Sigma 50 1.4 Art release date for Canon

The Canon 135L would be hard to beat. It has killer bokeh, it has one of the fastest AF, it is one of the sharpest lenses out there and it is also the cheapest L Primes you can get.

It was my first L prime for a reason, although these days I don't use it much but when the situation requires it, it has never let me down.
 
It's also f2, I'm in it for something a bit faster from Sigma. 1.8 would be fine but 1.4 would be ideal. There aren't that many competitors to the 135L currently either are there? I've used the 135L and it's nice enough although I found my Sigma 85mm 1.4 to be a bit sharper.

So certainly 2 focal ranges for primes Sigma could have very easy wins at with new lenses.
 
It won't be a 135/1.8, the cost would be crazy. The front element size for the 135 is about the same as the 85/1.2, which I call the fish bowl for a reason. Can you imagine that got any bigger? It would need a 82mm filter thread. There was a canon 200/1.8, they could make a 135/1.8 (it's not impossible) but the 200/1.8 is also one of the holy grail of primes because it is so rare, it is so rare because it was stupid expensive and not many people bought one.

A 135/1.4, even the dreamers won't ever thought that would happen!

I just don't see sigma doing a sharper, faster 135mm at 1.8 costing less than £700.

I know you love Sigma mrk but back on planet earth....a 14mm sigma art is not likely to come soon nor will a 135/1.8, I mean it's possible and I'd love to see it happen but realistically...it's unlikely, very unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Well it's not going to be less than £700 by a long shot. The 85mm 1.4 EX was £650 alone for a long while. 135L front element isn't exactly huge though is it? 77mm filter thread and all.

I think Sigma can do it if anyone can given the new 18-35 1.8 zoom and that's a compact size with a 72mm filter thread.

They've been on a surprise streak the past year or so, I think they'll continue this streak for some time yet :p
 
It's not just the front element, it's all the elements that go behind it too.

Looking down the 85/1.2 without the front and back caps it's like no other lenses, the 50/1.4 does not compare, nor does the 35/1.4, the 135/2.0 is close so a 135/1.4 would not only be expensive with all that glass, it would so weigh a ton, okay, not a ton, but I would hazard a guess around 1.5kg (if their 50mm art is around 900g).

I know you said you like a heavy lens, but there is a point where it is uncomfortable and unnecessary.
 
I'm going to stick to the "Sigma will surely surprise everyone once again" notion - It's just more exciting that way :D

FWIW, I liked the weight of the 70-200 IS 2.8L , it's no way going to be as heavy as that, if it does come out.
 
Which you quickly get used to as Fstoppers said in the video. I found his comment a bit weird though, why say he got used to it then later say he didn't find the weight a problem and then in the written part of the review put weight under the Cons section with no mention of getting used to it...

As someone else commented in the comments section, solid lens and weight go hand in hand. All that glass and metal won't be lightweight in construction.
 
I think the weight is only getting mentioned because traditionally a prime lens meant it would be lighter and faster than a zoom. Modern lens design makes zoom lens as sharp as the best primes form 10 years ago and camera sensors offer 3-4 stops better high ISO work than the film bodies and first gen DSLRs so the speed benefits is often not required. Not to mention that Sigma have proven to the world that you can make an f/1.8 zoom lens as sharp as most primes in its range.

Therefore the main benefit of a prime lens these days come down to ultimate IQ without sacrifice (with a wide aperture). To do this requires making lenses much bigger and more complex, with more elements, larger front elements and more exotic glass. Prices,sizes and weights go up. But for lenses like the sigma 35 and 50mm the weight is still not an issue, it is just much more than people are used. Just compared the old Canon and nikon 50mm f/1.8s to the sigma Art.

Anything under 1kg is not too bad at all and balances nicely with a good body size.

if you want smaller lighter system then you have to sacrifice something and move to smaller sensors and slower aperture zooms. It is a miracle how small the m43 lenses are.
 
Just weighed my 17-55 and it comes in at 715g. I imagine size wise it will be around that but weigh a bit more. The 17-55 is in no way heavy and extra 100 or so grammes would just make it feel more solid and in no way bother me.

I'd rather that than have something built like canons 1.4.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It won't be a 135/1.8, the cost would be crazy. The front element size for the 135 is about the same as the 85/1.2, which I call the fish bowl for a reason. Can you imagine that got any bigger? It would need a 82mm filter thread. There was a canon 200/1.8, they could make a 135/1.8 (it's not impossible) but the 200/1.8 is also one of the holy grail of primes because it is so rare, it is so rare because it was stupid expensive and not many people bought one.

A 135/1.4, even the dreamers won't ever thought that would happen!

I just don't see sigma doing a sharper, faster 135mm at 1.8 costing less than £700.

I know you love Sigma mrk but back on planet earth....a 14mm sigma art is not likely to come soon nor will a 135/1.8, I mean it's possible and I'd love to see it happen but realistically...it's unlikely, very unlikely.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Zeiss/Sony have already done a 135 1.8 which is a brilliant lens and is what, £1100? Wouldn't put it past Sigma to be able to bring one out on recent form. f/1.4 is pushing it though, definitely. Wouldn't that also have the issues of the aperture being too big for the mount that the Canon 85L suffers from?
 
Ksanti said:
For what it's worth, Zeiss/Sony have already done a 135 1.8 which is a brilliant lens and is what, £1100? Wouldn't put it past Sigma to be able to bring one out on recent form. f/1.4 is pushing it though, definitely. Wouldn't that also have the issues of the aperture being too big for the mount that the Canon 85L suffers from?
Click to expand...

The rear element of the 85/1.2 pushes the mount to its limits, it is flushed to the back, so there is no room really for the glass to move back and forth to focus, which is what a the 35mm does, what the 135mm does, which is what makes it faster as the glass on the back is typically the smallest piece so less weight to move around by the motor as opposed to that massive one at the front.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The rear element of the 85/1.2 pushes the mount to its limits, it is flushed to the back, so there is no room really for the glass to move back and forth to focus, which is what a the 35mm does, what the 135mm does, which is what makes it faster as the glass on the back is typically the smallest piece so less weight to move around by the motor as opposed to that massive one at the front.
Click to expand...

I meant more in regard to image quality issues with light getting blocked by the edge of the mount rather than the aperture causing some dodgy bokeh in some circumstances
 
You have to consider the focal length against the aperture. The 85mm f1.2 requires at least a 71mm font element, a 135mm f/1.8 requires at least 75mm which is not too different (the 600 mm f/4 needs 150mm!)

The technical issue with the 85mm f1.2 is the shorter focal length- the front element can only be 85mm from the sensor plane (so about 45mm from the lens mount). So all the other elements required for focusing and correction must fit into the short barrel.
When you look at longer lenses where there is way more space for the internal elements the rear element ends up very small and simple. Longer lenses are much simpler and easier designs for the most part, but require huge front elements that increase cubicly in weight and at least that in cost.

So a 135mm f/1.8 is a much simpler design than the 85mm f/1.2. The 85mm f/1.2 actually pushes the canon mount to its limit, a bit beyond really because the mount interferes with Bokeh. The sony/Zeiss is proof enough, the alpha mount specs are similar enough to canon (Nikon is slightly narrower and is the likely reason there is no 85mm f/1.2)
 
Raymond Lin said:
I haven't experienced that personally.
Click to expand...

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/bokeh/bokeh85.htm

If you look at the 85mm f/1.2 there is a big Bokeh ball to left. If you look at the bottom of the ball you can see that it is cutoff due to the mount so it is no lonerg a symmetric ball.

This can look pretty bad if Bokeh highlights are a big part of the final photo lIke this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z6BEGpYmV...cZ4lPv-thVs/s1600/8182229423_e2c6b67871_b.jpg


Highlight right in the center are fine, move to the frame edge and the mechanical clipping gets extreme. Note how the top of the frame has the bottom clipped, vice versa for bottom highlights because the images are project upside down on the sensor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom