Sigma to announce a 200mm f/1.8 Sports Lens?

24 comments

1. I bet that's a heavy lens for its size, coming from Sigma. Still, I'd love to have something like that on RF. Would prefer Sigma over Canon if it meant being half the price. Would be the perfect woodcock mating season lens.

   • Reply

   • 0

2. I bet that's a heavy lens for its size, coming from Sigma. Still, I'd love to have something like that on RF. Would prefer Sigma over Canon if it meant being half the price. Would be the perfect woodcock mating season lens.

   I understand your comment given Sigma has history of making relatively large and heavy lenses. However, some now recent Sigma lenses have been relatively light for what they are, eg the 24-70 f/2.8 DN Art II and the 50 f/1.2 DN Art. So, it seems possible Sigma may have turned a corner in that regard. It will interesting to see how large and heavy their 200 f/1.8 is, assuming the rumour is correct that there is one on the way.

   • Reply

   • 0
3. If it is in the weight class of the Canon 1.8/200, I'm sold as soon as it appears in EF or RF mount.
   Being a Sigma, it likely performs better than the EF 1.8/200 wide open and that is all I need.
   I'd even prefer EF, so the mount converter with drop-in filters can be used.
   Meike black mist all the way.....

   • Reply

   • 0
4. How is Sigma capable of producing so many lens models?

   • Reply

   • 0

5. I bet that's a heavy lens for its size, coming from Sigma. Still, I'd love to have something like that on RF. Would prefer Sigma over Canon if it meant being half the price. Would be the perfect woodcock mating season lens.

   Would a recreation of their 120-300 f/2.8 be as good or better for woodcocks?

   • Reply

   • 0

6. How is Sigma capable of producing so many lens models?

   An extremely well-managed factory.

   • Reply

   • 0
7. The video mentioned "high end portraiture." Twenty or thirty years ago, when Sports Illustrated did TV programs documenting the making of the swimsuit issue, the Canon version of this was the lens that was used. Earlier shows used the 300 f/2.8, handheld. Tiny, tiny depth of field. I still maintain that my 135 f/2 is a much, much better value. (Sigma doesn't make a 135 f/1.8, do they?)

   • Reply

   • 0

8. If it is in the weight class of the Canon 1.8/200, I'm sold as soon as it appears in EF or RF mount.
   Being a Sigma, it likely performs better than the EF 1.8/200 wide open and that is all I need.
   I'd even prefer EF, so the mount converter with drop-in filters can be used.
   Meike black mist all the way.....

   Sigma has been giving Sony a run for their money when it comes to minimizing lens weight. The Sigma 50/1.4 ART and 50/1.2 ART are both extremely compact and lightweight. The 500/5.6 is an absolute marvel of a lens, smaller and lighter than the Nikon 500/5.6 PF but without using PF or DO type optics. If Sigma does release a 200/1.8 I would expect it will be under 2kg, though probably not quite as light as Sony's 300/2.8GM which is an astonishing 1470g. (The old-school EF 200/1.8L was 3.2kg with its hood, about 3kg without.)
   
   The bad news is that the chance of Canon allowing such a lens onto RF is basically zero.
   
   Edit: The EF 200/1.8 and EF 200/2 both had drop-in filter holders. Sigma's new 300-600/4 does too, and their 800/5.6 and 300-800/5.6 from the SLR era did too. If they do bring out a 200/1.8 on mirrorless, I would expect it to have a drop-in filter too.

   • Reply

   • 0

9. (Sigma doesn't make a 135 f/1.8, do they?)

   They don't yet have one for mirrorless but they had one for SLR.
   
   Sigma is still working their way through their mirrorless ART primes with a few gaps remaining, including a 28/1.4, 40/1.4, 105/1.4, and 135/1.8. These are all lenses they had in the SLR era and will probably also release on mirrorless.

   • Reply

   • 0

10. An extremely well-managed factory.

    
    Yeah but even designing them. It feels like Sigma is designing and manufacturing more lens models than any of the big camera brands, including Canon.

    • Reply

    • 0
11. The Canon EF 200 1.8 will never be matched by ANY lens even by Canon themselves if they should make an RF version. The EF version used components that will never be used again because of environmental regulations.

    • Reply

    • 0

12. (Sigma doesn't make a 135 f/1.8, do they?)

    
    They have done the 135 f1.8 Art for DSLR, I had it until last year, it's a wonderful lens, sharp as tack; it succeeded to my EF 135 f2 L which was already amazing, but this one was even better, see for yourself a test on a 42mpx sensor:
    
    

    - YouTube

    Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

    www.youtube.com

    
    I sold it only because I moved to an even more fantastic lens, their 105 f1.4 Art, I was looking for an used copy for so many years, and last year I was lucky enough to secure a (relatively) cheap copy, a barely used demo unit.
    
    

    • Reply

    • 0

13. The video mentioned "high end portraiture." Twenty or thirty years ago, when Sports Illustrated did TV programs documenting the making of the swimsuit issue, the Canon version of this was the lens that was used. Earlier shows used the 300 f/2.8, handheld. Tiny, tiny depth of field. I still maintain that my 135 f/2 is a much, much better value. (Sigma doesn't make a 135 f/1.8, do they?)

    I see no reason replacing my EF 135 f/2. A wonderful lens!
    The new RF may be sharper, but frankly, I don't care at all! 🙂

    • Reply

    • 0
14. I echo Craig's endorsement of Canon's 200/2.0 as being absolutely brilliant. As a discontinued lens with a dwindling service life, Ive been begging my Canon contacts to create an RF version. Obviously, it's a niche lens with a high price tag, and demand dictates that it's not high on their priority list. Is the 135/1.8 a better value (as someone else stated above) -- absolutely! And, that's a staple lens in my arsenal. But, when I want to create images that stand out from the crowd, it's the 200/2.0 beast that I turn to. We all choose Canon over many other brands because of their L-line quality and options to create the extraordinary, so I hope they will see the value in creating niche lenses like the 200 again.

    • Reply

    • 0
15. The 200 f/1.8 was always a dream lens for me, I regret not trying harder to get one secondhand when I had the chance ~10 years ago.

    • Reply

    • 0
16. I would love Canon to make a RF 70-200mm f/2 based on their RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and it could share many components including the housing.
    Same weight and price and even better if they add a builtin 1.4x extender to it.

    • Reply

    • 0

17. I see no reason replacing my EF 135 f/2. A wonderful lens!
    The new RF may be sharper, but frankly, I don't care at all! 🙂

    😱 Don't you want to replace it with Sigma's 105 1.4 like Walrus?

    • Reply

    • 0

18. 😱 Don't you want to replace it with Sigma's 105 1.4 like Walrus?

    GRRRRR!!!!!! 😡
    Why should I replace this great and light lens with a monster?

    • Reply

    • 0

19. GRRRRR!!!!!! 😡
    Why should I replace this great and light lens with a monster?

    Walrus is a wedding photographer, and his preference must apply to you as someone who gravitates towards landscapes. Excuse me, I think I have a concussion...

    • Reply

    • 0