Sigma formally announces the Sigma 200mm f/2 DG OS Sports

[DhlcadR6]

I can guarantee that a Sony camera plus this lens will be cheaper than any forthcoming RF 200/2, so remaining enslaved to one body vendor is foolish these days. It's just a pity the camera UIs vary so much.

Remember the old advice: invest in the lens, then buy the body that works with it.

Canon still seem to think it's the early 2000s when they can drip-feed products and buyers will just tolerate it.

I can say the same thing back, if I got the EF200L f1.8/f2 back in the days, it will still work and there's no restrictions on the 15fps like Sony does. But hey, once mentioned EF adapters. The goalpost moves.

 

[Toamelicious]

I dunno. It is true that things have changed, but shooting at high FPS still means a long time to ingest into LR... people with different workflows may have different experiences.
I have had a 1D X which was considered a speed demon and did not achieve 15 FPS.
I'm probably biased because my kind of photography does not require such speed. But I assume the 15 FPS limitation on Sony Cameras with 3rd party lenses is not the end of the world for a material % of photographers.
I know I'd rather be able to use some of those Sigma lenses on my R5 with some speed limitation than not at all.

That last point I can absolutely get behind. If I had to make the choice of using awesome third party lenses or having 30fps available, I'd probably go for the lenses 90% of my time.

 

[frankchn]

I can say the same thing back, if I got the EF200L f1.8/f2 back in the days, it will still work and there's no restrictions on the 15fps like Sony does. But hey, once mentioned EF adapters. The goalpost moves.

There is a restricted list of EF lenses that support maximum fps on RF cameras (see https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html), and unfortunately the EF 200mm f/1.8L and 200mm f/2L are not on the list.

According to this post on DPReview forums (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4707175#forumsPostDetail66977918), at least on the R6 Mark II you are limited to 15 fps for some older lenses (e.g. the EF 500 f/4L IS Mark I).

 

[fox40phil]

With all these new interesting third party lenses coming out I am certainly rethinking buying new RF gear even though I am balls deep already.

Yes me 2!
No new camera for me… I will wait for a Z8 II or maybe Sony a7 V…

 

[fox40phil]

There is a restricted list of EF lenses that support maximum fps on RF cameras (see https://cam.start.canon/en/H001/supplement_0080.html), and unfortunately the EF 200mm f/1.8L and 200mm f/2L are not on the list.

According to this post on DPReview forums (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4707175#forumsPostDetail66977918), at least on the R6 Mark II you are limited to 15 fps for some older lenses (e.g. the EF 500 f/4L IS Mark I).

But only mechanical?! Electronical should be full power or not?!

 

[fox40phil]

Soo many awesome lenses on the other sides of the river….. I save money to maybe sail in the future… sad! I love my Canon gear!

My current dreams:
Best wedding and event setup:
24-40MP Camera with 28-70 2.0 + 50-150 2.0 ‍

Wildlife:
45-50MP with 300-600 4.0 with optional TC - or 400mm 2.8 with build in TC

 

[frankchn]

But only mechanical?! Electronical should be full power or not?!

At least from the DPReview post, you are limited to 15 fps in electronic H+ and 7.5 fps in mechanical.

 

[Cerulean42]

Lenses like the 35-150 2-2.8, sony's lighter and thinner 28-70 F2 and the dirt cheap chinese primes are making me really consider adding a Sony body to the collection. Not quitting canon yet, but I do remember the days when EF was the most open mount for 3rds party lenses.

 

[SvO2]

I wish the L-mount took off. I'd love to be able to buy lenses that I can use with any body and vice versa

 

[grilled_rooster]

I dunno. It is true that things have changed, but shooting at high FPS still means a long time to ingest into LR... people with different workflows may have different experiences.
I have had a 1D X which was considered a speed demon and did not achieve 15 FPS.
I'm probably biased because my kind of photography does not require such speed. But I assume the 15 FPS limitation on Sony Cameras with 3rd party lenses is not the end of the world for a material % of photographers.
I know I'd rather be able to use some of those Sigma lenses on my R5 with some speed limitation than not at all.

I use photomechanics. It's the fastest way to go through thousands of images very fast.

I have two ways to work with photomechanics (pm). While shooting a sports event I go through my images on my camera. Images I like and I would like to transfer to my agency get the "protected" mark in camera. I then put my camera into my card reader with pm open. Only the protected images will be imported. And so I only have to import a handful of images into LR.

Second way to work with pm: that's what I do after a sports game. I put my card into my card reader and open that card in pm. In pm you can scroll very fast through your images. There i'm going to mark all useful images. And only those will be transferred to my computer and imported to LR. On a normal day I end up with +/- 150 images of a soccer or basketball game while actually shooting close to 10000 images or more.

 

[mimbu]

It's not as bad as you think because the 120 fps mode is useful in very specific situations and most people won't use it all the time.

For instance, when I need a ball-on-bat shot of a batter in baseball, I can just set the camera to 120 fps + pre-capture. The batter missed? Delete the entire burst sequence in camera. The batter managed to a hit? Scroll to flag and protect the actual shot where the ball is in contact with the bat, and delete the rest.

Nothing personal, but "spray and pray" at 120fps doesn't even feel like photography to me. If it's your job and you absolutely have to capture the image then I get it, but it still doesn't feel like a creative, planned process. It's gotten to the point that it feels like there is real truth in, "Wow, nice photo! You must have a great camera."

 

[mimbu]

No TC support on Sony E mount is much bigger problem than a 15fps limit. Imagine buying a 600 F4 lens for $$$ and not be able to use teleconverter.

On the other hand, imagine getting a 300-600/4 zoom with so-close-to-prime image quality that few people would ever know the difference, for half the price of the first party 600/4 prime, and then complaining that you don't also get a TC. If you need an 840/5.6 more than you need a 300-600/4 then you should purchase the 600/4 and TC set.

 

[frankchn]

Nothing personal, but "spray and pray" at 120fps doesn't even feel like photography to me. If it's your job and you absolutely have to capture the image then I get it, but it still doesn't feel like a creative, planned process. It's gotten to the point that it feels like there is real truth in, "Wow, nice photo! You must have a great camera."

Editor wants it for an article, what you gonna do. It's definitely not fine art, but that's a lot of these types of photography.

Ultimately I would rather have the shot than have to explain why I couldn't get it and risk getting replaced for the next game.

 

[lbeck]

They certainly aren’t making it easy on long time Canon shooters. Sony and Nikon must be licking their lips.

Nikon seems to be missing out on this as well. It’s only for Sony E and L mount.

 

[mimbu]

Nikon seems to be missing out on this as well. It’s only for Sony E and L mount.

It can be used on Z mount via the popular Megadap adapter. They work well, and Nikon users like to go on about how it's not performance limited on Z mount. Which is technically true, but the reality is that tracking AF is still limited by the speed of the adapter. Reliable tracking AF might be maintained at slightly faster than Sony's 15fps limit, but not much. Going a lot higher results in increased miss rates.

I also wonder how long Nikon will tolerate the common use of these adapters. They clearly do not want these types of lenses on Z mount so I won't be surprised if they start clamping down on the use of non-Nikon adapters.

 

[mimbu]

I dunno. It is true that things have changed, but shooting at high FPS still means a long time to ingest into LR... people with different workflows may have different experiences.
I have had a 1D X which was considered a speed demon and did not achieve 15 FPS.
I'm probably biased because my kind of photography does not require such speed. But I assume the 15 FPS limitation on Sony Cameras with 3rd party lenses is not the end of the world for a material % of photographers.
I know I'd rather be able to use some of those Sigma lenses on my R5 with some speed limitation than not at all.

The entire A7 line has never exceeded 15fps and there are a LOT of A7/A7R/A7S series cameras out there. The formerly super-fast A9 and A9ii topped out at 20fps and there are a lot of those around, too. It's not until the A1 came along at 30fps and now the A9iii at 120fps that the 15fps limit was any sort of real limitation, but still only for a small subset of users with the highest end cameras.

Like yourself, I've never had a camera that exceeded 15fps and never felt the need for one. I'm glad they're available for those who want/need them, but that type of speed is not important to me personally.

 

[mimbu]

Lenses like the 35-150 2-2.8, sony's lighter and thinner 28-70 F2 and the dirt cheap chinese primes are making me really consider adding a Sony body to the collection. Not quitting canon yet, but I do remember the days when EF was the most open mount for 3rds party lenses.

Some of the cheap Chinese primes are incredible. I picked up a TT Artisan 75/2 on sale for $159! It's a ridiculous price for a lens as good as it is. Almost nonsensical. Is it perfect? No, the corners could be sharper and video AF is sometimes wonky. But from a Dustin Abbott review:

• Nicely built lens
• Nice looking lens
• Compact size and light weight
• Good manual focus ring
• Ability to upgrade firmware through rear cap
• Focus accuracy good
• Focus motor reasonably quiet
• No distortion
• Low chromatic aberrations
• Competitive minimum focus distance
• Nice bokeh
• Better flare resistance

For $199 that is regularly on sale for $159 or $169? How is that not an absolutely unbeatable value?

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Sigma has gotten a lot of attention lately and folks are raving about all their new lenses, so I kind of figured I´ll just take a look at what L-mount set up would look like for me. Honestly, at first I thought I might be tempted, but in the end I am not intrigued at all. There would be absolutely no equivalent for my RF 100-500mm (Sigma 150-600mm comes close, but AF is not as good plus it weighs 2.1 KG) and my RF 14-35mm F4 (my two favorite lenses) and even 70-200mm F4 doesn't seem to have an equal competitor.

Sigmas prime lenses line-up is impressive and I do love the price points Sigma is hitting (Sigma 35mm F1.4 at 879 €/ Canon 35mm F1.4 VCM currently 1.549 €). If one really needs more then one or two primes and is on a budget, I would strongly feel the urge to use e-mount or L-mount. But even when comparing the cheaper primes (RF 35mm F1.8/ 85mm F2) it is hard to find primes which have the same close focusing abilities. So, sry, L-mount does not seem the option for me but I understand why others would choose it. I´d be missing lots of great canon gear! I do hope and wish Sigma will one day release FF for Canon RF. Atm, I am looking to add the 50mm F1.4 L VCM prime, but I'll wait for a decent price. The difference of 700 € to Sigmas offering is ridiculous imho.

Comparing to e-mount, again no equivalent for my favorite two lenses. The 50-150mm F2 and the much lighter 28-70mm F2 are damn intriguing, yes. But with both lenses I´m pretty sure that with all the rumors floating around, Canon will release a 70ish...150mm F2 lens (hopefully even lighter) and a mkii (lighter than 1kg) for the 28-70mm F2. It just a matter of time. The only lens that I´m really jealous of is the Sigma 20mm F1.4. Canons option is just waaaaaaay too pricey. Not gonna happen...like ever...

Plus, I recently was able to shoot with the Sony A7vi again... the ergonomics of that camera are horrible! It feels like a brick. I´d gladly give up a couple of lens options for great ergonomics.

So, what I am actually saying: sailing ship and leaving would leave a lot to regret (at least for me) and of course, the gras is always greener on the other side. A prime heavy set-up will benefit from e-mount/ l-mount, but other than that I don´t really see the point of switching. L-mount lacks some great options, Sony prices are pretty much up there with Canon. There are options Sony has and Canon hasn't, but the way around as well.

For me, I have to be patient with my purchasing. Canon retail prices are sky high, but being patient usually saves several hundred dollars or Euros.

 

[roby17269]

Sigma has gotten a lot of attention lately and folks are raving about all their new lenses, so I kind of figured I´ll just take a look at what L-mount set up would look like for me. Honestly, at first I thought I might be tempted, but in the end I am not intrigued at all. There would be absolutely no equivalent for my RF 100-500mm (Sigma 150-600mm comes close, but AF is not as good plus it weighs 2.1 KG) and my RF 14-35mm F4 (my two favorite lenses) and even 70-200mm F4 doesn't seem to have an equal competitor.

Sigmas prime lenses line-up is impressive and I do love the price points Sigma is hitting (Sigma 35mm F1.4 at 879 €/ Canon 35mm F1.4 VCM currently 1.549 €). If one really needs more then one or two primes and is on a budget, I would strongly feel the urge to use e-mount or L-mount. But even when comparing the cheaper primes (RF 35mm F1.8/ 85mm F2) it is hard to find primes which have the same close focusing abilities. So, sry, L-mount does not seem the option for me but I understand why others would choose it. I´d be missing lots of great canon gear! I do hope and wish Sigma will one day release FF for Canon RF. Atm, I am looking to add the 50mm F1.4 L VCM prime, but I'll wait for a decent price. The difference of 700 € to Sigmas offering is ridiculous imho.

Comparing to e-mount, again no equivalent for my favorite two lenses. The 50-150mm F2 and the much lighter 28-70mm F2 are damn intriguing, yes. But with both lenses I´m pretty sure that with all the rumors floating around, Canon will release a 70ish...150mm F2 lens (hopefully even lighter) and a mkii (lighter than 1kg) for the 28-70mm F2. It just a matter of time. The only lens that I´m really jealous of is the Sigma 20mm F1.4. Canons option is just waaaaaaay too pricey. Not gonna happen...like ever...

Plus, I recently was able to shoot with the Sony A7vi again... the ergonomics of that camera are horrible! It feels like a brick. I´d gladly give up a couple of lens options for great ergonomics.

So, what I am actually saying: sailing ship and leaving would leave a lot to regret (at least for me) and of course, the gras is always greener on the other side. A prime heavy set-up will benefit from e-mount/ l-mount, but other than that I don´t really see the point of switching. L-mount lacks some great options, Sony prices are pretty much up there with Canon. There are options Sony has and Canon hasn't, but the way around as well.

For me, I have to be patient with my purchasing. Canon retail prices are sky high, but being patient usually saves several hundred dollars or Euros.

While there are some here that are "threatening" to move to Sony / Nikon / L mount, I think most here want to stay with Canon but also want Canon to open the RF mount to Sigma (and others) so that they can mount 3rd party FF AF lenses natively.

You are right to appraise a mount by available lens selection. I know that if I were to start from scratch I'd have to look closely at Sony and Nikon.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Yongnuo so far has a few AF primes in both FF and APS-C. Yes I might not get all different focal length for sub-200USD each.... But who needs that many cheap primes.