Reading mode: Light Dark

will sigma announce new lenses pre-photokina?

Go to last post
B

brownbw

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Sigma has yet to announce any new Canon compatible lenses. I am hoping for an 18-50 f2.8 IS/OS! Is this a possibility? If it were priced (considerably) less than the 17-55 IS it would sell like crazy!
 
I would like a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 USM (and maybe IS) without "macro", and a filter size of 67 mm, to keep it small. All the "macro" stuff is nonsense, true macro lenses are produced for a reason and the difference of 4 cm of close focusin is really silly. If I would shoot serious macro, I would get a real Macro lens, not a close-up pseudomacro.
--
Erik
 
im hanging out for an 80 f/1.4 so when i get a cheap mk1 5d ill have the 50mm 1.6 equiv that i loooove so much at the mo :D
 
I hope Sigma releases an updated 30mm 1.4 lens and an EFS 17-55mm 2.8 lens with image stabilization. A full frame 24-70mm 2.8 lens with IS would also be very nice.
 
Be honest with me.

Can you think of any ways in which the Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens could be improved?

For example, how good is its corner performance at large apertures?

How well does it work on full frame cameras, such as the 5D II and the 1DS III?

Perhaps it could be made to work well with DSLRs, such as these.

Is it able to beat the 35mm 1.4L in its overall optical performance?
 
Sigma 30 1.4 is designed for 1.6 crop cameras in the first place, so any performance on a 1D or 1Ds is irrelevant. But I would like to see better corner performance and maybe less distortion for a fix focal lens. But I am still happy with my 30 1.4 so far.
--
Erik
 
dopravopat said:
I would like a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 USM (and maybe IS) without "macro",
and a filter size of 67 mm, to keep it small. All the "macro" stuff
is nonsense, true macro lenses are produced for a reason and the
difference of 4 cm of close focusin is really silly. If I would shoot
serious macro, I would get a real Macro lens, not a close-up
pseudomacro.
Click to expand...
Well, you're entitled to your opinion I guess but it's about as ill-considered as it could be. The close-focusing capability of the 18-50 is one of its most useful features - I own a true macro lens as well as a 500D and a set of tubes, but in many situations the 18-50's 1:3 is more than adequate. Nobody, not even Sigma, is claiming that this is a "serious macro lens", but it is immeasurably useful to have good close focusing in a standard zoom.

Changing the filter size to 67 mm would simply increase the risk of vignetting with no significant benefit. The Tamron 17-50 has a 67 mm filter - have you ever compared the two lenses in the flesh? There is barely any difference in size, and certainly not enough to justify a performance penalty.

I agree with you on two points. Yes, an HSM upgrade is overdue - Sigma promised this ages ago, around the time the Nikon-mount version was upgraded, but so far they haven't delivered.

And yes, the term 'macro' is over-used - but Sigma are in good company here, because my Canon 300/4L IS also claims 'macro' focusing and it can barely manage 1:4.
 
I hope we agree that the 18-50 2.8 HSM OS should be labeled as "Close-up" instead of "Macro", when It can focust from 20 cm (vs. 28 cm - the old version which I have). :-) "Macro" should be written only on lenses that do 1:1 maginifiacation, all other should be close-up (up to 1:4). This would be much less confusing IMHO.
--
Erik
 
I'm well aware that the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is designed for APS-C DSLRs. Which is why pointed out that it could be redesigned to work with full frame DSLRs.

The Sigma 50mm 1.4 works with full frame cameras.

Sigma could release either a 30mm 1.4 II or a 35mm 1.4 that is designed to work with both full frame and APS-C DSLRs.

There would be a market for it if its optical performance were stellar.
 
In that case it would not be a redesign, it would be a totally new lens. :-) I would like an 80 1.4 from Sigma. :-)
--
Erik
 
--
Erik
 
dopravopat said:
I hope we agree that the 18-50 2.8 HSM OS should be labeled as
"Close-up" instead of "Macro",
Click to expand...
We can agree that 'macro' is over-used - but not just by Sigma.
dopravopat said:
when It can focust from 20 cm (vs. 28
cm - the old version which I have). :-)
Click to expand...
That's a big difference. Remember that the focusing distance is measured from the film/sensor plane to the subject, but as you focus closer the lens-to-image (sensor) distance increases . The increase in magnification is much greater than 20 vs. 28 would suggest.

Edit: I checked the specification for the old version. Maximum magnification is 1:5, compared with 1:3 for the current lens. Big difference.
dopravopat said:
"Macro" should be written
only on lenses that do 1:1 maginifiacation, all other should be
close-up (up to 1:4). This would be much less confusing IMHO.
Click to expand...
It'll never happen!
 
agreed, to go from ef-s to ef circle isnt a simple MK1 > MK2 thing, thats a whole new lens.

also not to mention, have you ever found a fast prime thats got anything more than a sweet spot wide open? i sure havent... yet :P

same goes for my canon 50, and even the brand new sigma 50. no primes are great other than center until stopped down...
 
I never understood why Sigma dropped the 300mm and 400mm Apo macros just as 1.6x crop DSLRs were starting to catch on big time. I know they had all the problems with needing to re-chip them when some of the new Canon DSLRs were coming out. However, the interfaces now seem stable and there wouldn't be the same problems. Both these lenses would be a real hit with Birders and the like, where these lenses become something far more interesting on a 1.6x crop body. They would be a real alternative to Canon's lenses if they were priced competively.
 
.. a revamped 17-70 with a CONSTANT f/2.8 and HSM and optically as good as their 18-50 f/2.8. This will be a very popular lens indeed....
 
Good idea. But then I'd have to get one to replace my 17-70. Its a great lens and personally the only thing I'm not so keen on is that spinning focus ring.
 
Yes! 11mm f4 rec. lens no-fish. Sigma should set the record for the widest of the wides, that would flame Canon and Nikon. A new 400 5.6 w/OS soulds like a keeper. Come on Sigma you can do it!

--
when photographs talk people listen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
  • Question Question
Sony 24 - 50 F2.8 or Sigma 17 - 40 F1.8
Replies
4
Views
10K
edwinzphoto
E
A
Sigma's New 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 and 300-600mm F4 Lenses: Ask Your Questions Here!
Replies
15
Views
17K
Jersey Shore
J
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Fuji 16-50 /16-55
Replies
19
Views
40K
baobob
baobob
K
Upgrade camera or lenses? (Canon EOS 2000d)
Replies
13
Views
40K
Koensol
K
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 vs Fuji XF 16-50 f/2.8-4.8 or 16-55 f/2.8
Replies
0
Views
11K
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top