I just looked at the photos of the Sigma lenses and I think it's about time somebody released a 3rd party f/2.8 telezoom with VR (OS) in it. $2400 for the Nikon one is a bit much. Same thing with the 50-500 and OS. I sure hope this rumor turns out to be true.
The first lens I bought was the Sigma 10-20. I'm thrilled about the prospect of an 8-16. I just can't get enough of the wide. Anybody want a perfectly good 10-20?
New Sigma Lenses
(16 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I don't think it's a rumor :^)
The new lenses look good on paper but my experience with sigma lenses is that they have very poor quality control. Sometimes you get a great lens and sometimes you get a lemon :^(Welcome to the forum tferroato
Posted 3 years ago # -
50-500 OS could be awesome..
Wished they had OS the 50-150 too .. oh well another 6 mths wait maybe ...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I do like the idea of their 85mm F/1.4. I can't wait for it's reviews. Plus it sounds like Sigma updated the optics of the 70-200mm (which were really good already).
Posted 3 years ago # -
bigma - have You noticed the front glass size - it's 95mm, the previous one was huge, but this one is even more pricey - imagine pol-cir filter on it :D
8-16 - it's little bit dark, but once they put a good price tag on it and the IQ will be at least as good as on 10-20 it will be a great lens - this makes a 12-24 on DX, which is awesome
85/1.4 - if the IQ and price is right, than I guess we have a winner here.
Posted 3 years ago # -
70-200 - this was a horrible lens before, so I imagine that anything else would do a better job, and the adding OS will not harm
Posted 3 years ago # -
the 8-16 sounds interesting for sure!
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 85mm f1.4 is reported to retail for more than the Nikon. I'm not sure how it can be better, the Nikon 85 is one of their best lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
They came out with the 50mm 1.4 HSM and I would say that it's equal to better than Nikon. Depending whether you prefer better bokeh or sharpness wide open. AF speed is world faster too on Sigma. Though probably not as accurate.
I would imagine that if they would come out with the AFS version of the 85mm, which by the looks of it they are. If they did a pretty good job with the 50mm they sure will get the job done with this one as well.
Anybody know how big it will be? The 50mm has 77mm filter size. When I compared it to Nikon's 85 1.4 it was bigger and heavier. lol I am so happy I am selling that brick. my hands are already giddy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Have any of you tried the Tamron 70-200 (2.8)? Curious how it compares to the Sigma.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Bland said:
Have any of you tried the Tamron 70-200 (2.8)? Curious how it compares to the Sigma.I love my Tamron 70-200 2.8. I haven't used the sigma, but the tamron is sharper than the nikkor 80-200 2.8 wide open (by f/4 they're about the same). The downside is AF: it's very slow, and I read that lensrentals or some similar site stopped purchasing it because they had a high rate of failure of the built-in autofocus motor in this particular lens, so caveat emptor I guess. I haven't had any problems with it, and I've had it for 12 months now. I'm saving up for one of the VR 70-200s, but in the meantime I'm really satisfied especially considering the price.
Here's a sample shot and a 100% crop taken at f/4. It's almost this sharp at f/2.8.
Resized sample
100% cropPosted 3 years ago # -
Tamron's problem is not the glass... It's the build
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks for the info jonnyapple and kyoshinikon.
The picture is really sharp, much better than I was expecting. I think I'll get one after I get my D90 next month, along with the Tamron 28-75(2.8). That should hold be over until I can afford the Nikon glass.Posted 3 years ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
Tamron's problem is not the glass... It's the buildDo you mean with this lens in particular or the brand in general, kyoshi? My other Tamron (17-50 2.8) does feel a little cheap but has taken a severe beating over the past 2 years as my main lens and is still doing just as well as when I bought it. But the 70-200 f/2.8, while not built like a tank as the 80-200 2.8 is, feels like it's an even more solid construction than the the 17-50.
No problem, Bland. Like I say, I've loved mine. I don't take pictures of moving things very often, though. It's not a bad macro lens, either. Max magnification is 1:3 compared with 1:8 on the nikon 70-200 VR II and 1:5.5 on the VR I. edit: Here's a review if you're interested.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
No problem, Bland. Like I say, I've loved mine. I don't take pictures of moving things very often, though. It's not a bad macro lens, either. Max magnification is 1:3 compared with 1:8 on the nikon 70-200 VR II and 1:5.5 on the VR I. edit: Here's a review if you're interested.
Thanks for the info because after reading that review and other info linked to that link, that lens may not be appropriate for the venues I shoot.
I shoot a lot of racing venues and I must have a fast AF that works well in Continuous Focus. Since almost all of my shots come during daylight, it looks as though the Nikon 70-300(4.5-5.6) would be more appropriate.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm glad you figured that out before you got the lens. I wouldn't use it for sports. I'm saving up for a Nikkor partly because I want to have it when my son is old enough to play (serious) sports.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
