Sigma will release new products via livestream on February 9

Because Sigma is cheaper and in some cases, lighter.

Yea, an in some cases, buying cheaper ends up being actually more expensive.

I have had Canon L primes (35/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/2.0) and started using Sigma primes from 2013 with the legendary 35/1.4 Art lens. Later got the 50 and 24 Art lenses.

I must say your comment seems to indicate that you have never purchased a Sigma Art lens? They are simply put much better value for money. My 35/1.4 blew the Canon equivalent away and it was a no brained to go Sigma. I even had money left over after selling the Canon prime and getting Sigma.

I have an EOR R body and don't want to spend, for example, A$3800 on the RF 50/1.2 and much rather wait for the Sigma RF Art version which will likely cost less than half as much at similar performance.

The Nikon Z 14-24 is actually significantly lighter (as in a couple hundred grams) than the Sigma for E mount, and Sigma's small primes have been pretty heavy for f2s and whatnot (in the 325-400g range when comparable Sony/SY options are 225-275g)... The primes have often been (only) $50-100 cheaper than Sony's, whole other story with zooms tho.

All that being said (just nitpicking!), 3rd parties like Sigma do broaden the scope and appeal of any system just based on their price points alone. It seems odd to complain about prices and then somehow suggest that a $1.2K Sigma zoom or the <$1K 100-400 DN are pointless when they're several times cheaper than 1st party alternatives.

Stuff like the 600g 24-70 and the cheap 100-400 DN do draw in buyers to a system IMO, enough so that Nikon thought it was worthwhile to rebadge (and unfortunately mark up) the similar Tamron 28-75 to have it on Z mount.

To the OP, why complain about the fact 3rd party lenses exist? Not only can they be extremely good but they reduce the monopoly of 1st party and help reign in their pricing. Consumer choice and options is paramount these days.

People are underestimating the value of 80,90% of the performance at 1/2 the price. No one expects the Sigmas to focus as fast or be proper weather sealed as native glass, for example not all the glass i have are used where the weather can reach them, some are strictly in controlled situations.

BackToNature should return back to nature under the rock you've been sleeping under. You seem completely unaware of what a revolution the 35 1.4 ART was when it came out. Also, their new DG DN 85mm 1.4 rivals the Sony G-master optically while being significantly lighter and cheaper. Some Sigma lenses are decent alternatives, while some of them are just straight up better than the camera brand's own.

I imagine if they were seriously considering getting into RF or Z they would be designing lenses with the shortest flange distance in mind and then just adapting the design for all other mounts, as they've done in the past between E / EF-M / M4/3...

Regardless, the biggest hurdle is surely the backwards engineering of the AF protocols, it really doesn't seem like manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron want to go back to those days of cat and mouse games if they can find an alternative (eg Tamron making rebadged lenses like the 28-75 for Nikon)...

Just because someone like Viltrox is willing to play that game doesn't mean they are, Samyang seemingly got burned by it already on RF mount. Putting out a couple of primes and patching stuff is also not quite as complex as the mess Sigma would get into with their zooms and people's raised expectations of them (and of mirrorless AF) these days.

I think it'll happen FWIW, I just wouldn't bet on it happening "any day now".

" Both Tamron and Sigma already have those protocols, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to make their lenses compatible with either RF and Z. " -Francis

What lenses would those be? Getting adapted stuff to talk thru EF/F mount protocols isn't the same thing as full AF/burst support with native designs...

If anything Tamron working directly with Nikon on the 28-75 probably means they've signed an agreement (and do indeed have full access), which may have all sorts of caveats on what they can or can't release (just like it does on E mount actually).

Technically they didn't even release the 28-75, Nikon did, and we don't know who's actually manufacturing (it's not uncommon for these players to just buy the design). The fact that what Nikon is putting out the original 28-75 rather than the improved G2 is probably a good hint that the situation is more complex than we can guess.

@Francis: Releasing X mount lenses has all the sense in the world. All of the big players are leaving the APS-C world more or less. That means that onlh Fujifilm is keeping its system alive and APS-C sales are still a big part of the pie.
As Fujifilm has opened its protocol to anyone that wants to pay a fee, Sigma just have to develop a new firmware for its existing lenses and a new mount. I firmly believe they wouldn't have developed the 18-50 if a X mount version wasn't posible.

Some people really seem to be upset if Sigma and or Tamron would eventually bring out lenses for Z and RF. Some of the venomous replies show.

@Impulses I think you mean "designing lenses with the longest flange distance in mind", not the shortest. Sigma is already doing that, because the L mount has a 20mm flange distance, same as RF. So for E-mount, they just add 2mm at the end of the lens, and for Z-mount, they just need to add 4mm at the end.

16-55 is already a winner since it has better range. The 18-50 might be sharper but I don't expect the difference to be meaningful, as opposed to additional 2mm at the wide end and 5mm at long end.

@smc tak
The plus for the Sigma is the small size and weight plus the price. A always have with you lens, even on a longer hike.

I think Sigma would rather make money than sit on the sidelines while you buy other brands. There have always been three choices for the big three for most of the mainstream lenses. This will be no different.

The only 70-200 alternative in L mount is the very expensive Panasonic S Pro.

I would suspect Sigma want to get an L mount alternative out, and if they're doing that already then making it for Sony E mount shouldn't be too much more R&D?

The X mount release is possible since these lens are already available for E mount APSC. Requires new mount and software development.
I haven’t heard any rumours about Sigma making a RF mount lens. The last I heard was Sigma is not looking at this in short term.

Wow that makes XF way more compelling; those lenses are gems!

Nikon has some fiendishly clever patents that make producing autofocus Z-mount lenses essentially impossible without getting sued, as I understand the situation.

Would Nikon allow Sigma to make lenses under licence? Conceivably, but also conceivably not or at least not yet.

Anyway, Nikon users have the least to envy Sigma designs, in my opinion. The Z-mount lenses are optically class-leading, and the stellar f/1.8 primes undercut typical Sigma pricing. Of course Sigma lenses have their own merits, but the lenses are the least of a Nikon user’s problems. They’re a delight and the reason to have a Nikon camera.

Tamron and Viltrox have released lenses for Z mount. Viltrox under its own brand, Tamron's 28-75 rebranded as Nikon at a $300 premium over the E mount version.

Personally I feel like this was the model camera makers should have taken long ago so I'm glad to see it. Of the 3 FF MILC systems out I kind of like Nikon the most so I'm glad to see them embrace the 3rd party lens in a mutually beneficial way.

Samual Diltworth / Snoddas - What a bunch of nonsens.
If that would hold any truth to it, than how come Sigma, Tamron and others have released firmware updates to make their lenses compatible with the Z system. Tamron even released a Z mount lens branded Nikon in the form of the 28-75.

Another fact there is already native Z-mount lens support with AF from Viltrox and Tokina.

But I do understand, it would for the both of you be your biggest fears to come true if Sigma would release lenses for RF and Z.

Let me tell you a secret - It is going to happen anyway. Maybe not in this next release, but it is going to happen within the next year or so. Sigma will start to support both RF and Z and Sigma's CEO actually have said so that they will evenentually.

Francis85- relax. There is merit to what he is saying. Yes Tamron has a Z mount lens- but they obviously had to get Nikon's blessing as it was rebranded as a Nikon. Viltrox is a Chinese company and thus may not fear legal action from Nikon. It looks like Viltrox Z lenses are available through US retailers so maybe they reached an agreement as well.

Canon seems much less flexible. Samyang released some RF mount autofocus glass and both were quickly discontinued. It's not clear if either even used the RF AF protocol, or just used EF mount protocol. Either way they were killed swiftly.

FW to enable old SLR glass to work is a different ball game than all new glass. Nikon seems amenable but Canon has locked things down. We will see whose approach is right in time but I def prefer Nikon's approach.

@Jeff_0000: Nikon haven't released their f1.4 primes yet and the f1.8 versions do just fine, and at least better than the Sony f1.8:s.

@Snoddas "..and at least better than the Sony f1.8:s."

Another false claim. The Sony 20mm F1.8 G is according to Lens Rentals an outstanding lens (the review on DPR is also spectacular "A near-perfect optic") and according to DPR the 35mm F1.8 Nikon is not as sharp as the Sony.

There seems to be this myth going around that every time Nikon releases a new Z lens it's best-in-class and yet the reviews say otherwise. They are great lenses but they aren't automatically the best.

@Dave Oddie: The Sony 35mm/1.8 has significantly more CA, both long and lat. Differences in sharpness are on an academic level.

I think it's pretty hard to generalize, specially since Sony has a hodgepodge of f1.8s in different categories and model lines. I think the Sony 20G beats the Nikon equivalent by a hair (see Cameralabs' reviews) while being somewhat smaller and cheaper, but the Nikon 50/1.8 looks far far more appealing than the old 55/1.8 ZA (which is overpriced af).

You can probably split hairs on the 35s (DPR's reviews compared them FWIW), Sony doesn't have an actual 24/1.8 and the 28/2 is long in the tooth... I actually bought the new 24/2.8 G but tbh I would've preferred the design & optical compromises of the Nikon 28/2 (only with the build, features, and sealing of the 24G, heh).

(continued) I like the Nikon 40/2 better than the Sony 40/2.5, specially for the $, but I went with the Samyang 45/1.8 instead... TBH I think both systems are catering to enthusiasts pretty well with their prime lineups.

Sony has some wide f1.4 GMs that are often as damn near as small as some competing f1.8s, but Nikon has a more cohesive f4 zoom lineup (I dig the collapsible designs of the 24-70 & 14-30). I think there's a lot of overlap between what Nikon and Sony + 3rd parties are doing. Canon seems to have gone in a somewhat different direction with their cheaper STM primes.

Alright then: f/2 to f/22. Race ya!

I reckon it’ll take me about a quarter of a second with the ring.

You often find yourself going from f2 to f22 or even using f22 at all?

The most useful aspect of the rings on primes to me is the glance-ability, knowing what you're at without even raising the camera up, followed by the extra utility on bodies that lack the extra thumb control ring like the A7C or any Sony APS-C body.

It only really works for the latter if *all* your primes have some degree of aperture control tho, I didn't start using it on my 20/1.8 G & Samyang 75/1.8 until after I'd gotten the 35GM (was using the 35/1.8 before it).

I make large changes to the f-number often. For example, when moving between indoors and outdoors. Also when working a scene and changing from wide open (for selective focus) to heavily stopped down (for sharpness of everything in the frame).

I also use f/22 (or f/16 depending on the lens) often, even on Micro Four Thirds cameras. For both flare manipulation and max depth of field.

Making large changes with the tiny submerged control dials on most cameras means a lot of repetitive swiping.

And worse is that one click does not reliably equal one interval of change (e.g. 1/3 stop) on these dials. At least on most cameras I’ve used (certainly Sonys). If you swipe too quickly, some clicks aren’t registered. Plus, the lag in response means you’re setting something with a delay in the reported f-number. As with manual focus on fly-by-wire lenses that lack linear response, this throws off your intuition of how far to spin.

…

This lens is like Waiting for Godot. It feels like it’ll never come.

Get the Tamron 70–180 f/2.8 already?

Physics puts some strict limits on the minimum size and weight of these fast constant-aperture tele zooms.

I imagine people that want one from Sigma are probably not wishing for the smallest possible lens, they might even prefer an internal zoom but just don't wanna pay the GM premium.