xaviergut
LMF-Patron
Thank you, Jayne, I asked ChatGPT too, and both Gemini and ChatGPT quoted "Camera decision", they have the false information from that source.
L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Sigma 200mm f/2
- Thread starter xaviergut
- Start date
Jayneboo
LMF-Patron
It's a real shame, would have made it a much more interesting/enticing option for L mount.
xaviergut
LMF-Patron
Yes, totally. I found this at the end of the review of Petapixel:
Update 8/19: An earlier version of this review stated that the lens was compatible with L-mount teleconverters. Unfortunately, it is not. We apologize for the error.
Sigma 200mm f/2 DG Sports Review: Swinging for a Home Run
Sigma swings big with a first in the mirrorless camera world. We finally have a Sigma 200mm f/2 Sports lens and it aims to score big.
petapixel.com
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
Yikes! Bummer.
That was my initial reaction as well. On the other hand, this is such an obvious miss that I am now thinking that they will come out with new teleconverters designed specifically for this lens and the new, yet-to-be announced 135mm f/1.4. These new super-fast telephotos likely require a different approach to the design of the teleconverters. Perhaps this new set of teleconverters will be announced at the same time as the 135/1.4, or perhaps they will take a while to develop. Either way, I think that they're coming. What's my basis for this? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "the wish is father to the thought." I have no real information, but I do have a strong desire for it to be true, a belief in the logic of their development, and a lot of faith in Kazuto Yamaki.
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure enough people would be interested in using a teleconverter with this lens to justify making one just for it, unless it's compatible with other lenses (present or future) which also can't take current teleconverters. After all, the standout feature of this lens is it's speed, likewise the rumoured 135/1.4, and to remove that by pairing it with a teleconverter would seem counterproductive for many.
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with that. Being able to convert it to a 300 F2.8 or a 400 F4 would be important, at least for me. Part of the reason you spend $$$ on a fast telephoto that is super sharp wide-open is so that you can shoot it wide-open with a TC and still get great IQ. And, in this case, still be faster than your typical super-tele zoom lens (i.e., 100-400).
Worth noting: The Sony 300/2.8 takes TCs. And from what I have read, delivers lots of detail and focuses well, even with the 2.0x TC. And: those discussions on wildlife forums (about how well a given fast prime works with TCs) tell me that avid wildlife shooters are very interesting in using TCs on these kinds of lenses.
Lack of TC support seems like an odd choice to me, but perhaps sports shooters don't care. Hopefully Sigma isn't letting Sony's "no TC on third party lenses" policy affect their lens designs. That would be unfortunate for us.
Last edited:
I wonder if the "mistake" at Petapixel regarding compatibility with L-mount teleconverters is an example of an unauthorized information leak. We know that the lens is not compatible with any existing teleconverters, but that does not imply that the lens will not be usable with teleconverters. It may be that the lens will be usable with yet-to-be announced teleconverters, so Petapixel had it right, but they weren't supposed to say this. The Petapixel reviewers are pretty chumy with Sigma and with Yamaki-san, so it's reasonable to assume that they know more than they can say (or were supposed to say). Or maybe this is just another case of my optimism running wild.
I think that a lot of us will be hesitant to spend thousands for a lens that is just a 200mm f/2. While I have some uses for such a lens, it's not very versatile. It would be FAR more useful if I could also get a 400mm f/4 by simply adding a teleconverter, with its modest cost, weight, and size. Most 2x teleconverters do not work very well, because you need three things for such a combo to be effective, none of which are common: (1) You need the base lens to be very fast (check!); (2) you need the base lens to be extremely sharp (check!!); and (3) you need the teleconverter to have a sophisticated design that is optimized for use with the base lens. This last item is well within the technical capabilities of Sigma. If they decide to offer a teleconverter that is optimized for these new fast teles--which will likely have very similar optical formulas--then they will have some killer combinations. This path is so compelling that it would almost be criminal not to release some new dedicated telecoverters.
I think that a lot of us will be hesitant to spend thousands for a lens that is just a 200mm f/2. While I have some uses for such a lens, it's not very versatile. It would be FAR more useful if I could also get a 400mm f/4 by simply adding a teleconverter, with its modest cost, weight, and size. Most 2x teleconverters do not work very well, because you need three things for such a combo to be effective, none of which are common: (1) You need the base lens to be very fast (check!); (2) you need the base lens to be extremely sharp (check!!); and (3) you need the teleconverter to have a sophisticated design that is optimized for use with the base lens. This last item is well within the technical capabilities of Sigma. If they decide to offer a teleconverter that is optimized for these new fast teles--which will likely have very similar optical formulas--then they will have some killer combinations. This path is so compelling that it would almost be criminal not to release some new dedicated telecoverters.
Jayneboo
LMF-Patron
I congratulate you on your optimismI wonder if the "mistake" at Petapixel regarding compatibility with L-mount teleconverters is an example of an unauthorized information leak. We know that the lens is not compatible with any existing teleconverters, but that does not imply that the lens will not be usable with teleconverters. It may be that the lens will be usable with yet-to-be announced teleconverters, so Petapixel had it right, but they weren't supposed to say this. The Petapixel reviewers are pretty chumy with Sigma and with Yamaki-san, so it's reasonable to assume that they know more than they can say (or were supposed to say). Or maybe this is just another case of my optimism running wild.
I think that a lot of us will be hesitant to spend thousands for a lens that is just a 200mm f/2. While I have some uses for such a lens, it's not very versatile. It would be FAR more useful if I could also get a 400mm f/4 by simply adding a teleconverter, with its modest cost, weight, and size. Most 2x teleconverters do not work very well, because you need three things for such a combo to be effective, none of which are common: (1) You need the base lens to be very fast (check!); (2) you need the base lens to be extremely sharp (check!!); and (3) you need the teleconverter to have a sophisticated design that is optimized for use with the base lens. This last item is well within the technical capabilities of Sigma. If they decide to offer a teleconverter that is optimized for these new fast teles--which will likely have very similar optical formulas--then they will have some killer combinations. This path is so compelling that it would almost be criminal not to release some new dedicated telecoverters.
Hugh Brownstone quoted Sigma8/20/2025 UPDATE FROM SIGMA: 200/2 is NOT compatible with teleconverters. There are physical engineering challenges, and IQ would not be up to the standard Sigma set for this lens without a TC.
Whether Sigma will be able to engineer/design/manufacture a TC that would fit the design of the 200mm f/2 in the future is an unknown right now, fingers crossed though, however, the fact that now it doesn't support them I imagine will impact sales. Many of the reviewers seemed to expect the lens to be compatible with TC's.
Last edited: