Why the weird Sigma glass?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by edward_h, May 18, 2005.

  1. According to DPReview, Sigma has just released a DG-optimized version
    of their 180/3.5 macro. Now there is a 50, 100, 150 and 180 macro.

    Then there is Sigmas large collection of normals: 18-50 (28-something
    cropped), 24-60, 24-70, 28-70, 18-125, etc...

    My question is, why does Sigma keep releasing pretty much the same
    glass over and over again, and not some USEFUL glass. How about a
    70-200IS? That would rule and surely save a lot of people a lot of money.

    How about a 24-70IS? That too, would rule. And how about some TS-glass
    for us folks who would like to try tilting and shifting building but
    don't feel like plonking down 1000$ just to experiment a little?

    Weird thinkers, them there Sigma folks.
     
  2. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    why don't you buy your 70-200 IS from Canon I heard they make a nice one. They make a dandy 24-70 as well and IS really isn't needed on a wide angle lens is it? If it was I would think Canon would produce more then just the 28-135mm IS wouldn't you?
     
  3. Uhhh, Mark...

    Canon does make the 17-85 IS

    Edward, I'm with you, seems a third party lens maker could do very well indeed with the lenses a lot of us keep "wishing" for, e.g., 10-20 , 20-60 with IS technology, 60-180 ditto, 200-500 same, decent level of fixed apertures, constant f4 maybe, even a premium 2.8 (hey, a 3.5 would be ok), top quality glass and GENUINE QUALITY CONTROL

    Maybe the internet photo geek market isn't as big as we think
     
  4. ... or maybe the profits from a Nikon / Canon 70-200 IS/VR aren't big enough that there would be room for a 3rd party manufacturer ... whose reputation isn't exactly built upon quality control.
     
  5. >> My question is, why does Sigma keep releasing pretty much the same glass over and over again, and not some USEFUL glass.

    They DO have some USEFUL glass. How about 30/1.4, 12-24 for FF, 18-50/2.8, 120-300/2.8, 300-800/5.6 etc. as examples to lenses that no other company makes?

    >> How about a 70-200IS? That would rule and surely save a lot of people a lot of money.

    Indeed such a lens would be nice but do remember that they are not in the business of saving other peoples money. They are in the business of making money for Sigma.

    >> Weird thinkers, them there Sigma folks.

    I don't think so. It's just a marketing gimmick to make the company products look more attractive to a potential buyer.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  6. I would personally rather see them turn out a line of fast primes; 24, 28, 50, 70/85/105 than more 'digital' zooms, but I guess that ain't where the market's at.
     
  7. I think, compared to the plastic wonders that some of the "first party"manufacturers churning out, a company like Sigma seems to me to be the most innovative in lens designs/offerings at the moment.

    Compared to the sticky tape technology of Nikon and its plastic zoomzs with no aperture rings (atrociously priced , I might add) with no color correction, no aberration corrections,etc (you have PS, don't you?) Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc have set very high standards.

    T/S glass? Look at the Russian lenses.
     
  8. I would say its what the market grant themselves. Look at it this way, even if Sigma would be pulling out new optics, even innovative or unique technology or special use lens. Would the market buy them; let's face it the market is very much brand loyal to the original mount Manufacturers. Sigma is an independent lens Mfr, and know the market to stay in their sector of the market without venturing too much risk as such !! I think the 12-24 and the 30/1.4 pretty mush sum up their market stratgy, they do produce useful lens, but also only those that have a market.

    There is nothing wrong with Sigma updating their current lens lineup with current need for digital ( or the market's perceived need ) and those are still well worthwhile lineup. Why bother with something new if your current one work fine enough.
     
  9. My question is, why does Sigma keep releasing pretty much the same glass over and over again, and not some USEFUL glass.
    A lot of people apparently find their lenses 'useful': Sigma appears to be flourishing, because they've figured out what sells well and what doesn't. They're in this to make money -- as are Canon, Nikon, etc. -- and I suspect they've concluded that won't make any profit off of exotica like TS lenses. Their 80-400 OS is less expensive than its peers from C and N, but not THAT much less expensive. Competing in the 70-200 market may be a direction they'll take, but there will be stiff competition in C and N unless they can make a high-quality unit that is substantially less expensive than OEM lenses.
     
  10. What I want is a 24-70 with HSM. My old 28-70 EX is pretty but very slow to focus the new Sigma 24-70s I had a chance to try are much faster but loud :-(

    If they had one with HSM now, my 24-85 USM would be on the 'bay in an instant :)
     
  11. What's wrong about it? I have 50 and 100mm macro and of course a 180mm is more atractive for me as a 3rd one. - 150mm would be to close to my 100mm but maybe a good compromise for somebody else.
     

Share This Page