Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

Started Aug 27, 2010 | Discussions
akjos
akjos Veteran Member • Posts: 4,270
Re: No sigma is not insane, but...

Someone in their marketing dept . is smoking some really good crack!
Wow, I just had to bust out laughing loud at 3:30 in the morning...

even if it is indeed around 1700 I MUCh rather buy older nikon 70-200 vrI for this much money or less.

Maybe if 10 years from now they'll get their act (very polite here ) together as far as actual quality control goes , maybe I'll buy the sigma again. But even so, no way for same price or even close as nikon....
--
http://www.infiniteartphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/jps1979/galleries

DimLS Forum Member • Posts: 98
Re: No sigma is not insane, but...

To get 20% better results you need 80% more effort. This is true in generall and explains the crazy prices of Canicon on some lens vs same focal length but cheaper Canicon lens

1. Better quality, better IQ, better functions means higher price and its fine and just.

2. Also better product range means higher price, as long as there is a brand awarness conected with the quality of the brand.

We dont know about 1.
Marketing wise, the 2. makes some complain, now.

If 1. comes true, then 2. will start to come true and market will start to respond.
After all sigma is still cheaper than nikon

Its a bet that almost all companies operating on developed coutries, especially if production is on developed counties, have to consider.

Developed countries are EXPENSIVE to live, to work, to operate, but also developed countries can help companies produce R&D, innovation and know-how. Thats why sigma and any sigma has to push the quality and rise prices than the opposite.

And smthg else, now with internet and highly efficient sensors, its easy and fast a non effecient lens e.g. from sigma, to be known as a bad lens and stop selling good. companies and their lenses could easier hide their IQ from the consumer, now, its not.

I understand Sigmas vision and strategy and it may be the only viable one if Sigma wants to be a healthy company in the longrun.

After all if they do make better products, slightly less better than nikon, why not to charge also a little less than nikon?

Only time will tell.

tyb Senior Member • Posts: 2,620
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

Sigma needs a lesson in basic marketing from Toyota or selling high end. You need to first deliver the goods then sell at a value compared to the entrenched once established you can notch it up.

Out of the gun, I don't care what the reviews are the VRII has such stellar reviews and physics are hard to make shortcuts you need years of delivering reliability and toughness before Sigma can justify that price.

Sigma marketing and executives are drinking cool aid. For 1500-1800 just maybe... above that forget it.

Jogger wrote:

I guess they dont expect to sell too many of these?

 tyb's gear list:tyb's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +13 more
mrcontinental Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

Greed is good!

Gordon Gekko

Jogger wrote:

I guess they dont expect to sell too many of these?

 mrcontinental's gear list:mrcontinental's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR
Michael Kaminski Regular Member • Posts: 280
The blizzard of "OS" "VR"sus there "IS" no free meal.

Generally Sigma installed HSM also in lower end lenses becuse they had to. Since Nikon took out the motor from the lower end bodies. I doubt they would have installed this feature also in lower end lenses otherwise without significantly rising the price. OS is the last feature thy can add on a alternative basis without risking to be out of the market.
But this kind of price Sorry.

Anyway, since I have so far only used the noisy IS in the Canon 70-200 f4 what do you guys say, is VR or OS of help if you shoot weddings at wideangle to 70 or 120 mm wide open?

People move, and OS just freezes my shaky hands not the models or people. For landscape there is anyway a tripod.
So who except teleshooters profits from this feature?

Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Re: The blizzard of "OS" "VR"sus there "IS" no free mea

Michael Kaminski wrote:

Generally Sigma installed HSM also in lower end lenses becuse they had to. Since Nikon took out the motor from the lower end bodies. I doubt they would have installed this feature also in lower end lenses otherwise without significantly rising the price.

Well, the overall lens design with a AF motor in the lens was probably already avialable - since no Canon cameras at all have focus motors

OS is the last feature thy can add on a alternative basis without risking to be out of the market.
But this kind of price Sorry.

Anyway, since I have so far only used the noisy IS in the Canon 70-200 f4 what do you guys say, is VR or OS of help if you shoot weddings at wideangle to 70 or 120 mm wide open?

People move, and OS just freezes my shaky hands not the models or people. For landscape there is anyway a tripod.
So who except teleshooters profits from this feature?

Those who want to shoot images with longer exposures without having to drag around a tri- or monopod. I am perfectly aware that subjects not always sit still, but sometimes you want some motion blur in your images - caused by the subject that is, not by shaking hands.

Not a great image, but one I found in a hurry (taken at 1/30):

Now this one was taken without stabilization, but with a monpod - I much rather have it the other way around ...

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Hauer
Hauer Senior Member • Posts: 1,105
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

I'm sure it's a misprint and that the MSRP should read $1,470.00

If not then it appears that Sigma is getting greedy with it's lens prices. SIGMA should remember that in relation to both Canon and Nikon it remains a "b" grade manufacturer (at least to me and I own a BIGMA with which I have been very happy for several years).

However, it is YOU the consumer that determines if it is value or not. YOU ultimately assist SIGMA in determining an acceptable pricing policy.

Lack of sales due to excessive pricing can send a "wake-up call". Perhaps SIGMA is getting too excessively confident with it's product range...
The choice is yours!

Cheers - Herman

 Hauer's gear list:Hauer's gear list
Nikon D50 Nikon D300 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +12 more
rockjano Senior Member • Posts: 2,519
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

The problem is that what Sigma (and other third party producers) was doing is NEEDED.

There are many people around the world how simply cannot pay the price what Nikon and Canon asks for their very good pro lenses.

On the other way their consumer lenses also no solution not everybody is satisfied with an f3,5-5,6 zoom.

I need f2,8 zooms but I cannot pay or justify what Nikon asks for their pro gear.

It is absolutely ridiculous for Sigma to ask for the same price as the big boys.

 rockjano's gear list:rockjano's gear list
Nikon D7200
Jogger
OP Jogger Veteran Member • Posts: 8,441
Re: Does anyone know what the 'S' in MSRP stands for?

Oh wow. OK that makes sense now, im not at all familiar with Sigma pricing, it just seemed way out of left field.

OdzBodkinz wrote:

It's a suggested price. Street price is always lower as has been commented on a few times in this thread....and by me in the second posting.

$1700 is a bit of a savings over the Nikon model which tips in over $2k.

Go to the Sigma USA website and take a look at all the MSRP's of their lenses.... nobody pays those prices.

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
sanmaj Regular Member • Posts: 397
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

One of the things that always bothers me about lenses, lens technology and lens manufacturers is that The prices always go up. Despite technology improvements and lower cost parts they are always trying to convince us that the new product is so much better and that it is worth the costs.

While cost of other industry products generally go down over time (Cell Phones, TVs, I-Pods, eventually I-Pads, Computers, Laptops, and the list goes on and on) photo gear manufacturers always want us to believe that their prices are right despite industry manufacturers and parts supplier improvements. I wonder what the actual parts costs of the Sigma lens is. And for that matter I wonder what the parts cost for Nikon's 24-70 2.8 or for some of Canon's "L" lenses are or any of the high cost lenses we always see.

Maybe one day some enterprising individual will take that challenge on and actually break down one of these high priced lenses and develop a bottom line cost. I think we would all be quite surprised.

The longer I'm in this hobby the more I tend to hold on to gear and not accept out of hand the premise that the next "new" item is the best ever made and worth these exhorbitant prices.

pandalee Veteran Member • Posts: 3,075
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

well, if you try it yourself , you may change your opinion , its a great lens optically.

just as sharp as the Nikon and new Canon but not sealed.

for me WS is very important and so I have the Nikon VR2 but if I donot need WS , I 'd go for the Sigma and save 600USD.

Jogger wrote:

I guess they dont expect to sell too many of these?

megapixeldave Senior Member • Posts: 1,746
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

i guess sigma is taking canon's lead and following their extreme price increases. the new canon 300mm 2.8L II just shot up to $7,000 street price from the prior 300mm that can be bought for a mere $4,500 @ B&H. i own the current one out which is a spectacular lens. i have a hard time right now imagining that it could be that much better than the existing one and to ask $2,500 more?

even if this sigma can stand toe to toe with the comparitive N or C i cant imagine that it would have near the resale value in years to come. i think its way overpriced considering that sigma doesnt have the standing in the industry to ask those kind of prices. Zeiss, yes but sigma?

N&C's better glass holds its value amazingly but how much is a sigma worth a few years down the road.

david

ledgars Regular Member • Posts: 314
Sigma quality issues

Sigma brand is synonym to quality issues. Independently of lens price Sigma have quality issues. I have bad experience with every Sigma lens what I ever got. It is terrible if you have to change one copy after another and finally you have to ask your many back, because it is not possible to find flawless copy.

May be it will change with higher price?

Tom Ames Senior Member • Posts: 1,270
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

I'm fairly sure this will a get a lower street price, as you probably know all new lenses do...

Jogger wrote:

I guess they dont expect to sell too many of these?

-- hide signature --

Nikon D700 Nikon SB-800
Nikon 50 AF-s 1.4 Nikon 70-200 VRII
Tamron 17-35 2.8 Tamron 28-75 2.8

 Tom Ames's gear list:Tom Ames's gear list
Nikon D810 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm GFX 50R Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR +12 more
String
String Senior Member • Posts: 1,960
Re: Sigma quality issues

I know a lot of people have issues with Sigma QC however in my experiance, thats been a non issue. I have two Sigma lenses in my kit; a 10-20 4-5.6 and a 70 2.8 macro and both were perfect right out of the box.

 String's gear list:String's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +4 more
Bryan Decker Contributing Member • Posts: 845
Re: Is Sigma insane? Sigma 70-200 IS $2,470

Seems to me that Sigma's problem is that it isn't even a $600 difference. The 70-200VR is retailing for under $2,200, and my local shop ran a $1,999 deal, although that was short lived.

pandalee wrote:

well, if you try it yourself , you may change your opinion , its a great lens optically.

just as sharp as the Nikon and new Canon but not sealed.

for me WS is very important and so I have the Nikon VR2 but if I donot need WS , I 'd go for the Sigma and save 600USD.

Jogger wrote:

I guess they dont expect to sell too many of these?

-- hide signature --

Bryan

RRJackson
RRJackson Senior Member • Posts: 2,555
Re: Sigma quality issues

String wrote:

I know a lot of people have issues with Sigma QC however in my experiance, thats been a non issue. I have two Sigma lenses in my kit; a 10-20 4-5.6 and a 70 2.8 macro and both were perfect right out of the box.

Yeah, I currently own 4 of them, the 150mm f/2.8 Macro, the 50mm f/1.4, the 300mm f/4 Tele Macro and the 20-40mm f/2.8. All of them were perfect right out of the box.

I also have this story from some years back:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/3946490226/

Sigma 70-210mm f/2.8 APO

Someone recently asked me about this lens and I figured I'd put up a photo of it for reference. I do not own it anymore.

I owned this lens in Olympus OM mount because Olympus never really got around to offering a quality f/2.8 telephoto zoom. They offered the amazing 35-80mm f/2.8 ED, but never a telephoto lens to compliment it.

This lens was very sharp and handled well, but it's absolutely huge. Here it is pictured with its salsa-bowl lens hood, which exaggerates the size of the lens. Still, on a tiny OM body it seemed almost comical. It's like a thermos or something. I bought it to replace a Vivitar 90-230mm f/4.5 zoom that I'd had since the 70's, but this lens was so big that it never saw as much use as the Vivitar.

This lens brings up an interesting story about Sigma, though. In about 2000 this lens took a really nasty blow to the front element. I had a UV filter on it and the filter was shattered and had to be cut off. The front element of the lens was damaged by the broken shards of glass from the UV filter. I emailed Sigma USA and they said to send it to them, even though they hadn't made this lens for years. I sent them the lens and they contacted me and said that they did not have a replacement for the front element, but they'd contact Sigma Japan and see if they had one. A couple of weeks later they said that Sigma Japan didn't have one, either, but the front element was a meniscus element that could be re-ground without optical degradation and asked me if I wanted them to proceed. I told them it would be fine and a week or so later my lens arrived back home with a note saying that there was no charge for the repairs. It seemed perfect to me. I never conducted any tests, but it seemed to perform exactly as it always had. I've always liked Sigma lenses, but Sigma won my confidence as a customer with that. I don't know of many companies that would go to such effort to get a customer's lens back into working order, particularly a lens that they hadn't built in years.

GlobalGuyUSA Senior Member • Posts: 2,016
Re: Sigma quality issues

Maybe they are pricing it this way because it is a true 200mm?
The argument might be such:

If Nikon's 70-135 VRII ( cough 200mm..), costs $2400 at entry for 135mm.... Then surely a Sigma true 70-200mm OS can cost at least the same! You get 65 extra mms!

lol......

Nikon and Sigma and Canon can go to hell on this lens. Seriously, computers double in speed every few years and the parts get smaller and smaller and the prices continue to go down and down. The camera manufacturers barely change anything, just add more weight and they add to the price even though their automation processes have dramatically improved compared to the old hand sanding days.

Sigma might be trying to AFFORD quality control with this lens.

But they need to ANNOUNCE that to make this price effective.

If every Sigma lens came with a inspector spending exactly 45 minutes with it testing it to exacting sharpness, symmetry and focus standards (couldn't cost more than $70 bucks overhead) on 2 Nikon bodies, then we could feel happy about the price.

But without that commitment in writing they can't charge this much. They let their QC slip too much for a lens this expensive, without some radical new commitment to quality.

-- hide signature --

Sincerely,

GlobalGuyUSA

 GlobalGuyUSA's gear list:GlobalGuyUSA's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED +9 more
LarryPhoto Senior Member • Posts: 2,612
Yes

I've seen what some of their other Pro lenses will do, Sigma can make some great lens.

LarryPhoto Senior Member • Posts: 2,612
Smart Investment

Smart money is spent on glass, and nothing holds its value like a good Nikon lens. When you buy a Nikon, you can shoot it for 5 years and if taken care of, get all your money back, you can't do that with anything else but Leica.

That said, I have seen some very good glass from Sigma, the 30mm F1.4 (DX), Sigma 50mm F1.4 (FX). I owned the 30mm, and its quality wide open was awsome.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads