IBC 2016 Sigma Cinema Lenses

Some may argue the justification comes from the build quality and having the manual rings/gears (and even new/better lens coatings...not sure the Sigmas have this), but for most people it won't be worth it and they will get the stills versions and call it a day.
 
markoconnell said:
Forgive my ignorance, but if a stills version of the 18-35 can be marketed for $800-, why would a cine version need to cost $3999-? How is the $3200- price increase justified?
Click to expand...
A part of it is the "These goes to eleven", the main difference is probably way more QC on all parts and different coatings. The housing is probably sturdier and more expensive.
 
I haven't seen anything about different coatings, only seem them claiming the optics is the same, the housing all new. (did I miss it?).
I think twice the price would have been reasonable, but over four times the price (for the 18-35) seem a bit excessive...
 
BlackLegSanji said:
Actually, with economy of scale, I expect a factory-made product to be cheaper than a similar product made to order.
Click to expand...
Lenses - especially on the high end - are mostly hand-assembled, so there is no economy of scale.

Besides, costs are somewhat irrelevant here. Companies will charge what the market will bear. If $4,000 is too much, then they'll offer packages and discounts.
 
markoconnell said:
Forgive my ignorance, but if a stills version of the 18-35 can be marketed for $800-, why would a cine version need to cost $3999-? How is the $3200- price increase justified?
Click to expand...

Precise manual mechanics and economy of scale. The stills versions are mass market products controlled electronically, the cine versions are something else entirely.

The pricing is great. It's something to be thankful for, not worried about.
 
DLD said:
Lenses - especially on the high end - are mostly hand-assembled, so there is no economy of scale.

Besides, costs are somewhat irrelevant here. Companies will charge what the market will bear. If $4,000 is too much, then they'll offer packages and discounts.
Click to expand...
Economy of scale mostly relates to the quantity and reduction of overhead costs per item. Even if the lens are assembled by hands, the parts (housing, gears, etc...) are still mass produced at Sigma's factory in larger quantity.
 
BlackLegSanji said:
Economy of scale mostly relates to the quantity and reduction of overhead costs per item. Even if the lens are assembled by hands, the parts (housing, gears, etc...) are still mass produced at Sigma's factory in larger quantity.
Click to expand...
True to an extent - although, the Japanese companies overhead could be much greater than the Korean - but it doesn't matter much overall because the profit margins are so high anyway. It'd make difference in the auto business, as an example, when one compares a factory turbo install vs. the one done in the aftermarket tuning shop. Lenses are closer to jewelry or custom furniture in terms of marketing.
 
Y'all are thinking about the numbers wrong.

For the stills lenses, the mechanical accuracy is minimal and can be mostly machine assembled and finished. When you focus electronically or even by eye, the mechanics don't have to be all that precise because you or the camera will correct for them. Yes the material cost is less, but far more importantly the time to manufacture and the number of humans interacting with the process and total man hours involved is dramatically less. Plus those man hours may be spent on less-skilled, lower wage staff.

For the cine lenses, the tolerances are vastly higher because they need to perform in different ways. Accurate to the focus scales. No axial backlash. Tight tolerance zoom curve. No zoom drift or other alignment shift. Cam-driven zoom track v. exansion helicoil. The list goes on, but there are a lot of reasons why proper cine lenses weigh a lot more than still lenses and tend to use aluminum where stills use plastic, steel where stills use aluminum, etc.

A still lens may be assembled from $50 in mechanical parts, take five hours to put together and have a human involved for one hour. A cine lens may have $500 in mechanical parts, take 20 hours to assemble and have humans involved almost the entire time.

And forgetting all of that, for every one cine version of a lens they sell, Sigma will likely ship dozens if not hundreds of the stills version. There are lots of costs to be amortized over the lifespan of the product, and if you are going to sell fewer you are going to charge more. Apple can sell 10 million iPhones for $600 each, but if they only sold 100 iPhones they'd charge.. well they'd charge a hell of a lot more. Not because the parts cost more when you only buy a few, but because they have an enormous investment in the people who do all the design and programming work for the product.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Y'all are thinking about the numbers wrong.

For the stills lenses, the mechanical accuracy is minimal and can be mostly machine assembled and finished. When you focus electronically or even by eye, the mechanics don't have to be all that precise because you or the camera will correct for them. Yes the material cost is less, but far more importantly the time to manufacture and the number of humans interacting with the process and total man hours involved is dramatically less. Plus those man hours may be spent on less-skilled, lower wage staff.

For the cine lenses, the tolerances are vastly higher because they need to perform in different ways. Accurate to the focus scales. No axial backlash. Tight tolerance zoom curve. No zoom drift or other alignment shift. Cam-driven zoom track v. exansion helicoil. The list goes on, but there are a lot of reasons why proper cine lenses weigh a lot more than still lenses and tend to use aluminum where stills use plastic, steel where stills use aluminum, etc.

A still lens may be assembled from $50 in mechanical parts, take five hours to put together and have a human involved for one hour. A cine lens may have $500 in mechanical parts, take 20 hours to assemble and have humans involved almost the entire time.

And forgetting all of that, for every one cine version of a lens they sell, Sigma will likely ship dozens if not hundreds of the stills version. There are lots of costs to be amortized over the lifespan of the product, and if you are going to sell fewer you are going to charge more. Apple can sell 10 million iPhones for $600 each, but if they only sold 100 iPhones they'd charge.. well they'd charge a hell of a lot more. Not because the parts cost more when you only buy a few, but because they have an enormous investment in the people who do all the design and programming work for the product.
Click to expand...
All of this is nothing new in these forums. Everyone knows the principles. What nobody know is how much more part costs, labor costs and QC costs go into these lens and what the margins are. We are not in a position to say how much these lens are supposed to sell for, but we're in the position to compare the performance/price package of these lens to the alternatives and frankly, I am not at all convinced we've got a good deal here.
 
BlackLegSanji said:
All of this is nothing new in these forums. Everyone knows the principles. What nobody know is how much more part costs, labor costs and QC costs go into these lens and what the margins are. We are not in a position to say how much these lens are supposed to sell for, but we're in the position to compare the performance/price package of these lens to the alternatives and frankly, I am not at all convinced we've got a good deal here.
Click to expand...

What are the alternatives in your view...keeping the conversation to the zooms at the moment? They need to be a proper cine lens, need to be very fast, and need to have optics in this league.

Does that exist for less than $4k?
 
Only ones that come to mind are the Tokina zooms, especially the 50-135mm, which is parfocal and has more range than the Sigma, but it's slower at f/2.8 (T3).

I would bet the glass is inferior compared to the Sigmas, but probably could still be a nice option for some.

$4500 - http://www.adorama.com/tn50135ceos.html
 
ozmorphasis said:
What are the alternatives in your view...keeping the conversation to the zooms at the moment? They need to be a proper cine lens, need to be very fast, and need to have optics in this league.

Does that exist for less than $4k?
Click to expand...
Alternatives don't have to be cheaper and possess the same characteristics.

I would rather get the 14-24-35-50-85 Xeen primes for 10k (street price). I would get a bit less resolving power but faster aperture and FF coverage.

Or I would go for the Zeiss LWZ 21-100 T2.9-3.9 for 10k. I would trade T2.0 for a truly versatile zoom, top notch optics (parfocal and all) and high resale value.

Edit: I don't really follow RED stuff but I hear they have a very good 17-50 f2.8 for 5-6k. I would get that over the 18-35 T2.0.
 
Last edited:
BlackLegSanji said:
Alternatives don't have to be cheaper.

I would rather get the 14-24-35-50-85 Xeen primes for 10k (street price). I would get a bit less resolving power but faster aperture and FF coverage.

Or I would go for the Zeiss LWZ 21-100 T2.9-3.9 for 10k. I would trade T2.0 for a truly versatile zoom, top notch optics (parfocal and all) and high resale value.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of going with the cine version of the 18-35 but seeing the price I might just skip it. The Zeiss LWZ looks like a good contender here but also the Canon 18-80 for around 5200 which is allot slower but does have autofocus and stabilisation.
 
They are not parfocal - at that price, that's a deal-breaker for me. May as well stick with the still lenses for boatloads less. What they bring to the table over and above the still lenses, is just not worth that price (to me). YMMV.
 
OldCorpse said:
They are not parfocal
Click to expand...

I'm not sure on that one until we see some tests from the Sigma lens. I shot with the G.L Optics version last night and had a quick play with it's parfocal ability. When I zoomed in to 35mm and choose my focus and then zoomed back, my lens stays in focus. It's not perfect but it does work. I was going to shot a test of this but then I found this video online. It's a great lens and I'm up for buying the Sigma version in PL in the future.


https://vimeo.com/183530536
 
Seriously, if Sigma didn't do anything about the focus breathing in the 50-100 t/2, I don't think anything else the company does to increase it's "performance" as a cinema lens really matters. The 18-35 is a different matter and is already a bit or a marvel for video work as a photo lens. I have to admit, though, that I don't understand the interest in slightly rehoused photo lenses as cinema lenses. I might buy the Canon 18-80 CN-E, but I feel like that actually offers something I can't get in a photo lens with none of the drawbacks of giving up the electronics.
 
Sigma Cine Zoom Lenses Arriving Early December 2016 Texas Media Systems

Sigma Cine Zoom Lenses Arriving Early December 2016 Texas Media Systems

Sigma is saying that the new Cine Zoom Lenses are on target to arrive early December.

SIGMA 18-35MM T2 CINE LENS Sony E-MOUNT - 210967 $3999

Lease Payments $102 - $355 Per Month

SIGMA 18-35MM T2 CINE LENS Canon EF MOUNT - 210966 $3999

Lease Payments $102 - $355 Per Month

SIGMA 50-100MM T2 CINE LENS Canon EF MOUNT - 693966 $3,999.00

Lease Payments $102 - $355 Per Month

SIGMA 50-100MM T2 CINE LENS Sony E-MOUNT - 693967 $3,999.00

Lease Payments $102 - $355 Per Month

SIGMA 18-35MM & 50-100MM CINE ZOOM LENS KIT E MOUNT - WZQ967 $8499

Lease payments $215 - $755 per Month

SIGMA 18-35MM & 50-100MM CINE ZOOM LENS KIT Canon EF MOUNT - WZQ966 $8,499.00

Lease payments $215 - $755 per Month

 
GaryinCalifornia said:
How come if you buy them together they cost 500 bucks more than if you purchase them separately?
Click to expand...
Because of the convenience of only having to add one item to your cart. This will save you from having to load a seperate page for another item, add that to your cart, etc., which could end up taking a minute of time. Now a minute may not seem like much time, but if you're say a CEO making $100,000 an hour, or $1,666 a minute, then you just saved $1,166, which is a good amount of money to save.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top