New SIGMA lenses!!!

[richardHaw]

http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/19/first-pictures-of-the-new-sigma-14mm-f1-8-135mm-f1-8-24-70mm-f2-8-and-100-400mm-f5-6-3-lenses.aspx/

SIGMA is making the lenses that Nikon should be making

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Now, it only remains to achieve a decent QC.

[longzoom]

135 without the OS is not for me, 24-70 maybe, and the new 100-400, if not equal, but even close to the miracle 80-400G, will find its way to the customers. LZ

[MFloyd]

.... and a decent AF...

[elsa hoffmann]

I cant see how the Sigma 100 -400 could compete with the Nikon 200-500.

The 135 could be really nice  - Nikon's f2 is a bit long in the tooth by now. Having said that - I dont find many people keen on that focal length.

24-70 = if it isnt half the price of the Nikon (and as good quality) ....

What am I missing.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well, more options for the users is a good thing in general.

Given the quality of the 105/1.4 and 200/2 I can wait a while for a Nikon AF-S 135mm prime.

[John Koerner]

http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/19/first-pictures-of-the-new-sigma-14mm-f1-8-135mm-f1-8-24-70mm-f2-8-and-100-400mm-f5-6-3-lenses.aspx/

SIGMA is making the lenses that Nikon should be making

I am sure Nikon will be making such upgrades with their FL ED glass.

Would much rather have Nikkor AF reliability than Sigma's un-reliability.

Also, Nikon rendering will be better ... as, repeatedly, I hear of the "clinical," non-character rendering of the Sigma.

The Sigmas seem to be very sharp ... but I have never heard someone 'fall in love' with the 85 f/1.4 Art as those have fallen in love with the Nikkor 105 f/14 ED.

Similarly, I highly doubt Sigma's 135mm f/1.8 will make people fall in love with it, as many do with the Zeiss 135 f/2 APO Sonnar.

I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Roland Vink]

The 100-400/5-6.3 can be considered a scaled down version of the 150-600/5-6.3 super-zooms. It has the same max apertures, same 4x zoom ratio but with 2/3 of the focal length. Seems a bit slow for a 400mm lens, but it is very compact (only 67mm filter) so would appeal to some users, assuming it is sharp wide open.

14/1.8 would be useful for astro-photography, assuming it is sharp wide open - if not, why bother?

[Akira]

A 100-400 zoom can be more interesting than 70-300 ones, on condition that the image stabilization works properly.

A wideangle lens used for the astro-photography would need a rear filter thread for the light pollution eliminating filter.

[richardHaw]

the 100-400mm could be good for APSC 

anyways, I will be covering these lenses at CP+ 3 days from now. I am sure that the queue will be long and I need to practice bladder control kungfu, last year was terrible (especially on the pentax K-1)

SIGMA is just doing these just to show that they can. their 35mm and 50mm ART lenses are pretty good, I love my 50mm a lot. QC here in Japan is always better. I have a hunch that units that failed a bit on QC were sent abroad

[BW]

I am sure that the queue will be long and I need to practice bladder control kungfu, last year was terrible (especially on the pentax K-1)

Please let us know how the bladder control went These lenses really compete against the native alternatives and the specs sure seem tempting. Reikan focal solves any problem related to focus issues

[PeterN]

Now, it only remains to achieve a decent QC.

Maybe off-topic: I am not so sure if the current Nikon QC is up-to-par with their QC in the past.

[Akira]

Maybe off-topic: I am not so sure if the current Nikon QC is up-to-par with their QC in the past.

Unfortunately, I would have to agree based on my own experiences...

[Ilkka Nissilä]

In my experience the image quality of modern Nikkors is superior in most respects to older lenses and this includes quality variation. The thing is that with 35mm film it was much harder to see small differences in quality than it is using a 24MP or 36MP sensor and this leads to much talk about quality varition that previously was imperceptible. Cheap zooms have always had more variation and I have no doubt this is true today but differences between lens types are much greater than variation between lens samples of a given type. I've owned multiple copies of a few lenses over time and the variation between samples has in those cases been imperceptible without doing a formal test.  However, most of these lenses that I've used several copies of have been primes.

In the old days many consumer and some professional zooms had zoom creep and without using tape it was not easy to use them on tripod at an angle. Today zoom creep in Nikon zooms is highly unusual. Also the front element of 24-120 and 28-105 AF D lenses was quite considerable (several millimeters easily) and any talk of centering was just silly since the centering completely changed if you changed the orientation of the lens. Today even the less expensive zooms have much less wobble and tighter construction.

[Ethan]

the 100-400mm could be good for APSC 

anyways, I will be covering these lenses at CP+ 3 days from now. I am sure that the queue will be long and I need to practice bladder control kungfu, last year was terrible (especially on the pentax K-1)

SIGMA is just doing these just to show that they can. their 35mm and 50mm ART lenses are pretty good, I love my 50mm a lot. QC here in Japan is always better. I have a hunch that units that failed a bit on QC were sent abroad

No problems with my 50A bought this side of the pond.

This QC issue is for the old lenses. It is true that the first Art lens namely the 35 had some issues but all has been resolved as of the 50A. The 85A is even better. A simple check with Roger Cigala website will confirm the non issue.

As usual. the internet amplifier is used by people who either do not possess any of the Art series or just playing second fiddle.

Whomever owns a Sigma Art and has issues with the AF. Please raise your hand.
Non owners please save us your blurb.

You can bet your bottom dollar or in our case the rock bottom pound that the 135A is gona make a killing.