Exiting news from Sigma

[stein_andersen]

<p>I'm really looking forward to seeing reviews of this new image stabilized 70-200mm zoom:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022016sigma70mm200mm.asp</p>

<p>And this 8-16mm UW looks fun:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022011sigma8mm16mm.asp</p>

<p>A couple of other promising lenses as well:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022015sigma85mm.asp<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022014sigma17mm50mm.asp</p>

[mneace]

<p>If you put a 4 stop image stabilized lens on a 4 stop image stabilized body, will that give you 8 stops of image stabilization? </p>

[stein_andersen]

<p>Probably not. Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster. ;) But they say it'll work, and what do I know?</p>

[andreas_kusumahadi]

<p>That 8-16mm is scary wide! it's equal to their existing 12-24 fullframe. Interesting to see how good they work on the image quality on this very, very wide coverage.</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>any word yet on how much these lenses might cost? i'm looking to pick up a 70-200 f/2.8 and can't afford the canon....</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>That 8-16 sounds pretty cool. Sigma's claim to fame is in their wide zooms! I wonder whether this lens is optically a scale-down version of the 12-24.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>Minimum focus distance on the 70-200mm zoom is 140cm which is a little high compared to Canon, max magnification is listed as 1:8. Closer focusing would be nice, but if the price it right I might be ready to try a Sigma lens, been eyeing the 50mm f/1.4 but still remember the old days of Sigma and Canon EOS, and I do like the Canon lenses, only have a couple Tamron macros all others are OEM. Seems like when they do make a nice lens the price is no longer good value.</p>

[stein_andersen]

<p>The Canon 70-200/2.8L IS costs $1800 while the non IS costs $1300. The old, unstabilized Sigma costs $800, and if the price difference is comparable to Canon's, the Sigma 70-200 OS could cost around $1100. If it does well in reviews, I might pay that for it.</p>

[robert_cudlipp1]

<p>I have had nothing but great results from <em>selected</em> Sigma lens.<br>

Had I not purchased a ( superbly sharp) Canon L 24 - 70 2.8 some years ago- could not afford the IS version, then if I was in the market for a L equivalent, or according to some reviews , superior lens, then I would go straight to the Sigma 24- 70 2.8. On some views , better quality than the Canon L and at a very significant saving.</p>

<p>So far as the new Sigma wide zooms go, this is really pushing lens design given the inherent problems in designing even prime wide angles.<br>

May pay to wait for the release and see how the reviews go.</p>

[jake_cole]

<p>Robert Cudlipp, there is no IS version of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8, although alot of people wish there was. Maybe Sigma should add IS to their version.<br>

That new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 looks like it could be a very nice lens. I really want the Canon 85mm f/1.2 for low light, and background blur, but I think the Sigma at f/1.4 should be able to do a lot better on the price and it uses nice 77mm filters. <br>

Looks like it's a good time to sit tight on new lens purchases if you can and see how the Sigma lenses are going to perform (based on recent history they should be A+), and also what new lenses Canon is going to release... seems like their once top-tier lens selection needs some updating.</p>