Sigma has produced some impressively advanced and innovative lenses in the last few years, and as the mirrorless race continues to heat up, the company seems to be showing no signs of slowing down. A few new patents have emerged, and some of them show some very interesting lenses.
A range of new patents have emerged from Sigma, and some of them are quite impressive. The patents include:
- 14-30mm f/4
- 28mm f/1.4
- 28-70mm f/2
- 33mm f/1.4
- 20mm f/1.4 (APS-C)
- 23mm f/1.4 (APS-C)
The most notable patents are the two zooms, the 14-30mm f/4 and 28-70mm f/2. An ultra-wide zoom like the 14-30mm f/4 would offer a very useful focal length range that would likely make it a favorite of landscape photographers. The 28-70mm f/2 has a precedent in the highly impressive Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L, and if it could undercut the price of the Canon model by a fair amount, it could be quite popular. Of course, just because a patent exists doesn't mean the product will eventually make it to the market, but I can certainly see at least of couple of these lenses eventually arriving, though we don't have any further information just yet.
I see Sigma has been on a tear with some amazing glass lately, at least most of them.
If they can keep the quality stands up whilst maintaining reasonable price points, especially if they can undercut the LUDICROUSLY expensive RF glass, no doubt they'll have winners on their hands.
I'm especially keen on the 14-30mm f4 after having seen the Nikkor version of this focal length, interesting.
Wonder what Tamron will release next too!
The Nikon 14-30mm f/4 is already impressive, and a lens I already own. Sigma would need something up its sleeve to best that in the Nikon mount.
You would be surprised how people don’t care about quality. I’ve seen countless people desperate to use that sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens over the Fujinon 16-55 f2.8… also not willing to buy that XF10-24.
I’m completely with you, I’d rather invest in that excellent lens on the Z system over any 3rd party just to save a few quid.
As a photo lens, no doubt the Fuji 16-55 is far superior. But as a hybrid lens, it is a ripoff. Firstly, there is the issue of flicker when zooming in video (due to lens profile corrections and/or stepped aperture changes instead of mechanically coupled aperture like other zoom lenses)
Secondly, you can get a FF Sigma 24-70 or 24-105 f4 zooms with OIS at the same price, for the same image quality.
The 10-24 while optically great is only f4, and the 8-16 is not a true f2.8 since the T stop is closer to 3.9 or 4. Idk if it is poor coatings or glass, but Fuji lenses are pretty expensive. The 10-24 also has worse stabilization compared to an adapted Canon 10-18. Fuji needs to step up their ois algorithms if adapted lenses are performing better.
The only Fuji lenses I think are worth the money are the primes, especially the new 18mm f1.4 alongside the 2 brothers.
Don’t care about video, buy a video camera.
I think the images on my profile page prove that both lenses are extremely capable… don’t care about any of that full frame equivalence waffle, save it for DPreview and the gearhead spec sheet sites where nobody ever actually takes a photo, they just spend all day arguing about it.
I’ve also taken 1 second hand held shots with the XF10-24 that are sharp so let’s not talk nonsense about OIS either.
P.S. well done for creating an account just to reply to me with all that bollocks.
Pure photography is dead when it comes to businesses. Companies are using hybrid shooters with hybrid cameras for marketing campaigns. Video cameras are only for higher budget work. Try convincing a marketing director you need $30-50k of gear just to make instagram reels. Even those whose core skill is photography are branching out into video to increase their company's worth.
People who say "just buy a video camera" dont know that a single video lens can pay off your entire photography kit lol.
You're an anonymous nobody who created an account yesterday just to post some pointless, non factual comments on Fstoppers, you provide zero evidence you know what you are talking about, zero evidence you're a photographer.
You clearly have some 'anti Fuji agenda' that made you feel the need to do the above just so you could reply to me with some waffle that clearly shows you don't even own or use the items you are attempting to form opinions about.
Either come back with some evidence of your work or kindly f--k off.
I've got both Fuji (GFX 100S) lenses and Nikon (Nikon Z7) lenses and find the prices comparable between the two. But, I only have first party lenses for those two cameras, and they are different formats (medium vs full-frame).
They've bested them in other lenses. Not that they have to best them. If it's 98% as good at 60% of the price, many would prefer it over Nikon
APS-C f/1.4 20mm and 23mm? Seems a little redundant. I guess 20mm would be a nice differentiator on Fuji and 23mm options are lacking on Sony E.
There are 2 competitors in the E-mount 23mm AF realm, Viltrox and Tokina. Neither would hold a candle to Sigma given Sigma's track record. I'll start saving for a Sigma APSC E-mount 23mm f1.4 from now, because that will be a nice addition to my kit.
As to why they chose the 23mm? I guess because its the closest approximation to "35mm" full frame equivalent (using Sony's crop factor of 1.534). But I agree with you that it is an odd choice to have both 20 and 23 mm options for the same mount.
Indeed! 35mm equivalent is great, especially in a compact camera. Viltrox and Tokina present an odd "illusion of choice" - they are the same lens, rebranded. That said, Sony does have a nice Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 for APS-C. Totally agree that Sigma has been batting 100 in the APS-C realm - expanding the trinity to a... quadrinity?... with a 23mm E-mount makes a lot of sense.
Fuji, of course, has the Viltrox/Tokina, versions 1 and 2 of the Fujinon 23mm f/1.4, a weather sealed f/2 prime, and if you really want to stretch it, the entire X100 lineup has fixed 23mm f/2 lenses. Excessive!
That 28-70 f2 could be nice!
I would love to see Sigma come up with some real high-end supertelephoto zooms with wide apertures. But these lenses that this article discusses seem to be in the opposite direction - little short focal lengths.
Sigma has discontinued its premium supertelephotos like the 300-800mm f5.6 and the 200-500mm f2.8, and they haven't replaced them with anything similar. Instead they're making cheaper economy "compromised" lenses like the 150-600mm f6.3 stuff. It's about time they start making stuff that will compete with the $10,000 to $16,000 supertelephotos that Canon and Nikon are cranking out.
The trouble is, ISO performance is that good now, its just rendering these super expensive, fast aperture telephotos redundant. Why pay that much and lump around huge unwieldy lenses like that when you can take clean images at ISO 12800 with the right camera, even with the wrong camera you can send the photo through topaz or something similar and de-noise the image.
Im looking forward to what the wildlife ambassadors from Fuji are taking with the 150-600 lens in pre-prod, ill bet the results are spectacular. Alan Hewitt is already getting amazing images with the 100-400.
People don't get large aperture lenses to be able to shoot at faster shutter speeds anymore. That is so 10 or 20 years ago. Today, people get huge lenses with large apertures because of the shallow depth of field and greater subject isolation in complex shooting conditions and for the more beautiful, creamier background rendering. Large apertures don't really have much to do with the exposure triangle anymore. A blurred background taken at 600mm and f4 will just look nicer and more buttery than the same background taken at 600mm and f6.3
You honestly believe at 600mm that makes a difference? Fair enough at 50mm but come on, at that focal length you’re just chasing imaginary excuses to warrant an expensive lens.
I shoot between 500 and 800mm routinely, tens of thousands of times each year. I think I know that of which I speak.
When I am shooting a duck that is 60 feet from me, and there is nasty looking vegetation just 6 feet behind the duck, yes, f4 helps to make that vegetation not quite as nasty as it looks at f6.3. When one is unable to get the proper ratio of camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distances, larger apertures really help, especially at very long focal lengths.
If you shoot thousands of images at very long focal lengths (not just 400mm or whatever), and have actually noticed no appreciable difference between f4 and f5.6 or f6.3, that would surprise me. perhaps you are not quite as picky as I am about what degree background elements are blurred, nor of the character of how they are rendered.
I love the way you project to people as if you’re the only person on earth who has ever picked up a camera before, or knows how to use one.
The fact remains, minor aperture differences make little difference to the background blur at extreme focal lengths… don’t preach to me, preach to all the articles, media and guides that explain this. Or are they all wrong and ‘Tom from fstoppers comments’ is right?
No, Stuart, one or one and a third stops of aperture make a noticeable difference in thee way background elements are rendered, especially very fine elements such as blades of grass and twigs.
So you're saying the Photography industry are wrong and you are right? Gotcha.
Stuart C asked me,
"So you're saying the Photography industry are wrong and you are right? Gotcha."
No, I am not saying that.
A huge portion of "the photography industry" says that a huge expensive fast supertelephoto will give better results than a cheap light slow economy superzoom ... especially in terms of out-of-focus rendering (a.k.a. "bokeh") and subject isolation. I completely agree with that segment of the photography industry, as they are quite correct in that assessment of lenses.
Here is a shot, 420mm on an APS-C camera, f8 aperture (the maximum allowed with the teleconverter), less than ideal shooting conditions with the subject far closer to the background than the camera, the background is thrown out.
Could it be smoother, of course, could that have been achieved with better composition, absolutely.
My point still stands, you don't NEED an ultra expensive lens to achieve shallow depth go field at extreme telephoto lengths... having a 600mm f6.3 the depth of field would be even shallower, completely negating the need for a wider aperture with modern cameras able to shoot at ultra high ISO.
This was 6400 by the way, with almost no noise, impossible with APS-C according to certain people.
Im not even a wildlife photographer, or particularly interested in it, yet im able to get these results basically taking snap shots from my back door of birds in woodland behind our house.
I would greatly prefer to have gear that would blur the background out much much much more than what you have shown here. 800mm on a full frame sensor would undoubtedly produce "more blurry" results, which I would greatly prefer.
I took this photo last week (below). You can probably tell that there was a lot of nasty brush behind the bird, and it wasn't too far behind him. But with an 800mm lens on a fairly large APS-H sensor, at f5.6, I was able to blur that junk out well enough to produce an acceptable image. I know I wouldn't be able to get that stuff blurred out just as much with a smaller sensor or with a smaller aperture. And I sure as heck wouldn't get it blurred out as well if I had to shoot at 600mm and then crop to get the same framing.
Sometimes the really big, heavy, expensive stuff does give results that are better than the lighter, more economical gear.
As ive already said, much of this was down to composition and not following the basic rules of subject and background distance... I was 6m away from the bird, the background was 1m away from the bird. It seems you lack understanding of basic depth of field rules, instead claiming its 'the gear'
And yeah, 800mm is going to produce a shallower depth of field than 420mm, that's a bit of a 'no shit Sherlock' comment there isn't it. Ive already addressed that point above too.
Hey, I get it, you don't want to listen, its ok, lets end the conversation here because I have better things to do with my time than try to converse with ignorant people who don't actually read the comments they are responding to.
Edit: I see you have edited your comment, the 'wasn't too far behind' part... care to elaborate there? 30cm, 50cm, several metres?
Below is the website of a professional photographer who uses Fujifilm, his longest lens is 400mm and f5.6, the sensor is APS-C... I think its safe to say his portfolio debunks many of the myths you are spewing here. And his work is lets say, of a professional level.
https://alanhewittphotography.co.uk
I understand the "rules" of depth of field. I also realize there are times when the conditions presented to a photographer are far less than ideal, and there is nothing one can do, or is allowed to do, to change the conditions in which one must shoot.
If a feeder is set up just 4 feet in front of a nasty background, and one is not allowed to tamper with any of the vegetation or perches, and one is not allowed to approach beyond the boundary rope that is set up, then one must rely on gear to get things "more blurry".
Often times, the conditions that we have to shoot in, and the position that we have to shoot from, are "given", and we are simply not permitted to do anything different. In those situations, which are quite prevalent, then gear does become the thing that must be depended on when we have a certain result in mind, and the conditions are not conducive to giving us that result.
I have read everything you have written here with great care and precise attention to the way you have worded everything, and I have responded accordingly.
Perhaps our objectives are different, which would result in us having different opinions on the same issues. I tend to be a perfectionist who is almost never happy or satisfied with anything. You tend to be more "normal", and seem to take pleasure in things, even if they aren't absolutely perfect. If this is the case, then of course we are not going to agree on what gear is "the best" for any given situation.
Need Nikon Z mounts!! Regretting my move into the Z system because of lack of Sigma art lenses. I thought they'd be here by now.
I think your wish will be granted soon enough, just a bit more patience needed :)