News Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS Sports Lens Announced

[Tim Mayo]

Sigma have officially launched the Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS Sports lens. This new full-frame lens will be available for Sony E-mount and L-mount and will retail for $3,299 in the US and £2,999 in the UK. You can already pre-order the lens but it won’t start shipping until September 4th, 2025.

Further details and early reviews can be found in the blog post:

Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS Sports Lens Announced - Alpha Shooters

Following hot on the heals of the Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS lens we now have the Sigma 200mm F2 DG OS Sports lens. This new full-frame lens will be available for Sony E-mount and L-mount and will retail for $3,299 in the US and £2,999 in the UK. You can already pre-order the lens …

www.alphashooters.com

Is anyone here tempted by this lens? I wouldn't mind trying one out on our MX track but I don't think this is a lens that's really needed in my bag.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I don't have a need for one. The GM 70-200mm f2.8 is an awesome quality lens that travels everywhere with me. I don't believe I'd notice any improvement in owning a prime 200 and the difference in aperture isn't required for me.

And wow! That's a lot of mullah!

 

[AlphaWorld]

I'm not interested in getting one, but my two primary cameras are the A1 II and the A9 III - I'd be really unhappy limited to 15fps.

One thing that is unclear - Chris Nicholls suggested that it would support teleconverters on L mount, but other places are saying it doesn't support teleconverters. The Sigma website makes no mention of teleconverters on the page about the lens, nor do they mention compatibility with teleconverters. Maybe Chris just assumed teleconverter support on L mount?

 

[Tim Mayo]

I'm not interested in getting one, but my two primary cameras are the A1 II and the A9 III - I'd be really unhappy limited to 15fps.

One thing that is unclear - Chris Nicholls suggested that it would support teleconverters on L mount, but other places are saying it doesn't support teleconverters. The Sigma website makes no mention of teleconverters on the page about the lens, nor do they mention compatibility with teleconverters. Maybe Chris just assumed teleconverter support on L mount?

I normally shoot 10 fps max with my A1, it's very rare that I feel the need for more frames and I'm not the biggest fan of image culling. It's handy to capture some unique moments now and again but I can't imagine even professional sports togs are shooting that often with such high frame rates.

I can't see any mention of the teleconverters for the L-mount version either. I would have also assumed that it's the perfect lens to make use of them. But then the Sony 50-150mm F2 doesn't support them either which is probably a lens that many will be comparing with this new 200 F2.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I still don't know who this lens is for. Sports and wildlife photographers need more range right? This would be awesome, but overkill for portraits no?

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I still don't know who this lens is for. Sports and wildlife photographers need more range right? This would be awesome, but overkill for portraits no?

My thought is that it's aimed at indoor close range sports guys, say basketball or table tennis maybe, but they would want to be shooting more than 15fps

 

[AlphaWorld]

My thought is that it's aimed at indoor close range sports guys, say basketball or table tennis maybe, but they would want to be shooting more than 15fps

Yeah, Chris Nicholls was shooting baseball, and seemed to think that was a good use of it. Come to think of it, Fro tried out (and loved) the 50-150 when shooting baseball.

I’d have thought basketball and other indoor sports, too - possibly things like gymnastics?

 

[Paul stuart]

beautiful lens and better made than nikon sony and canon counter parts ,the sigma 500mm f5,6 shows how a lens can be made ,the 300-600mm f4 shows what can be achieved for a reasonable sum ,the 14mm f1.4 is totally awesome ,even the sigmas 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 are in spitting distance of gm lenses at half the price but all lessened by sonys limitations of 3rd party lenses ,i feel we need canon to pressure sony open mount to 3rd party ,shame this lens has no t/c option kind of kills it ,but 200mm f2 is a differentiator ,just that the sony 50-150mm f2 has so many more usefull applications ,sigmas on a roll they just need a fully compliant body to mount it on ,

 

[Paul stuart]

My thought is that it's aimed at indoor close range sports guys, say basketball or table tennis maybe, but they would want to be shooting more than 15fps

well jared polin got 16-17 on the a9iii ,and i guess pre capture would help also, in fact if using sigma you would just leave it in pre capture mode and not have to worry , still a great portrait event lens ,no t/c rules it out for a lot wildlife imo ,i like these kinfd of primes but zooms have become so good they almost match primes ,i just wish it had been the sigma120-300mm f2.8 released

 

[AlphaWorld]

beautiful lens and better made than nikon sony and canon counter parts ,the sigma 500mm f5,6 shows how a lens can be made ,the 300-600mm f4 shows what can be achieved for a reasonable sum ,the 14mm f1.4 is totally awesome ,even the sigmas 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 are in spitting distance of gm lenses at half the price but all lessened by sonys limitations of 3rd party lenses ,i feel we need canon to pressure sony open mount to 3rd party ,shame this lens has no t/c option kind of kills it ,but 200mm f2 is a differentiator ,just that the sony 50-150mm f2 has so many more usefull applications ,sigmas on a roll they just need a fully compliant body to mount it on ,

I don’t think I understand why you say “I feel we need Canon to pressure Sony open mount to 3rd party”. Sony licenses several 3rd parties to make lenses for E mount. Canon’s RF mount is all but closed, and they never licensed the EF mount (it was reverse-engineered by several makers). Why would you think that Canon could apply any pressure to Sony to open up further?

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have repeatedly wondered about the speed limit on 3rd party lenses on E mount, and when I’m feeling generous, I wonder if it’s a question of Sony wanting to avoid responsibility for damaging 3rd party lenses by driving them too fast. I have seen a few other people speculating along these lines, in among all the “constraining the competition” talk.

Imagine you buy a cheap 3rd party lens because you spent almost everything you could afford buying an A9 III (or grandma gave you the A9 III). You put the lens on the camera, and enthusiastically fire off lots of bursts at 120fps because, hey, you can! The cheap lens, using less expensive components to make it cheaper, overheats / wears out / breaks. You return the lens, but the manufacturer rejects your warranty claim because the lens has been abused / driven too hard / beyond its design limits. Does Sony want to deal with that kind of PR: “Sony broke my lens”?

I’d like to think that Sony might be able to license some third party lenses to go faster - to exceed the 15fps boundary. This lens would be a candidate, and the 300-600, and maybe (fingers crossed) the 500mm f/5.6. Maybe Sony could even let the lens maker communicate a maximum acceptable speed to the camera?

 

[iamdlewis]

Yeah, Chris Nicholls was shooting baseball, and seemed to think that was a good use of it. Come to think of it, Fro tried out (and loved) the 50-150 when shooting baseball.

In Fro's video he limited his shots to the left side of the infield which was the side he was shooting from. For the most part where you can shoot from on a professional field I think the 100-400 makes the most sense.

I am also not sure what a 200mm lens is for. It feels like it is going to be most of the time either too long or too short. I think it kind of makes some sense for nebula astro shots.

,i feel we need canon to pressure sony open mount to 3rd party

That is like asking Apple to pressure Microsoft to allow for more software on desktops. Every 3rd party RF-mount is manual focus and some kind of specialty lens like macro, fish-eye, tilt-shift or some weird super cheap manual focus telephoto.

I have repeatedly wondered about the speed limit on 3rd party lenses on E mount, and when I’m feeling generous, I wonder if it’s a question of Sony wanting to avoid responsibility for damaging 3rd party lenses by driving them too fast. I have seen a few other people speculating along these lines, in among all the “constraining the competition” talk.

Not all 3rd party lenses are limited to 15fps as several can do the 30fps and 120fps of the A9iii such as the Sigma 150-600.

 

[OddRocker Photography]

I still don't know who this lens is for. Sports and wildlife photographers need more range right? This would be awesome, but overkill for portraits no?

Concert photographers would love this lens with it's F2 aperture

 

[AlphaWorld]

In Fro's video he limited his shots to the left side of the infield which was the side he was shooting from. For the most part where you can shoot from on a professional field I think the 100-400 makes the most sense.

I am also not sure what a 200mm lens is for. It feels like it is going to be most of the time either too long or too short. I think it kind of makes some sense for nebula astro shots.

That is like asking Apple to pressure Microsoft to allow for more software on desktops. Every 3rd party RF-mount is manual focus and some kind of specialty lens like macro, fish-eye, tilt-shift or some weird super cheap manual focus telephoto.


Not all 3rd party lenses are limited to 15fps as several can do the 30fps and 120fps of the A9iii such as the Sigma 150-600.

I wasn’t aware of any third party lenses doing 30, 60, or 120fps. Oh, unless that’s without AF? I can imagine them shooting fast with the AF and aperture locked to the settings used for the first shot of the burst. I recall Fro talking about not getting AF during zoom, too.

I’m getting very used to having tracking operating while zooming on the 400-800 - it works well, even as the bird is moving toward or away.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I must be very naive, I'd always assumed that Sony impose the 15fps limit because they generate masses of revenue from selling their own lenses. Lenses, that have likely cost huge amounts to develop. Unless a camera body wears out, I'm extremely unlikely to buy another body as mine are so good, I don't need to. I would imagine that the majority of amateur photographers feel the same way.

It keeps me loyal, as my main interest is wildlife and I regularly run at 30 fps.

 

[Paul stuart]

I don’t think I understand why you say “I feel we need Canon to pressure Sony open mount to 3rd party”. Sony licenses several 3rd parties to make lenses for E mount. Canon’s RF mount is all but closed, and they never licensed the EF mount (it was reverse-engineered by several makers). Why would you think that Canon could apply any pressure to Sony to open up further?

I do canon has a uncanny knack of knowing how to remain no1 camera maker

 

[Paul stuart]

In Fro's video he limited his shots to the left side of the infield which was the side he was shooting from. For the most part where you can shoot from on a professional field I think the 100-400 makes the most sense.

I am also not sure what a 200mm lens is for. It feels like it is going to be most of the time either too long or too short. I think it kind of makes some sense for nebula astro shots.

That is like asking Apple to pressure Microsoft to allow for more software on desktops. Every 3rd party RF-mount is manual focus and some kind of specialty lens like macro, fish-eye, tilt-shift or some weird super cheap manual focus telephoto.


Not all 3rd party lenses are limited to 15fps as several can do the 30fps and 120fps of the A9iii such as the Sigma 150-600.

true but not in c-af a limitation imposed by sony

 

[Paul stuart]

sigma 135mm f1.4 coming september 9th why f1.4 set the bar again i guess but for portrait f1.4 at 135mm is just going to be razor thin i am constantly stopping down the samyang 135mm f1.8 for head and half body shots guess that it will good for full body poses with some distance