PK24X36NOW: Certainly not "smaller;" it is in fact exactly the same size as the 70-200 f 2.8 OS (3.4 x 7.8"). It has ONE less glass element, so it might be a teensy bit lighter, but not enough so that it makes any difference. This despite having LESS depth of field isolation at maximum aperture (a truly "equivalent" APS-C would have to be a stop faster, which would actually not only make it lose the supposed size and weight "advantage," it would actually make it heavier than the FF equivalent, based on this lens' specs).
Sigma needs to ditch this OS line. Their ergonomics suck, and as noted below, the prices are too high to make them attractive alternatives to Nikon/Canon glass.
You're right. It is the same size. Same design, too. Most of the body and mechanical parts are interchangeable. It's remodeled to be optimized for APS-C cameras, hence the focal length change. The image quality is said by many to be superior to the 70-200, though. I think Sigma should be appplauded for making this version of the 70-200. To me, I think it's one of the best lenses I've ever owned.
photo perzon: I like my old 50-150 2.8 better
I use this paired with a Sigma 17-50 EX DC OS on a couple of Canon 70Ds. Image quality of both lenses is nothing short of fantastic. I use a Black Rapid DR-1 harness to carry the cameras and have no lens changing. Sometimes I also carry an old 5D on a neck strap in addition so I can get really good portraits with the 85mm EX DC F1.4. Yes, it's heavy. Yes, I sweat a lot, but my customers are very pleased with the results.I get consistently good shots with the 50-150 down to 1/8th second at 150mm. The unstabilized version couldn't do this. To get F2.8 at 80-240mm (equivalent) with image stabilization you have to be prepared to pay more money and carry a heavier lens.
Pitbullo: How the heck can you have limited zoom range as a "con"? If you buy a 18-35mm, then that is what you get. If you buy a 16mm prime, you cant say that it is a negative that it is too wide. It is what it is!
I sometimes change my lens when I'm out shooting. I have been known to carry as many as five :o! With my 70D I can do 8-400mm with three lenses and still carry a 100mm macro and 85mm portrait.My 'usually on' lens is now the 18-135mm STM. It has replaced the 24-105L as it is more versatile and handles movie clips much better.I use the 18-35mm F1.8 for indoor stills and movies and have found no focussing issues. It is a fantastic lens in my view.I have been a Sigma fan for a long time. QC issues have been unfortunate, but Sigma can usually fix them and if they can't they will replace the lens. They want to keep their customers. The recent offering from Sigma have been outstanding. I love the 35mm F1.4 which I use on my old 5D to give me amazingly sharp shots wide open. In closing may I say that the DPR.com reviews seem to be pretty fair and accurate to me. I only read them after I've bought something, though :o)
Lillrobert: To those of you who are complaining over noise @ ISO1600, low res LCD and no sound/video recording and so on... Try to understand: That is not why you buy Sigma! You buy the SD1 because the power of the X3 sensor! Not to take low light party images to upload on facebook!I have been using both the SD14 and Nikon D700 and the X3 sensor gives (in my oppinion) unmatched colours (not low light), great sharpness and a "3D feeling", and thats why you buy the SD1!
They weren't forced to drop the price. It was sold at a high price due to Sigma internal politics. It may be significant that the price drop came soon after the death of Sigma's chairman.
iae aa eia: That's a really good news. This sensor layout is better than the one used by all the other makers. It's a sensor that does not need extra processing or rearrangement of pixels to obtain true colors.
When you take exactly the same shot of something you clearly notice Foveon's colors are more substantial, you feel depth. I always believed Sigma would get a very good position in the camera market with this sensor. It's taking long and being hard, but that's good to know they didn't give up.
Sigma already sell Sigma brand lenses to Canon and Nikon users. How many more are they going to sell with this 'strategy'. There is nothinig wrong with the Sigma mount (it is based on Canon protocols, after all) other than it doesn't take other brands' lenses.Sigma lenses are up to the task of giving good quality images on any body.
warpfoo: Build the SD1 with an EOS mount and I'm there. You listening, Sigma?
Canon wouldn't grant and Sigma wouldn't buy the licences required to produce a Canon mount SD1.Why do people bang on about this so much?If you want to know what all the fuss is about, buy a SD15 and a decent Sigma lens and you'll understand. Is that so outrageous? You can pick them up for a song on ebay. I have a Canon 1D3, a 40D, Nikon D200, Sigma SD14,15 &SD1 cameras. I love my hobby and it's not so much more expensive than say, golf. I also have some good Canon 'L' glass, but my top lenses are Sigmas and three of the top five of my best images so far are from Sigma cameras.
alfaflash: I plan to buy an SD-1 when it becomes available on the market at the new lower price. However, the frustrations with the old SD-14 are still a vivid memory, and I want to learn from the experience of others as to the weak points and idiosyncracies of the SD-1. I believe that the IQ problems reported by some people relate directly to the Sigma lenses not having the performance necessary to use the capabilities of the sensor, and I plan to convert the lens mount to take Leica R glass. Any info concerning problems with the processing engine, camera lock-up, or any other similar problems would be much appreciated.
...continuedThey don't mind paying four times as much for Can or Nikon, though. Go figure. Canon and Nikon also make budget lenses and many people say they are crap too. But they're not crap, you have to stop them down and up the ISO ... oh yeah, like cheap Sigma lensesI am very pleased with my SD15 and SD1, but they are not cameras to take family snaps with. They are for serious photographers who want ultimate quality. And that costs. Sigma are the only ones with a Foveon sensor though, so you won't know what quality is till you try them. With good Sigma glass, of course.
The best Sigma lenses are as good as Canon L and Nikon high-end. I have taken lovely pictures with SD15 and SD1 using very old Sigma lenses that are as sharp and responsive as they were six years ago. The new 85mm F1.4 and 35mm F1.4, whilst not wiping the floor with their Canon and Nikon equivalents, certainly make you question the wisdom of spending twice as much money for the same result. Unless you want weather-proofing, I suppose.A camera is only as good as the lens attached to it. Sigma made budget priced lenses to get a toe-hold in the market. They weren't necessarily poor-quality, but they had to be stopped down for halfway decent results. This meant that, to get the shutter speed up you had to up the ISO. Canon and Nikor are fine with this, but the Foveon sensor is not so you need the best glass you can get for these cameras. And Sigma does make good glass, but it's expensive, so people who see Sigma as a cheap lens maker balk at paying high prices for them.
munro harrap: the 24-70 and 24-105 and the 17-40 are not good enough and badly need redesign. Primes and longer zooms are OK, but for PJ work, and weddings etc these lenses need to be first class. Nobody would buy adaptors and fit other lenses losing autofocus otherwise, and it is this problem that makes me hesitate, and no other-if the dodgy AF my MkII really has been cured and the colours have accuracy at last.
You might have had the luck to get good ones, but more recently demand has affected quality-it is no secret, and this and the innacurate colour is still a big problem when you contemplate paying out as much as a small car now costs (with a 5 year warranty) for a 1DX you can confidently use with one of these zooms. And it is only guaranateed for a year AND costs much more in the UK than in the USA (still)
People often forget the 'independent' brands, too. The Sigma 12-24mm lenses, for example, (both Mk 1 and 2) give excellent wide angle results for less than half the Nikon not-so-wide. Canonikon snobs need to look around more. The Foveon sensor is another case in point.
Graystar: Hmmm...30MP crop sensor for $2300 or 36MP full-frame for (what should end up selling at) $2700...I think I'll go with a D800.
Sorry Sigma...still too little...and way, way too late.
Sigma has to lie about the mega pixies because all the other manufacturers (including Canon and Nikon) lie about theirs.Bayer sensors photosites are in groups of four 1R2G1B. They cleverly pair these up so you only have to divide by two instead of four, but your 36Mp Nikon is still only 18Mp in reality.
jacketpotato: There was a post on dpr forum that Sigma had to launch price SD1 high so it could still license Canon & Nikon mount for its lenses, until Canon Nikon announced their 5D3 & D800.
There are many thing going on inte backgrounds of business we are kept in the dark about.
I am glad SD1 is at the price it was intended to be.
Sigma doesn't get licences from Canon or Nikon or any other manufacturer as far as I know, they reverse-engineer everything. That's why they often have to 're-chip' lenses when there is a change in electrical or mechanical configuration.I welcome the reality check that Sigma has experienced as it can only be good for the adoption and development of the Foveon sensor.