Outstanding wrote:
My only issue is Canadian pricing, for all Sigma lenses. Sigma recently bumped the prices in Canada as much as 20-30% when Sigma Canada is not even affected by US tariffs.
In US, Sony FE 70-200 GM II is 3000, Sigma 200 is 3300.
In Canada. GM II is 3500 and Sigma 200 is whopping 4500.
None of the other brands increased prices in Canada, only Sigma did.
From what I understand having talked to a Sony rep at a Henry's store in Canada, a lot of Sony lenses in Canada are actually shipped from the United States. This was one of the alleged reasons why Sony Canada recently reduced the student pricing discount from 10% down to 5%.
Now I'm not certain whether this is true or not, but maybe there is a similar distribution network whereby Sigma Canada gets their lenses down south. Maybe Sony Canada tried to fight some of the tariff reductions by somewhat quietly shifting margins in the education discount as opposed to outright price increases?
To be fair when you watch the full review he reveals several weaknesses including framing and working with a model/subject at distance.
NJPhotographer wrote:
I see a reviewer calling this his "all-time favorite portrait lens". Sure, it can be used for portraits, but it's a terrible focal length for most portraits. It creates such a flat view, and puts the photographer very far away from the subject.
hiepphotog wrote:
I spent about 30 minutes shooting with this lens at a skate park and brought along my GM 135 for a direct comparison of AF speed and accuracy. I came away impressed with Sigma’s latest AF motors; the Sigma locked onto subjects faster than the GM and tracked them very well throughout. Here are a few shots taken with the lens.
Great pics!
How do you like it compared to 135GM? Does it feel a lot heavier?
To be honest, your 135GM shots also provide a lot of pop and separation (in the FE image thread) ...
Another YouTube photographer calling it “A Truly Legendary Lens”, seems like a far reach. Granted they did beat Sony to the punch, no teleconverter support is an epic fail for this type of pro level lens. I bet if a GM is released it will run circles around the Sigma.
Sirfishalot wrote:
I bet if a GM is released it will run circles around the Sigma.
Sigma's last few releases -
50 1.2 - Sigma made world's lightest 50mm F1.2 with AF, everyone marvelled at lightness of GM 50 1.2 and then Sigma trumped it. Ironic for company called Bigma. Images coming out of GM and Sigma are indistinguishable.
500 5.6 - Sony has no such offering, closest competitor is Nikon 500 PF. Sigma is better than Nikon in every which way. Not a shade on PF, Sigma is just newer and modern.
20 1.4, 28-105 2.8 - Again Sony has no such offering
Only GM prime which run circles around competition right now is 85 GM II, rest is subjective opinion.
Sigma is about to release 35 DN 1.2 Mark II, it will most likely be lightest 1.2 with AF 35mm.
Sirfishalot wrote:
Another YouTube photographer calling it “A Truly Legendary Lens”, seems like a far reach. Granted they did beat Sony to the punch, no teleconverter support is an epic fail for this type of pro level lens. I bet if a GM is released it will run circles around the Sigma.
JayT
From a language perspective, calling any lens that hasn't made it to the masses yet "legendary" is certainly hyperbole. Legends are not made by YouTube reviews and specs.
Is not being able to use TCs on it such an epic fail? Isn't this the kind of lens where, if you really need or want the speed at 200, is it that much a drawback that you can't make it a decent 280/2.8, or a less decent 400/4? If you do need or want it, it's not like you're riddled with alternatives. Also, Sony couldn't make the 50-150GM work with extenders, and I haven't heard anyone call it an epic fail.
Good points but you're overlooking the 300mm 2.8 GM which is outstanding.
You've also omitted Sigma's 300-600mm f4 which I believe is superb but I will never use because of its weight.
Sony have shown excellent innovation in combining high IQ and low weight.
Price of course is another issue.
Outstanding wrote:
Sigma's last few releases -
50 1.2 - Sigma made world's lightest 50mm F1.2 with AF, everyone marvelled at lightness of GM 50 1.2 and then Sigma trumped it. Ironic for company called Bigma. Images coming out of GM and Sigma are indistinguishable.
500 5.6 - Sony has no such offering, closest competitor is Nikon 500 PF. Sigma is better than Nikon in every which way. Not a shade on PF, Sigma is just newer and modern.
20 1.4, 28-105 2.8 - Again Sony has no such offering
Only GM prime which run circles around competition right now is 85 GM II, rest is subjective opinion.
Sigma is about to release 35 DN 1.2 Mark II, it will most likely be lightest 1.2 with AF 35mm.
50 1.2 - Sigma made world's lightest 50mm F1.2 with AF, everyone marvelled at lightness of GM 50 1.2 and then Sigma trumped it. Ironic for company called Bigma. Images coming out of GM and Sigma are indistinguishable.
500 5.6 - Sony has no such offering, closest competitor is Nikon 500 PF. Sigma is better than Nikon in every which way. Not a shade on PF, Sigma is just newer and modern.
20 1.4, 28-105 2.8 - Again Sony has no such offering
Only GM prime which run circles around competition right now is 85 GM II, rest is subjective opinion.
Sigma is about to release 35 DN 1.2 Mark II, it will most likely be lightest 1.2 with AF 35mm.
j4nu wrote:
Great pics!
How do you like it compared to 135GM? Does it feel a lot heavier?
To be honest, your 135GM shots also provide a lot of pop and separation (in the FE image thread) ...
Thank you. I previously owned the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 and was able to shoot several full-day sessions with it without any issues. With the 200mm f/2, however, I found it noticeably heavier and more difficult to handhold. To be transparent, I shot this entire session using the HVL-F60RM2 as my on-camera flash, which may have contributed to the difference.
One side note on the flash use: Sony’s native TTL did not perform as consistently with the Sigma. I had to constantly adjust flash compensation to achieve the correct exposure, something I did not experience when using the GM 135mm.
Regarding rendering, all of my Sony shots required only minimal post-processing, whereas the Sigma files needed more work and still felt slightly off to me. This may have influenced my perception of the overall rendering.
For my needs, I’m most excited about the rumored 135mm f/1.4, or even a mirrorless 105mm f/1.4. A 200mm lens, in contrast, would only really suit me for outdoor events where I can move with the flow rather than directing people. For a portrait session, it’s simply too much work.
cliffWQJ wrote:
500 5.6 - closest competitor is Nikon 500 PF. Sigma is better than Nikon in every which way. Not a shade on PF, Sigma is just newer and modern.
the Nikon 500pf works very well with teleconverters, Sigma 500E can't do this
Sony won’t allow teleconverter use, so why beat up Sigma for it?
hiepphotog wrote:
Thank you. I previously owned the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 and was able to shoot several full-day sessions with it without any issues. With the 200mm f/2, however, I found it noticeably heavier and more difficult to handhold. To be transparent, I shot this entire session using the HVL-F60RM2 as my on-camera flash, which may have contributed to the difference.
One side note on the flash use: Sony’s native TTL did not perform as consistently with the Sigma. I had to constantly adjust flash compensation to achieve the correct exposure, something I did not experience when using the GM 135mm.
Regarding rendering, all of my Sony shots required only minimal post-processing, whereas the Sigma files needed more work and still felt slightly off to me. This may have influenced my perception of the overall rendering.
For my needs, I’m most excited about the rumored 135mm f/1.4, or even a mirrorless 105mm f/1.4. A 200mm lens, in contrast, would only really suit me for outdoor events where I can move with the flow rather than directing people. For a portrait session, it’s simply too much work....Show more →
Thanks, yeah I already struggle to use 135mm effectively...
On the other hand, that compression @200mm should help the image stand out a bit .
The L version can take a TC, iirc. I haven't purchased one (yet). I can't recall if it is the Panny or the Leica verion that performs best with it, though.
freaklikeme wrote:
From a language perspective, calling any lens that hasn't made it to the masses yet "legendary" is certainly hyperbole. Legends are not made by YouTube reviews and specs.
Is not being able to use TCs on it such an epic fail? Isn't this the kind of lens where, if you really need or want the speed at 200, is it that much a drawback that you can't make it a decent 280/2.8, or a less decent 400/4? If you do need or want it, it's not like you're riddled with alternatives. Also, Sony couldn't make the 50-150GM work with extenders, and I haven't heard anyone call it an epic fail....Show more →
I stand corrected, not really an epic fail but more like a significant disappointment. I didn’t realize the GM 50-150 couldn’t take teleconverters. I wonder what in the manufacturing prohibits this in these modern lenses.
Sirfishalot wrote:
I stand corrected, not really an epic fail but more like a significant disappointment. I didn’t realize the GM 50-150 couldn’t take teleconverters. I wonder what in the manufacturing prohibits this in these modern lenses.
It would completely change the optical design as they would need to move the rear element further away from the sensor, at least with the 50-150, which I have. Once you change the optical design, who knows whether they could maintain the level of optical quality while still keeping it as small and light as it is. Could it affect cost, etc.
There are almost always tradeoffs in lens design decisions.
Sigma’s about to announce the 135mm f/1.4. I’m not entirely sure what the strategy is, but it seems like they’re aiming to capture the remaining niche of ultra-fast telephoto users.
hiepphotog wrote:
Sigma’s about to announce the 135mm f/1.4. I’m not entirely sure what the strategy is, but it seems like they’re aiming to capture the remaining niche of ultra-fast telephoto users.
Plus, they just released a 12/1.4 for APSC. Maybe the call is to get bokeh-lovers of all stripes to unite under their brand.
This would be an immediate buy if they just removed the FPS limit for Sony. The no-TC feature is also disappointing, I hope future lenses don't carry on this pattern (although with the 50-150 also not allowing TCs its looking grim). It really seems like the testers have to nitpick to find a lot of problems outside of the above two. With the former just being a Sony imposed con. Sony doesn't allow 3rd party TCs but there seems to be conflicting info about how L-mount will or will not take TCs.
People have said that a Sony 200mm f/2 with TCs would cannibalize 300 f/2.8 sales. With a 1.4x I think it would be close to a 280 f/2.8 so I would agree. Sony likely has a lot of data regarding how well lenses sell during the first few years they are released before sales start to plateau or stagnate. I would imagine they are taking their time to find the best window to release one. As a side note the 300 was announced in late 2023 and many said it was for the purpose of making a statement at the 2024 Olympics with the a9iii. A Sony version might come around closer to the 2028 LA Olympics?
freaklikeme wrote:
Is not being able to use TCs on it such an epic fail? Isn't this the kind of lens where, if you really need or want the speed at 200, is it that much a drawback that you can't make it a decent 280/2.8, or a less decent 400/4? If you do need or want it, it's not like you're riddled with alternatives. Also, Sony couldn't make the 50-150GM work with extenders, and I haven't heard anyone call it an epic fail.
An epic fail is harsher than I would call it. But the lack of TC support takes from a lens I would most likely buy to a lens I most likely will not buy.
I have been drawn to the look of a 200mm f2 since the DSLR days, and a 200 f2 can capture some photos no other lens can do as well. But without TC support it basically becomes a fairly large single use case lens to add to your bag.
If it had TC support, it would cover the 200-400mm range at a fairly fast aperture. I could personally see pairing it with a 400-800mm lens for wildlife work. Use the 400-800 with light is good and when you need long reach. Then use the 200mm f2 when the light is low or your subject is close. I could also see pairing it with a 70-200mm for low light work. Similar to how I have paired my 300mm f2.8 with my 70-200mm f2.8. Usually in those situations, I don't need more than 300mm and rarely even 400mm f4. So the ability to use a smaller and lighter lens, which also opens up the ability to hit 200mm f2, would be more useful to me than a 300mm f2.8.
I personally would have been more interested in the 50-150mm f2 if it took TC's too. A 70-200mm f2.8 can cover 70-400mm, so the 50-150 would leave me needing another lens in my bag to cover the rest. Admittedly, I am less disappointed in the 50-150's inability to use TC's since it already is a 2x zoom, and a lens I do not want to add to my kit as badly.
As good as TC's have gotten, I will admit there is still an IQ hit to using them, especially at 2x. but the ability to expand the range of your kit without having to bring more lenses (and usually more weight) makes them a valuable part of my kit. There is only so much gear you can carry with you, and you miss all the photos completely that your lenses can't cover. So I would rather have a photo using a TC than no photo at all.
DWOfPaul wrote:
An epic fail is harsher than I would call it. But the lack of TC support takes from a lens I would most likely buy to a lens I most likely will not buy.
I have been drawn to the look of a 200mm f2 since the DSLR days, and a 200 f2 can capture some photos no other lens can do as well. But without TC support it basically becomes a fairly large single use case lens to add to your bag.
If it had TC support, it would cover the 200-400mm range at a fairly fast aperture. I could personally see pairing it with a 400-800mm lens for wildlife work. Use the 400-800 with light is good and when you need long reach. Then use the 200mm f2 when the light is low or your subject is close. I could also see pairing it with a 70-200mm for low light work. Similar to how I have paired my 300mm f2.8 with my 70-200mm f2.8. Usually in those situations, I don't need more than 300mm and rarely even 400mm f4. So the ability to use a smaller and lighter lens, which also opens up the ability to hit 200mm f2, would be more useful to me than a 300mm f2.8. ...Show more →
The 200/2's a bit heavier than the 300GM. It's not quite as long, but it really isn't that much smaller, either. Otherwise, I hadn't considered that perspective. My wildlife kit is the 70-200GII on the a6700 for bugs and small critters, and the 300GM and extenders on the a1. I don't have a need for anything faster in that kit. What sort of subjects would you look to shoot with it?
tsdevine wrote:
It would completely change the optical design as they would need to move the rear element further away from the sensor, at least with the 50-150, which I have. Once you change the optical design, who knows whether they could maintain the level of optical quality while still keeping it as small and light as it is. Could it affect cost, etc.
There are almost always tradeoffs in lens design decisions.
The 50-150 as a zoom is inherently a more flexible design than a fix prime and typically would have a broader range of applications. TC compatibility would IMO be more a 'nice addition' rather than a must have. In typical event coverage where I would find a lens like the 50-150 most useful, topping out at 150mm is not usually a problem (I often don't shoot longer than 135mm). But a fixed 200/2 prime is not an inexpensive lens for most and is therefore a considered investment. For example if used for indoor sports, the ability to use it as a 280/2.8 would be an asset. As a fixed 200 it serves a somewhat more niche application. TBH, in the past 10-15 years I have rarely been in situations where ability to shoot at f/2 would have been a significant improvement over f/2.8. Long gone are the days of limited high ISO performance or even the limitations of high ISO film stocks that inspired the pre-digital versions of this lens. At least from a sports perspective, I would have rather seen Sigma release a modern 100-300/2.8 (could still happen).
That's not to say this kind of lens isn't very interesting and it can still have unique applications. It's more that the *need* for this kind of lens is considerably diminished and is now more of a *want.* It's cool though that Sigma is making this and the 300-600, addressing telephoto niches the OEMs are not.
...