Holy Cow: new Sigma lens APO 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by superted666, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. superted666 Guest

    superted666

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    #1
    Just read about the new sigma lens APO 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG


    Incredible that they can manage that speed over that range and it comes with teleconverter making it 400-1000 f5.6 - apparently lens is designed not to loose quality when using the extender.

    Now for the best bit :) :D

    Check out the pic of it
    http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/200_500_28.htm
     
  2. MacAnkka macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Yeah, it's quite... Impressive.

    It also has it's own lcd for showing the focal length and current focusing distance.

    People have also been discussing what to call it, the best I've heard so far is "Sigmarine" (it's huge and looks like a submarine).
     
  3. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #3
    If they sell it (the Sigma Japan site seems to indicate it's a proof-of-concept, but that could just be bablefish) and it's priced well, they'll sell a heck of a lot of them. 500mm at 2.8 is sweet!

    I spent a bit of time trying to get from Bigma to Sigmonster to whatever this thing is, Siggasm was the best I came up with. I like Sigmarine though.

    Edit: SigHubble?
     
  4. OwlsAndApples macrumors 6502a

    OwlsAndApples

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Haha I like Siggasm :)
    It does look a lot like a submarine...I just like how the body is dwarfed by the lens...:eek:
     
  5. jayb2000 macrumors 6502a

    jayb2000

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Location:
    RI -> CA -> ME
  6. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #6
    If it's sharp at the long end, it'll be great for birds. I'm just wondering about backpacks-- I doubt it'll fit in my LensTrekker 600AW.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
  8. bearbo macrumors 68000

    bearbo

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #8
    i don't like the matte look of the exterior, bring on the glossy ;)

    but seriously thou, if they should do something about the exterior.

    it says the tele converter is supplied as standard accessories, i suppose that could be an indicator of they will market it (or are currently marketing it?)

    i wonder if that's gotten the Hypersonic motor ;)
     
  9. mcarnes macrumors 68000

    mcarnes

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Location:
    USA! USA!
  10. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #10
    I looked at getting one, but I shoot wildlife, mostly birds- and coming from an f/2.8 lens makes it really difficult. For daytime stuff the Sigmonster works well from the shots I've seen from the one sample I've seen in the field. However, you lose so much working time when wildlife is active with such a slow lens.

    I've been tempted a couple of times to go with a slower, lighter lens like the 200-400/4, but missing the sweet light around dawn when everything's active is just too much of a trade-off.
     
  11. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
    #12
    When would you ever be able to use 1000mm and not have UV haze interfere?
     
  12. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #13
    For things not at infinity it should be fine. The bigger issue is going to be how well fill-flash works. Time for a super-beamer!
     
  13. Over Achiever macrumors 68000

    Over Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Toledo, OH, formerly Twin Cities, MN
    #14
    Did you see how small the camera looks in relation to the lens?
    *Camera shown sold separately :D
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #15
    I'm guessing they put the LCD there because it would be impossible, or at least very difficult, to see the focal length markers on the top of the lens.
     
  15. freebooter macrumors 65816

    freebooter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Location:
    Daegu, South Korea
    #16
    Nickname: I like "Sigzilla", or "I-have-a-Small-P*nis". :p
     
  16. b0tt094 macrumors 6502

    b0tt094

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    #17
    Me Likey... Me Wanty (but me petrified to find out how much:p )
     
  17. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #18
    I'm guessing around USD$ 10,000.
     
  18. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #19
    I like the fact that it comes with a 2x extender. The real question, however, is whether or not it comes with a forklift.
    But seriously, why? Why do you need this kind of speed at these focal lengths? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always been told that at 200 + you'd want smaller apertures to up your DOF.
     
  19. b0tt094 macrumors 6502

    b0tt094

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    #20
    I think I just died a little :p
     
  20. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #21
    I'd guess more, maybe $15000.

    Just look at the price of some of the Canon and Nikon super-telephoto, wide aperture primes out there. This lens is faster than most of those at the same focal lengths. It's also a zoom lens rather than a prime, which offers far more flexibility. Then you need to subtract a bit of money from what the Nikon or Canon equivalent would cost because it's a Sigma and not a Canon or Nikon. However, an expensive Sigma is getting quite close to the prices of equivalent Canon or Nikon........so maybe this Sigma is around 90-95% as expensive as the equivalent lens that Canon or Nikon offers. Too bad there's no equivalent right now from either company.
     
  21. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #22
    Wildlife, especially birds. Most activity is post-dawn and pre-dusk where the extra speed is necessary. My 400/2.8 gives me great DoF wide open, and an extra 100mm of reach would be awesome.
     
  22. wmmk macrumors 68020

    wmmk

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    The Library.
    #23
    will it come in KAF mount? not that this would be useful at all for me, except for making people feel jealous:p
     
  23. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #24
    Anybody thought about this thing actually fitting on a Wimberley or other brand gimbal head? (It sure wouldn't work on a regular ballhead!) It would almost have to have a specially-made tripod/tripod head....
     
  24. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #25
    The Nikkor 400/2.8 is $7800, the 600/4 runs about $2k more, and the 500/4 about $600 less. Canon's long guns are cheaper, so we'll stick with that- that should put a 500/2.8 somewhere near a 600/4, granted a zoom will add to the price. In the past, Sigma hasn't been anywhere near 90-95% at the long end in pro glass- the Nikkor 300/2.8 is about the closest comparison we can make, the Nikkor is $4499 for the USA version and the Sigma is $2599 (B&H USA only- Canon is $3750.) Furthermore, the Sigma 120-300/2.8 is $2700. Granted, adding the LCD and TC are going to drive up costs, but I doubt by more than $1000.

    I'd say at $12,000 and under, Sigma have a clear winner, but over that it's going to be difficult unless performance wide open is stellar. However if they can come in at or under a Nikon 600/4, as long as it performs well, they probably won't be able to keep up with demand for the first year.
     

Share This Page