Sigma's gameplan?

[RogerSmith]

So I think the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is forthcoming, wondering where they may be headed for telephotos. Are any of their telephotos updated for any manufacturer's mirrorless mounts? I would be really interested in a 500 f/4, but have heard that its a risky $6K when AF is iffy and it doesn't take TCs well. I know for Canon EF the 120-300 was well regarded but again, I would only try on Canon via MC11. Wondering if Sigma just doesn't see a market in the long lens and is focusing elsewhere. FWIW I really like my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for E mount.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

FWIW I really like my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for E mount.

I second that, I loved that lens!

I do believe that the Sigma Art outright build quality is the best, but being metal I just feel it grabs finger prints too easily and would scuff easily too. Sony's rugged tough plastic design combined with their weight and size is just too good I think.

 

[spudhead]

Not much to say here Roger , I do not think sigma have cracked the Sony mirrorless compatibility issues yet , so not of much interest to me, I have the a-mount sigma 500 4.5 and that was and is good but old, and of little use on the a9 since the rubbish lea-4 adaptor is the only choice for screw drive lenses, on the a9

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

When you search for patents, Sigma and Tamron both have designs for 500/600 f4 and 300 2.8 on all mounts, but they never seem to make them. Sigma had the 500 f4 a few years ago, for Canon/Nikon. It was half the price of OG lenses, and sharp, but AFA speed let it down. I just don't think they'd sell enough to bother.

 

[iain clyne]

How do the A mount lens and adapters fair as far as image quality. I know Gary's 300 f2.8 seems to work well.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

How do the A mount lens and adapters fair as far as image quality. I know Gary's 300 f2.8 seems to work well.

Pretty sure they have no glass, so the only thing likely to affect the IQ is the fact that they may cause some back focussing on mirrorless due to a change in distance from the element to the sensor.

 

[iain clyne]

They look good Tim, nice and sharp.

 

[spudhead]

Ok so I have the following a-mount screw drive lenses Sony 100mm 2.8 Minolta 200 2.8 hs, Minolta 300 2.8 apo, Minolta 400 4.5 hs, they are all screw drive I confirm on the a9 with lea-4 they work well , but not with matching tc,s Sony 1.4, Sony 2x, or Minolta 1.4 X either version, 2x Minolta either version, I have all the tc,s.
I have the Sigma 500 mm 4.5 and 1.4tc, screw drive that works on the lea-4 , and again the 1.4 tc does not work , in fact its not possible to mount a tc because tc would damage slt mirror there is a warning label on adaptor cap on the lea-4.
a9 with lea-5 I have the follow a-mount ssm lens 24-70 2.8 Zeiss g2 lens works lighting fast, of course was not made for tc. I have the Sony 70-200 mm 2.8 that works on lea-5, non of the tcs work. I have the 70-400 g2 that works lighting fast and of course was not made to take tc,s. I have the 300 2.8 g mk1 and that is faster than any e-mount lens I mount on the a9 to focus, it does not work with either tc Sony genuine or Minolta genuine tc on the a9 with the lea-5.

• ILCE-9
• 300mm F2.8 G
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 2000

• ILCE-9
• 300mm F2.8 G
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 2500

• ILCE-9
• 300mm F2.8 G
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 3200

• ILCE-9
• 300mm F2.8 G
• 300.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 3200

• ILCE-7M3
• 400mm F4.5
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/4.5
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 500

 

[spudhead]

They should work with the generic TCs, just not the dedicated ones. There's a complete description with compatibility at Dyxum.

I know and I dont know if it is the a9 but they dont work, without removing the slt mirror form the lea-4 I dont think you can mount the tcs only the monster adapted lea-4 works I have used

 

[spudhead]

The generic ones usually don't have a protruding element, so if you can find one of those it would work. The question then is image quality. Some were really good, others were complete crap.

All the Sony and Minolta tc,s do not have protruding elements at the rear neither does the simga 1.4 ex, but still do not work ,how I wish the tcs would work with adaptors.

 

[spudhead]

Yup. Interestingly, the Minolta 80-200/2.8 does NOT work with any of the Minolta or Sony adapters, you have the buy a generic one. I found my Kalimar 1.4 on eBay brand new in the box for $30, shipped. See the image of using it and the 500mm reflex.

It's important to get the correct one. There were two 5-pin versions and an 8-pin. You need the 8-pin to drive the lenses with an internal motor.

yep got both versions 5-and 8 no will not play

 

[Paul stuart]

we probably will not see a sigma 500mm f4 until canon open rf to 3rd party ,but i doubt sony will allow more than 15ps on it anyway or the use of t/c , sonys 500mm f4 if they made one will much more than the 300mm f2.8 gm either sony are more competitive on lenses than we credit them ,it is just their bodys that are more money which makes better economy as most of us are swapping out bodys every 2=3 years

 

[spudhead]

Yup. Interestingly, the Minolta 80-200/2.8 does NOT work with any of the Minolta or Sony adapters, you have the buy a generic one. I found my Kalimar 1.4 on eBay brand new in the box for $30, shipped. See the image of using it and the 500mm reflex.

It's important to get the correct one. There were two 5-pin versions and an 8-pin. You need the 8-pin to drive the lenses with an internal motor.

the Minolta 80-200 was never able to take a tc as I recall

 

[AlphaWorld]

I second that, I loved that lens!

I do believe that the Sigma Art outright build quality is the best, but being metal I just feel it grabs finger prints too easily and would scuff easily too. Sony's rugged tough plastic design combined with their weight and size is just too good I think.

Quite a few Sigma Art lenses feature a material referred to as (from memory) "thermally stable composite" = plastic. My experience with Sigma Art lenses was a few years back, but when I was shooting Nikon I was shooting nothing but Sigma Art. The Sigma lenses I owned tended to be on the heavier side - their 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/1.8 were both well over a kilo.

I wouldn't say Sigma's build quality is the best, but it's certainly good. GM build is at least as good, for example.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Quite a few Sigma Art lenses feature a material referred to as (from memory) "thermally stable composite" = plastic. My experience with Sigma Art lenses was a few years back, but when I was shooting Nikon I was shooting nothing but Sigma Art. The Sigma lenses I owned tended to be on the heavier side - their 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/1.8 were both well over a kilo.

I wouldn't say Sigma's build quality is the best, but it's certainly good. GM build is at least as good, for example.

All my Sigma Art were metal barrel, all DG DN of course. I obviously prefer Sony's build overall hence the reason I only own Sony lenses and I think it's less likely they will mark, I see them as workman's lenses. Sigma Art I see their build as pieces of art. Sony I want to use, Sigma I just want to admire.

I rarely used my Sigma Art 85mm DG DN but I used to put it on the camera alot at home just so I could look at it, I think it's probably the best looking lens I've ever seen.

 

[AlphaWorld]

All my Sigma Art were metal barrel, all DG DN of course. I obviously prefer Sony's build overall hence the reason I only own Sony lenses and I think it's less likely they will mark, I see them as workman's lenses. Sigma Art I see their build as pieces of art. Sony I want to use, Sigma I just want to admire.

I rarely used my Sigma Art 85mm DG DN but I used to put it on the camera alot at home just so I could look at it, I think it's probably the best looking lens I've ever seen.

I happened to look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 release, and look what I found:

The body, including the hood, features a "multi-material structure" that optimally arranges materials such as magnesium, CFRP*1, and TSC*2. Even with enhanced mobility, the lens features SIGMA's renowned excellent build quality, including high durability, reliable rigidity, and various control rings and switches that have been carefully designed to feel good.

* 1 CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced plastic), a light but strong material used in the interior and exterior fittings of aircraft, among many other applications.
* 2 TSC (Thermally Stable Composite) is a type of polycarbonate with a thermal expansion rate similar to that of aluminum. It has high affinity to metal parts which contributes to high quality product manufacturing.

So this one is definitely not all-metal. That's not a bad thing - some Voigtlander lenses really are pretty much all metal and glass, and they are dense - heavy for their size (the APO Lanthar 35mm and 50mm are solid little lenses. Good to look at, true!). Making a lens the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 with an all-metal construction would make for a seriously heavy lens.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Making a lens the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 with an all-metal construction would make for a seriously heavy lens.

That's why it's a Sport lens, not an Art one.

 

[AlphaWorld]

That's why it's a Sport lens, not an Art one.

Good point - I'd missed that.

I lifted the Sport version of their DSLR 150-600mm once. That was enough to convince me that I wanted the Contemporary version

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Good point - I'd missed that.

I lifted the Sport version of their DSLR 150-600mm once. That was enough to convince me that I wanted the Contemporary version

Lol! Was going to leave that detail for Brownie to cover, but then I changed my mind...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Why me? I've never even held one of those. The only Sigma I ever used was the 100-400.

Oh it's just you do most of the corrections here mate. I thought you'd be onto that..!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Perhaps you noticed because you make most of the mistakes?

I'm at my parents place, and my mum just said I am perfect...

 

[iain clyne]

Mums always say that.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Mums always say that.

Mine is different, she truly has a gift for recognising quality...