Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 7

9 10 end

Archive 2017 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Guest

Guest

p.8 #1 · p.8 #1 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Nadir, since we're always getting the new stuff at a premium over here, it should be even lower out west.

I thought that $1400 was the MSRP and the street price was going to be nowhere near that. Remember the Tokina 16-28 with its MSRP of the same $1400 and the street price of $850? Of course the discrepancy is probably not going to be so huge in this case but still...

Mar 18, 2017 at 10:01 AM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #2 · p.8 #2 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

And what pray tell am I going to do with two Canon used ones? Particularly as a Nikon shooter?

M. Best wrote:
That seems like a hard sell at that price point. You could get 2 used Canon ones for $1400.

Mar 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #3 · p.8 #3 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Yeah man! AF on that Zeiss is super awesome. No way Sigma will beat it! :/

Todd wrote:
I'll keep my Carl Zeiss 135mm ZF2 f/2 Apo lens. Sigma is great, but they won't be able to touch the Zeiss.

Mar 18, 2017 at 01:26 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #4 · p.8 #4 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Todd wrote:
If I'm able to capture humming birds with my 135mm manual focus Zeiss, I think you could also. It takes some practice, it's not hard. Besides, we did it in the film days, right?

Yeah, well a hovering hummer moving neither sideways or up or down is hardly a challenge for MF.

Mar 18, 2017 at 01:34 PM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #5 · p.8 #5 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

I was much younger and had better eyesight in the "film days." To be honest, I came of age after AF was solidly entrenched.

And there's a huge difference between a hummingbird sucking on nectar and a fast moving athlete or toddler.

Mar 18, 2017 at 01:50 PM

Todd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Yeah I will maybe so. But then again I don't photograph athletes or toddlers or sports. I don't need auto focus for landscape and nature photography. Auto focus is nice, but it's not always needed.

Mar 18, 2017 at 01:52 PM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #7 · p.8 #7 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

My comments aren't criticizing the fact that you don't need an AF 135. They're criticizing your more general comment (made without even seeing or using the Sigma lens) that it won't "touch" the Zeiss APO. I had one of those and got rid of it in a week because I couldn't achieve critical focus for the subjects I shot. I have much better luck with my Leica RF (albeit with wider lenses). My experience with Sigma lenses generally is that the AF is pretty good in the newer "Art" examples, and the performance is excellent. You pay for that in weight, but the pricing is usually fair.

In the Nikon space, there is a real need for a high quality all-purpose (read - AF) 135 which I believe the Sigma fills. I appreciate that you aren't attracted to what it is offering, but I'd be willing to bet that, more objectively, it will very much "touch" the Zeiss APO. Frankly, I hope it crushes it. Maybe then the Zeiss will sell for about what it's worth - $750-$1000.

Todd wrote:
Yeah I will maybe so. But then again I don't photograph athletes or toddlers or sports. I don't need auto focus for landscape and nature photography. Auto focus is nice, but it's not always needed.

Mar 18, 2017 at 02:09 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #8 · p.8 #8 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

elfanucchi wrote:
The 100-400 at F/5 - 6.3 is as slow as molasses on a cold day.

In your opinion. It does not seem to bother Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm owners, nor Canon 100-400 II owners that put a 1.4x TC on it and shoot at f8.

Mar 18, 2017 at 02:16 PM

Todd
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #9 · p.8 #9 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Well that just tells me that I'm better at manual focus than you are. Sorry to hear you ditched the Zeiss within a week, that's not remotely enough time to spend with it, sounds like frustration to me. The Sigma 135 is not an Apo, but I'm sure it will produce the same image quality as my Sigma 85mm Art. As I mentioned before, I primarily use my Zeiss 135 for astronomy and landscape. Wide open for astronomical shots, stopped down for landscape. I don't use my Sigma lenses wide open all the time like most do on this forum. Seems that the "wide open" is a trending fad, over used. Sure it's great for portraiture and getting rid of distracting backgrounds, The Sigma lenses don't do so well wide open for astronomy, too much CA and purple fringing. F/2.8 usually gets rid of it though. That's why I use the Zeiss, no CA! I'll still most likely buy the Sigma 135mm just to have it. But then again, I already have a 135mm. Gaining a 1/4 stop from f/2 to f/1.8 isn't important.

Arka wrote:
My comments aren't criticizing the fact that you don't need an AF 135. They're criticizing your more general comment (made without even seeing or using the Sigma lens) that it won't "touch" the Zeiss APO. I had one of those and got rid of it in a week because I couldn't achieve critical focus for the subjects I shot. I have much better luck with my Leica RF (albeit with wider lenses). My experience with Sigma lenses generally is that the AF is pretty good in the newer "Art" examples, and the performance is excellent. You pay for that in...Show more →

Mar 18, 2017 at 03:03 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Nice, yeah...if the Sigster meets the IQ standard set by my Zeiss,
I'll be all over one. $1399's certainly a decent pricepoint for AF.

Mar 18, 2017 at 03:11 PM

trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #11 · p.8 #11 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

but I'd be willing to bet that, more objectively, it will very much "touch" the Zeiss APO. Frankly, I hope it crushes it. Maybe then the Zeiss will sell for about what it's worth - $750-$1000.
Considering the Zeiss will still be in service 30 yrs from now (great grandkids if I'm not around)
this is a really bush league comment. Mine has paid for itself in less than 2 yrs of ownership.
It's "gravy time" pal, worth every penny I paid ($400 rebate not withstanding)

Glass and metal FTW. I'm reminded of my 29 yr old AF 300 f2.8 ED N when I hold
my Zeiss 135 f2...it's built for the long haul.

Edit: I HATE these freaking cross posts...I was responding to one seen in the Nikon Forum, WTF

Mar 18, 2017 at 03:15 PM

ariel777
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #12 · p.8 #12 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

I happen to prefer Sigma Art primes over its Nikon counterparts; as I find the IQ to be at least equal if not superior, coupled with other advantages. However, for pure IQ considerations, putting aside the AF vs MF question, Zeiss stands alone. When tripod mounted and utilized for landscape and similar work, the "green focus dot" results in ease of use, for me, on the D810......and I am well into my 70s'. For action, birding specifically, which I do quite extensively, AF is mandatory, and I wouldn't think of anything other than AF. But when I venture down to the ocean coastline for some sunset captures, I typically take my Zeiss lenses and 810 for tripod mount and frame and click away utilizing and relying on the "Green Focus Dot". Try it sometime....you might be surprised at the ease of use.

Mar 18, 2017 at 04:34 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #13 · p.8 #13 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

In German:

Mar 18, 2017 at 04:44 PM

Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #14 · p.8 #14 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

SoundHound wrote:
Courious how well does IBIS work?

Surprisingly well in my experience. I posted this comparison earlier in the thread:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1477149/2#13938713

Since then I did another very quick test at 300mm and was able to shoot at 1/30s with IBIS, meaning I could have probably gone to 1/15s or 1/10s with the 135mm. People keep saying that lens based IS performs better especially with long lenses as it is optimised for the focal length, maybe that's true but it certainly works very well up to 300mm (I don't have anything longer to test right now).

Mar 19, 2017 at 05:08 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #15 · p.8 #15 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Matt Grum wrote:
It's part of the flawed idea that fast lenses don't need IS (there are zero IS lenses from Canon which are faster than f/2.0!)

It's flawed because the focal length has a much much larger influence on whether a lens would benefit from IS. It's not necessarily the manufacturers that feel this way, the idea is stuck in the minds of their customers. I've had several arguments online where I've had where I've suggested a stabilised 85mm f/1.4 would be nice, only to be met with "why on earth would you want stabilisation in an f/1.4 lens?", erm, to stabilise...Show more →

I agree wholeheartedly Matt, IS should have been mandatory on the 135. I wish my 135L had IS as I've not got the steadiest hands and my keeper rate at slower than 1/90 is not great. Luckily it seems the Canon's new 85 is going to have IS and is one reason I have no interest in the behemoth Sigma 85 f/1.4. In fact I'd get the Tamron 85 f/1.8 VC over the Sigma and it also has superior build and much better weather/dust sealing. I could live with 90%+ of the IQ and f/1.8 is plenty shallow DOF at 85mm.

So I'm on the fence with the Sigmas, Canon is reportedly going to do something different with the 135L replacement, maybe APO, hopefully IS and I suspect Tamron will release a stabilised 135 sooner rather than later, a 135 f/2 VC any day over a 135 f/1.8.

Mar 19, 2017 at 07:40 PM

brian_sp
Offline
• • • •
[X]

p.8 #16 · p.8 #16 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

trenchmonkey wrote:
[
Edit: I HATE these freaking cross posts...I was responding to one seen in the Nikon Forum, WTF

i have said the same thing so many times now, i start out in the wonderful land of Nikon only to end up in the dreaded land of canon

Mar 19, 2017 at 10:34 PM

tdlavigne
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #17 · p.8 #17 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Meh, for $1400 I'll just keep saving for the Nikon 105, or wait to see what Tamron does. They missed a golden opportunity with the 135....I'm sure they'll sell a bunch, but not nearly as many as they would have at $11-1200...especially not for Canon users. Talked to 2 I know, and neither one seems to be interested (considering they already both have the 135L).

Mar 19, 2017 at 11:33 PM

ohsnaphappy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #18 · p.8 #18 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Some lament the price. Some lament the lack of OS. But the two are related. With OS the price would have been much higher.

Striking a balance between quality, size, weight, features, and price is pretty tricky.

Mar 20, 2017 at 01:36 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.8 #19 · p.8 #19 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

ohsnaphappy wrote:
Some lament the price. Some lament the lack of OS. But the two are related. With OS the price would have been much higher.

Striking a balance between quality, size, weight, features, and price is pretty tricky.

Why is that entry level junk lenses can have IS and still weigh almost nothing. We are long past the days of IS being this arcane invention that costs a bomb and adds a lot to the weight. It's 21 years since we saw IS introduced and it's hardly a big deal anymore. The extra optical group is small and the added weight should be no more than around 100g.

Mar 20, 2017 at 04:11 AM

Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.8 #20 · p.8 #20 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Why is that entry level junk lenses can have IS and still weigh almost nothing. We are long past the days of IS being this arcane invention that costs a bomb and adds a lot to the weight. It's 21 years since we saw IS introduced and it's hardly a big deal anymore. The extra optical group is small and the added weight should be no more than around 100g.

My guess is better glass is heavier and requires a more robost os to work.

Mar 20, 2017 at 04:20 AM

1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.