Sigma 135 f1.8 on the way?

Sigma 135 f1.8 on the way?

18 posts
21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Interesting, and certainly cause for Canon & Nikon to be VERY concerned IMO, especially if it does indeed have a stabiliser.
Posted 21 April 2013
Edited by RedChecker 21 April 2013
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
Interesting, the 35mm 1.4 'Art' lens is, by all accounts, a super lens so hopefully others in the series are to be anticipated with optimism. The only 'gripe' and its purely personal, is that I find 135mm a slightly ??? Focal length. Just not significantly longer than 100, wherein many good lenses happen, often with macro facility, and 150 (f2 ?) would suit me better, but as I say my purely personal view and somebody who owns a Canon 135mm SF lens, but that's because of the SF.

Posted 21 April 2013
Edited by magpie1 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
magpie1

Interesting, the 35mm 1.4 'Art' lens is by all accounts a super lens so hopefully others in the series are to be anticipated with optimism. The only 'gripe' and its purely personal, is that I find 135mm a slightly ??? Focal length. Just not significantly longer than 100, wherein many good lenses happen, often with macro facility, and 150 (f2 ?) would suit me better, but as I say my purely personal view and somebody who owns a Canon 135mm SF lens, but that's because of the SF.


Most of my best images are shot at around the 135mm mark on my 70-200 f2.8 (makes sense I guess as it's around half-way and arguably at the lens' sweet spot on the zoom), so for me a 135mm prime makes perfect sense (not that my 70-200 is bad in any way)

I own Sigma's 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 (both bought within the last year) and they're superb lenses and I'm glad I got these over the Canon equivalents (both f1.2 lenses, Canon's 50mm f1.4 doesn't count because it's pretty crap).  The Sigma 35mm is also on my shopping list but this one will need to be pretty amazing (and cheap) to convince me not to go for the Canon which has an astonishing reputation as being one of their top lenses.
Posted 21 April 2013
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
The Canon 35/1.4L and 135/2.0L are both amazing lenses - I originally bought Canon so I could use the 135/2.0.

I could shoot for the rest of my life with just those two lenses - I had only 35/2.0 and 135/2.0 FD lenses for quite a few years.

The 85/1.8 Canon is pretty good, but I agree the Canon 50/1.4 is pretty average.
I've been tempted by the Sigma 50/1.4. Seen some stunning results, but a few too many complaints about focus accuracy.

The Sigma 35/1.4 is supposed to be better optically than the Canon 35/1.4 if you get a good one - but not as accurate focusing.

To put it all in perspective, in my experience, the Canon 35/1,4L at f5.6 will easily make a very sharp, detailed 20" x 30" print which rivals 5x4" film - and I've owned and used 5" x4".


Posted 21 April 2013
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
Exactly why they make plenty focal lengths! What suits 1 person doesn't suit another. I can't get away with a 50 for instance, assuming FF. I'm maybe weird but I go 28, 85, 150 in prime choice and shoot either 70 or 200 on my 70-200!

Posted 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Hugh

I've been tempted by the Sigma 50/1.4. Seen some stunning results, but a few too many complaints about focus accuracy. 


Mine's bang-on with 3x full-frame bodies (two of which don't have the luxury of micro focus adjustment)
Posted 21 April 2013
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
RedChecker
Mine's bang-on with 3x full-frame bodies (two of which don't have the luxury of micro focus adjustment)
I might yet end up with one. Use the Pentax 67/105mm for that perspective at present.
Posted 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Hugh

The Canon 35/1.4L and 135/2.0L are both amazing lenses - I originally bought Canon so I could use the 135/2.0.


I would agree with you, both were on my shopping list but now only the 135 is as far as Canon goes (as the Sigma 35 seems a better proposition for me), however both of those lenses are probably due for replacement and I'm sure Canon will do their usual doubling of the price of the lenses if they do. 

Perhaps having serious competition like these Sigma lenses may at the very least make Canon think twice about further obscene price rises when they bring out new replacement lenses in the future.
Posted 21 April 2013
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
The only real reason for Canon to replace either is if there is some insanely high MP camera coming - like 45MP.

Realistically, the money Canon would make by killing off Medium format digital is insignificant compared to what they can make from Video - which is where their research money seems to be going.

Posted 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Hugh

The only real reason for Canon to replace either is if there is some insanely high MP camera coming - like 45MP.


I thought the 35L could be a little soft around the edges?  (I've heard mumbles on other sites that suggest this)

They've made some advancements with the 24L regarding those sub-wavelength coatings (that eliminate flare) so it seemed only natural that they'd be updating the 35mm to follow suit.  A minor upgrade granted but I'd guess they'd iron out the soft spots and any chromatic aberation as well (isn't it also Canon's oldest EF lens design?)
Posted 21 April 2013
Hugh
Photographer
Hugh
Might be some lens to lens variation.
Lot of hand assembly going on with the rarer L lenses.

They don't sell very many 35/1.4L compared to 70-200/2.8L.

Mind you, the current 35/1.4 is about £1,000.
Would I pay £1800 for a better one - unlikely.

It's like medium format digital - nice, but really worth the money?
Not unless you can get someone else to pay for it.

Posted 21 April 2013
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
Hugh
The only real reason for Canon to replace either is if there is some insanely high MP camera coming - like 45MP. Realistically, the money Canon would make by killing off Medium format digital is insignificant compared to what they can make from Video - which is where their research money seems to be going.
I read somewhere that world wide only a few hundred MF digital camera systems were sold last year so it's not a huge market. A rep for a large professional retailer told me they sell can 5D's on a 5:1 video to stills ratio. That's where the market is and clearly how Canon are skewing their emphasis.
Posted 21 April 2013
Edited by magpie1 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
magpie1

I read somewhere that world wide only a few hundred MF digital camera systems were sold last year so it's not a huge market.


Hasselblad on their website claim to have a turnover of over $350million a year, that's a hell of a lot more than simply a few hundred (it must be in the tens of thousands at least), not to mention the market also has other makes such as Leaf, Phase One, Mamiya and Leica.  The R&D costs alone would dictate $millions in costs so in turn they must sell an awful lot more than you give credit for and I suggest the article you read is a load of crap.
Posted 21 April 2013
Sacredo
Photographer
Sacredo
Hugh
o put it all in perspective, in my experience, the Canon 35/1,4L at f5.6 will easily make a very sharp, detailed 20" x 30" print which rivals 5x4" film - and I've owned and used 5" x4".
That's interesting ... I'm about to sell mine. I wanted a 35mm for a particular project so I compared it to the 24-70II at 35 ... I was shocked to discovered that the zoom was far better than the prime (this was shooting at f4) - it's not supposed to be like that! I'm also considering selling the 135 f2 for similar reasons.
Posted 21 April 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Sacredo

That's interesting ... I'm about to sell mine. I wanted a 35mm for a particular project so I compared it to the 24-70II at 35 ... I was shocked to discovered that the zoom was far better than the prime (this was shooting at f4) - it's not supposed to be like that! I'm also considering selling the 135 f2 for similar reasons.


The current mk2 versions of both the 24-70 and 70-200 are said to surpass even the primes of similar focal lengths although their somewhat increased price tags over the mk1 versions this shouldn't be too surprising, especially since the 35mm and 135mm L primes are two of Canon's oldest lens designs (not just in the shape of the optical elements but also factoring in the coatings/optical materials used).  One suggestion I read somewhere (a rumor) was that Canon had optimised these lenses (and other recent ones) for an oversized image circle (the EF mount would permit this) rather than to simply cover the standard 36x24mm image area.  If this is true then the further rumors of either an enlarged sensor or the square sensor format seem logical for a potential upcoming large megapixel camera.
Posted 21 April 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join