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.

Will sigma complete the trinity?, and will it be worth it.

R-J Sunday

LMF-Patron
Last week I was thinking about what lenses would be nice save for, and I was thinking... would a sigma trinity be worth it ?
If we can expect a sigma 70-200 2.8 for the l mount once, it will complete the sigma 16-28 and the 28-70 2.8.
The total budget should be expected around the 3k in euro for a 2.8 trinity which sounds pretty good. (still a lot money, but spread over 2/3 years :))

any thoughts or advice?

I am mainly in to photography btw

greets
 
I am sure they will bring an F2.8 telezoom.

See also the rumor about a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN Patent:

 
I think it would be a good move for them, a 70-200/2.8 a lot cheaper than the Lumix would be a big seller. Personally I'd rather see a 135/2.8 or a 70-200 f/4 as they'd be more suitable for me, but I don't think they'd sell as well as an f/2.8.
 
Did anyone else see this? Hoping this happens soon now... like the sound of the 50-140 also.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-07-10 at 09.21.24.png
    EXIF
    Screenshot 2023-07-10 at 09.21.24.png
    651.5 KB · Views: 16
For me, I'd much prefer a 70-200 f4 than a 70-200 f2.8. But ahead of both of these I'd like a 24-200 f5.6-f6.3. So long as it was decent at f8, that single lens would cover most of my landscape needs.
 
Panny's 70-200 F4 is 1 kilo. Sony's is 800 grams; Canon, 700. So yes, there is opportunity here for Sigma.

Likewise, the Tamron Z-mount 70-300 is 550 grams, while the Panny is 800. So, another opportunity, but I don't know how the Tamron's IQ compares.
 
Panny's 70-200 F4 is 1 kilo. Sony's is 800 grams; Canon, 700. So yes, there is opportunity here for Sigma.

Likewise, the Tamron Z-mount 70-300 is 550 grams, while the Panny is 800. So, another opportunity, but I don't know how the Tamron's IQ compares.
The Lumix being a half macro and being video optimized with stabilization I'm sure contributes to the larger 70-300. The Tamron is also known for much of the frame being soft before 100mm or so.
 
Would a 70-200 f4 really be much smaller than a 70-300 f5.6? Seems likely they would be very similar unless they sacrificed some part of design or build.

That depends what kind of design they would apply, what kind of image quality they want to achieve and how many algorythms they want to apply to get a better image quality without real optical correction. I am sure that if Sigma would launch an i-series tele zoom, that this would be a smaller and lighter tele zoom than what is currently available for L-Mount.

I might even not need F4.0. Look at Fuji's old XC 50-230/5.6-6.7 (and that is for APS-C). Why not a 70-200/5.6 or 5.6-6.7? I do not need the wide aperture with a tele zoom. I need the compression and reach. This is the only reason why I am interested in a tele zoom. Compression and reach.

This is what no other lens with a shorter FL can give me. If I want to have super shallow bokeh, I can grab a 90/2.8 or 85/1.8 or 1.4
 
That depends what kind of design they would apply, what kind of image quality they want to achieve and how many algorythms they want to apply to get a better image quality without real optical correction. I am sure that if Sigma would launch an i-series tele zoom, that this would be a smaller and lighter tele zoom than what is currently available for L-Mount.

I might even not need F4.0. Look at Fuji's old XC 50-230/5.6-6.7 (and that is for APS-C). Why not a 70-200/5.6 or 5.6-6.7? I do not need the wide aperture with a tele zoom. I need the compression and reach. This is the only reason why I am interested in a tele zoom. Compression and reach.

This is what no other lens with a shorter FL can give me. If I want to have super shallow bokeh, I can grab a 90/2.8 or 85/1.8 or 1.4
I think if all I wanted was what you are looking for I'd be picking up a cheap canon ef-s 55-250 (STM version) and using it with Sigma's MC-21 or any other adaptor.
 
I think if all I wanted was what you are looking for I'd be picking up a cheap canon ef-s 55-250 (STM version) and using it with Sigma's MC-21 or any other adaptor.

I would prefer a native L-Mount lens. The adapter will make a Canon lens only bigger and heavier without adding a benefit in image quality. There is a need for such a tele zoom and I am sure Sigma will offer that sooner or later.

Sigma showed already in the past, that they are very good in finding niches in a lens line of the L-Mount. Both for lenses and for bodies (fp/fp L). I am just not patient enough. Z04 Flucht

But at the end of the day, without pressure of the costumers, no brand would see the need of improving something Teufel Grinsend Schwanz
 
I friend of mine just bought the 70-180/2.8 Z for his Nikon. Even if this lens is based on the Tamron design, the body feels quite different. But in general it looks like to be a great lens, very high picture quality, quite lightweight and small. But with 2.8!
For me such a design seems more interesting then a f/4 zoom of comparable size and weight. The missing 20mm at the long end is not so much, but stable 2.8 seems more useful to me.
 
I friend of mine just bought the 70-180/2.8 Z for his Nikon. Even if this lens is based on the Tamron design, the body feels quite different. But in general it looks like to be a great lens, very high picture quality, quite lightweight and small. But with 2.8!
For me such a design seems more interesting then a f/4 zoom of comparable size and weight. The missing 20mm at the long end is not so much, but stable 2.8 seems more useful to me.
Yes, I'd like to see that lens for the L mount but I don't think there's any chance of Tamron joining the mount. Maybe Sigma could bring something out that's very similar.
 
Back
Top