sigma 135 1.8 rumor

RonHendriks1966 · 04-23-2013, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Any benefits to using a Sigma camera with Sigma lenses? Better communication between lens and camera perhaps?

Mind you, that foveon sensor is remarkable. Very sharp results. Are they, as a camera company, now bigger or more interesting then Pentax?

No they are not. They somehow don't have the skills to make a good dslr at the time. It is dead slow in processing and handling files. Maybe they can learn in the future, but this generation is not for serious shooters who would want to make a lot off images.

Clavius · 04-23-2013, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by RonHendriks1966

No they are not. They somehow don't have the skills to make a good dslr at the time. It is dead slow in processing and handling files. Maybe they can learn in the future, but this generation is not for serious shooters who would want to make a lot off images.

I can sure understand the reason that it's slow. It has to process 3 times as much data. The same reason why it drains batteries quickly. Or so I've read.

My personal style of shooting doesn't incorporate tons of images. IQ is always the most important factor, in my case. And I've been very impressed with the foveon pictures I've seen around the net.

If they fix the speed issues though, they could become serious competitor of the big three.

rawr · 04-23-2013, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters.

Me too. My Sigma 70-200 2.8 stays at home a lot more than it should precisely because it is big, heavy and bulky.

Supernaut · 04-23-2013, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

But seriously, I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters.

+1
Great idea. A WR f/4 serie of approx. 16-35, 24-80, 70-200 would be awsome and a good selling point for the system as a compact alternative.

jsherman999 · 04-23-2013, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

Hehe! But seriously, I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters. The best camera is the one you always carry, and I bring my K-5 on my way to work every day, and often leave even the 55-300 at home - 440 grams is a lot of extra weight in a bag you carry every day, and shorter end is well covered by the DA70.

A good 70-200 f4 or 24-70 f4 is great option to have on FF, but what significant advantage would that give you over the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8 on aps-c?

.

gazonk · 04-23-2013, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

A good 70-200 f4 or 24-70 f4 is great option to have on FF, but what significant advantage would that give you over the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8 on aps-c?

.

You would still have (presumably) higher MP count. Granted, the new Canon 24-70/4 is almost exactly the same size as the Pentax 16-50 - but maybe it would be possible to make it quite a bit smaller if it doesn't have IS?

Supernaut · 04-23-2013, 05:08 AM

And it would fit perfectly on a cam that mounts nice FF primes

Mistral75 · 04-23-2013, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Shanti

where is this info from? so no new 70-200 2.8 then

See for yourself: below the complete Tamron offer, in grey the lenses that are not available in K mount.

jsherman999 · 04-23-2013, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

You would still have (presumably) higher MP count. Granted, the new Canon 24-70/4 is almost exactly the same size as the Pentax 16-50 - but maybe it would be possible to make it quite a bit smaller if it doesn't have IS?

I doubt they could make it much smaller than a 16-50 that doesn't have VR either. When they say these f4 zooms are 'small', they mean 'small' compared to the f2.8 zooms.

Originally posted by Supernaut

And it would fit perfectly on a cam that mounts nice FF primes

This ^^ nails the reason, I think. If you buy a FF camera and only shoot f4 zooms, you don't gain much over shooting with f2.8 zooms on aps-c - but the f4 zooms are great options to have along with other, more powerful lenses that give you the FF 'advantage'.

There are times when I go out with my aps-c Sigma 50-150 2.8 lens in DX mode on my D800, because I love that lens, it's smaller, and in many situations I don't need the additional speed. In DX mode, that lens is almost exactly a 70-200 f4 (really about 75-225 f4.5) and is about as big as the f4 70-200's are (and about as big as the 50-135 is.) It would be nice to have an f4 70-200 to take it's place so I can use all my MP, and can just swap out with a fast prime or zoom when I want the FF power.

But my main point was that I don't think it makes sense to come out with the f4 zooms first, because it doesn't bring enough IQ difference from aps-c. Nikon's just getting around to the f4 zooms now. (not that Pentax has to do it just like Nikon.)

.

IchabodCrane · 04-23-2013, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Any benefits to using a Sigma camera with Sigma lenses? Better communication between lens and camera perhaps?

Mind you, that foveon sensor is remarkable. Very sharp results. Are they, as a camera company, now bigger or more interesting then Pentax?

Remarkable Foveon sensor?

Ricoh GR Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

gazonk · 04-23-2013, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

But my main point was that I don't think it makes sense to come out with the f4 zooms first, because it doesn't bring enough IQ difference from aps-c. Nikon's just getting around to the f4 zooms now. (not that Pentax has to do it just like Nikon.)

Possibly. But OTOH, Pentax may want to concentrate on getting great primes out first (including the already existing FA limiteds and macro lenses). In particular it would make sense to offer some ultra wide primes: It doesn't make sense to try to match Nikon's fabulous 14-24/2.8 zoom. But that lens is extremely bulky - so why not offer some ultra wide primes instead? AFAIK Nikon only has a 20mm prime below 24mm, and that's a very old lens.

So, suppose they put their effort in compact prime lenses which really take advantage of the larger sensor: They will still need kit zooms. And then reasonably priced f/4 zooms may be more urgent than the typical f/2.8 zooms.

Supernaut · 04-23-2013, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

This ^^ nails the reason, I think. If you buy a FF camera and only shoot f4 zooms, you don't gain much over shooting with f2.8 zooms on aps-c - but the f4 zooms are great options to have along with other, more powerful lenses that give you the FF 'advantage'.
.

You are better at transferring my thoughts into words than I am

In short; I'd like many advantages of FF but are not too interested in increased bulk and weight.

jsherman999 · 04-23-2013, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

Possibly. But OTOH, Pentax may want to concentrate on getting great primes out first (including the already existing FA limiteds and macro lenses). In particular it would make sense to offer some ultra wide primes: It doesn't make sense to try to match Nikon's fabulous 14-24/2.8 zoom. But that lens is extremely bulky - so why not offer some ultra wide primes instead? AFAIK Nikon only has a 20mm prime below 24mm, and that's a very old lens.

So, suppose they put their effort in compact prime lenses which really take advantage of the larger sensor: They will still need kit zooms. And then reasonably priced f/4 zooms may be more urgent than the typical f/2.8 zooms.

Agreed on the wide primes. 18 or 20, 24 - very nice on FF. And they would go very nicely with the existing FA Limiteds for now. What a sweet, sweet kit! C'mon, Pentax!!

SyncGuy · 04-23-2013, 06:07 AM

Oh my..... Potentially, Sigma's line up if everything goes well, including the rumored 24/1.4, their line up would be:
24/1.4
30/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4
135/1.8

*faints* My wallet's sniffling now already...

Clavius · 04-23-2013, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by SyncGuy

Oh my..... Potentially, Sigma's line up if everything goes well, including the rumored 24/1.4, their line up would be:
24/1.4
30/1.4
35/1.4
50/1.4
85/1.4
135/1.8

*faints* My wallet's sniffling now already...

But no ultrafast lenses. Not that I'm complaining, but I find it interesting. Otoh, I do consider 1.8 ultrafast for a 135.

04-23-2013, 05:16 AM	#53
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by Shanti where is this info from? so no new 70-200 2.8 then See for yourself: below the complete Tamron offer, in grey the lenses that are not available in K mount. Attached Images

04-23-2013, 05:24 AM	#54
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by gazonk You would still have (presumably) higher MP count. Granted, the new Canon 24-70/4 is almost exactly the same size as the Pentax 16-50 - but maybe it would be possible to make it quite a bit smaller if it doesn't have IS? I doubt they could make it much smaller than a 16-50 that doesn't have VR either. When they say these f4 zooms are 'small', they mean 'small' compared to the f2.8 zooms. Originally posted by Supernaut And it would fit perfectly on a cam that mounts nice FF primes This ^^ nails the reason, I think. If you buy a FF camera and only shoot f4 zooms, you don't gain much over shooting with f2.8 zooms on aps-c - but the f4 zooms are great options to have along with other, more powerful lenses that give you the FF 'advantage'. There are times when I go out with my aps-c Sigma 50-150 2.8 lens in DX mode on my D800, because I love that lens, it's smaller, and in many situations I don't need the additional speed. In DX mode, that lens is almost exactly a 70-200 f4 (really about 75-225 f4.5) and is about as big as the f4 70-200's are (and about as big as the 50-135 is.) It would be nice to have an f4 70-200 to take it's place so I can use all my MP, and can just swap out with a fast prime or zoom when I want the FF power. But my main point was that I don't think it makes sense to come out with the f4 zooms first, because it doesn't bring enough IQ difference from aps-c. Nikon's just getting around to the f4 zooms now. (not that Pentax has to do it just like Nikon.) . Last edited by jsherman999; 04-23-2013 at 05:33 AM.

04-23-2013, 05:42 AM	#57
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	Originally posted by jsherman999 This ^^ nails the reason, I think. If you buy a FF camera and only shoot f4 zooms, you don't gain much over shooting with f2.8 zooms on aps-c - but the f4 zooms are great options to have along with other, more powerful lenses that give you the FF 'advantage'. . You are better at transferring my thoughts into words than I am In short; I'd like many advantages of FF but are not too interested in increased bulk and weight. Last edited by Supernaut; 04-23-2013 at 06:05 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K-5, 16-50,50-135,65-250, Sigma 17-50, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8, Flashes	virarfast	Sold Items	8	04-04-2013 02:30 PM
After Nikon D600 rumor, Canon entry level FF camera rumor ...	LFLee	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	17	05-16-2012 08:41 PM

04-23-2013, 02:14 AM	#46
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Clavius Any benefits to using a Sigma camera with Sigma lenses? Better communication between lens and camera perhaps? Mind you, that foveon sensor is remarkable. Very sharp results. Are they, as a camera company, now bigger or more interesting then Pentax? No they are not. They somehow don't have the skills to make a good dslr at the time. It is dead slow in processing and handling files. Maybe they can learn in the future, but this generation is not for serious shooters who would want to make a lot off images.

04-23-2013, 03:01 AM	#47
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by RonHendriks1966 No they are not. They somehow don't have the skills to make a good dslr at the time. It is dead slow in processing and handling files. Maybe they can learn in the future, but this generation is not for serious shooters who would want to make a lot off images. I can sure understand the reason that it's slow. It has to process 3 times as much data. The same reason why it drains batteries quickly. Or so I've read. My personal style of shooting doesn't incorporate tons of images. IQ is always the most important factor, in my case. And I've been very impressed with the foveon pictures I've seen around the net. If they fix the speed issues though, they could become serious competitor of the big three.

04-23-2013, 03:16 AM	#48
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by gazonk I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters. Me too. My Sigma 70-200 2.8 stays at home a lot more than it should precisely because it is big, heavy and bulky.

04-23-2013, 04:51 AM	#49
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	Originally posted by gazonk But seriously, I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters. +1 Great idea. A WR f/4 serie of approx. 16-35, 24-80, 70-200 would be awsome and a good selling point for the system as a compact alternative.

04-23-2013, 04:51 AM	#50
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by gazonk Hehe! But seriously, I would prefer Pentax to release great compact WRed f/4 standard and tele zoom lenses for FF before they provide f/2.8 monsters. The best camera is the one you always carry, and I bring my K-5 on my way to work every day, and often leave even the 55-300 at home - 440 grams is a lot of extra weight in a bag you carry every day, and shorter end is well covered by the DA70. A good 70-200 f4 or 24-70 f4 is great option to have on FF, but what significant advantage would that give you over the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8 on aps-c? .

04-23-2013, 05:06 AM	#51
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by jsherman999 A good 70-200 f4 or 24-70 f4 is great option to have on FF, but what significant advantage would that give you over the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8 on aps-c? . You would still have (presumably) higher MP count. Granted, the new Canon 24-70/4 is almost exactly the same size as the Pentax 16-50 - but maybe it would be possible to make it quite a bit smaller if it doesn't have IS?

04-23-2013, 05:08 AM	#52
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	And it would fit perfectly on a cam that mounts nice FF primes

04-23-2013, 05:30 AM	#55
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Clavius Any benefits to using a Sigma camera with Sigma lenses? Better communication between lens and camera perhaps? Mind you, that foveon sensor is remarkable. Very sharp results. Are they, as a camera company, now bigger or more interesting then Pentax? Remarkable Foveon sensor? Ricoh GR Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

04-23-2013, 05:38 AM	#56
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by jsherman999 But my main point was that I don't think it makes sense to come out with the f4 zooms first, because it doesn't bring enough IQ difference from aps-c. Nikon's just getting around to the f4 zooms now. (not that Pentax has to do it just like Nikon.) Possibly. But OTOH, Pentax may want to concentrate on getting great primes out first (including the already existing FA limiteds and macro lenses). In particular it would make sense to offer some ultra wide primes: It doesn't make sense to try to match Nikon's fabulous 14-24/2.8 zoom. But that lens is extremely bulky - so why not offer some ultra wide primes instead? AFAIK Nikon only has a 20mm prime below 24mm, and that's a very old lens. So, suppose they put their effort in compact prime lenses which really take advantage of the larger sensor: They will still need kit zooms. And then reasonably priced f/4 zooms may be more urgent than the typical f/2.8 zooms.

04-23-2013, 05:50 AM	#58
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by gazonk Possibly. But OTOH, Pentax may want to concentrate on getting great primes out first (including the already existing FA limiteds and macro lenses). In particular it would make sense to offer some ultra wide primes: It doesn't make sense to try to match Nikon's fabulous 14-24/2.8 zoom. But that lens is extremely bulky - so why not offer some ultra wide primes instead? AFAIK Nikon only has a 20mm prime below 24mm, and that's a very old lens. So, suppose they put their effort in compact prime lenses which really take advantage of the larger sensor: They will still need kit zooms. And then reasonably priced f/4 zooms may be more urgent than the typical f/2.8 zooms. Agreed on the wide primes. 18 or 20, 24 - very nice on FF. And they would go very nicely with the existing FA Limiteds for now. What a sweet, sweet kit! C'mon, Pentax!!

04-23-2013, 06:07 AM	#59
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Oh my..... Potentially, Sigma's line up if everything goes well, including the rumored 24/1.4, their line up would be: 24/1.4 30/1.4 35/1.4 50/1.4 85/1.4 135/1.8 faints My wallet's sniffling now already...

04-23-2013, 06:17 AM	#60
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by SyncGuy Oh my..... Potentially, Sigma's line up if everything goes well, including the rumored 24/1.4, their line up would be: 24/1.4 30/1.4 35/1.4 50/1.4 85/1.4 135/1.8 faints My wallet's sniffling now already... But no ultrafast lenses. Not that I'm complaining, but I find it interesting. Otoh, I do consider 1.8 ultrafast for a 135.