who loves his 35L.

I truly hope the Sigma 50 ART can bring lively colors and subject separation/"pop" from wonderful background bokeh, then I will replace my 50L with it.

Please watch this...I feel the same way as this very responsible reviewer. He pretty much covers everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OuN1ywuufg

"my own needs revolve more around the overall "look and feel" and color than sheer sharpness." Can you elaborate on this statement....it is kind of nebulous.

 

[Lightmaster]

This will kill sales of Canon's 50/1.2L - even at its current rebate price of $1,469.00. The Sigma is almost half the price of the "L".

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

a red ring junkie?

my father has the 35L so i know it pretty well... but i prefer my sigma 35mm f1.4.

 

[Lightmaster]

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

a red ring junkie?

my father has the 35L so i know it pretty well... but i prefer my sigma 35mm f1.4.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

a red ring junkie?

my father has the 35L so i know it pretty well... but i prefer my sigma 35mm f1.4.

Didn't seem like an L junkie. There are many possible reasons- some people don't like to consider 3rd party products, some people like the 'look' of a particular lens. Similarly I'm sure the 50L will have its loyalists.

 

[sagittariansrock]

This will kill sales of Canon's 50/1.2L - even at its current rebate price of $1,469.00. The Sigma is almost half the price of the "L".

Dunno about that. I just met a guy who recently bought a 35L and loves it, and he happily paid almost double the price of the superior Sigma 35A.

Although I hope and pray the Sigma 50 ART turns out to be a great lens, with perfect AF and no third-party issues, my own needs revolve more around the overall "look and feel" and color than sheer sharpness. This is why 35L fits my own needs better than Sigma 35 ART, so I understand that "guy" who loves his 35L.

I truly hope the Sigma 50 ART can bring lively colors and subject separation/"pop" from wonderful background bokeh, then I will replace my 50L with it.

Please watch this...I feel the same way as this very responsible reviewer. He pretty much covers everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OuN1ywuufg

"my own needs revolve more around the overall "look and feel" and color than sheer sharpness." Can you elaborate on this statement....it is kind of nebulous.

I also saw that video, and while I'd prefer the 35A to the 35L, the video looks biased from the beginning.
The minute he talks about liberal use of plastic in the Canon and how that still didn't help keep the price down it was clear which one he preferred.
Reviews should be objective, leaving the viewer to draw his conclusions based on the data provided.

 

[Radiating]

If you take $790 and consider what that must pay for, it becomes a bit difficult to believe that this lens can compete with the Otus in any way.

You do realize that Canon pays around $300 to manufacture a $2400 MSRP lens right? The manufacturing is not what costs a lot, it's the initial set up and the R&D and marketing and prototyping. Canon has huge overhead from millions of dollars poured into research, design and manufacturing facilities.

(If memory serves me right) 10 lens elements, of which 3 are SLD and one aspherical, a fast reliable AF system, housing, hoods and caps and casing and profit ... I fail to see how it is possible to produce a high quality product, with tolerances to compete with L-series, Otus and others, for that money, no matter how efficient you are or how cheap your labor is.

I'd be delighted if they prove me wrong. That would make this lens a significant game changer!

It doesn't matter what you think. This lens has ALREADY been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be twice as good as anything else with autofocus period. We have raw data, we have prototypes that have been proven to match the raw data, we have the lens' design data that has been verified as capable of providing the performance etc etc.

This lens makes anything else you can buy in it's class that has autofocus completely obsolete from a performance standpoint. We're talking the same difference as Tamron 18-270mm vs 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. It's also set to have amazing bokeh, being designed to mimic the 50L f/1.2 and low color fringing and hazing so overall it should be better in every way than competitors.

 

[Eldar]

If you take $790 and consider what that must pay for, it becomes a bit difficult to believe that this lens can compete with the Otus in any way.

You do realize that Canon pays around $300 to manufacture a $2400 MSRP lens right? The manufacturing is not what costs a lot, it's the initial set up and the R&D and marketing and prototyping. Canon has huge overhead from millions of dollars poured into research, design and manufacturing facilities.

(If memory serves me right) 10 lens elements, of which 3 are SLD and one aspherical, a fast reliable AF system, housing, hoods and caps and casing and profit ... I fail to see how it is possible to produce a high quality product, with tolerances to compete with L-series, Otus and others, for that money, no matter how efficient you are or how cheap your labor is.

I'd be delighted if they prove me wrong. That would make this lens a significant game changer!

It doesn't matter what you think. This lens has ALREADY been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be twice as good as anything else with autofocus period. We have raw data, we have prototypes that have been proven to match the raw data, we have the lens' design data that has been verified as capable of providing the performance etc etc.

This lens makes anything else you can buy in it's class that has autofocus completely obsolete from a performance standpoint. We're talking the same difference as Tamron 18-270mm vs 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. It's also set to have amazing bokeh, being designed to mimic the 50L f/1.2 and low color fringing and hazing so overall it should be better in every way than competitors.

I´m glad for your enthusiasm and I really hope you will be satisfied. Yes, I have read the Sigma ambition and yes, I have seen images from what I assume to be carefully selected copies and it looks very promising. But I need to see a lot more before I am convinced. I will most likely buy one to check it out. I have the 35 Art and apart from a drifting AF system, it is optically and mechanically a very impressive lens for the price.

But no, unlike you, I do not have detailed insight into neither Sigma´s nor Canon´s production processes or sub contracting arrangements. I do not know their cost break down structure or how they develop their business cases. But the required glass quality and production tolerances required to deliver consistent quality at the level they claim with this lens, at a RRP of $790, with a sustainable profit ... does not sound realistic to me.

But, as I said, if they deliver, it will be a major game changer, where we as customers will be the winners.

 

[Viggo]

Why is it soo difficult for the 35 Art fanboys to accept that people can like the 35 L better?