Sigma announces pricing and availability of its 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Sport lens

Not sure if that will happen for three reasons:
- they were reluctant to release the reflex-purposed ART primes, and only did so due to overwhelming demand.
- they now have a mainstream mount of their own, and may privilege releases or mirrourless-purposed designs for the L mount.
- the MC-11 already enables use of these zooms (and any ART lenses in SA or EF mount) on Sony FE

Except other modern Sigma lenses are NOT focusing fast. When it comes out test it against Tamron and you find out. And how do you know that new Sigma is sharp, OS works great and fast and accurate. Sigma did not allow taking pictures with it.

I shoot almost nothing but sports -- and I shoot various Sigma primes wide open, capturing fast-moving humans and objects. Zero concerns over autofocus speed. Zero. My technique? Yes, plenty of concerns with that. But the AF on these lenses in demanding real-world situations is just fine, thanks. Maybe I just got good samples of the lenses, every time.

zurich wasn't talking country of manufacture , i think , but lens over cost, where such lenses represent excellence with value

Pair it with a mirrorless body and you're fine. :)

Don't worry, EF-mount is next on the chopping block. ;)

BBT sigma clearly doesn't think so... 😉

It's OK, Sigma also made A-mount lenses 2 years into FF E-mount. ;)

Don't blame sigma, blame Sony for abandoning A mount.
===========
Don't blame Sony, blame users for not buying A-mount gear.

Well actually it is the failure of the A mount DSLRS that has led to Sony being the biggest player in FF mirrorless. See back in the day there was no reason to buy an A mount DSLR except to just be different. But if you didn't care about that Nikon and Canon had full lens lineups, were real camera companies not a johnny come lately consumer electronics company, and had a well established and proven track record for making quality, and reliable camera's and lenses.

Sony really had no chance to be competitive in that market. So they went with ASP-C mirrorless but found the market way too crowed to make much of a profit in it. They needed a niche they could get in on early and be the go to brand in. So they had one option left. Go all in with FF mirrorless and be first to pro level mirrorless bodies. This move saved their camera division most likely and is the reason Sony is now a recognized camera brand and a major player in the ILC market.

@Josh152

"So they went with ASP-C mirrorless but found the market way too crowed to make much of a profit in it."

Huh? Sony beat Fuji and Canon to APS-C mirrorless by 2 years. And Canon was and still is non-competitive as far as performance and features. The no-selling original EOS M had to be tossed into a fire sale at great loss to get rid of. The M2 was nearly the same thing, with limited release, and only with the M3 (2015) did Canon finally start to head in a different direction. It took Fuji till 2016 to actually become competitive with Sony.

Sony went FF in 2013, long before it saw competition in APS-C. 2014's A6000 is the best selling mirrorless camera of all time, and continually takes up multiple spots in the top 10 and beyond of Amazon's top 100 selling mirrorless cameras to this day:

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011

Sony’s mount is E-mount not RF...

Sony will be changing lens mount again after watching how successful Nikon and Canon's large diameter are.

You mean Canikon's small diameter mounts failed? ◔_◔

"CanonSharpShooter

Successful? Really? What does Canon and Nikon made that Sony doesn't have? Manual 58/0.95 for $6000? While Canon and Nikon talk about their big mounts, Sony already has great line of GM lenses.

Yeah hippo84, only if you can find a good copy of their GM lenses...

I used 85/1.4, 100STF, 24-70, tested 100-400 and 70-200. Doesn't have any problems. LensRentals variance tests also shows that GM's are not worse than Canon L lenses

"only if you can find a good copy" - it's more about trying to find sharp 50/1.2L that focuses accuratelly wide open at both close and long distance )

@hippo84
Don't argue with people without any clue. We have data on lens consistency by lensrentals, and all GM lenses are either fine or great. Something neither Canon or Nikon do better ...

@CanonSharp-fan boy: You mean like the 3 stops of vignetting on the new 50/1.2 for EOS R?
Compared to the Canon gear I had (one exception, 35/1.4ii) my Sony lenses are excellent. I must have been lucky.

I used to like my e-mount lenses until I recently found out about the throat diameter. Now I can barely stand to use them.

@CanonSharpShooter

"People who care about their clients would never play Sony games" - in what Canon store did You hear that?) In my city the majority of top photographers left Canon and Nikon and successfully works with Sony cameras and Sony high quality lenses.

He doesn't know anything, otherwise he wouldn't give such ridiculous statements. Our clients are quite happy with the Sony images they get. As are we. Happier than with Canon.

What do you guys expect? He'd have to change his DPR username if he abandoned Canon, and that's a lot to ask.

“In my city the majority of top photographers left Canon” I’m not too sure which city you’re from, but in the big cities that have a professional sports team NO one is leaving Canon for Sony! This great migration is really only playing out on these Internet forums with key board warriors. While in the real world NO one is leaving Canon for Sony!

@CanonSharpShooter

I don't talk about sport photographers. Let them shoot with their Canons. For portraiture, wedding and family photography Sony is much better choice. But brainwashed fan-boys like You can think that Your Canon is still №1 for absolutely every kind of photography.

@Canon-guy. There are quite a few who switched form dslrs to Sony. I just recently read about Bob Martin, Mine Kasapoglu, Yonathan Kellerman, Stefan Haworth, Gene Lower, Nick Didlick.
In other areas many switched, esp. for weddings. I know quite a few. We switched too.

I mean they also make the 18-35 1.8, which is literally sharper than most sub-800 dollar primes out there.

I was referring to the staple 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses. Sigma's current 24-70mm Art doesn't hold up as well to the native offerings or even to the Tamron 24-70mm G2. Sigma's previous 70-200mm lenses weren't anything special either. Saying that, their 120-300mm Sport is very good and and I'm hoping this new lens will be more like their current telephoto zooms.

@Jonathan F/2: only the 24-70 of their Global Vision f/2.8 lenses isn't very good. Their 14-24 f/2.8 is far better than the competition. The 70-200 you're talking about, is an older lens and still okay for a nice price.

The ART 24-70mm suffered from high-expectations. I understand that OIS was initially problematic, but the firmware resolved it - so that may have impacted early impressions, too.

The lens was given rendition as a design priority (i.e. bokeh and other character elements). For those that require something more exacting, there are numerous ART primes to choose from.

As I recall, it charts above the earlier round of standard zooms, it's just that those that released around the same time exceeded it at some lengths.

The way I see it, Sigma made sure that the lens exceeded certain levels yet without compromising beautiful character. Some people use the criticism of "clinical" for flawless lenses, so it may have been in response to that.

Were they protecting the ART primes, or had they licenced better designs to others? Perhaps, yet the line-up is extensive enough to afford a few variant design priorities from time to time.

I was surprised that Canon beat them to a F2 standard zoom.

I'm not surprised honestly that Canon managed an f2 zoom first. They have far more money to throw into R&D alone than Sigma has for its entire operations. Canon doesn't lack brilliant scientists and engineers capable of making great lenses. It's their management's lack of ambition and vision for the long term that's the real problem. The only reason it's taken Canon this long to come up with a 28-70 f2 is because they never needed to. Everyone was content with the status quo, and even Sigma's 24-35 f2 zoom felt like a novelty than a need.

Sigma on the other hand, being a small company knows that it can't survive making lenses that are no different from everybody else's. Hence with their Art lenses, they decided that absolute image quality is their primary focus. Tamron in comparison, is going for the opposite end: a target market that is willing to sacrifice some image quality for a balance of smaller, cheaper and lighter lens that's weather sealed and has in-lens stabilization.

Tamron would be idiotic not to take advantage of the hole in the market for an affordable third-party 70-200 2.8 for FE. A7III was one of the top-cameras of 2018, they're selling like hotcakes in addition to that 28-75! The Tamron 28-75 may turn out to be one of the best-selling FE lenses of late and it's a third party lens! I think it's just a matter of time. Though, I am willing to wait for a better lens. What we don't need is a rushed-to-production lens that falls short.

MC-11

Oskar, has Sony offered any support for their own A mount in recent years? It appears that it is not only Sigma that has moved on.

Even if they did offer a Sony E-mount, for some reason it wouldn't have OSS! It seems the third-party lenses will do OSS for the Nikon and Canon versions but omit it for Sony. That fine if you own an a6500 or any of Sony's FF mirrorless cameras, as they all have IBIS but a5100, a6000 and a6300 owners get hosed! Worse yet, the Sony version of this lens would probably cost more than the Canon and Nikon versions, even though there wouldn't be the OSS mechanism built into the lens.

There, I've said my peace (or is it 'piece'?)

@robtec88
What are you talking about. This is old A-mount stuff.

Which E-mount lens doesn't have OIS, but has on other mounts? Sigma just hasn't released any zoom for the E-mount yet. Not only the Batis line has OIS on Sony cameras, Tamron also makes a 18-200 for E-mount which has full VC.
So there is no reason to believe future E-mount zooms by sigma won't support lens based OIS

Just get the Sigma crane accessory

@cosinaphile Like it's a bad thing... :)

no its great
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-visitors-walk-through-a-huge-lens-replica-at-photokina-trade-fair-54443779.html

@cosinaphile That was the story of the recent "Yashica Y35" abomination. Two guys did a disassembly and found a couple of metal bars placed inside to create the impression of weight and therefore more solid construction. It was so horrible that it crossed over into hilarious right there. :)

@Oskar P
If I am correct any F mount lens adapted to Nikon Z (even Nikon native lenses) will only get partly IBIS support for three axis. Native 5 axis support is only available for native Z lenses.

This and other things, like the lack of AF-motor optimization for mirrorless will make all DSLR designed lenses on mirrorless second grade.

And even besides AF and stabilization, the difference in sensor cover glas thickness will cause the lens to be less sharp on the Z-cameras.

So if you want the perfect experience, go with lenses natively designed for the mount (and probably also being made by the native manufacturer for all closed and semi closed mounts)

Panther Fan,

The in-lens stabilization is fully supported.
The lens is fully supported and will be fully functional.

There are no silly restrictions like 2.5 FPS or inability to focus on anything outside the very center of the frame...like certain other cameras.

Ah, good thing Sigma puts out an adapter for Sony that gives it full native features, including 10fps+ AF-C with tracking on the more recent cameras. As an added bonus, lens OS and body IBIS work in conjunction, unlike those lesser brands that artificially gimp their compatibility. ;)

Yes,
Sony users have been begging for a Canon lens that works (kind of) on their cameras.
Confirms what I said, Sony users are clamoring to buying new EF mount lenses.

To bad Sony cameras have problems focusing on anything out side the center of the frame with adapted lenses...as Rishi has explained.

Oh and Panthe fan said DSLR designed lenses on Sony mirrorless are "second grade"...but Sony still are dying to get them.

Funny, because I use a lot of adapted lenses, and don't see that issue. Maybe the A6300 has the best AF of them all? ;)

And yes, DSLR lenses are cheaper, having been around for a couple of decades at this point. Faster to build up a collection of lenses that way, and replace them with better native ones as they're released/as you can afford them.

@Oscar P

Please don't spread misinformation:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61547930?image=0

Adapted lenses only get three axis IBIS support. Pitch, Jaw and Roll. In lens IS is only Pitch and Jaw and is supported by all adapters, the body then supports the third roll axis.

This means Nikon F lenses don't get the last two axis X,Y which means the are not fully supported.

PS: I know that will enrage you, but A-mount lenses have full 5axis support on Sony-E unless they are third party or screw drive ;)

I'll believe Rishi over "Sony fans"

In a thread about a newly designed sports lens, the "Sony fans " are saying these lenses are "decades old". Too funny.

@Oskar P

Can you even follow an argument?

P: Native Z lenses will have advantages like for example IBIS etc...
O: The lens is fully supported and will be fully functional
P: No it is not fully supported. Here look at this explanation from Nikons official website
O: I don't believe you, I believe Rishi....

1. Rishi never said anything different
2. I didn't say they wouldn't work. Obvioulsy the main functions work. I just said for the best experience native lenses are better for AF, stabilization and IQ

Native lenses will perform better is a different statement from adapted lenses will perform poor. Native lenses will perform better. That is all I am saying

Rough times?
Canon has almost 50% of the ILC market, while Sony has 13%.
That was before Canon took a quick 20% of FF ILC sales away from Sony.

We also , know Canon has led Sony in mirrorless sales for 3 years now in Japan. Each year Canon has increased their lead over Sony.

Don't feel bad for Canon as they continue to take over mirrorless with their "inferior" camera bodies and "superior" line of lenses.

@Oskar P
wrong thread?

LOL!

Well, remember now, Canikon also has their mirrorless cameras. Not a lens in sight for them. ;) Meanwhile, Sigma already has an adapter for Sony with full native features (yes, even at 10fps+ in AF-C + tracking ◔_◔ ), so it's not as high priority to have an E-mount version at launch as it is the other brands with single mount compatibility. At least for their mounts that sell well. ;)

Rishi addressed how poorly longer adapted telephoto lenses performed on Sony cameras.
No need to rehash that settled argument.
Rishi is an honest person.

Why?

The Sigma Art primes got great reviews, but the zooms released by sigma lacked a bit.
The 100-400 was bettered by Tamron
The 24-70 was bettered by Tamron and far far too heavy

Of course this lens could be great. But it also could be just heavy and average

Sigma's f/1.8 zooms are fantastic, though.

The argument was ridiculous, because the new lens is judged on the performance of a totally different focal length lens before the reviews are even out! The design requirements of a 70-200 is quite different. The argument showed ignorant prejudice and lack of an open mind. Is a lens guilty before proven innocent?

Especially since there are other third parties at the market.

Tamrons new G2 70-200 F2.8 is great and lighter and 300$ cheaper. Older Nikon and Canon versions are availably and cheaper and lighter.

So the only people left are people that don't want to go with the great, cheap and light old native and tamron versions, which need better IQ than the Tamron G2, but don't have the funds for a new native lens. All that while not being concerned about weight.
I don't know if that is enough.

" In addition I doubt they will be sharper than Canon, Nikon and Sony OEM versions."
---
Why would you devalue your comment with such a statement.

Based on years observation. Such as on EF mount, Sigma lenses are good but not as good as Canon OEM lenses including respective 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 zoom. They are cheaper and also pretty sharp but I cannot live with that significant extra weight that is a dealbreaker despite they are cheaper and optically also very good.

Sara Valentine: a monopod won't decrease the weight of the backpack you have to transport the lens in, together with countless other items.

You have to transport the lens somehow, no? Why does it matter what PWP mentioned or not? When making a buying decision you have to think about how the lens will be used. I would rather pay $600 more than carry 400g more when travelling. Or don't pay more and get the Tamron.

Yes, i will buy a lighter lens, thank you very much.
And it's called conversation, not whining. It's a forum. Go, buy your monopod and stop being so aggressive.

@BlueBomberTurbo

- A more complex optical design
Based on what? The Sigma has 22 elements, and the Tamron has 23 elements. That says nothing, but it is all we know so far

- 3 custom modes (most likely for individual AF speed, OS performance, and focus limiter settings)
The Tamron also has a switch for 3 IS modes, and another for focus limiter settings. What do you use the AF speed switch for, without body support?

And you ignored the two big Tamron advantages.
-300$ cheaper
-400g lighter

@panther fan
Exactly - it remains to be seen whether or not the Sigma will justify its extra cost and weight. The Tamron is generally recommended by reviewers as almost equal to Canon's 70-200 2.8, and so the Sigma is going to have exceed that very high bar. My guess is that it will be better than the Tamron in a number of ways, but unless that difference is significant indeed it will be hard to justify to the market its aiming for - budget minded photographers who might very decide to save several hundred dollars on a lens that's great versus one that does some things slightly better.