Which missing Top ART lens should Sigma create asap ?

It's always exciting that Sigma announces a new Art lens to counter Canon's too expensive stuff, better price/quality.

I sold my 35L for a 35 Art, I was so curious about the 50 Art (as I refused to buy the 50 1.2L due to mixed reviews) that I have 35 Art & 50 Art now.
First testshots where great, I think the 50 Art will rock for halfbody fashion modelshoots.

The 24-105 OS can be nice for allround photographers, but I like more creative primes.

The new announced 24-35 f2 is not interesting in my opinion (and a loss of time and energy).
It's innovating to create a unique f2 zoom, but the range isn't so special.
24mm is only 1 step back from 35mm, a 35 1.4 Art is much more interesting as it's 1.4

A 16-28 f2 OS would be much more interesting for example (then I could sell my 16-35 f4L IS to have extra money )

My dream ART lenses (realistic to create by Sigma) are here in the poll, they all get one vote from me.
I guess you also would buy some of them ?

Heya,

The 50mm was the most obvious, and they made it already. It filled a big gap where Canon only had poor offerings (50 F1.8 & 50 F1.4, lower end lenses, decent, but far from legendary) and then the expensive 50L which isn't even a superb lens, just a "character" lens. Sigma filled the gap with a technical lens that is simply excellent and not just a "character" lens with a price tag. It fits nicely between the cost of the lower end models from Canon and the Canon L which to me is more of a novelty lens than anything (sort of like the 50 F1.0L).

From there, they went with other things to compete with Canon. 35mm made a lot of sense. Canon has very good 35mm offerings, so they needed to get their competition in there. It's better than the 35L, but the 35 F2 IS is a big piece of competition at cost. Still it lands nicely between the two and fills a small gap.

The already dropped the 24 ART and it is better than the 24L, but that's no surprise. Sort of a niche lens compared to 35mm and 50mm which are far more commonly used in the general market most likely. A good release to compete with an already popular lens and focal length, without being too niche/specific.

They would be kind of silly to go for the 135 ART at this point. The 135L is too affordable and can be had often in the $700 range. The 135 ART would be better, no doubt, but it would have to be priced under that 135L price to compete, otherwise, the 135L reputation and availability would make the 135 ART not sell much other than to someone who wanted to pay more for a better technical lens, but really, it would be rather insignificant on the whole I think. They better save this one for later as they no doubt are fearing the release of an IS enabled model from Canon. If Sigma was able to release a 135 ART with OS, it would be a winner, even if priced higher than Canon's current 135L.

Sigma already has an 85 F1.4, and it's a good lens. If they release an 85 ART, they will completely discontinue and replace the current 85 F1.4 from Sigma. Then they compete with the very good and affordable 85 F1.8 from Canon, but provide a much better alternative to the ultra-costly 85L II. The 85 ART would be a good release. It gives people the faster aperture option that Canon is not providing except at the L II level (with a ridiculous cost associated with the F1.2 and size/weight slow AF). The 85 ART would fit nicely between the affordable 85 F1.8 and the ultracostly 85L II. But, it would pretty much wreck their current line of 85 F1.4 that they already have as it would totally replace it. If it had OS, it would be a top seller.

200 F1.8 from Sigma, or even 200 F2, or even 200 F2.8 ART from Sigma, as long as it had OS, would be a big seller. But it would likely cost nearly as much as the current Canons. They would however provide an alternative to a $4k lens. But this is a super niche lens. People wouldn't go out in droves after this. It would be costed higher than the average buyer would go to ($2k~3k easy start here). And it's focal length is a niche focal length in general for a fixed focal length lens. It's an extreme niche lens. Not a smart lens to drop, from a financial stand point, since the market they would intend to compete in is already extremely limited and small. It would be a nice lens though I'm sure.

So overall, I want to see the 85 ART.

Sigma would make their most impact to the competition by hitting the market with 35 ART, 50 ART and 85 ART to me. They're almost there as it is.

135 ART would be the weakest release in terms of market, in my opinion.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17603471
...

200 F1.8 from Sigma, or even 200 F2, or even 200 F2.8 ART from Sigma, as long as it had OS, would be a big seller. But it would likely cost nearly as much as the current Canons....

IE: anywhere from $700.00 to $6,000.00?

Sorry, speaking or typing about the f/1.8-f/2 in the same sentence as an f/2.8 is confusingly deceptive as other than the number "200" these two lenses have nothing on common, as their respective size, weight and cost would illustrate.

I did not see the OP lump them together, and as such we should not be attempting to discuss them as a singe voting option.

As for the vote, The ones that would make sense to me would be the 85 and 135. this appears to be the kind of lens and market that the A series is targeting. SIGMA has a few in the wide end, and should now work on the more common portrait lenses.

The inclusion of the box standard working class zooms in this list I am not sure I grasp as part of the ART line either. I would HOPE that if SIGMA decides to make ART lens zooms that they would continue to break the mold and make something extraordinary and not try to compete in the plain old standard ranges where they have historically, and will likely continue to be far behind the OEM offering.

Lastly, my own interests are not in the ART line. but in the poorly named "sport" line.
I would like to see SIGMA re-launch the whole line of Supertelephotos with new OS designs.

500mm f/4.5, 300mm f2.8 etc,

WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS on a new 300-800mm with OS!

And while they do this, they will need to rethink the pricing strategy that has relegated this current line up to essentially non production. For some time SIGMA made these lenses considerably more affordable then the OEM counterparts, but this hardly the case anymore. One can buy a Canon 500mm for not much more than what you'd spend on a SIGMA 300-800mm, new, making the consideration dubious at best.

Primes:

Sigma 20/1.8 Art
Sigma 85/1.4 Art
Sigma 135/1.8 Art OS
Sigma 200/2.0 Art OS

Zooms:

Sigma 35-85/2.0 Art (Perfect portrait zoom?)
Sigma 20-35/2.0 Art (wish the 24-35 was actually a 20-35)

it's so interesting to me that everyone is obsessed with the "art" label...i think anything over 100mm would be listed as a sport...so it'd be 135f1.8Sport, 200f2Sport meanwhile, every lens sigma has come out with since their global vision has been good...they're not all "art" lenses though...

I dont think sport shooters will usually go for a prime lens over a zoom for the obvious reason that their subjects are moving about all the time and they themselves have limited options to move about. Running up on the field is... frowned upon... . As such, I think an 85mm or a 135mm are more likely to be used for portraits? As such, I can see the Art label being more correct. I don't really know what the criteria are for the different labels, so let's let Sigma figure it out!

I have been looking at 85mm and 135mm options, so I guess my vote is obvious .

Any chance Sigma makes a 85 f1.2 ART and keeps their current 85 as a low cost alternative???

Could easily price it below the 85L and more then the 50 ART. $1199 and I'd buy it.

delta0014 wrote in post #17604309
Any chance Sigma makes a 85 f1.2 ART and keeps their current 85 as a low cost alternative???

Could easily price it below the 85L and more then the 50 ART. $1199 and I'd buy it.

I don't think so... they could have done this with the 50 as well (1.2), but didn't so I would wager that's indicative of their decision direction. Canon doesn't even have an 85 1.4 so a lot of people would jump on a sharp, fast, reliable 85 that doesn't cost too much. Fixing all the aberrations, fringing and dealing with the much bigger front element that comes along with the 1.2 aperture isn't worth it for sigma I think...

The canon 85 1.2 is known to be sharp-ish, but more than that it has a special oomph, that creamy softness it's famous for. Sigma can't compete on that, but they can make it sharp, and for that, the 1.4 is the way to go.

I hope the don't even bother with a 24-70 if it's not going to be weather sealed...not a problem for many, but mega problem for me out at a race when it starts too rain and I have to keep working with expensive gear...

I demand an 85mm though. I am stuck with my 1.8 because I can't justify a lens with worse chromatic aberrations for 6 times the cost and I wouldn't shoot f1.2 very often.

I love the idea of a 200 art, but I couldnt justify it if it were even half the price of 200f2L. Despite the cost of the 200L I'm guessing there isnt a lot of room left in that categpry.

Well, I am glad to read that SIGMA is continuing to steer clear of the standard zooms with the ART sereis and instead is continuing to think outside of that box with innovations that are pushing the limits beyond box stock 24-70mm etc..


SIGMA ART 24-35mm F/2 (2!!!!) EF mount full frame!

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/product/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …a_24_35mm_f_2_d​g_hsm.html


Did someone say "bag full of primes" to describe this lens? I just did!

I'd like to see some Sigma tilt-shifts, to bring some decent tilt-shift lenses to mounts incompatible with Canon lenses..

They clearly have the capability to make top-quality, razor-sharp prime lenses, and their lenses are mechanically very solid. AF capability doesn't come into it, since these are manual focus lenses.

Some competition to the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II would be good.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17603471
200 F1.8 from Sigma, or even 200 F2, or even 200 F2.8 ART from Sigma, as long as it had OS, would be a big seller. But it would likely cost nearly as much as the current Canons. They would however provide an alternative to a $4k lens. But this is a super niche lens. People wouldn't go out in droves after this. It would be costed higher than the average buyer would go to ($2k~3k easy start here). And it's focal length is a niche focal length in general for a fixed focal length lens. It's an extreme niche lens. Not a smart lens to drop, from a financial stand point, since the market they would intend to compete in is already extremely limited and small. It would be a nice lens though I'm sure.

A less expensive 200 f/2 would be interesting but I think you're right it's not a priority since its niche. How about a 200 f/2.5 OS APO to cut down some size and price but give a little more on the DOF control?

delta0014 wrote in post #17604309
Any chance Sigma makes a 85 f1.2 ART and keeps their current 85 as a low cost alternative???

Could easily price it below the 85L and more then the 50 ART. $1199 and I'd buy it.

Sigma has to be able to support multiple mounts and the Nikon F mount as I understand prevents AF lenses from exceeding f/1.4 which is why you only see f/1.2 on the older manual focus Nikkors. Everyone else gets shafted to have an optical formula that works for Nikon.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17606477
I'd like to see some Sigma tilt-shifts, to bring some decent tilt-shift lenses to mounts incompatible with Canon lenses..

They clearly have the capability to make top-quality, razor-sharp prime lenses, and their lenses are mechanically very solid. AF capability doesn't come into it, since these are manual focus lenses.

Some competition to the TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II would be good.

Now that is a great idea! 15mm TS that competes with the Zeiss 15 ZE! Would a shift and stitch be an effective 11mm rectilinear?

Poe wrote in post #17609907
Sigma has to be able to support multiple mounts and the Nikon F mount as I understand prevents AF lenses from exceeding f/1.4 which is why you only see f/1.2 on the older manual focus Nikkors. Everyone else gets shafted to have an optical formula that works for Nikon.

All that is fine but there is strong argument that Canon sensors cannot realise the full benefit f/1.2 (over f/1.4) in terms of both light transmission but also out of focus blur.

I don't know anything about that. So...meh?