What's Next From Sigma? [CR2]

[ahsanford]

IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.

The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?

• 400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
• 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
• 200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x or 500 f/4L IS II = astronomically more expensive

So even if that Nikon is a 7/10 optically (haven't seen reviews yet), it will sell like hotcakes. IQ matters, of course, but it's hard to compare our 100-400 against this 200-500 if ours can't even get to that FL...

- A

Except that Nikon's own 80-400 is even more expensive than Canon's 100-400 II and doesn't perform as well, so it's own 200-500 is a bigger threat to it's 80-400 than it ever will be to Canon's 100-400 II. Nikon knows something for pricing the 200-500 that low.

Nikon must have lost the 80-400 crowd with all the cheaper 150-600 lenses that have recently been offered, so that business may have been lost already.

I'm just saying that Canon has a hole in their lineup. See below.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.

The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?

• 400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
• 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
• 200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x or 500 f/4L IS II = astronomically more expensive

So even if that Nikon is a 7/10 optically (haven't seen reviews yet), it will sell like hotcakes. IQ matters, of course, but it's hard to compare our 100-400 against this 200-500 if ours can't even get to that FL...

- A

Except that Nikon's own 80-400 is even more expensive than Canon's 100-400 II and doesn't perform as well, so it's own 200-500 is a bigger threat to it's 80-400 than it ever will be to Canon's 100-400 II. Nikon knows something for pricing the 200-500 that low.

Nikon must have lost the 80-400 crowd with all the cheaper 150-600 lenses that have recently been offered, so that business may have been lost already.

I'm just saying that Canon has a hole in their lineup. See below.

- A

I don't disagree that there is a hole, but I'm not sure if Canon finds it profitable to fill that hole. If Canon constrains the max aperture of the lens to f/5.6, then it can't match the 150-600 lenses for cost/value.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't disagree that there is a hole, but I'm not sure if Canon finds it profitable to fill that hole. If Canon constrains the max aperture of the lens to f/5.6, then it can't match the 150-600 lenses for cost/value.

Slightly disagree. Canon doesn't need to outperform or even match the 3rd party glass -- they just need to show up and people will pony up the money for a name they trust and (more importantly) for reliable/consistent/fast first party AF routines. Sharpness and reach isn't everything -- confidence in your gear is part of the value proposition as well.

- A

 

[AcutancePhotography]

A 135 up to the same Art standards as the other lenses would be a nice addition.

 

[Lee Jay]

IMHO, Nikon pants'd Canon pretty hard with the recent 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens at a shocking $1,400 asking.

The key spec is 500mm. Our comparable EF options for 500mm reach?

• 400 f/5.6L + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in center and no IS = $1,628
• 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II + 1.4 TC = 560mm f/8, AF only in the center = $2,628
• 200-400 f/4L IS w/1.4x or 500 f/4L IS II = astronomically more expensive

Hello?

Tamron 150-600
Sigma 150-600C
Sigma 150-600S

I omitted those deliberately. For Nikon folks, first party AF (for basically the same price) eliminates those as equal-value options, no matter how sharp they are.

- A

Gee...and I thought we were in a thread about Sigma.

Most reports and tests indicate that these perform similarly to the 100-400L's in terms of focus accuracy, if not speed.

 

[that1guyy]

Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.

Fisheye? What's wrong with the ones they already have available? I had the 15mm, and it was absolutely outstanding.

Yeah where are the FE lenses from Sigma. They're ignoring a rapidly growing market.

It may be worth buying a FF camera! They keep getting cheaper and cheaper!

Sorry for the confusion haha. Meant Sony FE, not Canon EF.

 

[EOBeav]

But didn't I read in an earlier rumor to "not hold our breaths" for a new 70-200?

That's why they call it a 'Rumors' forum.

 

[ahsanford]

But didn't I read in an earlier rumor to "not hold our breaths" for a new 70-200?

That's why they call it a 'Rumors' forum.

I love Sigma's innovation and performance, but my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is so damn rock solid on virtually every front -- IQ, ergonomics, focus speed/accuracy/consistency, build quality, etc. -- that I'd be hard-pressed to roll the dice on a Sigma lens for that need. Even if it's 10-20% sharper (which Sigma has been doing a lot lately), there are so many other things the Canon does near-perfectly that I really doubt I'd go after the Sigma unless they hit something completely out of the park.

I think they should avoid staple fast zoom lenses as (a) Canon updates those regularly, (b) the focusing expectations of fast zooms are possibly higher than they can deliver on, and (c) Tamron has already swooped in to claim the lower price point.

I think Sigma should focus on fast primes, specialty lenses with a lower AF expectation (T/S, macro, etc.) or possibly zooms in ranges that Canon doesn't see a future for that people want: 70-300 f/variable, 24-105 f/4 IS, or better yet, a 16-50 f/4 would be killer.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

I think Sigma should focus on fast primes, specialty lenses with a lower AF expectation (T/S, macro, etc.) or possibly zooms in ranges that Canon doesn't see a future for that people want: 70-300 f/variable, 24-105 f/4 IS, or better yet, a 16-50 f/4 would be killer.

- A

Been saying that for a while myself. Hit them where they aren't. Don't make another 25-105/4.

 

[chrysoberyl]

A small lightweight 400 f5.6 with their OS for under $1K seems like an obvious choice for Sigma to introduce.

Or how about a 500mm f/5.6 OS Sport for around 1500$ mark. I certainly would purchase that lens for occasional birding.

Sigma already produce 300 F2.8, 500 F4.5 and 300-800mm lenses - if these were brought up to date and priced sensibly then they could sell quite a few.
Their 500 F4.5 is already reasonably good but with their newer AF systems, latest glass, OS?,dock for adjustments/updating and sensible pricing I think they could really steal a march on Canon/Nikon.

I like this line of thought. The 300mm does need an update - with better AF. But not heavier!

I would also like to see non-optically stabilized, non-AF primes. That formula works for Zeiss… Yes, I want Zeiss sharpness at a lower price. I love my Sigma 180 macro, but what a brick. And I do not use the AF or OS.

 

[beckstoy]

Would anyone else here be interested to see Sigma's take on a 200 f2? Not as much wide appeal, but dang...I'd be interested!

As for today, I want to see what they can do at 85 and 135. I own 85 1.2L II, and it's spectacular, but if Sigma's offering is amazing, I'd consider selling it and pocketing the difference.

The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.

 

[ahsanford]

The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.

You don't outperform the 135L and you don't undercut the price of the 135L.

You match its performance & price and beat it with features. Give it weather sealing and IS and it will sell very, very well.

- A

 

[brad-man]

The 135 is a tougher sell, imho. Canon's version is absolutely awesome, and it's pretty inexpensive. Not sure Sigma could compete well.

You don't outperform the 135L and you don't undercut the price of the 135L.

You match its performance & price and beat it with features. Give it weather sealing and IS and it will sell very, very well.

- A

A rumor from long ago spoke of such a lens which included an f/1.8 aperture. While it will supposedly have OS (IS), being an Art lens it will not be weather sealed. I suspect it would indeed sell very well.

 

[Policar]

35-70mm f1.8 for DX/EF-S/APS-C...