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
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
127 Comments
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