DSLRUsers.com

http://dpreview.com/

70-200/2.8 OS HSM
85/1.4 HSM
17-50/2.8 OS HSM
8-16 HSM
50-500 OS HSM

plus the SD15, DP2s, DP1X

these are all very interesting announcements by sigma...depedning on how aggressively they are priced. all HSM lens' and when considered that all new nikkors are AFS and tamron have been releasing same with in-lens motor, clearly indicates that inbody motors in nikons are most likely on their last legs at least for consumer/ semi pro cameras. the 50/1.4HSM they realeased is, imo, better than the nikkor version but also pricier. one wonders what the 85 will be like. also curious as to why they didnt put OS in the 85mm ?? price ? weight ?

good for competition regardless...

70-200 is against steep competition. They will need to win with the price I guess.

85 should have had OS. They would have sold more with that!

Lots of interesting things there....Looks like someone wants to make a push on the market.

70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM looks very interesting, as does the 50-500mm OS HSM

nice listing,

In my opinion, you don't need OS in an 85 1.4... you've got THAT MUCH light going into through that glass, should be able to withstand conditions of wide variables, yes.. even at 85mm. Sticking OS in the 85 would just make it heavier, more expensive (to produce and to purchase), and drain the battery out faster.

There's always a reason behind it..

8-16 HSM will have very interesting underwater connotations

Exciting - super wide zooms

photomarcs wrote:nice listing,

In my opinion, you don't need OS in an 85 1.4... you've got THAT MUCH light going into through that glass, should be able to withstand conditions of wide variables, yes.. even at 85mm.

i dont think that should make any difference in terms of whether a lens should have VR or not.

Rooz wrote:

photomarcs wrote:nice listing,

In my opinion, you don't need OS in an 85 1.4... you've got THAT MUCH light going into through that glass, should be able to withstand conditions of wide variables, yes.. even at 85mm.

i dont think that should make any difference in terms of whether a lens should have VR or not.

+1 there....85mm is VR worthy...f/1.4 or even f/1.2

Can't wait for the 85 1.4

aim54x wrote:

Rooz wrote:

photomarcs wrote:nice listing,

In my opinion, you don't need OS in an 85 1.4... you've got THAT MUCH light going into through that glass, should be able to withstand conditions of wide variables, yes.. even at 85mm.

i dont think that should make any difference in terms of whether a lens should have VR or not.

+1 there....85mm is VR worthy...f/1.4 or even f/1.2

My opinion doesn't disagree entirely bear in mind, I personally would like to see a fast 85 with OS, but my point is based upon price as well as the ability to capture a ****load of light. If your shutterspeed is already prodominently fast, why need OS ? ( and yes I'm open for reasons behind that too take it as a questioning that may convert me to say its a necessity).

In what way would you use OS (night shots?), would it make a difference in image quality?

In my opinion, if they were to build side by side 85 with and without OS, similar to the 70-200 2.8 canon's ( yes i'm comparing to zooms as well), Judge that price difference and see if people will buy OS or not, guess that all comes down to price vs. value, to those who bought the non IS, they love it i can only assume, and to those who did buy IS version of the 70-200, they'd be happy either way.

photomarcs wrote: If your shutterspeed is already prodominently fast, why need OS ?

I may be wrong but not everyone is going to shoot @ 1.4 all the time and even @ 1.4 your shutter speed will slow down in really low light, then OS might be useful? Dunno, but I am still interested in the prices of the 85 and the 70-200 OS.

Will be interesting to see the reviews on IQ and build quality. If they are any good then CRK will be doing a lot of price matching

whitey wrote:Will be interesting to see the reviews on IQ and build quality. If they are any good then CRK will be doing a lot of price matching

Yes...lets hope they are not going to lose their paint, or lose IQ (like the 10-20mm f/3.5)

photomarcs wrote:My opinion doesn't disagree entirely bear in mind, I personally would like to see a fast 85 with OS, but my point is based upon price as well as the ability to capture a ****load of light. If your shutterspeed is already prodominently fast, why need OS ? ( and yes I'm open for reasons behind that too take it as a questioning that may convert me to say its a necessity).

In what way would you use OS (night shots?), would it make a difference in image quality?

price and weight i agree could be an issue. but as for the other reasons i disagree. yes you can capture a shitload of light but with VR you get another 3-4 stops of handholdability. so rather than shoot at 1.4 1/60s iso6400, you can shoot at f2.8 iso 3200, 1/60s. or in real low light try and shoot it at 1/30s, thats pretty slow SS for an 85mm lens for consistent results. theres alot you can do with 3 stops.

there are times, (alot of times), when in low light your SS wont necessarily be high and for an 85mm lens.

Rooz wrote:

photomarcs wrote:My opinion doesn't disagree entirely bear in mind, I personally would like to see a fast 85 with OS, but my point is based upon price as well as the ability to capture a ****load of light. If your shutterspeed is already prodominently fast, why need OS ? ( and yes I'm open for reasons behind that too take it as a questioning that may convert me to say its a necessity).

In what way would you use OS (night shots?), would it make a difference in image quality?

price and weight i agree could be an issue. but as for the other reasons i disagree. yes you can capture a shitload of light but with VR you get another 3-4 stops of handholdability. so rather than shoot at 1.4 1/60s iso6400, you can shoot at f2.8 iso 3200, 1/60s. or in real low light try and shoot it at 1/30s, thats pretty slow SS for an 85mm lens for consistent results. theres alot you can do with 3 stops.

there are times, (alot of times), when in low light your SS wont necessarily be high and for an 85mm lens.

There's another fundamental issue that I think is being overlooked here.

One of the main reasons for the existence of image stabilisation technologies is to help stabilise the image when a lens of high magnification is used in a hand-held mode. I know how different my cameras feel when I'm using, say, the 70-210 which is a pre-VR lens, as against one of my VR lenses.

And just as we move into the higher magnification glass, as we retreat from the telephoto range, the need for this technology decreases. With a short tele, like the 85, good hand-holding technique on the part of the shooter somewhat obviates the need for this sort of technology, and if you can avoid it, then you have a lighter lens which in turn can aid you in your use of proper hand-holding technique.

I love the VR technology on the lenses of mine that enjoy it, and I miss it when it's needed on certain other lenses. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 is not a lens that I miss this feature on, I don't see it as being a requirement, and I almost question if it may even be desirable on this lens.

gstark wrote:One of the main reasons for the existence of image stabilisation technologies is to help stabilise the image when a lens of high magnification is used in a hand-held mode.

VR is to help stabilise any lens, not just those of high magnification. sure, the benefits when the lens is long are greater but the point is that regardless of the focal length, VR is an assistance to the user to handhold at slower shutter speeds.

I know how different my cameras feel when I'm using, say, the 70-210 which is a pre-VR lens, as against one of my VR lenses.

thats not just VR. the lens' are not like for like. they are of completey different construction and handling so imo, not comparable.

like for like - or as best as i can think of...
70-200/4L IS - 760g
70-200/4L - 705g
55g difference

70-200/2.8L IS - 1470
70-200/2.8L - 1310
160g difference

And just as we move into the higher magnification glass, as we retreat from the telephoto range, the need for this technology decreases.

agree the need decreases...but...so what ?

With a short tele, like the 85, good hand-holding technique on the part of the shooter somewhat obviates the need for this sort of technology.

not really. its all proportional. good handholding technique will still be there regadless of whether the lens has VR or not. so if your hand holding technique is good enuf to hold at 1/30s, then VR will give you another 3 stops. that doesnt necessarily have to be in shutter speed either. that can be used to reduce your iso or increase your DOF.

and if you can avoid it, then you have a lighter lens which in turn can aid you in your use of proper hand-holding technique.

i think this would only apply if there was a substantial difference to which i dont think there really is. we're talking a 7-10% difference which is sweet FA. we absorb that in bodies and glass and straps and flash and everything else we bolt on all the time without thinking twice about how they could effect handholdability.

I almost question if it may even be desirable on this lens.

again, this is dependant on weight and the evidence doesnt suggest the wreight is a huge problem if you add VR. so i cant see how this statement can hold true. any advantage to the user is a good thing and besides...if people think its detreimental and love the old one so much, they can buy the old, (current) one. lol

Hi Chris,

Rooz wrote:

gstark wrote:One of the main reasons for the existence of image stabilisation technologies is to help stabilise the image when a lens of high magnification is used in a hand-held mode.

VR is to help stabilise any lens, not just those of high magnification. sure, the benefits when the lens is long are greater

My point here is that I really don't notice that the 85 is a difficult lens to hand-hold. I think that for lenses up to 85 (perhaps 105) while the benefits are very definitely real, they are also far less noticeable.

I know how different my cameras feel when I'm using, say, the 70-210 which is a pre-VR lens, as against one of my VR lenses.

thats not just VR.

Actually, for what I'm talking about, it is VR, and only VR. Yes, your other points are valid, but I am only talking about the visibility of the effects of VR vs non-VR through the viewfinder. It's way easier to acquire a steady view of a subject with a VR lens with some high degree of magnification (>100) than is the case on a non-VR lens.

And just as we move into the higher magnification glass, as we retreat from the telephoto range, the need for this technology decreases.

agree the need decreases...but...so what ?

Well, for me, I simply don't see the need for VR on the 85 f/1.4

Not with my usage of this lens.

I similarly don't see a need for VR with any of my shorter focal length lenses; I also find that I can still hand hold down to some rather silly shutter speeds if I put my mind to it.

With a short tele, like the 85, good hand-holding technique on the part of the shooter somewhat obviates the need for this sort of technology.

not really. its all proportional. good handholding technique will still be there regadless of whether the lens has VR or not. so if your hand holding technique is good enuf to hold at 1/30s, then VR will give you another 3 stops. that doesnt necessarily have to be in shutter speed either. that can be used to reduce your iso or increase your DOF.

Well, perhaps. But if you're good enough to hand hold at 1/30, then you've already negated the viability of VR.

Let's look at a couple of practical, real world examples ...

I was at a Sony event this morning, shooting the 85 @ ISO1000, f/6.3 and 1/50 - 1/80. I couldn't shoot with a lower shutter speed due to subject movement. VR would not have offered me anything.

If I'm in a studio shooting environment, I will typically be using strobes and the 85. ISO200, f/6.3 - f/8, 1/200. Again there is nothing that VR has to offer me.

Remember that I do love the technology that VR provides us, and the 85 f/14 is the lens that I use most of all. I'm not saying that there's no place for it, but I do think that its usefulness on the 85 is somewhat limited.

Any ideas on release dates for these in Australia?

I was thinking of getting a Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC, but maybe it would be worth waiting for Sigma's OS HSM version to compare?

I just took photos inside a funeral chapel using a 7D and 24-70 2.8L - I had to use ISO 1600/3200 for any chance of "greater-than-one-over-focal-length" shutter speeds and I would have loved anything that gave me a couple more stops of hand-holdability at that stage

gstark wrote:My point here is that I really don't notice that the 85 is a difficult lens to hand-hold. I think that for lenses up to 85 (perhaps 105) while the benefits are very definitely real, they are also far less noticeable.

les noticeable ? absolutely. you are right about the 85 not being difficult to hold, its a relatviely small, well balanced lens making a decent shutter speed worthwhile and while you may not have an issue with shutter speed, those 3 stops can get you the iso you would prefer to shoot at

Well, for me, I simply don't see the need for VR on the 85 f/1.4. Not with my usage of this lens.

need is a term based on context. do we NEED it ? hell no. we dont NEED 8fps either. we dont NEED video in dslr. we dont NEED 51 AF points. bloody nice to have though !

I similarly don't see a need for VR with any of my shorter focal length lenses; I also find that I can still hand hold down to some rather silly shutter speeds if I put my mind to it.

yepp, agree. but similalry...having VR doesnt preclude any of those things, it enhances them and increases your options.

Let's look at a couple of practical, real world examples ...

I was at a Sony event this morning, shooting the 85 @ ISO1000, f/6.3 and 1/50 - 1/80. I couldn't shoot with a lower shutter speed due to subject movement. VR would not have offered me anything.

If I'm in a studio shooting environment, I will typically be using strobes and the 85. ISO200, f/6.3 - f/8, 1/200. Again there is nothing that VR has to offer me.

all valid real world examples. VR in studio has no place so not even an option and never has been. but similarly real world examples exist, quite often actually indoors, where you're more like 85/f2.8, 1/80s, iso1600. that sony event is in pretty decent light if your at 6.3.

Remember that I do love the technology that VR provides us, and the 85 f/14 is the lens that I use most of all. I'm not saying that there's no place for it, but I do think that its usefulness on the 85 is somewhat limited.

i think we're in violent agreement. lol :lol
it would appear to me that the issue is more about how MUCH VR will helkp you as opposed to will it or wont it. personally, i prefer to have every possible option available to me. especially when there is not need