 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006New Sigma 4/3 lenses, out when?
On February 26th, Sigma announced a bunch of lenses for the 4/3 system. Well, here it is a quarter-year later and there doesn't seem to be any more concrete information. One guy on http://www.4-3system.com says he's heard release dates ranging from May to July. I talked to a salesman at B&H, but he didn't know, saying "My Sigma guy is coming in this week, and I'll ask him." Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly on that 30mm f/1.4...  SignatureOh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -- William Cowper > On February 26th, Sigma announced a bunch of lenses for the 4/3 > system. Well, here it is a quarter-year later and there doesn't seem to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly > on that 30mm f/1.4... Hmmm, sounds interesting. > Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly > on that 30mm f/1.4... Yeah, that's what on the 4/3, a short telephoto? :-) steve >> Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly >> on that 30mm f/1.4... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > steve If you consider 60mm a short tele. :) Just to help you out Steve the 4/3's made it simple think in multiplier of two. Although I'd bet you prefer saying something like, "I'm shooting 57.6223 35mm equivalent, eh? > If you consider 60mm a short tele. :) C'mon, it was just a joke. =) > Just to help you out Steve the 4/3's made it simple think in multiplier of > two. Although I'd bet you prefer saying something like, "I'm shooting > 57.6223 35mm equivalent, eh? No, I just go by the focal length, and don't bother what it is in 35mm equivalent. If people who moved between formats always had to think in terms of 35mm equivalents, photography would have died not long after its inception. steve >> If you consider 60mm a short tele. :) > > C'mon, it was just a joke. =) heh, just was adding to it. ') >> Just to help you out Steve the 4/3's made it simple think in multiplier of >> two. Although I'd bet you prefer saying something like, "I'm shooting [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > terms of 35mm equivalents, photography would have died not long after its > inception. I'd of preferred they just dropped the 35mm format pretty much altogether and changed to something more paper compatible or web compatible. The big part I don't like is no more DOF on the lenses as they might fit on different sensors, hence the constant referring back to 35. >>> Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly >>> on that 30mm f/1.4... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just to help you out Steve the 4/3's made it simple think in multiplier of > two. It also depends on which you use, the horizontal or the vertical dimension. SignatureStacey >>>> Anybody heard anything about release dates or pricing? Particularly >>>> on that 30mm f/1.4... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It also depends on which you use, the horizontal or the vertical dimension. or diagonal, lol > or diagonal, lol Yep. I mostly printed 8X10's from the 3:2 format so it's not really 2X to me going to 4/3 with a FF lens. YMMV of course. SignatureStacey >> or diagonal, lol > > Yep. I mostly printed 8X10's from the 3:2 format so it's not really 2X to > me > going to 4/3 with a FF lens. YMMV of course. why argue its a sigma. Long before you have to worry about recalculating real world performance for your next camera you will have to send it away to be reichpped. Thats if it hasn't already fallen apart or you replaced it with a decent one. You really get what you pay for. >>> or diagonal, lol >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to be reichpped. Thats if it hasn't already fallen apart or you replaced > it with a decent one. You really get what you pay for. OMG, can this be true? Cheaper lenses aren't as good as very expensive ones????? >>>> or diagonal, lol >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > OMG, can this be true? Cheaper lenses aren't as good as very expensive > ones????? There's a specific problem with Sigma--they reverse engineered the Canon mount and related electronics and firmware, rather than licensing them, and their reverse engineering seems to break down when Canon produces new bodies. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> Yep. I mostly printed 8X10's from the 3:2 format so it's not really 2X >>>> to me [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > their reverse engineering seems to break down when Canon produces new > bodies. I was not aware the 4/3 lenses fitted the Canon cameras, thanks for clearing that up. Mind you the standard Sigma lenses work perfectly on my camera and on many others, sure there have been some duds but you can also blame Canon for some of the lens compatability woes, the same lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax and KM's. Also keep in mind that Canon cameras also have problems with some Canon lenses. > I was not aware the 4/3 lenses fitted the Canon cameras, thanks for clearing > that up. > Mind you the standard Sigma lenses work perfectly on my camera and on many > others, sure > there have been some duds but you can also blame Canon for some of the lens > compatability woes, the same lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax and KM's. > Also keep in mind that Canon cameras also have problems with some Canon > lenses. Also, the 4/3 standard is open, so they don't have to do any reverse engineering for those lenses. -alan SignatureAlan Hoyle - alanh@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/ "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate. > Mind you the standard Sigma lenses work perfectly on my camera and on many > others, sure > there have been some duds but you can also blame Canon for some of the lens > compatability woes, the same lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax and KM's. Really? Would you care to explain why the Sigma 24/1.8 EX DG works perfectly on my wife's Dynax 8000i but not at all on my Dynax 5? Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >>>>> Yep. I mostly printed 8X10's from the 3:2 format so it's not really 2X >>>>> to me [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > lens > compatability woes, the same lenses work fine on Nikon, Pentax and KM's. Canon doesn't license their lens mount to anyone, thus all third party lenses for the EOS system must reverse engineer. It's interesting to note that we almost never hear of a need to rechip old Tamrons or Tokinas, but the issue about Sigmas comes up fairly often. That would tend to indicate the lion's share of the blame rests in Sigma's design standards. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > why argue its a sigma. Long before you have to worry about recalculating > real world performance for your next camera you will have to send it away > to be reichpped. 4/3 is an open standard. SignatureStacey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.