|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
March 9th 07, 06:17 PM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
What was Sigma thinking?
After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't
get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. Why not produce a 500 f/5.6 lens, one that would autofocus on most consumer DSLR's? How about a 400 f/4 that is cheaper than the DO Canon lens or even a 400 f/5.6 with OS? In other words, why not fill a gap in supertelephotos instead of producing a monster like a 200-500 f/2.8? Granted, it has no competition, but who is going to want one of these? It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com 
|
|
#2
March 9th 07, 08:28 PM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
On Mar 9, 8:17 am, Eric Miller
wrote: After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. Why not produce a 500 f/5.6 lens, one that would autofocus on most consumer DSLR's? How about a 400 f/4 that is cheaper than the DO Canon lens or even a 400 f/5.6 with OS? In other words, why not fill a gap in supertelephotos instead of producing a monster like a 200-500 f/2.8? Granted, it has no competition, but who is going to want one of these? It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. Eric Millerwww.dyesscreek.com It would appear that they went with a f/2.8 lens so they could use a 2X teleconverter with it. I would be interesting in seeing some test shots with an using a 2X converter, not that I am going to be buying one in any event. Scott Scott
|
|
#3
March 9th 07, 11:44 PM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
Probably something along the lines of "Take *THAT* Carl Zeiss AG!!"
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Zeiss announced a 1700mm F/4 APO Sonnar T* at Photokina 2006.
|
|
#4
March 10th 07, 01:10 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
"Scott W" wrote in message oups.com... : On Mar 9, 8:17 am, Eric Miller : wrote: : After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't : get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. Why : not produce a 500 f/5.6 lens, one that would autofocus on most consumer : DSLR's? How about a 400 f/4 that is cheaper than the DO Canon lens or : even a 400 f/5.6 with OS? In other words, why not fill a gap in : supertelephotos instead of producing a monster like a 200-500 f/2.8? : Granted, it has no competition, but who is going to want one of these? : It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. : : Eric Millerwww.dyesscreek.com : : It would appear that they went with a f/2.8 lens so they could use a : 2X teleconverter with it. I would be interesting in seeing some test : shots with an using a 2X converter, not that I am going to be buying : one in any event. : : Scott : : Scott : A better result would be obtained with a 1.4x converter which produces virtually no image degradation on other F/2.8 lenses in their line up but I would guess that this lens has it's own computer in that monster barrel to ensure element moves to suit the extra elements of a converter are made seamlessly. $20,000 (AUD) give or take a grand or two, is the word in Australia. Hand made to order seems likely too. It would make more sense financially to buy a $15,000 (AUD) 1D Canon and rent lenses like this from Canon when you need them. They certainly have a bigger range of really long lenses than Sigma. I like this one: http://www.annika1980.com/ Douglas
|
|
#5
March 10th 07, 01:40 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
On Mar 9, 3:10 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:
A better result would be obtained with a 1.4x converter which produces virtually no image degradation on other F/2.8 lenses in their line up but I would guess that this lens has it's own computer in that monster barrel to ensure element moves to suit the extra elements of a converter are made seamlessly. $20,000 (AUD) give or take a grand or two, is the word in Australia. Hand made to order seems likely too. Yeah, but if they only wanted to be able to use a 1.4X converter they could have made the lens a f/4 and saved both a lot of weight and cost. It is interesting to note that 2.8 is right at the limit of what you need to use with a 2X converter when using a Canon body. Scott
|
|
#6
March 10th 07, 01:46 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
Eric Miller wrote:
After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. The following image really puts its size in perspective: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...a/IMG_5383.jpg No thanks... MarkČ -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson
|
|
#7
March 10th 07, 01:54 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
In article , MarkČ
wrote: Eric Miller wrote: After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. The following image really puts its size in perspective: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...a/IMG_5383.jpg here's a few mo http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/st...9/pma_sigma14l. jpg http://www.sportsshooter.com/pix/spe...03090725607.jp g http://www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/392007111458.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1048/sigmasterbl8.jpg
|
|
#8
March 10th 07, 02:06 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , MarkČ wrote: Eric Miller wrote: After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. The following image really puts its size in perspective: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...a/IMG_5383.jpg here's a few mo http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/st...9/pma_sigma14l. jpg http://www.sportsshooter.com/pix/spe...03090725607.jp g http://www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/392007111458.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1048/sigmasterbl8.jpg Ha! the last one really shows it up well.....I think you would be better off just buying Mt. Palomar....Probably cheaper, too.......
|
|
#9
March 10th 07, 02:26 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
"MarkČ" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message ... : Eric Miller wrote: : After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just : can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like : this. It must weigh a lot more than most will want to : carry anywhere. : : The following image really puts its size in perspective: : http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...a/IMG_5383.jpg : : No thanks... : : MarkČ : : I guess you'd have trouble using the pop up flash then?
|
|
#10
March 10th 07, 03:52 AM
posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was Sigma thinking?
nospam wrote:
In article , MarkČ wrote: Eric Miller wrote: After letting the image of the new Sigma behemoth sink in, I just can't get past the question of why Sigma would produce a lens like this. It must weigh a lot more than most will want to carry anywhere. The following image really puts its size in perspective: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pma...a/IMG_5383.jpg here's a few mo http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/st...9/pma_sigma14l. jpg http://www.sportsshooter.com/pix/spe...03090725607.jp g http://www.popphoto.com/assets/image/2007/Q1/392007111458.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1...gmasterbl8.jpg The only thing wrong with that last image is that the guy's "package" would be shriveled to the size of peas after all the years of steroids... -- Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at: www.pbase.com/markuson
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| thinking about a D70 | sasquatch | Digital Photography | 33 | February 28th 05 03:17 AM |
| thinking about a D70 | sasquatch | Digital SLR Cameras | 29 | February 28th 05 03:17 AM |
| Thinking about D70... Need advice | Sheldon | Digital SLR Cameras | 28 | January 18th 05 05:40 PM |
| Thinking about an EOS 10D | Dxlstnr | Digital Photography | 16 | October 22nd 04 04:03 AM |
Linear Mode
