First pictures of the new Sigma 14mm f/1.8, 135mm f/1.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/5-6.3 lenses

The first leaked pictures of the four new Sigma lenses I reported about yesterday are now available:

Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary:


To get an idea of the size of the new Sigma lenses, you can see them attached to the Sigma sd Quattro H mirrorless camera:

Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art full frame DSLR lens:


Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary:


Via Nokishita

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • mas921

    I expected the 14mm and the 24-70 to be bigger than this!

    • Plug

      The 135 doesn’t look too huge either..

      • Yes, I was expecting both lenses to be bigger. Some Sigma magic right there 🙂

        • Plug

          Any other details? For example, how close does the 135 focus?

          • we will know soon, usually after the pictures leak, we get the specs

            • Spy Black

              If they price that 135 at around $1000 it will be hot. It may even revive the 135 as the preeminent portrait lens, a trait the 135 hasn’t enjoyed since the early 70s.

            • I profited $104,000 in last twelve months by working on-line and I did it by wor­king part time f­o­r several hrs on daily basis. I followed a business model I found online and I am amazed that i made so much money. It’s really newbie friendly a­n­d I’m just so blessed that i discovered this. Here is what i did… STATICTAB.COM/r2tyhgi

          • Arnklars

            0.875m judging from focus limiter switch.

        • Nimloth

          They’re bigger on the inside. 😉

      • mas921

        Now that you’ve mentioned it! It also seems smaller than expected !

      • MB

        It looks smaller than 85 Art … if it is lighter also it could be 85 Art main competitor …

        • br0xibear

          The 135mm and 85mm Art seem almost identical in length, the 135mm looks wider…
          135mm top
          85mm bottom

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52c843967812fb3abfcdc6c48511ec7658db8885dfa0d74c50b5a0fac6bdd2e3.jpg

          • silmasan

            The front element of 135/1.8A must be wider than 85/1.4A’s, however the latter uses a 86mm filter vs 82mm on this.

            Gorgeous looking hood though. Like it.

          • MB

            Great work!
            You are right, 135 is definitely fatter at waist 🙂 but 85 has a bit larger front (it takes 86 filters vs 82 on 135) … will see about the weight 🙂

  • br0xibear

    Oops, Nikon aren’t going to be happy if one of their announcements at CP+ is going to be their 135mm f/2… Especially if the Sigma is substantially cheaper.

    • Tony

      Nikon aren’t going to be happy if their one announcement at CP+ is going to be their 135mm f/2…

    • cdstum

      Serves Nikon right as I never understood why they released a new 105mm last year when their 135mm was the older lens.

      I seriously doubt Nikon even have a new 135mm in the pipeline. As much as I like my 135mm DC it’s getting a bit long in the tooth and I’ve no doubt the Sigma will have better AF with less optical flaws,

      Likely further embarrassment to Nikon when a third party manufacturer betters the camera brand’s own equivalent lens.

      • br0xibear

        My understanding is that they’ve had a 135mm designed and ready to go for a few years.
        I don’t know the criteria Nikon use for which lens is the next to be put into production. I agree some of their recent lens announcements are confusing…the 58mm, 28mm and 105mm coming before others did surprise me.
        The 135mm DC, although still available at some retailers, was discontinued some time ago.

  • Jon H Laake

    No image stabilisation on 135/1.8 ?

    • Eric Calabros

      Thats what Tamron is going to do

      • Stuart Crowther

        Maybe that patent they filed 115mm f1.4 VC.

  • silmasan

    If you want size approximation: 82mm filter thread for both the 24-70 (same as 24-70/2.8E VR) and 135/1.8 (smaller than 85 A).

    • Mike

      I would rather have a longer lens that remains somewhat constant versus a lens that elongates like this Sigma 24-70 does. I’ll give credit to Nikon that they think the whole shooting experience through with respect to lens balance etc. Anyway, looking forward to seeing specs/samples & reviews of these lenses.

      • David L

        The Nikon does elongate when you zoom in! It’s just that Nikon cleverly mounted the hood on the non moving part of the lens so the moving barrel is not visible when the hood is on.

        • silmasan

          Well that’s part of the trick… (to make it look & feel constant). But I also prefer the overall length of Nikon, at least the first/G version.

        • Mike

          Yes and no. It’s a complex movement where it’s at it’s shortest at 24 & 70mm and extends at around 45mm. With the hood on it’s effective length does not change. Tamron, Canon, Tokina, and now Sigma are shirt at 24mm and elongate as you zoom to 70mm.

        • well, that is very smart if you shoot in the rain. But then ART lenses are for perfectionists, not for pressphotographers: they just have the holy trinity.

      • silmasan

        Same. Even though I’m not big on normal zooms, I actually prefer Nikon’s form over the rest… :-/

  • doge

    now lets see some samples

  • Russell Ferris

    Figures they would shit out a pumper zoom 24-70

    • fanboy fagz

      BRAVO! someone who sees it also. fhuck.what an ugly design! they made the 18-35 1.8 and 24-35 proper. no pumping. a big hood to protect the front. this 24-70 looks like all their other shitty ones before it. and now that hood…pffff how the hell you make a 24-35 f/2 hood thats substantial but this lens has a rinky dinky hood thats small. what? the 24mm is so wide, the hood gets in the way?

      • Russell Ferris

        I was hoping for another soup can design myself, but it looks like an oversized kit zoom to me.

        • MB

          It looks pretty much the same as all other 24-70/2.8, no one yet managed to make internal zooming at that range:
          http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens/24-70mm-Lens-Extended-Comparison.jpg

          • Aldo

            But the nikon version (hood) protects the front barrel as it extends… and it extends not much. This design just begs to be damaged.

            • MB

              Nikon is using old Canon design …
              Actually Nikon large hood braking the lens barrel is one of the most common faults of Nikon 24-70 …

            • fanboy fagz

              nikon hood breaking the barrel?
              where did you read this? my lens get hit around the hood all the time on the dance floor. im certain if the hood wasnt as big, it would damage the lens.

            • MB

              Actually from Nikon service center …
              The lens barrel can be deformed by resting the lens on the lens hood, and it costs more than USD 300 to repair the lens barrel …
              This mostly happens when the hood is in reversed position so my advise would be to remove the hood before putting your lens in the bag …
              Canon invented this design and the main idea was to achieve better hood frame coverage, so Canon reversed zoom action and the lens was longest at wide end and shortest at long end, on regular zoom the hood only covers 24 mm.
              Nikon never quite achieved this, zoom goes back ad forth and is shortest at around 50 mm, but Nikon 24-70 are way sharper than similar Canon design … Canon dropped this design in the mean time because the lens are huge, almost twice as long as regular zooms and with the hood attached they are humongous … and I really dont see much of an advantage unless you are into scaring little girls with your big, black gun 🙂 …
              On the other hand current Nikon 24-70 VR E is the sharpest 24-70 lens overall from what I saw on the bench and with fastest AF of all Nikon lenses, but it is pretty expensive … if Sigma manages to achieve or beat this performance at significantly lower price it will be very attractive lens no matter the zoom action or the hood size …

            • fanboy fagz

              are you making shet up as you go along? we should take your word for this just because?

              I couldnt give a rats asz regarding coverage or the lens extending. the large hood does its job with flare VERY well and it does an even better job protecting the front extending barrel from getting knocked out of alignment like a leaning tower of pisa.

              all I can say is that no way in hell does it make sense that a nikon 24/28-70 main barrel gets damage by resting it on the hood (u mean lens pointing down with the camera doing a handstand on the lens?) when the freakin pumper lens is moving an extended barrel. dude, I dont believe that for a millisecond.

              I store it in my bag hood reversed and never had any issue. and I also rest my lens on my hood face down at times, camera up, and no issue. and my lens takes a beating on the dance floor and no issue. only because of that large protective hood. ive had hits straight on and had arms wack it from the side. had I sued a pumper lens like this, I would need repair EVERY TIME.

              I think the canon 24-70mk2 is sharper then the nikon vr. but yet again, it doesnt matter much. the midrange zoom lens is just a lens to get mandatory shots in situations I need flexibility. it isnt a lens to create wow images. images are usually shot at f/4.5 and theyre all sharp enough at that aperture. I will usually shoot with it on one camera hanging on a spiderpro holster and is used specifically for group shots and an 85 on another for candid sniping shots to catch moments which are much nicer images.

              I hope sigma is able to deliver with their 24-70. every single midrange zoom theyve made till now was just garbage. horrible and crap. not sure ill get it though. I see a long road of impact damage repair with that design.

              btw, its known that the build quality on the 24-70g isnt so great.

          • fanboy fagz

            I dont have an issue with the front smaller barrel extending. they should have mounted the hood on the main zoom barrel and have it large enough that it protects that extended part.

            bad design. the left lens extends and the hood is connected to THAT barrel. the right 24-70 has the hood mounted to the main barrel and protects the front extending part. at weddings the left lens will get a hit and will get knocked out of alignment for sure.

            nikon was smart and designed all their 28/24-70 with the hood protecting the extending barrel.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a8d52c2f1901135368021e86a4029ad10df8d5b708124fbfc019e81a42f928b3.jpg

        • Eric Calabros

          Expect an aggressive price

          • Spy Black

            I would imagine around $1200-1300.

      • Brian Tilley

        From these images, the 24-70mm OS hood looks pretty much identical to that of the 24-35mm f/2. Which is just what you’d expect, really, given that they have the same widest focal length.

        • fanboy fagz

          my problem is the hood is mounted on the bigger main barrel with the 24-35 and it doesnt pump in and out so much as seeon on the 24-70. the 28-70/24-70g/24-70vr all have a hood that sits on the bigger main barrel that covers the smaller barrel well. they put the hood on the smaller barrel. mistake. that front part gets hit alot at weddings on the dance floor. it WILL get impact damage, get out of alignment and wobble. the hood on my 28-70 saved the lens from getting repair damage. this is a bad design.

          • GMck

            It’s all in the details. Internal focus would be better, but would raise the price.

            • silmasan

              Internal focusing is separate to the zooming mechanism. The old 24-70 EX for example, is also IF. Not having IF means that the filter thread will also rotate when you adjust focus.

            • GMck

              Correct, thanks. I meant internal zoom.

      • sickheadache

        Two Ken Dolls…They can shit on something they have not held in their hands and or never used. Keep up that great work Ken Rockwells. Phonies.

        • decentrist

          and enjoy your manual focus Sigmas!!

          • sickheadache

            All of the Art Line Sigmas..that I attach to my Nikon D810…Work Excellently. Zero Issues..The only issues is the old farts of yesteryear who still live in the past and never had a Art Line in their hands or even tested on their DX queen cameras. It is the same old farts just doing that farting around their smelly past. Move on Girls. I know the truth and reading the reviews of Sigma Art Line around the net…which the old farts don’t do…read great reviews..with no Focus Issues.

            • GMck

              You seem so emotionally attached to your Sigma products. Good on you! All the people out there that had to return lenses and then put in bad reviews must be lying and just plain crazy. I guess we have to chalk it up to fake news.

            • sickheadache

              You been on the net…for years…everyone lies! They are stuck in hate mode and want to crack on a picture and not the actual placed the product on their cameras. I have seen legit reviews…Lenstip, DP, DxO, and on and on..that actually test Sigma Art…and even used Canon Cameras and Nikon Cameras..it seem that when I read those reviews…and Yes, I can provide links…that shows these Sigma Art Line Lenses…Working Fine in Auto Focus and Sharp as a Tact…but the same old Ken Flopwells the usual suspects continue to crack on something they never have used.

            • GMck

              I own 4 Sigma lenses and it would have been 5 if the 85 worked, so I do have hands-on experience with the good and bad when it comes to Sigma. It’s not only Sigma that gets a bad rap.

              I recently bought a nikkor 105 1.4 and if I listened to the lens engineers on this board… it’s overpriced, plastic, made in China, bad motor, blah blah. Well you know what? it paid for itself in the first shoot.

      • Aldo

        If it’s cheap it’s alright no? The thing I dont like about it is that you bump the front barrel around and with time you end up with a wabbly lens.

        • fanboy fagz

          bravo. thats what im saying regarding the bad design. look at the 28-70/24-70g/24-70vr..there is some pumping of the smaller front barrel part. but the hood mounts before that barrel and the hood is so big it covers all that area.

          they should have continued the bigger barrel after the zoom ring, and make the hood mount on the bigger barrel, not the small barrel that extends. its prone to getting hit and decentering it. very bad design.

        • fanboy fagz

          all the nikon lenses 28-70/24-70g/24-70vr have the hood mounted on the big barrel and extend out over the smaller “in/out” barrel protecting it from front impact.

          in weddings IT WILL get hit/bumped from the front or the side by people dancing. I shoot weddings with 600 people at times and 400 people is quite common. there are ALOT of people on the small dance floor.

          canon fucked up with their mk2 design, tamron and sigma both fucked up with their design as well. ONLY NIKON was smart and did right from 1 to the other.

          the 80-200 and 70-200 doesnt have the front barrel extending in and out. you know what, let it pump in and out, but fhuck, make the hood cover that part at least. just a setup for inevitable impact damage repair.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5ffd7e4cd4cd82bcce0a2aa126aa95dfe3f1c3d38700d560525868ef7899f5df.jpg

          image 1- bad mistake with the dinky hood not protecting the barrel
          image 2-shows both nikon and canon lenses do extend, but the hood mounts on the big barrel and protects the smaller barrel.
          image 3-shows nikon doing it right. 3 gens all done properly.

    • Bob Thane

      I’d love a non-extending 24-70, but has anyone made one? As far as I know every Canon, Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 extends. Probably for a reason.

  • LordArklon

    So the prophecy was true…praise be to Sigma.

  • Bukakke Comet

    If I can get the new Sigma 135mm & the Sigma 35mm (previously announced) for close to the price of $2000. Then I will grab those two vs. buying the Nikon 35mm 1.4.

    Nikon, I am trying to hang in there with you, but come on look at this!!!

  • CERO

    IS the last one equivalent 150-600 for DX?

    • MB

      Yeap, you’ve done your math well 🙂

      • CERO

        Good to know my Abacus still works.

    • Eric Calabros

      But where is the size advantage?

      • Jaroslav Charvát

        Filter thread 67. So it is about the size of Nikon 70-200/4, which is small. Well, this new Sigma looks slightly fatter. But Sigma is surely going to be very heavy though…

    • Mike

      Yes.

  • Aldo

    I just realized if I were to buy the 2x teleconverter for the new tamron 70-200 I end up with a constant f5.6 140-400mm. Any drawbacks (aside from the narrower wide end) ?

    The art 24-70 and the 14mm look very sexy. I hope they perform well. Im gonna keep an eye for the 24-70. Hope it’s cheap =].

    • UniversalCreations

      Tamrons are not as fast at focussing as Sigma’s (it take two instances). With a 2x teleconverter it won’t get any better. Image quality will also drop.

      • Aldo

        Thanks for the input. This new tamron af is allegedly fast. Guess we have to wait and see.

    • MB

      70-200 with 2x tc would be twice the weight of 100-400 … not to mention price… 100-400 seems perfect match with 24-105 art …

  • Richard Krawec

    The 24-70 looks like it has OS? Wow if this is sharp at 2.8 from 24-70 Nikon you just might cry

  • Henry

    I am very interested in the 14mm 1.8. Looking forward to reading the specs and the price.

    • georgekaras

      what do you think about the prize?

      • Matti

        It can be 1200-2200 euro to be honest. The F4 zoom is 1750 euro already. This has more F-stop (usually more expensive) but, is not a zoom (usually les expensive). But it’s an UWA wich is hard to make, and now combined with F1.8, so i suspect expensive, at least 1500 euro.

      • Henry

        Is there a price listed for the 14mm? I haven’t seen it yet. Please post as a reply if you know the price. Thanks in advance.

  • TwoStrayCats

    I am hopeful that the 1.8 14 will induce Nikon to run a $200-off special, again, on their 14-24.

    • georgekaras

      Maybe not to this lens i am thinking of the nikon 14mm prime lens

    • jarmatic

      I have one for sale!

  • georgekaras

    any guess for the 14mm?Its time to change the samyang if its round 400-500 euros

    • EnPassant

      If you think Sigma will sell a new lens with AF and more than one stop faster for the same price as the Samyang with no AF and terrible distorsion that now have been on the market for many years you are living in a dream-world.
      Expect the double price at least. My guess would be €1200 as the 85mm Art.

      • georgekaras

        thats why i used if but I expected to be polite but it seems in your world there arent any manners so take your guess …..and use it more in more productive way smart………

        • EnPassant

          For me someone hoping for a price half of what is realistic is dreaming. If you take that comment as some kind of insult you are very sensitive, and discussion forums are not the place for you.
          Now if you don’t want to pay more than €5-600 for that lens you can just wait a couple of years for a used lens to show up at that price in some auction, or advertisement, preferably in your own country as less buyers are there than on ebay.
          That’s what I will do. I have three Sigma Art primes, now selling for around €700 each (but was €800 at introduction) I bought used in good condition for less than €1400. So I paid the price for two lenses but got three.
          Zeiss ZF2 primes can be found even cheaper because not many want lenses without AF. So there even better bargains can be had for great glass.
          As an exemple a Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 is now for sale here for “only” €2000 (new price around €3900).
          And as I noticed you also mentioned the Nikon 14/2.8 in another comment I paid €100 for mine! Condition was naturally not great with dents in the front element, something loose inside and a bent hood because of a a heavy hit. But it works fine in manual mode!

          • br0xibear

            “dents in the front element, something loose inside and a bent hood because of a heavy hit. But it works fine in manual mode!”
            LMAO

            • EnPassant

              For €100 I don’t care. Bonus is I can use it as a maracas! And the small dents in the front element doesn’t show up in normal photos. With a super wide lens I rather focus manually anyway than trust AF. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38b7b5aa0e2dc62ea4d6875e76ec95524e4e7240eb88be105774a2390a039476.jpg

            • br0xibear

              Hi EnPassant
              Please don’t take it the wrong way, I wasn’t laughing at you…it just sounded funny reading that here.
              Normally this forum (and others) have comments complaining about the smallest, irrelevant things like a type of plastic used inside a lens motor, or a lens being 0.3% sharper in the corners if you shoot it on the moon during an eclipse.

            • EnPassant

              I understood that! That’s why I told about the maracas use of the lens to make you laugh even harder! Unfortunately I can’t make use of that added usability of the lens as my musical talent is much worse than my photographic eye.
              Yeah, people seem to care a lot about their flickr snapshots being sharp from corner to corner.

    • Bob Thane

      It’s almost certainly going to be 1000-1500 euros.

      • 120_300 OS for nikon

        i´ll go for 1199 €

  • NorthPol

    I think 100-400mm is a good move. Not everyone would pay big bucks for that kind of reach, plus all the weight associated with it. This is exactly what Fuji should’ve done rather than releasing an expensive, big and heavy 100-400mm lens. They tried to draw attention from more advanced sports and wild life shooters. It’s hard to believe that those guys would use X-Fuji system, they would most likely go for better tuned tools towards that style of shooting. Sigma, please, make one of these to pair with X-T2…

  • Nakayamahanzaemon

    The 100-400mm with 67mm filter size looks like small and compact compared with Canon’s or Nikon’s which has 77mm filter. Canikon’s 70-200mm f4.0 has the same 67mm, and weighs less than 1kg. Hopefully, the price is cheaper…

    • NorthPol

      It looks to me close to Panasonic 100-400mm, by the size. Just lovely…

  • jsvfoto

    Wow! Where do I pre-order that 135?

  • The biggest reason I would have bought a 14mm is because I dare not subject my 14-24mm to harsh weather, does anyone have any experience with art lenses and blowing snow and rain? I live at 7135 feet in the snowiest spot in the nation right now, 100 feet away from the Donner Summit. It’s a real concern, my 14-24mm stays in the bag more than any other lens I own due to the conditions, when it’s not nasty it’s just about my number one magic making tool, so this is hard, Nikon 20mm 1.8 or sigma 14mm 1.8…..guess it comes down to final price as I saw a 20mm go for 600 the other day.

    • DSS

      The nikon 14-24mm is weather-sealed. You shouldn’t need to worry about it as long as you’re using it with a weather-sealed body. If you’re that worried about it, put something like the LensCoat RainCoat over it to double up on safety.

  • GMck

    It will be interesting to see if the focus consistency problems that plague most of the art line has finally been resolved with this group.

  • Noor

    Let me start with this: I’m not trying to throw shade on Sigma or their users. I love the build “feel” and optics of the lenses, and the price they are coming in at makes this gear accessible to a wide range of skill sets.

    But as much as I use my gear, Sigma Art lenses just aren’t for me for the simple reasons of the poor fit/finish construction and lack of quality control. Instead of maximizing profits, I wish they would raise the price 10-20% to build a lens that won’t have focus issues out the box, focus problems over time, wearing issues with the body, and/or general construction issues. And weather sealing would be incredibly useful, while I’m at it.

    I recognize this is me, and ymmv. But for some photographers, reliability is a top consideration.

    • GMck

      I agree with your assessment. The art series look great in terms of build, but in the end, being able to count on a lens to work is much more important.

      • DSS

        That is exactly why I haven’t been swayed by the Art lens offerings from Sigma yet. I love how sharp they are, love the new design, but there are just far too many complaints about front/back focus issues.

        Sigma has always had excellent customer service, but as much as they are a pleasure to deal with, I’d rather not have to deal with service at all. I’m not interested in having to purchase the doc thingamajig and adjust the lens myself. I’d rather have it working properly out of the box and every time I need it.

        Out of all the new Nikon lenses I’ve bought, I only had issues with one,… the 50mm f/1.4G, which required a high AF fine tune digit to get good results. It’s been resolved.

        • GMck

          I was swayed with the 85mm art and returned 2 of them due to very sever front focus that could not be corrected with dock and MFA on the bodies. I was quite disappointed to say the least.

          I had to send my 35 art in for service because of totally out of whack focusing. I got it back and it worked like a charm for about a month, and now, it’s not focusing about 10% of the time.

          I just think they should spend more time with they firmware, testing & Q/A and less on trying to release so often.

          Dxomark published that the 85mm is the sharpest optically and everyone seems to drool over that, but if you can focus, who cares how sharp it is. I ended up going with a Nikon 105 1.4 and it is a stellar performer all around.

  • Aldo

    Oh yeah the canon II seems to be the best all around I remember reading a review on it…. unfortunately I cant put it on my d750 with AF

    • UniversalCreations

      You said it was impossible for a lens (maybe even this new Sigma), so I came with a lens that was sharp at 70mm at f/2.8

      • Aldo

        I didnt say the new sigma wouldnt be sharp. I hope it’s sharp too…. when I said it seemed impossible for these lenses to be sharp at 2.8 70mm I didnt even think of the canon because my comment was targeted at nikon mount lenses.

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    I had a feeling hours before this photo´s showed up that the 14mm is using the front element of the 12-24 art but is that possible or is it even bigger or smaller i have no clue ?

    • 1.) Sigma is really fond of recycling their external designs, from the the 18-35 to the 24-35 and 24 / 20, they’ve been pretty similar in general design. So I’m not surprised that this 14mm looks almost identical to the 12-24 front.

      2.) Sigma has also recently used the same optical design but with slight tweaks to achieve slightly different results. The 18-35 and 24-35 are very similar optically, and the 24 1.4 and 20 1.4 are nearly identical optically. I would not be surprised if the 14 borrows from the optical formula of either the 20 1.4 or the 12-24.

      Either way, this does not bode well for either the long-term durability, (Art lenses seem to keep breaking; the 35 1.4 as the oldest Art design has a long history of falling apart, and now I’m also seeing the 50 starting to fall apart) …or the corner optical performance wide open. (The 20 and 24 and 24-35 are all quite mediocre in the extreme corners, especially for astro; coma is horrendous on the 20 1.4…)

  • Dang no OS in the 135 really is a bummer. I’ll just stick with my 105mm f1.4 from Nikon. Would have entertained selling the 105 and going with the 135 and pocketing the cash but not without OS.

  • Joe Prete

    Do the Telephoto and Zoom lenses have VR?

    • Bob Thane

      Yep, both the 100-400 and 24-70 have stabilization, but not the 135mm or 14mm.

      • Joe Prete

        Thanks Bob, I wonder what the 24-70 will cost!

  • John Matthews

    I’m so excited they’re doing the 135/1.8, and also kind of sad because I already plunked down for the 105/1.4.

  • I know aesthetics doesn’t matter that much, but design is design. And that 24-70 is disappointing. I thought it’ll be the fixed hood (like nikon’s and canon’s 1st gen). I like it better when the hood is covering that zoom barrel. And it’s aesthetically looks bad ass. 🙁

  • I know aesthetics doesn’t matter that much, but design is design. And that 24-70 is disappointing. I thought it’ll be the fixed hood (like nikon’s and canon’s 1st gen). I like it better when the hood is covering that zoom barrel. And it’s aesthetically looks bad ass. 🙁

    Something like this mock up before
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d12bf9c741cba7da8f2ccebf98b42de464647fff683ce1121eb2d44c199681c.jpg

    • sickheadache

      Thanks for your thoughts…Can’t wait till you ACTUALLY have this product in your hands and on your camera …We all wait your full review. Thanks Ken!

      • I have a Nikon 24-70 (v1) and what’s the problem with it? Was that too big or too heavy for you?
        You like it or not, all products get designed by creative industrial designers, there’s always the aesthetic value present. And if you’re telling me to review a mock-up product, then you are completely ignorant.

        And who the fuck is Ken?

        • Ande Notos

          Ken refers to Ken Rockwell, some guy who reviews camera gear and for some reason his website is one of the top results of every google search related to that stuff you make. His reviews are dubious to say the least.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      …. I would not want a fixed lens hood.
      1) It makes the lens bigger for transporting
      2) Some people like to take the hood off to add lens flare
      3) If you break the hood… well you will HAVE to send it back for reparing and we all know how much would that cost (hint : a lot)

      One thing for me that should be a standard is the Gel filter at the back of the lens like they have on ultra wide lenses. It would make life a lot easier and a lot cheaper

      • No, I didn’t meant a fixed hood like in 14-24. I meant similar to Nikon 24-70 (if you don’t know it, google it) where the hood is mounted on the main barrel and not the zoom barrel.

        1. It wont be any bigger
        2. You can take the hood off
        3. if you break the hood, you just buy a new one

  • katrinbade

    100-400 f6.3 – why is this product needed?

    • NorthPol

      For people like me, not a full time wild life shooter, who doesn’t like big, heavy and expensive long glass…:)

    • Ashraf Al-hujaili

      i think this zoom range will become the standard replacing the stupid 70-300 zoom range

    • preston

      Many people that were happy with the of the 70-300 on their DX bodies (450mm equiv.) were disappointed that there is not an affordable (sub-$1500) and relatively compact version of this for FX. The 150-600 Tamron and Sigma and the 200-500 Nikon are high image quality and affordable but huge and heavy. The Nikon 80-400 has good enough reach but is too expensive for this crowd at $2300. I think this new Sigma is a great idea that could be the product these people were looking for.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I ask the same question. 100-400mm is a great range, but f/6.3 seems unreasonably slow.

    • sandy

      This will be nice on a D500 for a light long lens, plus the price should be sub $700.

  • Minor point, maybe, but why doesn’t the photo of the 14mm show the filter thread size when the pictures of all the other purported lenses do? That little detail is sowing a seed of doubt in my mind about the genuineness of the image.

    • DaveR43

      Maybe because, like the 14-24 mm f/2.8, there is no filter thread – the lens is too bulbous?

      • Fair point, I don’t have the 14-24 and hadn’t thought of that.

    • preston

      No 14mm f/2.8 or faster lens accepts screw-on filters that I’m aware of.

  • Henri De Vreese

    Quite useless that they place it on the Quattro H as a reference for the size, luckily they also added the 85mm, otherwise I would have no idea about the size of these lenses…
    (positively impressed btw about the size on these.

  • Eskil Ginman

    I’m really excited to see how the Sigma 100-400 mm stack up against Nikon AF-S 80-400 mm when it comes to size and price.

  • Ashraf Al-hujaili

    really excited about 24-70 art
    i would really like to replace my 24-120 but didnt find a good replacement yet , i was thinking about the tamron 24-70 vc
    but i want to see how the art will perform

    • vriesk

      Make sure to check focusing accuracy. Sigma Arts on Nikon have severe misfocus issues.

      • Ashraf Al-hujaili

        ill double check that
        thank you

  • Momenti Da Foto

    I’ve just bought a 135 f/2 DC. That lens is awesome. Glad to see that they are reviving this focal lenght

    • Ngoc Nguyen

      I just sold my 135f2DC after got the Samyang 135f2. I would say the DC has better bokeh but the bokeh ball (highlight) is useless because of the horrible CA. About sharpness and contrast wide open, the DC is century behind. I loved my DC lens (had it 5 yrs) but can’t use it as I want so let it go. Now, i’m itching about this Sig135f1.8.

  • BG

    Don’t really care about the price of the 14/1.8 – just tell me how much it weighs. Please? 🙂

  • New Yoko

    Not sure why sigma is so praised, i had two Art Lens, they’re only sharp but horrible in regards to bokeh, highlight rendering, dull colors, not weather sealed (fragile) and AF is useless.

    • For some people sharpness is everything.

    • Unfortunately, I have to admit that you’re quite correct.

      While I’m not a hipster bokeh whore, and don’t care for >$1K 50mm lenses that weigh a brick-ton, I do abuse my lenses quite a bit, and I work with a whole team of wedding shooters who also abuse their gear. I’ve lost count of how many Sigma Art lenses have been either totally destroyed, or in need of serious repair, or at least mount screw tightening lol…

      On a scale of disposable to indestructible, I’d put Sigma Art lenses somewhere above Rokinon, and maybe above Tokina, but not above Tamron and not even above Nikon’s recent “use plastic for EVERYTHING!” f/1.8 prime lens method. I’ve beaten the crap out of numerous Nikon f/1.8 G primes and they’ve all held their own without any hiccup. That 85mm f/1.8 G in particular is downright indestructible! Meanwhile my friends’ 50mm Arts are already starting to rattle / wobble after just one season of weddings….

      • New Yoko

        I do give credit to Sigma for keeping up the game which benefits all and I do like renderings of Sigma’s Foveon sensor.

        • Indeed, if you’re not a wedding photographer who abuses the crap out of gear 20 hrs a week, Sigma Art glass is an amazing option for those folks who just want a killer sharp lens…

  • Excuse me, did you say 14mm f/1.8?

    :-O

    Here’s to hoping Sigma doesn’t maintain the same nonchalance about coma and general corner performance that made the 24 and 20 Arts a no-go for me as a nightscaper…

    As far as overall quality and corners are concerned, my bet is definitely for the new Rokinon 14 f/2.4, even at f/2.4. But, f/1.8 will indeed be tempting if it is at least as bright as f/1.8 for *most* of the image, and not a dim ~f/3.5 lens with a bright “dot” in the center that actually gets f/1.8 worth of light LOL.

    • Bob Thane

      The current Rokinon f2.8 (not f2.4, not sure about that one) vignettes down to t4 as you get to 60% across the frame, and nearly t7.1 at the edges. Definitely hope that both the new Sigma and new Rokinon do better, but I wouldn’t be too concerned about vignetting given how happy people are with the Rokinon. Less vignetting is of course nice to have though.

      • From reports so far about the new Rokinon 14 2.4, vignetting is *much* lower than the original 14.

    • Mauro Schramm

      The Sigma A 12-24 mm f/4 DG HSM lens had encouraging results in the coma test performed by LensTip.com.

  • MB

    In the meantime in a booth not far away … Nikon is preparing the key event for cpplus 2017 … side by side 100 years anniversary celebration! called “PAST AND FUTURE” and description of that bright future called “I AM KEYMISSION”:
    http://www.nikon-image.com/event/cpplus2017/

  • sickheadache

    I remember right before the new Nikkor 105mm 1.4 came out…the usual large suspect/s proclaimed a flop. This of course of no testing at all.

    • Lol 🙂

    • GMck

      In my case, I only comment where I currently own or did own the equipment in question. Nobody will convince me the Nikkor 105 is a flop. The images speak for themselves. I think Sigma has nice stuff, I just wish they would go the extra 5% and get rid of the variances. What they may consider to be acceptable tolerances are just not realistic for working pros. Tamron is in the same class in terms of price/features. I have not had any issue with focus consistency on the Tamron lens I own (15-30mm).

  • Yeah, but as an f/4 lens coma starts to be the lesser of your worries. I’d only use an f/4 lens for nightscapes if I was shooting under a bright moon, or doing a star trail at f/5.6 or f/8, again with moonlight.

    But still, it’s good to know that Sigma got it right with at least one ultra-wide lens.

    Now to see if they create an f/2.8 ultra-wide zoom that doesn’t weigh more than the Canon 16-35 mk3, and yet still has high-quality corners…

  • Back to top