Sigma Opens Up About Their Roadmap

[drmikeinpdx]

How about hiring some Chinese hackers to gain access to the Canon autofocus algorithms? All the sharpness in the world does me no good if my images are not precisely focused.

Manual focus? No way! Have you ever tried to get a nude model to hold perfectly still and smile while you manually focused your favorite portrait lens?

 

[slclick]

"Make what I want, make what I want!"


riiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Manual focus? No way! Have you ever tried to get a nude model to hold perfectly still and smile while you manually focused your favorite portrait lens?

Actually yes I have. If she is a good model she will be able to do it very well. Even an inexperienced model can try to "stay still for 3 seconds". ;D

 

[cellomaster27]

This is good news. I tried the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and it isn't good. The 70-200mm 2.8 is also not too good.. both have slow and hunting af plus the vignetting is severe. A 24-70mm f2?? That sounds amazing, not sure that would be so for my wallet.. ;D They need to refresh their wide angle zooms as well.. the 10-20mm range. Put weathersealing for the the 24-70, 70-200 and I think with their recent quality, that's a real killer set of lenses.

 

[Steve]

This is good news. I tried the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and it isn't good. The 70-200mm 2.8 is also not too good.. both have slow and hunting af plus the vignetting is severe.

Which 70-200 did you use? I've got the 70-200 2.8 HSM (non OS) and I've used it to shoot a ton of basketball. The AF is fantastic. Maybe the Canon vII is a bit faster, I don't know, but to describe the Sigma as "slow and hunting" is utter hyperbole to the point of being disingenuous. I don't see any vignetting to speak of, although I'm shooting APS-H and usually cropped for composition.

Frankly, I'm pretty sick of the constant FUD surrounding Sigma AF. I've used several of their lenses, I currently own two, and none of them had any issues with AF that aren't also commonly found in Canon's own lenses or those of any other manufacturer, for that matter. The only people who ever seem to have issues seem to always have them with every single Sigma lens, over multiple copies, and just happen to always be big Canon fanboys whereas people who aren't invested in My Team fanboyism never seem to have any problems. Its really weird! And by this point so many people have been trained by the internet to expect AF problems with Sigma lenses that every time they miss focus the lens gets the blame, no matter what the actual reason might be. This doesn't happen with Canon lenses when they miss - its always operator error or "just the way it is".

As far as I'm concerned, Sigma makes great lenses that are 95% of the quality of the Canon equivalent at, often, half the price. Some of the newer Global Vision line is actually significantly better and still cheaper. Since, in the mind of the fanboy, Canon must be the best, always, there must be a downside, therefore Sigma can't AF. It gets pretty annoying.

 

[TeT]

A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!

what a monster it will be ... sure some advanced materials will reduce the weight but size and volume of glass alone will make it a ginormous zoom...

 

[beckstoy]

Where the heck are the 85 and 135 Art lenses?

...dang... Hurry up, Sigma!

 

[RAKAMRAK]

A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!

I don't know why no one makes a 35-85mm f/2. It would be better range for free-hand portraiture. I struggle to identify little details through the viewfinder at 24mm. At 35mm I can more easily see if X is crooked this or Y is untidy. Plus 85mm f/2 is better to blur the background than 70mm f/2.

Just my 2c worth.

Really I also would love to have a 35-85mm f/2. A f/2.8 would do as well. I just saw that there used to be a vivtar 35-85 f/2.8 once upon a time (not sure if the f/2.8 was a constant max aperture or variable). So the plan exists. Only a modern execution is the point here.

 

[Lee Jay]

Here's why I'd rather have a 24-70/2 than a 35-85/2.

A 35-85/2 is a "bag-o-primes". I have a 35/1.4L and an 85/1.8. So, at first glance, it sounds great.

But, it doesn't replace a standard zoom because it doesn't go wide enough. So I'd still need a 24-something (24-105, 24-70/2.8, whatever).

A 24-70/2 would serve the purpose of both lenses and the difference in perspective from the change in location to maintain constant framing between 70mm and 85mm is subtle, as is the difference in subject isolation.

 

[axtstern]

Quote from: neuroanatomist on September 22, 2014, 06:29:50 AM

A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!



I don't know why no one makes a 35-85mm f/2. It would be better range for free-hand portraiture. I struggle to identify little details through the viewfinder at 24mm. At 35mm I can more easily see if X is crooked this or Y is untidy. Plus 85mm f/2 is better to blur the background than 70mm f/2.

Just my 2c worth.



Really I also would love to have a 35-85mm f/2. A f/2.8 would do as well. I just saw that there used to be a vivtar 35-85 f/2.8 once upon a time (not sure if the f/2.8 was a constant max aperture or variable). So the plan exists. Only a modern execution is the point here.

In my opinion there is a big chance that any future 2.0 zoom will start from 35mm and that it will be APS again... In the past Sigma had the tendency to make one lens seamless to start where other lenses stopped.

Looks like nobody besides me liked the old 50-150 2.8 but compared with their recent monster this was a very elegant lens. For many years no other manufacturer had something to fit seamless to the 17-50 2.8 class. So a 18-35 1.8 to hand over to a 35- whatever 2.0 would make sense in my eyes.

Now if you want to try the longer end of 2.8: I have a Tamron 28-105 1:2.8 lying around. Short but fat beast of glass with the now quiet baroque design of Tamron in the 90ties. AF speed and sound is of the same age but I still love to use it's flexibility at weddings. The lens is located in Germany but if you are serious just mail me.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

Here's why I'd rather have a 24-70/2 than a 35-85/2.

A 35-85/2 is a "bag-o-primes". I have a 35/1.4L and an 85/1.8. So, at first glance, it sounds great.

But, it doesn't replace a standard zoom because it doesn't go wide enough. So I'd still need a 24-something (24-105, 24-70/2.8, whatever).

A 24-70/2 would serve the purpose of both lenses and the difference in perspective from the change in location to maintain constant framing between 70mm and 85mm is subtle, as is the difference in subject isolation.

Of course different lenses suits different shooting styles and purposes.

However, if 35-85 is a bag of primes then so is 24-70 or even 24-105.

It is all about who finds which FCs useful. I seldom find anything below 28mm to be interesting. 35mm is as much wide as I want to go while 85 is just sufficiently long. Having said that would not I prefer a 24-105mm f/2.8 over everything else? Of course I would, but sadly that is also not going to materialize.

Hopefully the 24-105mm f/4 from Sigma is at least as good as 24-105 f/4 of Canon.

 

[RAKAMRAK]

In my opinion there is a big chance that any future 2.0 zoom will start from 35mm and that it will be APS again... In the past Sigma had the tendency to make one lens seamless to start where other lenses stopped.

Looks like nobody besides me liked the old 50-150 2.8 but compared with their recent monster this was a very elegant lens. For many years no other manufacturer had something to fit seamless to the 17-50 2.8 class. So a 18-35 1.8 to hand over to a 35- whatever 2.0 would make sense in my eyes.

Now if you want to try the longer end of 2.8: I have a Tamron 28-105 1:2.8 lying around. Short but fat beast of glass with the now quiet baroque design of Tamron in the 90ties. AF speed and sound is of the same age but I still love to use it's flexibility at weddings. The lens is located in Germany but if you are serious just mail me.

Last year or around that time I got interested in the 50-150mm of Sigma. For my APS-C XXD cameras this seemed to be a good option. I wanted to know about its quality and raised the question here in CR. But did not get much first hand reply - seemed no one was using it.

Good to know that you think (quite logically actually) that 35-xx mm f/2 or f/2.8 may actually be reality.

By the way thanks for information on 28-105. I saw that lens couple of times on ebay. But as you said the design (and presumed performance) seems to be too old. However, if tamron would come up with something like that again I would definitely be interested (especially given that their 70-300 is right now my most favoured lens).

 

[andrewflo]

A 24-70 f/2 would be very nice!

I don't know why no one makes a 35-85mm f/2. It would be better range for free-hand portraiture. I struggle to identify little details through the viewfinder at 24mm. At 35mm I can more easily see if X is crooked this or Y is untidy. Plus 85mm f/2 is better to blur the background than 70mm f/2.

Just my 2c worth.

I never thought of that before. I'd definitely be interested in a 35-85mm.

The only slight downfall I can think is that with a 24-70mm, the 24mm is a bit weak. 35mm lands closer to the middle of the zoom range making it perform a bit better. If a lens was 35mm widest, the 35mm would also be a bit weak.

Interesting idea though. I want to see one!

 

[slclick]

Here's what I think the CEO was hinting at....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/461971-USA/Leica_11642_Tri_Elmar_M_16_18_21mm_f_4_Asph.html

 

[cellomaster27]

This is good news. I tried the sigma 24-70mm 2.8 and it isn't good. The 70-200mm 2.8 is also not too good.. both have slow and hunting af plus the vignetting is severe.

Which 70-200 did you use? I've got the 70-200 2.8 HSM (non OS) and I've used it to shoot a ton of basketball. The AF is fantastic. Maybe the Canon vII is a bit faster, I don't know, but to describe the Sigma as "slow and hunting" is utter hyperbole to the point of being disingenuous. I don't see any vignetting to speak of, although I'm shooting APS-H and usually cropped for composition.

Frankly, I'm pretty sick of the constant FUD surrounding Sigma AF. I've used several of their lenses, I currently own two, and none of them had any issues with AF that aren't also commonly found in Canon's own lenses or those of any other manufacturer, for that matter. The only people who ever seem to have issues seem to always have them with every single Sigma lens, over multiple copies, and just happen to always be big Canon fanboys whereas people who aren't invested in My Team fanboyism never seem to have any problems. Its really weird! And by this point so many people have been trained by the internet to expect AF problems with Sigma lenses that every time they miss focus the lens gets the blame, no matter what the actual reason might be. This doesn't happen with Canon lenses when they miss - its always operator error or "just the way it is".

As far as I'm concerned, Sigma makes great lenses that are 95% of the quality of the Canon equivalent at, often, half the price. Some of the newer Global Vision line is actually significantly better and still cheaper. Since, in the mind of the fanboy, Canon must be the best, always, there must be a downside, therefore Sigma can't AF. It gets pretty annoying.

Agree 100%, i almost put off buying the 35mm Art series because of this constant negative publicity. I'm glad i went through and bought it anyway, no AF problems whatsoever and was so pleased with the lens that i sold the Canon 35mm 1.4L. Currently i have no need for a 50mm otherwise i would gladly buy their 50mm, but a Art series 85mm, now that will be on my list for sure.

From my personal experience, the 24-70mm had very slow af and had enough hunting to make it annoying. The 70-200mm just didn't impress me and it was the OS version. It could have been a copy issue but what I used is what I'm going off of. That's all. And yes, the AF on those two lenses were slow.. haha Without a doubt, when sigma revamps them, it'll probably be on par or better than canon equivalents. Since the global vision thing, yes, their lenses are of something you should have in your arsenal. I'm speaking of lenses years before.