What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Rumors Sigma 20-200mm f/3.5-6.3 travail zoom

Q

Quentinquirelino

Well-Known Member
Ooohh - if it performs better than the 28-200 then this will be mine! Even if it’s a bit chunky, it’ll still be a lot lighter than the 24-105 + 70-200 f4.
 
dirk said:
it depends on the aperture. A 20-200/8.0 or F6.3.would not really help.

I would rather prefer a small 70-200/4-5.6
Click to expand...
According to the rumors, it will be f3.5-6.3. I think that sounds fine for a ten times zoom. Maybe it could replace all my zooms, including the 70-300. But maybe I would need an additional macro lens.
 
Quentinquirelino said:
According to the rumors, it will be f3.5-6.3.
Click to expand...

As far as I understood it, the aperture is not a rumor, only an opinion of the rumor size owner. So, take it with a grain of salt.
 
I'd be very happy with a 20-200 f3.5-f6.3. I'd even be happy with a 20-200 f8, so long as it performs decently wide open. For a do-it-all landscape lens, that's all I need - but it must have decent optical performance throughout the range. If it's no better than the 28-200 then I'll pass, but I hope that Sigma can do better than Panasonic and pull something out of the hat. Really, 20-200 is the perfect range for landscape.
 
pdk42 said:
Ooohh - if it performs better than the 28-200 then this will be mine! Even if it’s a bit chunky, it’ll still be a lot lighter than the 24-105 + 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...
Yeah but… this whole summer I have regretted not bringing my beloved 70-200f4. “Be reasonable” I told myself. “Save the weight. The 28-200 is more than enough in summer light!”

But darn I missed it because it always produces so pleasant images.

So for me I doubt the Sigma will be as good as the 70-200 and highly doubt it’ll be lighter and more compact than the Panasonic…

Really great to get more options in any case!
 
Jan.Wedekind said:
Yeah but… this whole summer I have regretted not bringing my beloved 70-200f4. “Be reasonable” I told myself. “Save the weight. The 28-200 is more than enough in summer light!”

But darn I missed it because it always produces so pleasant images.

So for me I doubt the Sigma will be as good as the 70-200 and highly doubt it’ll be lighter and more compact than the Panasonic…

Really great to get more options in any case!
Click to expand...
I think comparing the 28-200 with the 70-200 f4 is a really unfair comparison. In fact, there’s really no comparison possible!
 
Jan.Wedekind said:
Yeah but… this whole summer I have regretted not bringing my beloved 70-200f4. “Be reasonable” I told myself. “Save the weight. The 28-200 is more than enough in summer light!”

But darn I missed it because it always produces so pleasant images.

So for me I doubt the Sigma will be as good as the 70-200 and highly doubt it’ll be lighter and more compact than the Panasonic…
Click to expand...

This is where I am at. It will be interesting to see which is lighter - the 28-200 + the 14-28, or the 20-200 + the Sigma 17mm F4.

Having said that, of course the 20-200 is a more useful FL range for hiking/landscape as a single lens solution. We shall see about the IQ. 10x is a more challenging build than 7x.

Jan.Wedekind said:
Really great to get more options in any case!
Click to expand...
 
With these big range zooms the saying "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind.

There have been many 18-200 zooms in the past, from Sigma also, sure I had one in my Canon days that was pretty good, but I think expectations and sensors are a little more demanding these days, will be interesting to see the size and weight.
 
A 20-200mm would certainly be interesting, the first time a super-zoom has gone so wide. I wouldn't expect it to compete with a 70-200mm or similar in image quality but it would be extremely useful for travel if the image quality is good enough.

I have been hoping for a 135mm lens but if it's f/1.4 then it'll be an Art series lens - big, heavy and expensive. I'm sure image quality will be great but I want something I can travel with so f/2.8 or f/3.5 would be my ideal. Has anyone ever made a 135mm f/1.4 before?
 
Jayneboo said:
With these big range zooms the saying "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind.

There have been many 18-200 zooms in the past, from Sigma also, sure I had one in my Canon days that was pretty good, but I think expectations and sensors are a little more demanding these days, will be interesting to see the size and weight.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t that 18-200 aps-c?

@pdk42
I think that the 28-200, on 24mp, is just fine! But you have to hit the jackpot I guess. The first one was a real lemon, but the one I have now is very good in my opinion. After the lemon, which I send back the same day I got it, I thought off just asking my money back. but when the seller confirmed it was out of spec, I requested another one and asked them to test it first before sending it to me. No idea if they did that. But I am really pleased with the images I get.

But it does contribute to the mixed reviews. And because of the aperture you have to watch the focus carefully in dimmer situations.
Sure, the 24-60 and 16-35 or primes are sharper at overlapping range, but that is the trade off for range. I don’t hold my breath for this sigma. Something has to give, size, weight, aperture or picture quality, OIS. Or multiple of those.

Anyway, tomorrow the new sigma 35 1.2 will be revealed, already saw some comparison pictures with the old one and looks smaller. That one sounds much more interesting to me.
 
RuleOfThirds said:
Wasn’t that 18-200 aps-c?

@pdk42
I think that the 28-200, on 24mp, is just fine! But you have to hit the jackpot I guess. The first one was a real lemon, but the one I have now is very good in my opinion. After the lemon, which I send back the same day I got it, I thought off just asking my money back. but when the seller confirmed it was out of spec, I requested another one and asked them to test it first before sending it to me. No idea if they did that. But I am really pleased with the images I get.

But it does contribute to the mixed reviews. And because of the aperture you have to watch the focus carefully in dimmer situations.
Sure, the 24-60 and 16-35 or primes are sharper at overlapping range, but that is the trade off for range. I don’t hold my breath for this sigma. Something has to give, size, weight, aperture or picture quality, OIS. Or multiple of those.

Anyway, tomorrow the new sigma 35 1.2 will be revealed, already saw some comparison pictures with the old one and looks smaller. That one sounds much more interesting to me.
Click to expand...
I have now tried three copies of the 28-200. The first I bought as a used lens from MPB and it was absolutely terrible at anything beyond 100mm - low contrast and very poor sharpness. I returned it immediately. The other two were lenses that I tried either at a trade show or at a shop. In both cases I used my own memory card and inspected the images later in LR on my PC. Both were OK to about 150mm, but after that they softened up and lost contrast to an unacceptable degree. I briefly thought, “oh well, I can ignore the 150-200 range”, but then I realised that a 28-150 is not particularly useful to me, especially when my 24-105 is really excellent and will easily take a crop to 150 equiv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top