Sigma lens question

okay. i am a COMPLETE and TOTAL Canon Snob...

ive never owned anything but Canon gear going all the way back to 1982 when i got my first AE-1 and 50mm f1.8, my F-1n and a handful of f2 primes...

ive seen images from the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and i am very impressed. it also has a great range with its speed...

why doesnt Canon have anything like this? id be certainly tempted to get one to replace the 70-200 f2.8L IS...

maybe its because theyd lose the sale of several lenses that fit in that range?

yep. im a Canon Snob...

Exactly! That would cannibalize sales from the 300/4, 300/2.8, 100-400, and possibly the 400/2.8. Sigma doesn't have much in the way of telephoto-primes, to lose sales from the 120-300. Well, they have the 300/2.8, and 500/4.5(that would compete), and the 300/2.8 is pretty-much the same price as the zoom.

Canon would have to, and would undoubtedly, charge $5000 or more for this, to make good business sense.

If you like it, Buy it, Who cares who makes it, Care about the results.. Thats how I've been...

My two favorite lenses are my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and my Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS

Sigma 70-200/2.8-OS is wonderful, then my Sigma 100-300/4-Non-OS (but do not need it), and then my Sigma 120-400/4.5-4.5-OS in Pentax mount. Wonderful lenses with no problem at all.

At first I've only owned Canon lenses, now I'm all Sigma. Check my sig!

Gotta love how every Sigma lens comes with a case, hood and a much longer warranty compared to Canon.

This "cannibalize" idea is simply the most ill informed idea I have ever seen. What makes people think that by having more options for people that it would in someway hurt a company's sales numbers overall? Why do people think that money coming in from one product line is more valuable than the same amount of money coming in from a different product line? If people are going to try to make a guess, at least come up with something that makes sence. Like it would create too many die changes in the production line and lower overall amount of lenses made due to increased set up time. Or their marketing department isn't predicting enough sales to justify the development costs.

I have been working in manufacturing for a long time now and I have never heard the word "cannibalize" or the idea behind it in a staff meeting.

FEChariot wrote in post #15117061
This "cannibalize" idea is simply the most ill informed idea I have ever seen. What makes people think that by having more options for people that it would in someway hurt a company's sales numbers overall? Why do people think that money coming in from one product line is more valuable than the same amount of money coming in from a different product line? If people are going to try to make a guess, at least come up with something that makes sence. Like it would create too many die changes in the production line and lower overall amount of lenses made due to increased set up time. Or their marketing department isn't predicting enough sales to justify the development costs.

I have been working in manufacturing for a long time now and I have never heard the word "cannibalize" or the idea behind it in a staff meeting.

Because no one has come up with a better reason.

I would love to see that, but reality indicates, price wise, it would be around $8-10K since the new 100-400L with built in 1.4x converter is almost $6k. My buddy had the Sigma for his Nikon and got rid of it because it would not focus properly as was common with Nikons.

I have 1 Sigma lens 24-70 f/2.8 and it has worked well up until now. It recently stopped focusing and I believe it is due to dirt and dust getting into the lens. Now I will have to send it in to have it repaired.

What do you think the Canon version of the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8(35lbs $32,000) would look like and cost. 7 feet long 85lbs and $250,000.

ZeroSkylineX wrote in post #15116921
At first I've only owned Canon lenses, now I'm all Sigma. Check my sig!

Gotta love how every Sigma lens comes with a case, hood and a much longer warranty compared to Canon.

I'm starting to become that way too!

My only lens now is the awesome Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

I might trade that for the Sigma OS version in the future. When the 35mm f/1.4 comes out, I might sell my Samyang for it (I love my Samyang though).

Even if I was to get a 24-70, I'd opt for Tamron's version over Canon's V1 brick.

Canon has awesome lenses too, but it comes at a hefty price: a price at which a hobbyist such as myself can't bear to spend on a lens.

zerovision wrote in post #15117098
I would love to see that, but reality indicates, price wise, it would be around $8-10K since the new 100-400L with built in 1.4x converter is almost $6k.

Are you talking about the new 200-400/4 or a different lens. And have Canon released the price? The last price estimates for the 200-400 were closer to twice the price you are stating.

ZeroSkylineX wrote in post #15116921
Gotta love how every Sigma lens comes with a case, hood and a much longer warranty compared to Canon.

The the fact that the quality control is horrible and lens issues are a strong hit and miss.

thats why I have switched back to complete Canon lineup, including switching my beloved Sigma 85/1.4 to the Canon 85LII.

zerovision wrote in post #15117098
I would love to see that, but reality indicates, price wise, it would be around $8-10K since the new 100-400L with built in 1.4x converter is almost $6k.

so many people would be happy if that 200-400L came in at $6,000...it'll be nowhere near that though...

328iGuy wrote in post #15117193
The the fact that the quality control is horrible and lens issues are a strong hit and miss.

thats why I have switched back to complete Canon lineup, including switching my beloved Sigma 85/1.4 to the Canon 85LII.

I'm puzzled. I assume your "beloved" Sigma 85 was a good copy so why did you replace it with a Canon lens? If you had a good one then chances are it was going to stay good.

I have no doubt that the occasional lemon gets shipped out of the Canon warehouse, but can you really go wrong with a Canon lense? I don't mean to sound like a total fanboy, but I've been shooting Canon since the 80's and they have never let me down yet. -rick

Same here.

Ltdave wrote in post #15115337
okay. i am a COMPLETE and TOTAL Canon Snob... ive never owned anything but Canon gear going all the way back to 1982 when i got my first AE-1 and 50mm f1.8, my F-1n and a handful of f2 primes... yep. im a Canon Snob...

I agree, but then I think that the other manufacturer's QC seems so hit or miss.

KenjiS wrote in post #15115588
If you like it, Buy it, Who cares who makes it, Care about the results.. Thats how I've been... My two favorite lenses are my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and my Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS

That's what holding me back from buying the Sigma 150-500.

328iGuy wrote in post #15117193
The the fact that the quality control is horrible and lens issues are a strong hit and miss. thats why I have switched back to complete Canon lineup, including switching my beloved Sigma 85/1.4 to the Canon 85LII.

Ltdave wrote in post #15115337
okay. i am a COMPLETE and TOTAL Canon Snob...

id be certainly tempted to get one to replace the 70-200 f2.8L...

I don't think it is an alternative to your 70-200. The sigma weighs over 3kg and is shaped more like the 300 f2.8! Not something I carry with me everywhere. Also tough to handhold for long periods.

If you can afford to get it without selling the 70-200, that would be my recommendation.