|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Lots of new goodies from Sigma
Sigma has launched a bunch of new lenses, a new dslr and 2 updated DP series cameras.
Lenses
– 85 f/1.4 (Knew about this one a while back, it has to be great to offset the 2 Canon 85's)
– 70-200 f/2.8 OS
– 17-55 f/2.8 OS
– 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 (This could be a neat lens)
– 50-500 OS (Bigma needed an upgrade)
cr
85mm 1.4 OK.
I like the looks of the 8-16. :)
Go Sigma. I’ll be real interested to see how the 17-50 f/2.8 OS performs, and how much it costs.
You have a typo; it’s 17-50, not 55.
Hmmm, i’ll be interested to see what they did with the 50-500, but not getting my hopes up.
85/1.4 and especially 8-16 looks promising according to specifications. Let’s see how Sigma can deliver an according optical quality for such specification. Especially UWA zoom is almost something out of the world as not even Canon EF 14/2.8L on FF has such wide viewangle. It directly complements with Sigma 12-24 for FF…
The 8-16mm is made for APS-C sensors.
“…the widest-angle rectilinear lens yet made for APS-C DSLRs, in the shape of the 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM. Essentially an equivalent of the company’s 12-24mm lens for full-frame, this features a disorientatingly-wide angle of view of 121 degrees for exaggerated perspectives.”
If the bokeh of the 85 is up to scratch, it could be a great (cheaper) alternative to the Canon 85L 1.2.
Very nice.
I don’t expect the 70-200 to be as good as the Canon or Nikon alternatives… though imagine the stir if it were!
Hey Canon_Rumors Guy…..I don’t recall you posting the Sigma 85 1.4 was coming…did I miss your post….if you never made the post…..I for one would have liked to have known it was coming…..just in case you only think your followers are only interested in Canon gear.
Thanks,
Scott
August 30 2009…..I missed the post.
Sorry
These are some really nice choices (reserving judgement until reviews, of course). They seem to have thought about these upgrades as a kit and they fit together very well. I’d love to see Canon follow a similar trend and announce lenses as sets like this.
I dropped the ball a bit, I thought I posted about it at Christmas, as I knew it had been bumped to 2010.
My fault.
Its here !!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022015sigma85mm.asp
Holy smokes this is great news!
I’ll be preordering the 85 as soon as I can find a preorder. I loooved their 50, but now shoot mostly 35/85.
The 70-200 2.8 OS
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022016sigma70mm200mm.asp
I’m curious whatever happened to the Samyang 35mm 1.2 rumor for Canon?
all you need now is sigma to release a 135mm and you’re set
i want to see a 50-500 vs 100-400
I wonder what they’ll price that at? I’m guessing somewhere close to Canon’s 70-200mm non-IS. That is, around $1200 street – $1600 list.
+1
That sounds like a nice compromise for those that can’t afford the 1.2 and don’t want the 1.8. Can’t wait to see the results from this one.
Is something wrong with the 1.8 to not want it?
nothing wrong with the 1.8, sigma should have made a 135mm 1.8/2.0 instead. IS would be welcomed too with it. The cheaper canon version we have is the 2.8 soft focus and sometimes the 100 f2 is not long enough on the full frame.
If only Sigma would grace us with an update to their 120-300mm 2.8 and add OS to it, THAT would make a great lens.
I hope Tamron wakes up and introduce a USM equivalent AF motor for their lenses. They’re lagging behind Sigma in a lot of aspects save perhaps optics.
+1
WANT
I just bought a canon 85 f1.8, it looks like im gonna be selling that and getting the sigma 85 f1.4, unless reviews are bad.
Great news, but I think these lenses will benefited Nikon users more, since the price of Nikon lenses are high. Also the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 has been around for 13-14 years, desperately need upgrade.
For Canon users, it will provide some affordable alternative. I am pretty please about these new lenses.
Haven’t checked thoroughly but wonder what’s going to happen between 50-500 OS vs. 150-500 OS. They’re fairly similar in IQ and I doubt anyone will get the 150-500 when the new bigma also comes with OS.
I know. I was merely saying that 8mm on APS-C is more wide than 14mm on FF. Maybe I could have made myself more clear :)
AND ALL WILL HAVE A BACK OR FRONT FOCUS!
SIGMA = BAD FOR CANON AF
Just curios: why should you do that? What kind of advantages do you think you’ll find? Canon lens is so bad?
A 8-16!! I thought it was a fisheye.
Hopefully, the back/front focus won’t be a problem on ultra ultra wide angle.
SHUT UP you foul-mouthed 6yr. old kiddo. You haven’t even touched, much less used these new lenses.
Congrats Sigma, the lineup as a whole is better than I expected for this year. I have this queasy feeling that the Canon releases in the next few weeks would be underwhelming in comparison, save for the 24-70 IS, which was expected for some time now and not really news anymore…
hey negro… why dont you shoot yourself? :)
but the other lenses will have the USUAL SIGMA FOCUS PROBLEMS !!!
Yeah, you know that for a fact because you have used all these new lenses… j00==0wnz0red
Not gonna happen. Not enough market for it; Nikon doesn’t even have a 135mm prime. Sigma certainly feels that they have this focal length adequately covered with their zooms.
They are all interesting!
the 8-16 and 85 are interesting for the obvious reasons.
And the 70-200/2.8 IS of Canon wasn’t convincing for me for the quality vs. price… I know it’s a great lens, but being 600$ more than the f/4L IS didnt convince me to buy it and bought the 4L instead.
If this sigma performance is good and it’s of course cheaper, I might get it to use in lower light events that I cant use my 4L in.
The Sigma will likely be double the price of the Canon 1.8…
17-50-hope it lives up to least 2/3 of the EFS version.
8-16-now this is getting me excited. Except it’s not an EX unlike the 85 and 17-50.
I’d wait for thorough reviews before ordering one…
+1 I can see myself getting all of it in due time. The MTF charts on the 70-200/2.8 OS & 85/1.4 are very impressive.
True, but 1.4 = more DOF control.
Maybe Nikon finally update its 85mm primes as a result of this. Over xmas break I went out shopping for portrait lenses with a D300 friend of mine & tested them out on her camera.
The AF on Canon’s 20-year-old 50mm f/1.8 feels like a Formula 1 car compared to these Buicks. You can really tell how Canon’s decision to ditch the old FD breechlock mount for a fully electronic coupling paid off big-time. It took Nikon more than another decade to introduce lenses with ultrasonic motors & no aperture ring, & the 85s are some of the last vestiges of this 80’s-era AF.
Never liked the colour and contrast of the Sigmas, but I look forward to seeing how this 85 pans out.
Can you provide a link for those charts? I don’t find them anywhere :S
As a person in the market for a used 17-55 2.8 IS, I’m really interested in seeing how the sigma version performs! Thanks for the good news!
I don’t see the point of adding the 17-50 2,8, as we already have the canon 17-55 APS-C, a good lens with same aperture and IS …
The 8-16 might be interresting, but again, I prefer my 10-22 … the only Sigma lens I own is the 30 1,4 that I don’t use, because of the hight level of distortion (far more than my 24 1,4 …) so I don’t think the 8mm will avoid a very hight level of distortion …
The only real issue I have with that lens is purple fringing wide open at high contrast edges. Not much of a problem in the (well, my) primary area of application for this lens (i.e. portraits), but even there it can be visible at times (in catchlights in the eyes, on bright frames of glasses etc.). Still a fantastic lens for its purpose.
Yes, I would also like to see a comparison of these lenses. In particular since the old Bigma (50-500) performed quite good compared against its much younger brothers (120-400, 150-500) in this test:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm
However, against the 100-400, all three Sigmas take the short end…
Still, the 50-500 OS is apparently a completely new design, so it could be much better. If it came close to the 100-400, had a reasonable price, and an AF that works, this could have just been the lens I was waiting for. The 120-400 and 150-500 are not good (e.g., aside from the review above, look out for the reviews at slrgear.com), the old 50-500 and the Tamron 200-500 don’t have image stabilizers, and Canon’s 100-400 is already quite long in the tooth and has a history of quite extreme sample variation, and I tend to be pretty unlike in the lens lottery.
But I would only accept a minor price increase compared to the current 50-500, unless it’s performance turned out to be absolutely stellar. After all, the current 50-500 is ~900€ in my country, while the 100-400 is ~1300€). So not much headroom there before people will play it safe and prefer the Canon over a third-party alternative.
If it is 1000€ and beats (or at least equals) the 100-400 in IQ, I will get one.
I have the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 since I got my first DSLR and never really liked it… although I always wanted to have a “real” wide angle when I was still using my P&S.
Still, I have rarely used ist… in part since its not really sharp, in part because I find that UWA is not my style of shooting (or I couldn’t figure it out). I recently played around again and took some nice winter impressions. Of course 100% sharpness didn’t get better (especially since I am now using the 7D instead of the 7D), still I finally got some interesting perspectives I could not have gotten with any of my other lenses (which start a 17or higher).
Now I would like see the difference in AoV the 8-16 gives… If it is a good performer, I might sell that underused 10-20 and get that one instead.
I am not so much worried about its bokeh (after all, the Sigma 50 1.4 is awesome in that regard), but about its AF precision. I just did some AF testing today (I believe there is a problem with my 7D, but I cannot nail it down), and the Sigma exhibited a really strange behavior.
I hope they did not only add OS, but also improved it optically. The old one was the worst of the bunch when DPR tested four 70-200 2.8 lenses (old Canon 70-200 IS, old Nikon 70-200 VR, Tamron 70-200, and the Sigma).
Still, to me the 50-500 is of much higher interest, since I already have the 70-200 f4 IS, and I am quite happy with it (if my 7D gets the AF right, that is), but could need a longer reach for wildlife, imprisoned wildlife (a.k.a. “zoo”), and birding, without spending a fortune.
I doubt that… I guess it will be slightly above Sigma’s 50 1.4 offering. Given all that buzz about Sigma’s AF troubles on Canon bodies, I would not buy the Sigma 85 without extensive testing. I have the Sigma 30 1.4 (which, being much wider has not that shallow a DOF and is therefore not THAT focus critical as a 85 1.4), and the AF precision could be better, and more consistent. Although AF is also not perfect (though much better thatn for the Sigma 30 1.4) on my 85 1.8.
What do you mean “similar in IQ”. Have you seen any samples of the 50-500 OS?
But I agree… I briefly considered getting the 150-500, but it sucked compared to the Canon, and even to the old 50-500. So my hopes are high that Sigma gets it right this time, but I am prepared for another disappointment.
While koogle is apparently a bored teenager or a racist f*** (or both), I have to agree Sigma indeed has a “reputation” regarding their AF precision.
While the Sigma 30 1.4 indeed has more distortion than one would expect from a prime, this lens’s primary application area is not really affected by that. What are you using this lens for? Architecture? Than you really made a wrong choice. For indoor event and AL photography, distortion is a non-issue, as are the Sigma’s not so great borders.
The point of 17-50/2.8 OS HSM is that it will be undoubtedly cheaper than Canon counterpart. So for some, it can be dealbreaker. Look at Tamron 17-50/2.8, quite hot seller and for a nice price. If Sigma manage to get a price under 700$, then it can be alternative to some, who can’t/don’t want to spend over a grand for a Canon.
(personal note: I’d still go for Canon, but that’s because of negative experience with FF/BF with third party lenses I borrowed…)
as a Sigma user (10-20 f/4-5.6, 150-500 OS, 70-300 DG DPO, 17-70 f/2.8-4.5) I would have to say it’s not the precision of AF that’s a problem, it tends to be the focusing speed, and lack of sharpness across the frame, which gives the appearance of mis-focus. they’re good lenses for the price, but if you’re demanding of you’re optics they just won’t hold up
You cretin!
Mostly purple fringing, and being a half-stop faster would be nice because i shoot in the dark a good bit. Dont get me wrong the canon 85 is a great lens, but if sigma can make an 85 that is sharp, has fast and accurate AF, and doesnt have purple fringing or chromatic abrasion problems, and to top it all off is a half-step faster sure ill get it.
Yes! Maybe they are being cautious to not repeat the misteak they did with the initial launch of the 14mm 2.8.
I have the EFS17-55 2.8IS and it is an incredibly sharp lens. Very fast accurate focus, and almost totally silent. The IS is also very handy.
I also owned a Tamron 17-50 (non-IS). This was a very good lens, but lacked IS and was not that sharp at wide angles wide open. I may buy one again because it is very inexpensive and compact for a 2.8 zoom.
My copy of the Canon is near perfect, but my first one had a small scratch on the inside of the front element which caused flare.
I have owned the second copy for about a year. It performs perfectly in every situation and has no dust problem at all. Bokeh isn’t perfect, there’s no dampening on the zoom and lens creep is annoying but none of these are important compared to the unparalleled performance of the lens.
I am still interested in the sigma version, as well as the 70-200 and 85 1.4. It’s great to have options to compare.
I hope sigma has their QC act together. The new glass has great potential, but if it is unreliable and has a lot of QC problems, then word will spread like wildfire.
I’m hoping for OS added to the 100-300mm f/4, but adding it to both would certainly be a welcome addition. I’ve been holding off buying a telephoto zoom for a while hoping that one would appear. The Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS is too short, the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 lacks stabilization and the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS isn’t constant max aperture and I’m not wild about push-pull. A 100-300mm f/4 OS would give me what I want with focal length, stabilization, constant max aperture, non-extending inner focus design and ability to use a TC (if I really need a longer focal length) without the need for a sherpa to carry it as with the 120-300mm f/2.8.
Gotcha. I guess I misread the post as well.
I’d imagine there will be some pretty extreme barrel distortion, though that’s easily corrected post-production. Anyhow, I’ll be interested in seeing the sample photos from that lens as well.
I’m pretty happy with the Tokina 11-16. It might as well be a prime for the minimal reach it has, but the excellent IQ makes up for it IMO.
I agree. I have their 17-50 and it’s a pretty nice lens. IMO the only thing it’s missing is a nice AF system. The AF isn’t bad until the light is low, and it’s also pretty noisy.
I’m also pretty disappointed in the reviews I’ve seen of the 17-50VC. I had high hopes for that lens, though they went and changed the optics, and it clearly affected IQ.
Hopefully this new Sigma 17-50 will be a nice alternative to the Canon 17-55.
I’ll wait for the reviews, but I’m not holding my breath – the original Bigma was an EX series lens, the new one isn’t. Does this mean Sigma are trading IQ for OS ?
Last I heard sigma is only using EX designation for fixed aperature lens’ now
yeah me neither can find them… please provide them.. thanks :)
There is the Nikkor 135/2DC…not bad if you can live with the screwdriver AF.
Why buy non future proof lenses?
I’ve rented the Canon 85mm 1.2 three or four times when I’ve have a job in extremely low light or wanted razor thin DOF. Many times after I return a rented a high-end lens, I find myself looking for personal property, other equipment, or internal organs to sell to finance a purchase, Not so with the 85mm 1.2. Optically it’s excellent, but it handles like a SHOT PUT.
It will be interesting to see how Sigma’s alternative handles.
Another lens I’ve rented multiple times is the 135mm f/2.0. Have to agree with the earlier poster about the limited market for that lens. Too bad, because it’s a great lens. Good reach in a small package on a 1.6x crop body. If there is a good 1.4x converter compatible with Sigma’s 85mm 1.4, that might make a good sub for the 135mm.
Actually this Sigma site names the 8-16mm an EX:
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/quicklinks/pma/8-16mm.htm
Now I don’t get it! I thought that EX was only for constant aperture lenses (like the 17-50)…?
MTF Charts:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/869844
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/869844
EX mirror lenses, yesssss!
Speaking of lenses, it’s pretty ridiculous for Canon to include the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens for the EOS 550D.
I think you’ll find that purple fringing is one of the easier chromatic aberrations to correct in software. Anyway, I noticed the fringing wide-open when I first got my 85 1.8 as well, but I just shoot at f/2 or 2.2 and the problem is largely eliminated, and the extra bump in sharpness is nice too (although this lens is plenty good wide-open if there aren’t any high-contrast highlight edges in the frame that cause fringing).
Wow, I had no idea that thing was still in production.
Hey, Nikon, the 80’s called; they want their AF back.
Seriously, when I moved up to DSLR photography in 2003 the choice wasn’t hard: I wanted high-speed short tele primes & a good low-light camera for shooting concerts. The choices were between an EOS 10D with the 85 1.8 USM, or a D100 with their 85mm screwdriver thingy (it wasn’t even the “D” version at the time). Didn’t take more than 5 minutes in a shop to make that decision…
Their cameras have obviously gotten a lot better since then, but their primes, ugh.
Thanks for the link. Let’s see what the review will say.
Agreed but that’s just marketing to get you to buy better lenses later on or just buy body only and get efs 17-55 f2.8
+1 agreed
more DOF control mean nothing good for Sigma.self is totally disappointed w/t sigma since have tried to purchase a copy of 50 1.4and new 24 70yet failed to got a accurate copy
I would probably gladly trade in my 85 L for the sigma 1.4 if it’s optically close to the L but a lot faster in focusing…I think Canon should make a 1.4 too and get rid of the 1.8
the issue isn’t number of products, but quality. the sigmas don’t really look that exciting once you get into the MTF charts, with the exception of the 8-16
anyone have an educated guess as to what these will cost?
Why is it ridiculous? The 18-55 IS kit lens is one of the craziest value lenses anywhere. It’s actually surprisingly sharp (significantly beyond its class), has circular aperture blades, a very usable standard zoom range, and very effective IS. All that for only $100 more than the body! Let me repeat that: a sharp, image-stabilized useful-range lightweight lens for $100.
Granted it has strong vignetting, chromatic aberration, motor AF, rotating front barrel, cheap construction, strong barrel distortions at 18mm, etc. But it’s not like you have to pay for it, you can always buy the body only and get whatever lens you want. IMHO the current kit lens is exactly the right move for Canon on a business level—beginners who don’t know any better get good pictures for little money, and amateurs/pros who want more can simply buy body-only and pick the right lens for them. Everyone wins.
Oh and I forgot to mention very close focusing distance—0.34X magnification is quite high for a non-macro lens.
“I would probably gladly trade in my 85 L for the sigma 1.4 if it’s optically close to the L but a lot faster in focusing…”
Right, so you want a cheaper lens to be optically just as good as a top of the line one and also to be faster focusing – and all that in a third party lens. Good luck.
“I think Canon should make a 1.4 too and get rid of the 1.8”
I think dropping 1.8 would be a very silly thing to do, it’s a fine lens with outstanding price/performance ration. 1.4 would be much more expensive and out of reach to many amateur shooters who would be interested in 1.8.
Of course ain’t gonna be as good as the 85 L , I said “close” to it.
Sigma can make some fine lenses (35 1.4) and I betcha that 85 1.4 its gonna be pretty good and will fit right in between a monster slow focus 85 1.2 and a cheaper “always shoot at 2.8 85mm”. Why do you think is Sigma making it? They see the need for it and the gonna sell a bunch too. I have no doubts it will be faster than the 85l
The arrival of this bunch of Sigma OS lenses only means one thing: IS, OIS and VR are here to stay. Nikon, Panasonic and Canon are no longer alone. For those folks who long for stabilized sensors, they must either live with this fact or join another camp.
When I was hunting for a good 50mm, I gave a thought to the Sigma 50mm 1.4. After I read sever trusted reviews and asked a friend or two, they said that it was a great lens, but the autofocus was so poor you could not use it at 1.4 all the way to f 4. So I got the Canon instead (the 1.4) and I am so happy with it. It’s not stellar at 1.4, but it’s good enough. At least it doesn’t have back focusing issues. This is why I am a little reluctant when I see they will launch a 85 1.4! It almoast hurts to see such good glass with poor autofocus.
I agree. The Nikon 500mm f/4 is US$2300 more than the Canon equivalent. if the new Bigma is a stellar performer, I’ll get a Nikon D3s and a Bigma II.
My local camera shop doesn’t carry Sigma. They say the external rubber coating wears very quickly and the glass gets fungal growth easily. I live in the tropics where this is a problem, by the way.
Anyone know about this? I would like the new Bigma, if it performs.
I get the feeling that Sigma are chasing Nikon customers, not necessarily Canon. Canon already have two fine 85mm lenses, but Nikon’s f1.4 variant is really old and uses the old screw drive.
The DC 8-16 lens covers the effective 12-24 on a Nikon 1.5x crop but on a Canon 1.6, it’s a wee bit longer.
That would be interesting.
Already owning a 70-200mm lens, I would prefer a 200-500mm lens that is really optimized for the long focal lengths. Going to the moderately wide 50mm in the same design cannot come without compromises.
A Canon 85mm 1.4L IS would be great. I never saw the use of 1.2 makes the lens too big, heavy, expensive and slow AF.
I do have reproducable focussing errors (completely defocussed) for years with my Sigma 18-50/2.8 when using the focus assist lamp on the 580EX.
Sigma confirmed that this is a firmware bug and can be fixed.
Maybe it’s a similar effect here.
Yeah, I always shoot it at f/2. I feel the DOF at f/2 is perfect.
The 1.2 effect (one eye in focus) gets old really fast, I think.
Let’s face it, customers do not notice the purple fringing.
Not sure, look closely at the other lenses just announced:
8-16mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
“I betcha that 85 1.4 its gonna be pretty good”
That’s a very brave(to put it mildly) statement taking into account Sigma’s history so I’ll take that bet gladly. What are you offering?
” a cheaper “always shoot at 2.8 85mm””
You gotta be kidding, 1.8 is one of the sharpest L-lenses.
“Why do you think is Sigma making it? They see the need for it and the gonna sell a bunch too. I have no doubts it will be faster than the 85l”
You are brave, making statement like that even before the lens is actually released. Another blind bet?
OT: Have you all seen how the Noink & Sonny fanbois are crying because all they would be getting for PMA would be ugly mock-ups and rehashed press releases instead of real cameras. LULZ. We’re still very fortunate to have bet on the Canon horse, at least we get new bodies & lenses at least twice a year.
The Noinks are still waiting for a >12MP camera that costs less than $8000. Hohoho.
And the Sonnybois are crying because the 3yr. old A700 successor got pushed back again because of the power of the awesome 7D. Hahaha.
Partially true, in my personal experience.
799.99 then in 1-2 years you’ll be lucky to sell it for even 400 or 500 bucks. Have sigmas and their resale value drops like a brick while canon’s maintains relatively the same.
Though this has been slightly different with sigma primes, but it seems like they have a new version of the lens out in 1-3 years.
Strange that the 50-500 has slightly better IQ than the 150-500.
… especially after Canon has just updated the 70-200.
good point about the 85, and makes much more sense. the 8-16 still is a 13mm at the wide end on a Canon 1.6, so … that’s still pretty awesome. plus its MTF doesn’t look like it loses out in any way to the current 10-20s
I haven’t had any problem with the rubber wearing off on any of my four sigma lenses, nor have I had mold problems. that being said, I don’t live in the tropics.
The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is not exactly young either.
What’s hilarious is fanbois like yourself, who are just as bad as your Nikon and Sony equivalents.
1 MORE DAY!!
I think the 150-500 OS was a failed attempt at following up the Bigma. If the new 50-500 OS can maintain or improve on the Bigma’s IQ while adding the much-needed OS, then you’re right, no one would get the 150-500. Either it’ll be phased out or it will drop in price to be marketed as a more budget super-telephoto.
used 10-20 from sigma before… quite extensive use.. and I was really2 happy with the results, focus is great in good light with my 450D and eventhough it has some orange tint to the photos; I like it. Unfortunately, it was my friend’s so I had to return it.
Eventually, bought the 10-22 and somehow I miss the sigma. Dont get me wrong, the 10-22 is also an amazing UWA lens, colour reproduction and contrast is great! It is an amazing lens capable of amazing shots. But… my friend had an amazing copy of the sigma lens and I missed it still.
There may be bad copies out there and when it’s spot on… you will fall in love with it… that’s my opinion anyway :)
I’ve found that it it’s surprisingly good for macro. For the price you can’t complain. It’s actually pretty good for a “kit” lens.
if you don’t want it, I’ll take if off your hands if it’s that big of a problem for you. :)
> A Canon 85mm 1.4L IS would be great.
… and please really sharp at f/1.4 without any distorsion.
We have zooms to get sharp pictures with distorsion at f/2.8 or f/4.
Yeah, but it rocks. Canon’s 85s are great.
It’s the 24/28/35/50 micromotor primes that are really showing their age, & the USM 50 could stand to be brought into the 21st century as well. Not to mention the fact that they have no EF-S primes other than the 60mm macro (which BTW is already very good & would be fantastic if they added the new hybrid macro IS to it. Maybe tomorrow?).
For the moment, Canon’s answer to this seems to be “get the EF-S 17-55. It’s optically excellent & covers all these focal lengths & wider @ f/2.8 and it’s got USM & IS”. Fair enough. But it’s expensive, big, & heavy.
I guess I just like prime lenses, & I think I’m not the only one…
Wow! Quite the announcement. Sigma comes out with guns blazing.
Any MTF data published?
The Tamron 200-500 is said to be quite good optically, but it has no VC (the Tamron variant of IS/OS) and nu ultrasonic AF motor. Being tripod-lazy, this lens is therefore not an option for me. If Sigma fails with 50-500 OS (as they did with the better in theory 150-500), maybe Tamron updates this lens soon and at least adds VC, which I know from one of their superzooms and which I find surprisingly effective.
I am still hoping for the “BigmOS”, though.
I also have the Sigma 10-20 (the 4-5.6 version), and I am not that happy with its image quality (never really sharp, not even stopped down, not on my 450D, and of course even less so on my 7D), but I slowly start to appreciate its usefulness for certain applications. Since the lack of sharpness is not limited to a particular area of the frame, it doesn’t seem to be a centering defect, which would be hard if not impossible to fix, but rather an AF issue, but its hard to tell. Howevr, given that UWAs don’t have very shallow DOF, I wonder what else could be wrong with my sample.
I too have the 17-55 2.8 IS, and I am not so fortunate. There seems to be a minor centering issue which becomes apparent at the wide end even after stopping down considerably, and the AF is close, but often not really spot on (independently of the body I used, I have a 450D and a 7D).
This is perhaps one of the reasons why the 24-105 is still my most used lens for social events (where flash use is acceptable).
Agreed on all points.
I have a 28mm f/2.8 that is OK optically, but could use some upgrading in terms of build quality, USM, aperture blades etc (OK, just get the 28mm f/1.8, which is also quite old…).
On top of that I could use a 35mm. There is nothing between the plastic f/2.0 and the f/1.4L. The L, while being a fantastic lens, is too heavy and expensive for me. I am trying to get my hands on a Zeiss to see what that is like, but then I might as well go with the Canon L…
Few lenses are easier to get right than a 85mm. They are simply not very challenging optically, and the excellent pre-WWII Planar design still is used for most of them. I will keep my Canon 85mm f/1.8. It is one of my oldest lenses, but maybe the one I am most happy with.
Now if there was an affordable 500mm…
What’s hilarious is Noinks like you hanging out in a Canon forum. LULZ. j00==pwn0rzed
The 1,4 it is a challenge even for Canon. I really don’t trust that Sigma will have the big bang with this 85 1,4 lens. I had once a Sigma lens 24-60 2,8 and they war good till f3,5 but when I need it more..in low light…problems appear.
I have ordere the 17-50 for 619 Euro from Amazon. Delivery date should be tomorrow. Looks like no one else in Europe has this lense but Amazon.
Scary thing is the zoom lock switch. I do not know what to make out of the build quality if a 17-50 develops zoom creep.