I guess this has been announced in Poland....
http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigm...ional-details/
Monster of a lens. I'll be very interested in a side by side with the Tamron....
I guess this has been announced in Poland....
http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/09/sigm...ional-details/
Monster of a lens. I'll be very interested in a side by side with the Tamron....
IMHO way too heavy for the average Joe buying a wild life setup.
Dave
See my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dthrog00/
Being sharp at 600 mm, if it tests out, would allow forgiveness of many sins.
I think you may be right, but it depends on the target. Who is the target to buy a $2,000 100 oz 150-600mm zoom lens? Are they going for the 100-400 crowd for a few hundred dollars more? The serious wild life guys put a small fortune into buying the superteles. I doubt they'd be interested in the Sigma.Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Being sharp at 600 mm, if it tests out, would allow forgiveness of many sins.
Personally, $2,000 for a camera lens is too rich for my blood and 100 oz too heavy to hand hold for very long at all. If I were to buy a long lens I'd go for the Tamron. There's a guy named Imagemaster who's been posting some really nice images with the Tamron.
That said, the other Art lenses Sigma has come out are very interesting. The 35mm is great, I've rented that one and really liked it. I haven't used the 24-105, but it looks fantastic as well.
Dave
See my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dthrog00/
I have the "Tamzooka" and upto 400 I am extremely pleased the sharpness, contrast etc. Above 450 it gets a wee bit soft - not much but when the frames are side by side it is noticeable.
It is not exactly a joy to hand hold. The collar foot makes it easy to carry (rotate to the top/side and off we go - depends on how you want to carry it and try
Adding another two pounds is really pushing the hand hold idea for very long. Lots of breaks in the action.
Having said all of this - I am 5x pleased w/ the 50 1.4 art - Wow what a beast in all regards. If they have pulled off something even vaguely close IQ wise these will be flying off the shelves. (then again any lens with those specs would).
Just my 2 pennies
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
ummm...if the optics and AF are good enough, me.
Seriously, look at the MTF charts...
If these are accurate, they are better at 600 mm than the 50A.
AF will be a big question mark. And I won't believe anything until I see some test results. But, this could be an excellent optic at 600 mm for $2k. If so I could easily be the market.
Cool, buy a good tripod and head if you don't already have themummm...if the optics and AF are good enough, me.
Seriously, look at the MTF charts...
If these are accurate, they are better at 600 mm than the 50A.
AF will be a big question mark. And I won't believe anything until I see some test results. But, this could be an excellent optic at 600 mm for $2k. If so I could easily be the market.
Dave
See my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dthrog00/
At 3 lbs lighter than my 600/4L IS II, it's not that heavy...
Exactly, at 100 oz it is actually less than the 500 f/4 II, 600 f/4 II, and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. It is about the same as the 300 f/2.8 plus 2x TC. Then you have another cluster in weights from 55-67 oz with the 100-400L plus TC, 400 f/5.6 plus TC, or the Tamron 150-600.At 3 lbs lighter than my 600/4L IS II, it's not that heavy...
If the optics and AF are even close to the other lenses in this weight class, this is a heckuva lens. I would definitely consider it. Along with my budget and other options.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 09-07-2014 at 11:05 AM.
The Canon 100-400L is such an old lens now, the pumper isn't for me and to be fair, beyond 300mm isn't something I want to carry when I'm walking, so I got myself a modern 70-300L with great optics and a step up in AF from my previous 70-300 non-L
However, I want more for occasional use, for aircraft, shipping, moon pics, a bit of wildlife and odd bit of freelancing I do for MI5 ;-) oops, did I say that out loud ! I want more than 300mm on my full frame, but don't really want to spend "big money". The 100-400mm or 400mm on a crop is a bit of a step up, but then I add a 1.4x or 2.0x and AF doesn't work, or I'd need to buy a 7DII and suffer just the 1.4x working - giving me a max 896mm (FF equiv) with AF or I could drop less money on a Sigma 150-600mm which from all accounts autofocuses up to f8 with extenders, that would give me 840mm on FF with AF (wait for the TDP review to be bunk that one) - I'm interested for sure, especially at say £1500-1800 that it may be in the UK, compared to 7DII with 400mm Canon lens at about about £2000
I don't really want to own two DSLR's at this time, the 6D plus EOS-M works for me now, a lottery win or promotion to Associate Director salary might change that, but both seem unlikely !
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
