No offense to the L snobs, but man, Sigma just answered the call to what many enthusiasts was asking for, in all focal lengths.

17-50mm f/2.8 OS
70-200mm f/2.8 OS
85mm f/1.4!!!! Goddamn it, I just got the Canon 85 f/1.8
50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS Bigma Stabilized!!!

And most interestingly.....

8-16mm F4.5-5.6

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having all of these.

Been waiting for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II price, but expecting $2K for it.

 

That 17-50 would be a nice replacement for my kit lens. The 70-200 isn't necessary for me since I have the 55-250 now but there's no such thing as too many lenses and yes I'm very interested in that 8-16 f/4-5.6. Any other links to info on them?

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

All the links are currently on the front page.

That 70-200 is a constant 2.8, so it would blow the 55-250 out of the water.

That 17-50 is also a constant 2.8, and will probably set you back 600 clams or so on the low side.

And that 8-16 would be wider than any current APS-C offering. Probably 750 in moohlah.

I'm cringing right now, cause I'm currently in a car interior frenzy.

I've never had a problem with IQ and only once did a lens not focus properly- the 10mm fisheye which got sent back, but only if Sigma got rid of that horrible EX coating. It feels nice, but damn it's not durable at all.

 

Bwahaha, I can only afford one hobby at a time. Picked up a quality wallet and watch that set me back a few hundred bones. And just finished doing my headlights, new exhaust, black suede headliner, and sway bars.

Now it's back to photography, with that 100. Next is ABs, I hope.

 

Damn, you're in the same boat as me.

Yeah... and hopefully, you can do a proper shoot with Charlie.

Think I forgot eh? I want Charlie dammit! With good lighting now that you're getting those ABs. God, that AB ringflash would be nice too.

 

^^^I've given up on Charlie. No disrespect, but she doesn't look like what she used to. Got that highlighter fake blonde going and way too skinny.

 

Not to be a fanboy but I really hate the way Sigma lens feels in my hands - the texture I just can't get over. I think if you guys are looking to really invest in lens, just got with Canon's L or Nikon's AFS - it's a well worth investment. Plus, how many lens does one need anyways? I pack my 70-200mm and I use that mostly along with my 17-35mm ultra wide angle - I have a 50mm 1.5 for some events but mostly stick with the other two. Why do people need 5-6 lens is beyond me unless you're shooting primes only.

 

Yes, like I said, the texture on the Sigmas suck. Not durable at all, but still, overall build quality is better than the equivalent enthusiast first party offerings.

Google "L Snob."

But really, not everyone is in the same boat financially. Hell, if money grew on trees in my back yard... I would not be driving a Z or be on this forum. I'd have all L lenses and all full frame bodies. But it's not the case.

Look at it from this perspective... the 50mm lenses. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is arguably the best 50mm out there for Canon. Canon's equivalents... even the Canon 50mm f/1.2 are all old designs. Most of Canon's primes do not have the latest coatings... even the L's. Wide open, they also have halation issues.

But still, yes, I do understand that L's are more durable, sealed, made for use in the field. But really, I don't need this durability. I don't bang my lenses around like a photojournalist does in tight places in other countries. I don't shoot in sandstorms or rain.

If you read magazines, many pros use these third party lenses. IQ-wise, some of the third party offerings best first party ones.

That said, I'm getting a 70-200 f/4 one day. I'm also looking at the canon 200mm f/2.8. And it's not because I'd like to sport that white lens around my neck at museum.

Seriously, every lens has it's place. Cheaper lenses can have great IQ also. Yes, they are slower, but again, I'd rather bring lighter lens that I'd use instead of lugging around heavy and bulky lenses on vacation. That's why I'm keeping most of my slower lenses as I get better and faster lenses. The cheap 50mm f/1.8, I'd never get rid of it because it makes the perfect travel lens. Light, small, cheap, with great IQ. I don't have to worry about it getting stolen, or lost at a restaurant.

Why people need all these lenses is because each has it's own quality.... from distortion performance, to sharpness, to focusing range, to perspective. The 8-16mm is not offered by anybody in the APS-C range. The 12-24mm for full frame that Sigma offers is not offered by andybody but Sigma. These go wider than any other lenses out there. The 85 f/1.4, not offered by anybody. Yes, I have the Canon f/1.8 that is universally acclaimed for it's IQ and price, but I'd get the Sigma f/1.4 because it's faster and would have the latest coatings. Can the Canon f/1.8 go to f/1.4? Can it blur the background better than a f/1.4? Canon does have teh 85mm f/1.2 L, but the cost would be about double. The 70-200mm f/2.8 would be by far cheaper than the Canon. Yes, I d realize again that it would not have the seals, but again, do I really need it? Also, you can't do birding or great moon shots with just a 200mm. What if you wanted a 500mm lens? Just because you have alot of lenses already, would that stop you? The 17-50 equivalent for Canon would also be $1,200, nearly double.

Essentially, speaking for myself, I buy leses because I don't have the tool to do what I want creatively for photos. I do this knowing that I will get better lenses down the line. I do this knowing that a photo cannot be taken if there is no camera or lens. I do this knowing that lenses carry high resale value. I do this knowing that my photos suck not because of my lenses limitations, but because of me.

But, IMO, DSLRs have taken off recently, and alot of wannabes, including myself, has gotten into photography because the digital age has made it so easy. People are too engrossed on "sharpness" and "IQ," when they should be practicing "how to take a better photograph." Browsing old photos and magazines where film was used, the great photos are grainy... soft. But it's not what makes them great photos.

But the real kicker is when someone "upgrades" to a DSLR from a compact, yet the results look like they were from a compact. Having a Ferrari doesn't automatically mean you'll drive like Michael Schumacher.

 

I have a 10-22 3.5-4.5, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 85 1.8, and 100 2.8 macro. That' 5 lenses. Each of them serve their own purpose and cannot be replaced by another. i also plan to add to a 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS, for a grant total of 6 lenses.

 

not true in some case. For example, Nikon newest AF-S 50mm can't beat Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on bokeh. I sold my Nikon AF-S for the sigma.

As for sigma newest release, the 85 f/1.4 is really interesting. It would give more alternative for user in term of price/quality (IF sigma can deliver it)

 

The 85 and 8-16 is VERY interesting. If I had a crop, I'd pick up the 8-16.

Depending on price, not sure how well the 70-200 is going to do.

How many stops is the OS on the 50-500?

 

4 stops

 

As a "L" snob, I don't see myself rushing out to pick up any of them, but there do seem to be a few that look really interesting...

-17-50mm f/2.8 OS (Stabilization on this range is more a gimmick than anything and the lens needs a ton of performance to keep up with this segment, tough sale)

-70-200mm f/2.8 OS (Its up against some of the best all round lenses on the market, price notwithstanding its gonna be tough to take some business away from the big two)

-85mm f/1.4 (Looks like a good alternative to some ultra pricey glass)

-50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS Bigma Stabilized!!! (If they improved it in any way it will continue to sell, and the OS can only be helpful on this lens)

-8-16mm F4.5-5.6 (Very interesting)

 

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a very good lens. With a 3 stop IS and being able to handhold 1/2", I found that useful. The Sigma has a 4 stop OS which makes 1" shutter speeds obtainable. Very cool.

 

the weight on bigma is quite heavy. I wouldn't want to handhold it at all.

 

pffftttt.....I handhold the sigmonster.

 

LOL. A self confessed "L Snob."

I think the 17-50 stabilized segment needs room to grow... especially since the Canon EF-S is known to suck in dust. The Canon was the only game in town for the longest time, speaking in terms of constant f/2.8 stabilized. Tamron only recently released their VC 2.8 version, but there seems to be quality variation across the early product. I bought the Tamron, and I have lucked out on a sharp version.

 

There are always some exceptions to the rules


You speak about this as if I dont know each lens has a purpose What I'm saying (not arguing) is that sometimes people gotta step back and say, ok, how often do I use this lens - am I worrying too much about this and that to make a great picture or should I just go out there and do it.

I think when you hit a certain point, lens and camera bodies no longer matters. If you have a D700, going to a D3X isn't going to give you better pictures. That's why I focused on lighting more than on lens now. And yes, going for L or AFS Nikons has its advantages. I do more and more on-location shoots now and I want to make sure my lens are sealed, and they can stand some abuse if I accidentally has a mishaps during a shoot. Models don't understand equipments and might knock something accidentally. I don't want to be worried about my lens failing on-location.

You said it yourself, people are too worried about sharpness, etc. I completely agree - that's why I pick the best nikkors - stick with it, and be happy. I can spend HOURS picking out sharper images, but in the end, it no longer matters. These days, I spend every other day shooting instead of equipment browsing. I invest in my new lighting equipment and maybe a year down the line I will upgrade my wide angle and sell the 50mm to get a midrange zoom. But that's only if the opportunity arises - I'm not looking to do these things. I'd rather be shooting.

Good for you I don't shoot like that but that's what makes each photographer different. I think if I was shooting studio all day I'll add one or two more as well. But I do a lot of on location shoots and I like to streamline my process and weight (for traveling to odd locations).

 

Ehhh... I used to think this, but as the number of lenses I have grew so did my idea of how many lenses one should have. Now if I could only get Canon to make a 400mm F4 IS for less than $3000

 

I've got 5 primes and would like to pick up one more and 3 zooms.