Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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              8      
9
       10       end
  

Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)
  
 
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #1 · p.9 #1 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Lens weight depends on the materials used. Nikon has, alas, gone to plastics more than Canon. Not of course Zeiss who make simple lenses which, by review and testing, are not always better by model than all others.

As for working into the far future: Lenses with a F stop ring and real MF (not focus by wire) are likely to last almost indefinitely like my Nikkor of the "60s and '70s (a entury ago). Beware of the Canon 135mm replacement though because Canikon have a nasty habit of over pricing new lenses.

One thing is certain though the trend in optical quality and features is upward. I remember when I resumed, digital, photography from a 30 year hiatus from film. I walked into a camera store and held a 16-35mm zoom. Nothing like that backed in the '70s!



Mar 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #2 · p.9 #2 · 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.


It seems to be rare for fast lenses to have VR. The size of 200mm f/2 is the only one that comes to mind and it is absolutely huge, I wonder if it is related?



Mar 20, 2017 at 01:27 PM
Surfnsun
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #3 · p.9 #3 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Interested to see the 100-400. So many options to compare it with like Nikons 80-400 or Sigma/Tamron 150-600. Great options for those of us who don't want to spend the big bucks on long primes.


Mar 21, 2017 at 08:59 PM
cohenfive
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #4 · p.9 #4 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


If the new 24-70 is better than my old nikon 24-70 (non vr), I'd consider swapping just to get os. I'll wait for reviews however.


Mar 21, 2017 at 09:41 PM
05xrunner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #5 · p.9 #5 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


i am really interested in the price of that 100-400 and to see how well it performs. If its basically same performance as my 150-600C I may sell my 150-600 and get that just for the portability as I dont really shoot small birds


Mar 21, 2017 at 10:07 PM
ohsnaphappy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #6 · p.9 #6 · 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 comment was not so much directed at weight savings, but cost savings. Sigma arrived at a price that would yield a profit while still remaining competitive with other high quality primes. But no matter how you look at it, the price of the 135 would be higher with OS. That's a fact, right? So you have ask yourself, how much more would Sigma charge for a 135 with OS? $100 more? $200 more? $300 more? There's really no good answer since some people already find the lens overpriced. The market will ultimately decide if Sigma made the right decision. I think they did the best they could at striking a balance that will keep them profitable.



Mar 22, 2017 at 07:03 AM
technic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #7 · p.9 #7 · 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.


I think this is the reality because entry level junk lenses are dim and have relatively modest focal lengths. I don't know any really bright tele prime that has a small/light IS element, such lenses almost by definition have large, heavy IS elements. The size/weight of the IS element for such lenses is bound to increase strongly with aperture. But I haven't kept up over the last few years so maybe I missed something?

For really bright tele lenses the manufacturer can either make a very bright lens without IS, or a lens that is e.g. one stop slower but with IS (that gains 3-4 stops) and maybe for a lower price. I guess for the average buyer the last option is more attractive, even more so for zooms which are already a compromise by definition.



Mar 22, 2017 at 11:26 AM
eke2k6
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #8 · p.9 #8 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


I talked to my friend at BH. He said they're not scheduled to get any stock until the last few days of April.


Mar 22, 2017 at 09:41 PM
Matt Grum
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #9 · p.9 #9 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Depth of Feel wrote:
My guess is better glass is heavier and requires a more robost os to work.


Nope, the weight of the nonmoving elements has no impact on the required "robustness" of IS.


technic wrote:
I think this is the reality because entry level junk lenses are dim and have relatively modest focal lengths. I don't know any really bright tele prime that has a small/light IS element, such lenses almost by definition have large, heavy IS elements. The size/weight of the IS element for such lenses is bound to increase strongly with aperture.


The Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a whopping 25g heavier than the 100mm f/2.8 non-IS Macro....

The reality is that adding IS will not add significantly to the weight, the reason it's not done is that the lenses will sell without it. Once one manufacturer starts offering IS in all sorts of focal length/aperture combinations others will be forced to follow suit.



Mar 22, 2017 at 10:23 PM
technic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #10 · p.9 #10 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Matt Grum wrote:
The Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is a whopping 25g heavier than the 100mm f/2.8 non-IS Macro....

The reality is that adding IS will not add significantly to the weight, the reason it's not done is that the lenses will sell without it. Once one manufacturer starts offering IS in all sorts of focal length/aperture combinations others will be forced to follow suit.


I was talking about really bright tele primes, f/2.8 is not bright for a 100mm (f/1.4-f/1.8 would be another story). All the light has to 'squeeze' through the IS element and this cannot have an arbitrarily small diameter; focal length and aperture are a major factor for the size of IS elements in long tele primes.

Also, while IS element size may not be relevant for robustness of the AF system, a larger and heavier IS element sure needs more power and/or more time to move into position. That's just basic physics and very relevant because of the fast response that is required. The user may not notice 25g weight increase, but if an IS element goes from e.g. 10 to 30 grams weight due to one stop faster aperture, that makes a major difference for the IS mechanism.



Mar 23, 2017 at 09:04 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



cvrle59
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #11 · p.9 #11 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Is Sigma ever gonna say how much and when available, for all the lenses they announced recently?
It takes them forever to do it!



Mar 24, 2017 at 01:14 PM
Bruce_T
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #12 · p.9 #12 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


$799 and "available soon".

Would someone please order one and report back?



Mar 30, 2017 at 10:49 AM
M. Best
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #13 · p.9 #13 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Attractive price, that's for sure. Just need to see some real world samples. Auto focus is another issue too.


Mar 30, 2017 at 12:05 PM
artificialyello
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #14 · p.9 #14 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


No tripod collar. Have Sigma fixed the MFO, Manual Focus Overide (of the autofocus) for Canon 5D4 and 1DX2 yet?


Mar 30, 2017 at 01:24 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #15 · p.9 #15 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Update. The Sigma 100-400mm is now available for pre-order for $799:

B&H Photo and Adorama.



Mar 31, 2017 at 03:08 AM
Surfnsun
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #16 · p.9 #16 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)



Fred Miranda wrote:
Update. The Sigma 100-400mmm is now available for pre-order for $799:

B&H Photo and Adorama.



Wow! What a price!



Mar 31, 2017 at 06:14 AM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #17 · p.9 #17 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


I'm still a little shocked that it's that cheap


Mar 31, 2017 at 04:47 PM
technic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.9 #18 · p.9 #18 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


Dpedraza wrote:
I'm still a little shocked that it's that cheap


Maybe because it lacks the 'Pro' tripod collar? Or because the internet says that is has to be much cheaper than the 150-600 because it only goes to 400mm?

I'm looking forward to the first user reports and official reviews. If the AF and IS work fine and it is optically as good as the MTF curves suggest, $800 is a great price.



Mar 31, 2017 at 09:11 PM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #19 · p.9 #19 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


technic wrote:
Maybe because it lacks the 'Pro' tripod collar? Or because the internet says that is has to be much cheaper than the 150-600 because it only goes to 400mm?

I'm looking forward to the first user reports and official reviews. If the AF and IS work fine and it is optically as good as the MTF curves suggest, $800 is a great price.


In intrigued by it I'll watch user reports as well. I was considering the 100-400 canon but I mean I could get a brand new lens for the price I'd pay for a used older lens. I'm only shocked that it's not closer to 1k



Mar 31, 2017 at 09:22 PM
JohanEickmeyer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.9 #20 · p.9 #20 · Pre-order new Sigma lenses (14, 24-70, 135 & 100-400)


MTF on the 100-400 looks good at 400mm regardless of price. About time a lens designer made a telephoto zoom where the long end is optimized over the short end. I could never figure out why so many long zooms were seemingly designed backwards to the intent use. Not many people buying a 100-400 to shoot at 100mm most of the time.








Mar 31, 2017 at 11:55 PM
1       2       3              8      
9
       10       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              8      
9
       10       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password