• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

new Sigma lenses finally announced


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 21 February 2017 - 01:23 PM

http://www.sigma-glo...c_100_400_5_63/

http://www.sigma-glo...art/a_24_70_28/

http://www.sigma-glo...14_18/features/

http://www.sigma-glo...specifications/

 

The 24-70 is not so hot if we can believe the MTFs


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 21 February 2017 - 02:58 PM

Maybe, but not so bad either  ;) Let's see at what price they will thrown it into the shelves.

 

And as it's extending, the Minimal focus distance doesn't creep between 0.38 and 0.41 m like the new Nikon, but remains at 0.37 m throughout zoom range.



#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:35 PM

Maybe, but not so bad either  ;) Let's see at what price they will thrown it into the shelves.

 

And as it's extending, the Minimal focus distance doesn't creep between 0.38 and 0.41 m like the new Nikon, but remains at 0.37 m throughout zoom range.

 

Though, the new Nikkor does extend too... So that must not be the entire reason ;)



#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:39 PM

The Irix 11mm f4 is finally being introduced too.

http://en.irixlens.com/11mm



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:53 PM

The Nikon extends at the wide end - the Sigma at the long end. This does make a difference.



#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:53 PM

That 100-400mm looks pretty neat (weight/size/MTF chart) too. Not as heavy breather (widening FOV towards MFD) as the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM for instance, with :

 

1.6m MFD, 1:3.8 = 0.26x magnification at 400mm setting. 

 

For (my) comparison, my Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM gets 0.21x at 1.2m, the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM gets 0.21 at 1.2m also.

 

With its relative low weight and possibly nice price, it might just be a lens for me in future.



#7 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:56 PM

The Nikon extends at the wide end - the Sigma at the long end. This does make a difference.

You are right in that that is a difference. However, the old Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM also extends at the wide end, and does not show the variable MFD (as far as I know). So the correlation still is not that solid?



#8 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 987 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:08 PM

Well at least for Canon and Nikon users a decent and adequately priced 24-70f2.8 stabilized would be most welcome

#9 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:21 PM

Well at least for Canon and Nikon users a decent and adequately priced 24-70f2.8 stabilized would be most welcome

Tamron offers that for a number of years now.


  • Rover likes this

#10 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 21 February 2017 - 10:41 PM

That 100-400mm looks pretty neat (weight/size/MTF chart) too. Not as heavy breather (widening FOV towards MFD) as the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM for instance, with :

 

1.6m MFD, 1:3.8 = 0.26x magnification at 400mm setting. 

 

For (my) comparison, my Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM gets 0.21x at 1.2m, the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM gets 0.21 at 1.2m also.

 

With its relative low weight and possibly nice price, it might just be a lens for me in future.

 

It's still heavier than 1Kg. In the good ol days, there was the Minolta 100-400mm with just 840g.

The MTFs are looking decent though.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#11 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:09 PM

The Tokina 80-400mm weighed under 1 kg too, if I remember correctly. It also was a dog...



#12 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 09:35 AM

         Could be that Sigma have decided to take a slightly different route with their 24-70, it's 2/3rds the length of the Nikon and extends, the Nikon is 45mm at MFD at the 70mm setting, so another style that maybe sacrifices a little sharpness wide open for no breathing and a shorter but fatter profile.

 

 

 

   I certainly like it's look!

 

 

  Ah the images of the lens in it's contracted and extended form have been "blocked in this community", they post fine in DPreview,  strange!



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 February 2017 - 10:17 AM

I think it's some copyright issue. Had that, too.

 

For the Sigma, I expect a battle price - but I have to admit, in terms of sharpness over the field, the new (and very expensive) Nikkor 24-70/2.8 is very impressive, if you look at Mansurov's sample pictures.

 

The 24-70 Sigma has M82 filter, the 24-105/4 M86. What I don't like with both is the very dense distance scale. For me, it's sometimes difficult to adjust focus although the focus ring has a gear ratio.



#14 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:29 AM

The Tokina 80-400mm weighed under 1 kg too, if I remember correctly. It also was a dog...

 

The Leica 100-400mm isn't ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#15 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:30 AM

The images I see there are taken at f8 and f11, they are in a low resolution and in the format they are in extremely oversharpened. Most standard zooms do just fine at f8 and f11, these are not samples that can show how impressive the new Nikkor is?



#16 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:33 AM

I think it's some copyright issue. Had that, too.

 

For the Sigma, I expect a battle price - but I have to admit, in terms of sharpness over the field, the new (and very expensive) Nikkor 24-70/2.8 is very impressive, if you look at Mansurov's sample pictures.

 

The 24-70 Sigma has M82 filter, the 24-105/4 M86. What I don't like with both is the very dense distance scale. For me, it's sometimes difficult to adjust focus although the focus ring has a gear ratio.

The 24-105A has 82mm filters as well. It looks like standard practice now for f/2.8 standard zooms (with the exception of the Sony A-mount which is the only one still sticking to 77mm) but rather novel for f/4 ones.  :)



#17 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:40 AM

The Leica 100-400mm isn't ;-)

Panasonic/Leica also cheats on the weight spec. They say 985 grams, for the lens without its front cap, without its back cap and without its tripod mount.

 

Even with its caps and without the mount it goes over 1 kg ;)



#18 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:43 AM

The 24-105A has 82mm filters as well. It looks like standard practice now for f/2.8 standard zooms (with the exception of the Sony A-mount which is the only one still sticking to 77mm) but rather novel for f/4 ones.  :)

You're right, sorry for wasting your time. I confused the filter thread of 85/1.4 Art with 24-105/4 Art. Really strange, that 135/1.8 "goes back" to M82 (this time I double-checked  :wacko: )



#19 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,173 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:44 AM

Panasonic/Leica also cheats on the weight spec. They say 985 grams, for the lens without its front cap, without its back cap and without its tripod mount.

 

Even with its caps and without the mount it goes over 1 kg ;)

 

Now you are nit-picky ;-)

However, the upcoming Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4 should be WAY below 1kg (and after that's a "400mm" lens). 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#20 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,456 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 23 February 2017 - 11:49 AM

Now you are nit-picky ;-)

However, the upcoming Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4 should be WAY below 1kg (and after that's a "400mm" lens). 

True, but then again, that lens has a smaller aperture again (f5.6-f8 equivalent). So naturally it can be less heavy. Less glass after all.

But yes, lighter than a Canon 70-200mm f4 + 2x TC too.

One good example of that if you choose carefully, MFT indeed can give a lighter set up with equivalent glass . ;)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de