New Sigma 120-300 and new Sigma 70-200; hope they are reviewed here soon

[Scott Stephen]

I use this site (lurking) a lot, and I respect the reviews.

Sigma has a couple of new lenses, but as of the moment only the old "discontinued" versions are reviewed on this site. Arguably, whether good or bad, these two new ones are some of the most curiosity-inspiring 3rd party lenses out there now.

The new Sigma 70-200 2.8 with stabilization has a focal range & characteristics which are in extreme demand, with no quality alternatives to Canon users other than Canon. (per the tepid reviews here and also the mixed reviews elsewhere).

The new Sigma 120-300 2.8 with stabilization is essentially a unique lens (per the review of the old model on this site) and the old version also recieved tepid reviews on this site.

I am seriously looking at a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, which has recieved a glowing review here) but I would love to know, one way or the other, if an acceptable cheaper alternative exists. And if the new 120-300 were good, it would be tempting for sure.

[DavidEccleston]

It will probably be a while before Bryan gets around to new Sigmas. Canon takes precedence, and he needs to review the new camera, the new flash and radio trigger, a slew of new lenses (24, 28, 500, 600, 24-70, and 200-400). Somewhere in there the new 1DX will come along too.

[Dr Croubie]

Something tells me he's just having waay too much fun playing around with his 5D3 and 400/2.8L IS II to actually get around to writing reviews (hey, I would too).

Bit of a busy year he's going to have, so many products all coming out at once after a bit of a drought last year...

[andnowimbroke]

I had thought Dxo had done a review on the new sigma, but the specs were accidentally swapped with the old one. I think that was the case. It was pretty crappy looking if it wasn't.

[M_Six]

Bryan's previous reviews of the 70-200 Sigmas weren't all roses. Problems getting a sharp copy was a recurring theme. Those reviews (and others where multiple copies were needed before finding a sharp one) have kept me shying away from Sigma lenses.

[Dr Croubie]

I've read on other photo forums (not here), things like "my sigma 20/1.8 was perfectly sharp wide open, Bryan must have gotten a bad copy or is biased" (without providing sample images or any kind of testing setup). I definitely don't think Bryan is biased in any way, but Canon lenses definitely get the priority for review order, and there's a lot of new ones about.
There's a review of the 120-300 f/2.8 at photozone. It looks decent, nowhere near as good as a 300/2.8 prime wide open, but at 300mm f/5.6 it's near enough as good as the 70-300L.

I suppose the best thing you can say about Sigma is that their Quality Control processes need to be improved, if every lens performed the same then there'd be no 'hunting for a good copy'...

[Scott Stephen]

It just seems like there is a lack of healthy competition in the world of lenses. Since Canon and Nikon (and Sony) are mutually incompatible on lenses (without employing some Frankenstinean adapter and losing AF), they don't compete directly on lenses. They compete only as entire systems. And once you have bought into one "system", it is terribly difficult to buy into another whole system.
Back when Ma Bell had a monopoly on long distance, it cost a fortune to make a long distance call. Then they started competing a little when alternate providers like MCI and Sprint appeared, and then long distance got cheaper AND BETTER. And then cell phones came along and started offering free calls to anywhere and basically made the word "long distance" obsolete, while again improving quality and drastically reducing price.
Personally I'd LOVE to see some of that competition enter the lens world. Sigma seems like it may be "first among equals" of the second tier/3rd party lens manufacturers, and they actually make cameras too, so maybe they have motivation to step up a level on lens IQ and QC. Maybe they could stand the best chance of providing some competition.
Even if I never buy a 3rd party lens, the mere existance of good quality competitors might keep costs somewhat in line, and to promote continuing innovation/improvement among the big boys too.
Or not. Maybe it is naive optimism here.

[Dr Croubie]

Yeah, main problem is that sigron don't actually compete in the same playing field as canon. There's not many standout lenses from either of them that are actually better in every respect than their canon counterpart, and compete decently on price too.
There's a few standouts, like the Sig 50/1.4 that have a direct equal.
The Tamron 17-50/2.8 may have good IQ for the price, but there's no IS. And the one with IS can't compete with the EFs 17-55/2.8 for IQ.
But besides those and a few others, the 'direct equivalent' lenses from sigron aren't up to the canon version, so people like me wouldn't buy them no matter how cheap they were.

I do like how they push the envelope in other areas though, you can get 3rd party lenses that there just isn't a canon equivalent.
The Sigma 8-16 is wider and Tokina 11-16 is faster, both beat the EFs 10-22 for the money, but the EFs has a lot wider zoom range.
The Sigma 30/1.4 I really wish had better IQ wide-open, because then more people would buy them, then canon might realise that there's a market segment unfilled and start building their own EFs primes.

Zeiss and Samyang also produce some nice glass, but they're both not in the same class as the canons because of the MF.

Then there's the überteles, the tamron 200-500, sigmonster 300-800, or siglauncher 200-500 f/2.8. They may not be as good as the canon primes, but they're the best at what they do because they're the only thing available at what they do. (technically, even the sigma 20/1.8 is "best in class" below f/2.8. scary thought)

What i'd be hopeful of is that sigron actually go head to head with canon for the same lengths and apertures, but actually also for build quality (i've seen a few lately that have been getting weathersealing), AF speed, AF reliability, but most importantly manufacturing tolerances and QC. Even if it means that the lens is only 20% below the canon instead of 50%, that will give canon more competition to reduce prices...

[Scott Stephen]

I wonder how many actual units they have sold of the Sig 200-500. I wonder if it is some tiny number, like under 100 units. It does look like an RPG and apparently it costs $26,000.00.

[Scott Stephen]

Aw, heck. I knuckled under and bought a Canon 70-200 IS II. It arrived 2 nights ago, so I have not had enough time after work to really try it out very well. I did get some shots of a Cardinal on the porch, but he was not in the best position.

Would still be interested to see that new 120-300 Sigma lens reviewed TDP-style, though. C'mon TDP, what if the result is surprising, and you are the first serious review to discover it?