The Sigma 50mm f/1.4: the IQ of the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 for ¼ of the price!
_ _ _
I’ve received an information from a new source, who had a conversation with Sigma. He asked them if they plan to release X-mount versions of their lenses. Well, in short, Sigma’s answer to this source was:
- The Fujifilm X-system market share is too small.
- Due the restricted market share, Sigma currently has no plans at all to release X-mount version of their lenses.
- Fuji should have adopted the M4/3 mount
- Fuji’s fault? By not using the M4/3 mount and offering their own X-mount, Fuji resigned X-shooters to a limited lens selection [Really? Take a look at that, Sigma]
That’s a bad news. Especially since over the last year, when Sigma managers were asked if they will offer X-mount versions of their lenses, they didn’t deny this possibility, giving answers like [quote from this video interview] “We always plan to expand our product line for mirrorless cameras. If possible, we would like to support as many systems as possible.” Also to DSLRmagazine Sigma said [google translated]: “I’m pretty sure the market for CSC will grow in the future, do not know how, but we have the belief that we must support as many systems as possible“.
After these statements, a slender hope arose amongst us X-shooters, but according to this information today, waiting for X-mount Sigma lenses is like waiting for Godot.
Now, it’s true that Fuji is not really a giant in the digital camera industry. However, over the last years the X-system grew and it now has a respectable number of followers. I’m convinced that, with the right lens offering & an interesting price tag, Sigma could make some nice money with us X-shooters, as also the Poll here could indicate:
[poll id=”86″]
I do NOT agree with Sigma, when they say that, by not adopting the M4/3 mount, Fuji resigned X-shooters to a limited lens selection. Really? There is plenty of great Fujinon glass out there (and more coming soon). And manufacturers like Samyang, Zeiss, Lensbaby, SLR Magic & more have their X-mount offerings, too. As shown in the amazing complete X-mount glass overview, there are overall 56 X-mount lenses on the market and 6 more are coming soon.
Fujinon glass alone already covers most needs of photographers… and that’s maybe part of the problem for Sigma: all the great Fujinon glass that is already available on the market! It must be hard & risky to compete with it, also for Sigma.
Zeiss tried it with the Touit 12mm and 32mm, but completely failed. Those lenses were too close in FL to existing Fujinon lenses, optically great, but not superior (probably even inferior) to the XF glass and even more expensive than the Fujinons. Result: you can now get them for a fraction of their original price!
Samyang seems to be more successful when it comes to X-mount lenses. They are offering lenses that are still not covered by Fuji (like the Samyang 8mm fisheye) and their probably most successful X-mount lens, the Samyang 12mmF2, convinces with a very low price and good IQ. So no surprise that over at our Fuji X Forum, the Samyang 12mm thread now has 31,828 views and 133 comments… in just 4½ months!
So maybe we should add one more point to Sigma’s thoughts shared at the beginning of this post
- There is so many awesome Fujinon glass out there, that we are afraid to fail when we compete with it, just like Zeiss!
But competition is a good thing for us customers. C’mon Sigma, join the X-mount party and make some pressure on Fuji 😉 . Combine the great IQ of your glass with an aggressive price, and you will find many X-shooters ready to invest into it.
And what do you think, should Fuji really have adopted M4/3 mount?
[poll id=”134″]
109 Responses
FT Sensor? Thanks but no thanks
Fuji on m4/3? Nice idea but… not after I sold all my m43 lenses and flash to switch to Fuji X LOL
Actually you would have been able to use all those lenses if fuji was m4/3.
Sigma makes SLR and M43 lenses. This means that they needed to create new lenses from the ground (new optical formula, new AF calculations). I can certainly understand their decision. And since Fuji already offers high quality optical instruments, I don’t shed a tear. Who cares.
How about the already existing lenses for the Sony apsc-E mount made by Sigma? Why should they be optically re-designed for Fuji?
Sigma doesn’t sound very interested in E-mount and m4/3, they released only 3 lenses few years ago.
Sure. Still, there are 3 lenses for apsc mirrorless systems already designed, that could be easily converted to the x mount. I was replying to the OP’s statement “Sigma makes SLR and M43 lenses”, which is incorrect.
Admittedly, I overlooked the compatibility with E-mount. Doesn’t change anything. Who would want to buy these over the Fujinon counterparts (18/2, 35/1.4)? And Sigma can’t offer their excellent lenses like 18-35/1.8 and the other ART series lenses for Fuji. Those are the lenses people really care about.
I agree and disagree. E.g.: I live in Japan, and the E-mount Sigma lenses are sold almost for free. I mean: 15.000 (140 dollars / 110 euros) for the 19 mm 2.8 or the 30 f 2.8 is nothing less than exceptional. Sure I prefer the Fuji lenses (who wouldn’t) but if you want to give a try to the system without investing any money at all, an old xm1 body and one of those two lenses would cost nothing. Before committing for Fuji I seriously considered a Sony alpha 6000 + Sony 50 1.8 and Sigma 19 mm. Any Fuji lenses runs in circles around those two, but the overal combo is very cheap, and comes for less than many Fuji glass (e.g. the 56 1.2), and the IQ is good.
You are exactly right, Lorenzo. It would be trivial to adapt the E-mout Sigmas to Fuji X. People don’t realize that Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina basically exist at the whim of Canon/Nikon. They could change their firmware at any moment and instantly render 3rd party lenses useless. There’s probably some side deal in play.
I have a Sigma 19mm and 30mm for e-mount. Those designs could be relatively easily converted to X-mount. They would be a good way of testing the water too as they are inexpensive.
nah, 4/3 mount is small because of the smaller sensor, I personally feel APS-C sensor is just a nice inbetween compared to most offering of sensors size out in the market.
Are SIgma’s lens are really that great? Hmm I dunno and I don’t own them so I cannot comment.
Fuji Lens offerings are quite afforable and they are super SUPER ULTRA high quality that can easily rival or if not do better a than a lot of lens maunfacturers out there thus I don’t why Fuji limits X-mount user and since Fuji builds everything on their own, they know best and how to balance the Lens and the Body.
I don’t think your source is remotely credible. Why would Sigma suggest Fuji should have gone with M43 given that Sigma barely supports this mount either – three lenses introduced 3-4 years ago?
I think i will choose to believe the on the record public comments of the Sigma reps rather than the allegations of a first time anonymous source.
The source has some pretty good evidence. If I’d share you’ll agree that this rumor us correct.
In a way I’d say the stance of Sigma is correct. The reason being that what lenses would they develop? Either with extreme apertures (f/1.2, etc.) or with boring apertures (f/2.8, etc.) The former is already available from FUJIFILM, ZEISS and Samyang, whereas the latter probably won’t sell.
If you promise to take over all the costs for laywers and fines, I’ll share the evidence 😉
The logic of the claims is that if Fuji had gone with M43 then Sigma would be more likely to support it. My point is that Sigma have very little for M43 and what they have was released some years ago with nothing since. If you trust your source on the basis of what you have seen but can’t share so be it. But either your source or Sigma isn’t making any sense and I can’t see any reason why Sigma would want to hide the fact that they don’t plan to support X mount because it’s not economically viable.
To me the M4/3 argument is BS and they just had to find an “excuse” for not offering X-mount glass.
But this is really the answer the Source got from a Sigma guy.
Of course, if every manufacturer joined the m4/3 mount, they’d be very happy to support.
4/3 is going to be a dead system soon.
IMHO there are too many disadvantages of the 4/3 system as its too far off from FF and even too far off from APS-C.
APS-C is going to be a dead system soon.
IMHO there are no advantages of the APS-C system as its too far off from FF and even too far off from being compact.
Never say never. It could well be that Sigma eventually releases some X glass. It all depends on market share. More players means more competition and less pricy lenses.
Is it not difficult for a 3rd party to compete with Fuji on their lenses? Fuji pricing on lenses is competitive, because they are trying to build market share for their cameras, not make profit on lenses (whereas Canikon sees lenses as just another source of profit, which leaves some room for Sigma to exist).
I wish X-mount offers a cheaper alternative to the existing lenses with Autofocus.
Samyang/Rokinon/Bower are nice but MF only and Zeiss are more expensive.
Sigma could be this alternative.
My guess is that Fuji market-share is not big enough to attract Sigma and Fuji owners prefer expensive stuff than cheap one (or they’ll own Sony E-mount / Canikon). Mirrorless lenses need specific design and Sigma prefers to focus on DSLR market (Sigma m4/3 and E-Mount offer isn’t spectacular…).
Unless you have bad eyesight, MF is a breeze on EVF’s. In fact I haven’t really touched my few Fuji’s as I’m loving the rendering of legacy lenses at the moment, and use them to shoot my ‘always moving’ toddler.
M4/3? Meh, APS is the smallest sensor worth using for me. Fuji lenses are excellent and only lack the super telephoto for now.
agree. while there are many benefits to m43 (smaller cameras, and especially, smaller lenses), I sold my last m43 camera – EM1 simply because I was getting tired of the fact I had to limit my ISO to 800 (I could not deal with the noise above that)…..
Fujifilm have a great selection of lenses for competitive prices.
I don’t think Sigma could compete with their usually huge glass. They’d have to redesign and rethink their strategy for the mirrorless APS-C market, which is a lot of research for an already established and balanced system.
Is it really bad news? Perhaps the more the competition will grow, the lower prices will go. But that’s the only aspect we might benefit from.
The optics supplied by Fuji are THE reason why I bought the X-T1, and I think it is what the X series is renowned for. While Sony has its full-frame cameras topped with endless features, Fuji is renowned for its ergonomical bodies and the stellar optics which produce high-end IQ. So why would someone want to buy a Fuji body, just to use it with second class (at best) Sigma lenses? Especially now when most ranges are covered by the Fuji lenses.
Also – raising the competition could have a negative effect for us – Fuji will need to provide lower priced lenses which could reduce their lenses quality in turn (just a thought).
While definitely not low-priced, the Fuji lenses are much cheaper than their full-frame counterparts, and in many cases they are also better.
So I don’t see why this is bad news.
Well, if sigma would make some x-mount lenses, they would make some money. However, there is more at stake here than money. They are working very hard on their image of a high quality lens manufacturerer. Going from a reputation similar to those of tamron and tokina, this is tideous work. They have managed to get favourabele reviews when being compared to Nikon and Canon glass. This has enabled them to raise their prices and make more money on every lens. As of yet, they havnt reached the zeiss/voigtländer/cosina market segment, but they may very well aspire to. Seing how the otherwise highly regarded cosina made zeiss lenses have faired when compared with the Fuji lenses, it would simply be market suicede to put themselves head to head with fuji glass.
I’d imagine it’s not just market size but the demographics of the market that puts Sigma off. Anecdotally it seems like a large slice of the Fuji install base are savvy ex-DSLR users that might have heard a few too many stories about Sigma et. al.
On the other hand, one of the reasons why I used to shy away from off-brand lenses on DSLRs (front- or back- focussing issues) are no longer of concern on mirrorless, so it’s a bit of a shame that they’re not involved. Options are always good.
Not true… Sigma lens are still used by many savvy. Sigma’s explanation makes sense. X-mount is only 1/10th of Sony’s market share. They haven’t embrace Sony yet as they do to Canikon.
I’m not saying they aren’t, and Sigma make some great lenses, but it’s surely another factor, especially when you think that right now, there are plenty of gaps in the fuji lineup that sigma could be exploiting, so simply declaring install base as the only reason is surely too simplistic.
I’m just saying it’s a different demographic to where Sigma operate in addition to the market size.
There are probably also a lot of early technology adopters on the Fuji side, for example, and many are happy to invest in the system simply on the promise of lenses on a paper roadmap.
There is a cost in doing business. I dont think current Fuji user base is large enough to cover that. Sony users aren’t welcoming Sigma any time soon. Fuji is a distant dream.
I am not missing Sigma glass on the X-mount. Sigma makes some fantastic glass, and price it right, but their best stuff is really heavy which is just the opposite ethos of the whole Fuji APS-C system. I have a full frame camera and use the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Awesome lens, just wow, but heavy as a brick, literally. Put the Sigma 35mm f1/4 next to the Fuji 35mm f1.4 – it’s like an elephant and a mouse. It’s a testament to Fuji that Zeiss couldn’t really compete with Fuji’s own glass – bigger, heavier, twice the price and really only slightly better optically. When you take inot account price, weight, and optical performance, even with optical performance being most of the weighting, Fuji is making some of the best lenses available for any camera system.
I certainly can agree with Sigma’s reasoning, that the Fuji X-marketshare is miniscule and therefore probably not worth the effort from an economic point of view. One has to take into account, that Sigma offers lenses with AF and electronic communication with the camera. Apart from Zeiss no one does for Fuji, meaning Samyang and the rest only need to remodel the metal mount for different systems, nothing else changes – that’s barely any investment…
The other side of the problem is the long term future of APS-C mirrorless cameras. Apart from Sony there are no major players. Canon’s moves can’t even be described as trying and Sony certainly makes the impression of wanting to push customers to FF. That’s probably why Zeiss isn’t expanding their Touit-line. So, who would Sigma design lenses for?
The OEMs are investing into lenses in order to establish their systems as mirrorless seems the one segment they can nag away at the duopoly of CaNikon. Other manufacturers are either into the full-manual-and-cheap-segment (Samyang) and niche-and-crazy-segment (Lensbaby, SLR Magic), which seems to work great on limited scale, or just playing the wait-and-see-game if their big and reputable, witness Tamron, Tokina and mostly Sigma. The only big name outlet that went in deep is Zeiss, but they’re betting on FF mirrorless now. Besides with the profits they achieve with video lenses, established DSLR/viewfinder stuff and considering Sony’s lacking line-up I guess mirrorless isn’t that much of a risk for Zeiss…
I would love to have Sigma on board with the X-mount if only for a little more choice and stiffer competition, but I think we need to rely mostly on Fuji to fill in the gaps (HINT for Fuji: build a whole F2-prime set, don’t stop with the pre-announced 35mm) or make due with manual lenses, new and old, to cover more specialized niches. I see Fuji as the Pentax of mirrorless: great cameras, great oem lenses but not much support from third parties. Due to the quality of Fuji’s offerings I don’t have a problem with that! But if someone has more specific needs, maybe he/she should rather look elsewhere…
If Pentax had the same complete APS-C lens lineup as Fuji has, I wouldn’t be reading this forum now.
Canon and Nikon are very much playing in crop sensor market. In fact Canon Rebel is the last I checked the best selling DSLR in the world, still to this date. Both Canon and Nikon have full lineup of crop sensor DSLRs and crop market share is much larger than full frame. So crop is here to stay for a while I think, at least until the point the Canon and Nikon can defy the laws of physics and design compact and cheap full frame DSLRs and lenses, or Sony just crushes everyone with A7 line 🙂 But in terms of crop, it is here to stay.
“The other side of the problem is the long term future of APS-C mirrorless cameras.”
Key word is “mirrorless”, Nikon and Canon mirrorless offer is not that exciting… And designing lenses for mirrorless and DSLR is quite different.
It seems not even Sony is too serious in the APS-C mirrorless market. They are going gangbusters on their full frame line, but as of late the crop sensor stuff has languished, both bodies and lenses. X-mount is truly in the sweet spot with glass, ergonomics, image quality etc.
Fuji has three lenses specifically designed for compact system cameras: the 19, 30 and 60mm f/2.8 DN lenses. They exist in E mount (in addition to m43), and hence cover the required APS-C frame.
They cost 200$ each and can sometimes be found for less when bought as a kit of two or three. On paper, they would nicely complement the Fuji line from a price point of view (which is not the case of the Zeiss Touit line)
My guess is that either:
– Sigma is not making much money if at all on the current DN range, and don’t want to embark a third mount which has lower penetration and a pretty full lens line-up; or
– The existing DN lenses would for some reason perform poorly on the X-Trans without expensive redesign.
Another lens which could be interesting in X mount and has currently no competition from Fuji is the Tamron 18-200 Di III, also specifically designed for hybrid cameras.
Note that the former Tamron is available in EOS M mount so market share does not seem to be a concern 😉
But I expect the EF-M mount protocol to be very close to that of the EF mount (and the E Sony mount protocol to that of the A mount?). If that’s the case, adapting to the Sony and Canon mirrorless mounts might be a lot easier for Sigma and Tamron, which have produced EF and A mount lenses for years, than reverse engineering a new mount like the Fuji X one.
I think you need to edit your first line from “Fuji has…” to “Sigmas has…”
there are three big Mirrorless “mount-ranges” on the market.
FourThirds with probaly most lenses
APS-C with Fujifilm X, Sony E and Canon whatever – lens calculation could be the same with slightly different mounts.
Fullframe with Sony FE
Both FT and APS-C markets have a lot of competing high-quality glass (at least X-mount 😉 ), but could need a competitor with value lenses incl. AF. If the new Sigma with it’s ART-lenses can fill that role… I doubt it. Maybe Tamron.
Sigma’s ideas and projections about lens mounts are curious to say the least. Their product range still features their SD1 Merrill DSLR with the obscure SA-bayonet mount, a relic from the days of their SA300 film SLR which in itself wasn’t the huge success they’d hoped for. I voted no because I won’t put my trust in a manufacturer who has expressed their misgivings about a very well received and respected camera brand I happen to own. So even if Sigma would do a 180-degree, I wouldn’t want to be sold one of their afterthought products.
I also don’t get Sigma’s long-term marketing strategy. Traditional DSLR sales are in decline and the mirrorless efforts from Canon and Nikon -who make up the most of the current DSLR optics sales- lag very much behind those of innovators like Fuji, or Sony for that matter. With product lines such as Fuji’s X-series or Sony’s A7-series, I wouldn’t be surprised if the current mirror-reflex market would collapse within the next 5 to 10 years or so, and Nikon and Canon with it; a kind of Kodak moment…
As it stands, Sigma seems capable of producing a few decent lenses, given the reviews of their Art line-up, but the bulk of their turnover probably resides in the sale of their popular consumer range. And for many old skool photogs like myself, Sigma remains one of the brands you bought with your very first SLR, until you saved up enough to buy the real deal. I predict that Sigma will be losing out in this important segment as the quality of, for instance, Fuji’s 18-55 ‘kit’ lens is more than good enough to qualify it as a keeper, rather than a soon-to-be-replaced first optic. There’s no gap for Sigma to fill other than a few niches maybe.
From a business point of view Sigma is correct, making lenses that will sell in small amounts isn’t profitable. Of course all the Fuji lovers will disagree, but if it was your business and your livelihood, then what would you do? Plus the Fuji lenses are so good and so affordable, how many budget lenses would Sigma really sell, and could they really create better lenses than Fuji for less money. If you can afford the X-T1 or X-Pro, then having a budget lens on you camera probably isn’t your top priority.
Fuji lenses are not that cheap. Sigma could sell existing: 17-50/2.8, 10-20, 8-16, 18-35/1.8, 85 1.4
Most (all? – sigma-foto is currently unreachable cause of certificate-issues, so I can’t verify) of the lenses you mention are DSLR-lenses, which don’t make much sense on a mirror-less.
So Sigma still would have to invest some effort to recalculate them for mirrorless cameras and take benefit of the significantly reduced flange distance.
For just reusing DSLR-lenses it would be sufficient to built an intelligent adapter.
why would you buy Sigma…when you can get the best!!! ( Fuji lenses)????
🙂 😉
optical stabilization
When I was using a Nikon D700 I had a couple of Sigma lenses. The 70mm macro (if you get a good copy) is a very good lens. I found their quality control to be very poor. When I switched to a D800 I got rid of the Sigmas because they just weren’t that good. I say this a person who also uses a DP1, 2, and 3. The main reason I didn’t get a SD1 (after the price dropped to a reasonable amount) was that I was never impressed with their lenses. The Merrill sensor is very interesting and has a look that no other camera has, much like the Fuji cameras. I have never tried their Art lenses so maybe they are better now. The lenses on the Merrill’s are very good but they are matched to the sensor. I have since sold all my Nikon gear. I am perfectly happy with the lenses Fuji offers. That said I don’t think the Fuji cameras are really designed for longer lenses due to their size. I never use anything longer than 85mm equivalent so I’m happy. I have 21, 24, 28, 35, 50, and 85. I wouldn’t need any other lenses. I tried the 16-55 but it was just too bulky on the camera. Plus I just really have never liked zoom lenses. I’m sure they are great but I just don’t need one. I started out in photography with film a loooooooooong time ago and 28, 35, and 50 and I’m happy there.
All that said I suppose it would be nice for other people if Sigma did make lenses for Fuji cameras. I just wouldn’t buy one.
see you tried 16-55 and it was too bulky. Would not you want to instead try Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for half the weight and size, OS, better minimum focusing distance, and much cheaper, even if it was not as optically ridiculously good as Fuji 16-55?
You forgot the Sigma lens would need an >26mm wide adapter / rear-element to simply compensate for the reduced flange-distance.
So it would not be that smaller at all.
But… we buy cameras, we INVEST in glass. Why in the world would I buy a lens that I know is significantly inferior to what my body can handle now when I know my body will be the shortest owned device of the two? Nope, I bought Fuji because I crave premium quality. I had a 4/3 system and if I were going to lower my standard in image quality even a tic, I would go back as their lenses and technology are top notch.. but not quite what the X system is 🙂
interesting you bring up the Merrills because the dp2m which I own (and dp3m) has a superb lens which shows what Sigma can do and with this series, I am not aware of QC problems which have often plagued Sigma (D)SLR lenses. The Merrill look is very individual but quite different from Fuji, not only in the focus on extreme detail but also the colour rendering is very different tending to a yellow bias where Fuji is green and blue. Fuji is a much easier system to deal with but for certain types of photos in certain kinds of light, the Merrills are wonderful.
Sigma could take a page out of Samyang/Rokinon’s book and just stick an adapter on the end and call it a day.
Let me tell you what Sigma should of done. Their ART lenses should of have “aperture ring” if they were a fraction price of the Zeiss Otus lenses. Think about it, if it has aperture ring, then It wouldn’t matter if they will not make x-mount version of their art lenses, I could always use the Nikon F or EOS version with an EOS-FX adapter. So, no aperture ring? that wasn’t a smart move. Zeiss lenses always put aperture ring on it. And you know who’s winning it beside Fujinon? Rokinon! So, No Excuses Sigma!
Zeiss EF lenses don’t have an aperture ring, including Otus as it is controlled electronically.
Sigma has a point that Fuji’s market share is miniscule. However, I don’t understand its argument fully here. First of all, yes, Fuji made it difficult by choosing a design which includes both autofocus and having lenses where you can change the aperture on a lens, which requires additional design there. However Fuji has XC lenses that don’t have that capability so if you take those as a model, then ALL Sigma had to do was to Slap a different mount on its existing lenses and sell them for Fuji. Howe difficult can that be? That’s all the Samyang does, just slaps a different mount and sells their lenses in all mounts!!! This must not involve much brain power and R&D.
And there are some existing lenses at Sigma that Fuji users could benefit from. Case at point Sigma’s existing 17-50/2.8 OS lens for crop. My last copy for Canon mount cost me $250 when amazon had a sale. Yes it is clearly not optically as superb as Fuji 16-55. But it is 1) much cheaper, 2) very good optically, 3) has Image Stabilization, 4) has very close MFD, 5) half the weight of 16-55. 16-55 probably does not sell as great because it is very large and heavy and has no image stabilization and is very expensive. So why not sell 17-50, many people would consider buying it as a cheaper alternative.
Another already existing (for years) crop lenses that are made by Sigma are 10-20, 8-16, 18-35/1.8 – just slap the Fuji mount and sell it!!!!!
X-mount isn’t the problem there, problem is to make a lense compatible with the camera in term of autofocus, aperture and stablization.
Samyang are used just as all-mechanical legacy lenses (camera doesn’t have to control the focus, stabilization or aperture). In fact, camera doesn’t have a clue of the settings of the lens (no exifs recorded).
Much easier for them, just switch the mount and adapt flange focal distance and let the user focus and use mechanical aperture ring.
Even if they did make an X-Mount, I wouldn’t buy it…
Why ? If Sigma produce a great X-lens that suit your needs better than Fuji lens at a good cost, you would not buy it ?
The odds of them doing that are micro-biotic…
If m4/3 mount means smaller sensor, the answere is “no”.
However, I probably wouldn’t buy any Sigma lenses anyway.
A 4/3 mount makes no sense since none of the 4/3 lenses would cover the corners of the APS sensor. It would make more sense to suggest a Nikon mount which is relatively small. but Nikon would probably sue them like they have sued Sigma. Not a serious statement from a Sigma marketing type.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Would a micro 4/3 mount even work? It’s not a micro 4/3 sensor.
20/1.7 and 45/1.8 do cover aps-c, maybe others
The exceptional price/performance ratio of recent Sigma lenses is based on high volume sales. These lenses would be unthinkable without high volume sales. Why should it be “good for Sigma” to loose money by releasing X-Mount lenses?
Are there magic words I can utter to send you back to Sony Alpha Rumours? http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/09/06/ot-guest-contribution-the-pathology-of-fanboyism-and-a-little-advice-to-mt/
LOL. I didn’t expect that my post would be read as fanboyism. I swear, I’m far from a Sony fanboy. I love their sensors and the fact that they had the balls to bring out a small APS-C ILC. That’s it. I dislike pretty much everything else about Sony.
I love almost all what Fuji does, except X-Trans. If I’m a fanboy, then I’m a Fuji/Nikon guy. But I think I’m not. I mostly comment on SAR because its the funniest, with so many trolls and heated discussions. I love especially the endless attempts to proof, that Sony is a serious camera brand.
The problem with Sigma [and Tamron and Tokina and Soligor, etc, etc] is the same as it’s always been: the optics are often quite good, but the mechanicals fall apart after a few years. That’s where they cut corners.
In the old days, pros didn’t shoot aftermarket glass – not sure about today, though.
Who needs Sigma? We have excellent glass already.
Your argument about all the great non-fuji glass out there really doesn’t hold water. Other than Zeiss, no autofocus offerings out there. There might be some decent optical quality, but I can’t take 95% of the Samyang offerings seriously – the same for the other minor players.
And there are major holes in the Xmount lineup. No WR macro lenses! Or even mid-range primes, other than the new 90mm, which lacks OIS.
I love my X-t1 and the two lenses I have, but am really feeling squeezed by the limitations in the line-up.
120mm WR 1:1 macro is in the roadmap. then there is the 100-400. These should be available first half of next year.
Sure, it’s not complete, but, as said in the article, I think Fujinon glass already covers MOST needs of photographers… not all, though
Most needs of street photographers, you mean – or those who never shoot in wet/difficult conditions. Current line up has too many broad tradeoffs.
120mm sounds great – but it will be a tank and make my 16-55 look like 90-100mm macro better, or heck even a decent 60mm with WR and (shudder) OIS.
I was in Iceland with my X-E1 and 14/2.8, and my tripod…so no WR, no OIS. The body and the lens were wet so many times and they still working, no problems at all. So where is the problem? If you don’t like Fuji just quit the system and go something else.
Great! I hope that will be the case for everyone.
I love my X-T1, and the 16-55 – awesome combo. But this isn’t Iceland, and I’m not taking landscape shots or using a tripod most of the time. My Zeiss 50mm macro just isn’t going to hold up under the wet, humid conditions, slippery conditions I encounter on my field work here on Guam. And neither will fuji’s 60mm macro. They just aren’t built that solidly.
So, if Fuji can fill that hole, it would be helpful not only to me, but to other serious nature photographers that find the system similarly lacking.
Yup. Time for MF!!!
Had Sigma entered the X-Mount system, I highly doubt their first offering — or second or third — would have been a weather resistant macro lens.
Not sure what you think you’re missing. In fact, not sure any of the other mirrorless manufacturers would have what you’re looking for.
Thanks for playing. I’m have no real opinion one what Sigma would or should offer for Fujifilm. I doubt they could make something they could profit from with good quality.
I do disagree with the contention that the Fuji lineup is complete.
As for what I’m missing – Olympus offers a WR macro, with 1:1 repro ratio. It’s small and light. Fuji can’t do that? Or with any midrange prime? That’s disappointing.
I think Sigma needs to better embrace mirrorless systems, rather that tell mirrorless owners what cameras to buy. The old-school third-party lens makers (like Sigma and Tamron) all seem set on only supplying Canon and Nikon, with token gestures toward Sony E and µ43.
Sigma telling Fuji it should have gone for a µ43 mount would have a whole lot more weight behind it if Sigma had released a significant range of µ43 lenses. Currently, Sigma has launched a massive three lenses in µ43. The same three lenses Sigma makes for Sony E-mount (19mm, 30mm, and 60mm, all f/2.8). Doubtless, if it thought Fuji was a significant player in mirrorless, Sigma would grace us with the same three cheap, pointless, and unwanted lenses.
I would be upset by this proclamation if Sigma had grasped the mirrorless nettle and had a genuinely competitive group of lenses in one of the other systems that could materially add to the Fuji line-up. If there were a group of great Sony E or µ43 lenses from Sigma that either filled in the blanks in these systems or offered the kind of performance it has demonstrated it can provide, this would be a stinging blow to Fuji’s format. But instead, Sigma seems to be stuck firmly in the DSLR age and begins to look a little bit ‘hey you kids, get off my lawn!’
Good point. What are we missing out on here? Three slow primes that all have better Fuji options available.
Sigma could easily, and safely, enter the Fuji market with super telephotos. Even with the one we know is coming, Sigma has many in this range that could be adapted from full frame with real interest from the X Community. It’s not terrible that they refrain, but it would have been nice to have more options at the long end a little sooner 🙂
Hard to argue with Sigma’s decision. Fuji lenses are so good, and the line up is already so robust, that there isn’t a huge need. Coming over from Canon, I know that people had been requesting an updated 50 f/1.4 FOREVER. Sigma came in and filled a need that Canon ignored. Fuji doesn’t have the user base or the weaknesses that Canon does—not that there isn’t room in their line up for additional lenses.
Fuji shit, the af is annoying as bad as their 2006 f11 compact camera’s. The x trans is terrible with terrible raw NR that we can never turn off. So it is very wise of sigma tamron zeiss to ignore this seriously doomed mount system altogether.
+1!
I really think there is a market for Sigma to step in and fill. Of course there would be costs associated with building lens firmware to work with the Fuji AF, but I think that would be worth it since Sigma has many good lenses that could fill holes in Fuji’s lineup.
Fuji seems determined to only build very high quality lenses except for the XC zooms. I don’t think we’ll see anything like the XF18 that really doesn’t perform that well wide open. And even that one can’t really be considered a “cheap” lens when you look at price and build quality.
Now that we have great cameras like the X-T10 at a very affordable price, there is a market for cheaper lenses, too. Many buying an X-T10 for 700€ won’t pay 950€ to get a portrait prime (XF56) and the 60 just doesn’t cut it for the price and at f2.4. But something like the Nikkor 50 1.8G is exactly what many people used for portraits on DX bodies and it did great. Not the best build but great IQ and fast AF for a terrific price. Fuji probably won’t ever fill that gap so I’d be very happy if Sigma did. And that is just one example, there are more.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: not everybody enthusiastic about photography is from the American middle-class and is able or willing to invest thousands into a hobby.
Zeiss Vicepresident: ” Full Frame is the future” C’mon fuji… APS-C?
The future? Since smaller sensors are getting better and better, Full Frame is rather the past…
Totally correct! Nobody except high paid pros (of which there are very few) want to deal with huge files and slow software manipulation.
Don’t forget Zeiss have thrown their hat into the ring with Sony – that colors their view.
Also Sony and Fuji have very different philosophies and companies. If you are so convinced Fuji should pursue FF, ask yourself this first – How do you think Fuji would fare if they abandoned their APS-C customers like Sony have and went all out for a much higher priced FF system? Sony are putting bigger resources behind their FF gamble. Not everyone is convinced the future is FF.
Sony may yet succeed cornering an FF mirrorless market even if the future turns out not to be FF.
If Fuji were to take that same gamble, there is more at stake and they have a higher risk than Sony of failing (financially).
Canon abandoned their APS-C users. Nikon abandoned their APS-C users. Sony abandoned their APS-C users. Yet, they are the three biggest players in the market (including the APS-C market).
Olympus did not abandon four thirds. Pentax did not abandon APS-C. This strategy has proven unsuccessful.
Fujifilm is producing high quality lenses and bodies for APS-C, unlike Canon, Nikon and Sony. The fact that Fuji does not have a stake in FF makes them the best APS-C supporter. If you wanna shoot FF, by all means, buy any (good) FF body available now. It’s better for fuji to be the king of APS-C than an also ran in the full frame market.
Absolutely correct. And not everything I read about the gorgeous Sony FF cameras is favorable either. Fuji would likely kick their butts if they entered the field. But like you say, no need to be a wannabe when you already rule the roost of your format.
That’s just propaganda.
Why would anyone want third-party Sigma crap when the Fujinon’s are so good?
Yawn. Who cares? Sigma makes a decent 50mm f/1.4 for $950 (that has focus problems on a lot of cameras), Fuji makes a better, much lighter 56mm f/1.2 for the same price. Sigma makes a 35mm f/1.4 for $900, Fuji makes a better, much lighter 35mm f/1.4 for $300 less.
Who needs Sigma glass? I didn’t buy a Fuji to use off-brand lenses, I bought it to use the superior Fuji lenses.
You are comparing FF lenses vs APS-C lenses…
I don’t think the Fujinon offerings are better optically, although the 56 is probably close. I don’t have the Sigma 50 to compare, but I do use both the Sigma and Fujinon 35mm lenses extensively and the Sigma is sharp right out to the edges and sharper in the center. The Sigma focuses accurately and on my Canon 6D is significantly faster to achieve focus than the Fujinon 35mm on the X-T1. Nevertheless, the Fujinon is just fantastic, one of my favorite lenses for any camera system. The Sigma is huge and heavy, the Fujinon compact and light. When you throw in size and weight the Fujinon lenses are truly marvels of engineering. Sigma is not going to be able to beat Fujinon in this arena.
Maybe not all Fuji lenses are superior, but sure, you can limit yourself by just using the ones that are.
OTOH Sigma has no mirrorless lenses that are as good as what Fuji, Zeiss, Olympus, Panasonic or even Samsung are making. They only make a value line of three slow primes. If Sigma reversed and said they would add Fuji versions of all their high end lenses, they’d have to either do radical redesigns to make their SLR lenses mirrorless (and they haven’t shown any sign of being interested in doing that) or stick a longer barrel and an X mount on their huge SLR lenses. If you haven’t used the high end Sigma SLR lenses, they are extremely large and heavy.
What 6 more are coming?
35/2
120 macro
Supertele
???
???
???
THE no.1 reason I love Fuji X is because of the superb, in fact world class, Fujinon lenses. In this particular case I couldn’t give a flying whatsit if anyone else supplies glass for X-mount or not. I suspect the truth is that Sigma can’t produce anything better for the money than Fuji, so it’s not really worth entering that market, but they’re hardly likely to admit it
Or they are too busy making full frame f/1.4 ART lenses for cameras that are used in volume by professionals.
Those ART lenses are consistently best-in-class, with sharpness rivalling Zeiss Otus. Unless Fuji comes out with 16mm f/0.95, 24mm f/0.95 and 35mm f/0.95 lenses with sharpness rivalling the Otii, Fuji cannot compete with Sigma image quality-wise. It is not even close.
It’s close enough. I’ve owned/used Sigma Art lenses on a Canon 6D, and their results were amazing. However, the RAW files coming out of my X-T1 with Fujinon primes is easily 90% of what my Canon combo was. This despite the smaller format.
After processing, I prefer the aesthetic that I’m getting from my Fuji cameras and lenses. I’ve truly got nothing to gain by saying that.
Whatever Sigma’s reasons are for not supporting X-mount, whether strictly business or otherwise, X shooters are not losing any sleep over it.
OT: Hey @patrick Sony Rumors reports that Sony sensor business just spun off.
I wonder if other companies will now get access to sensors at the same time as Sony branded cameras instead of the rumored “six month delay”
Maybe an XPro2 sooner?
let’s hope so 🙂
What a hopelessly biased blog post.
Sigma does not wish to invest in X-mount because the market is too small: there is no money to be made for them.
With full frame offerings from Sony/Zeiss and soon Panasonic/Leica, the Fuji X system is becoming even more of a niche product. Fuji X is rapidly becoming the Pentax of the mirrorless world.
And Zeiss Touit has failed because people who are willing to pay Zeiss prices are usually using full frame cameras. Hence the unprecedented success of Zeiss Loxia and Batis, which are backordered everywhere.
Fuji does offer a very nice lens selection of its own, but to claim that those lenses are optically superior to Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Sony, let alone Zeiss and Leica, is utter, utter bunk.
Your post is utter bunk. The Zeiss lenses failed because they suck compared to Fuji glass. Owned both. Believe me. They suck. The other brands I cannot speak to, except Nikon, which has a rich history of making lenses that suck. Trust me, as a reformed Nikon user of 40 years! A bunch of Nikon lenses (and cameras)… SUCK.