Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 30, 2008, 7:34 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

:blah:http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...igma150500.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...igma120400.asp

wat a way to start the year......the 150-500 loooks very promising with OS. Hope the cost isnt unrealistic.

the 120-400 OS again is a superb addition. Beautiful range. Not the fastest..but commong 100-400 isnt fast either.

And of all the lens the most beautiful beast. the 200-500 ..."yabbbaaaa" (the way we sigh in my native-india)....

16kg....lets see who complains about the weight of 70-200(hahahaha):blah::blah:
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 30, 2008, 8:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Cool looking lenses, thanks for posting.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2008, 11:24 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Judging from the picture I'm getting from my Bigma, I think they have a winner here in the 150-500 (externally it looks just like the 50-500), scale the 50mm back to 150mm and add OS. Just wonder if it still support the (1:3) macro mode of the Bigma

On the other hand the 120-400 looks just like the old 80-400, another excellent lens but now with HSM...

IMO the 300-800 f/5.6 is a much better buy than this 200-500 f/2.8 - weight and $ wise
-> Can you believe that 72mm for a rear filter?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2008, 7:50 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

Judging from the picture I'm getting from my Bigma, I think they have a winner here in the 150-500 (externally it looks just like the 50-500), scale the 50mm back to 150mm and add OS. Just wonder if it still support the (1:3) macro mode of the Bigma
Knowing sigma i feel there will be a variant if not this time to have the macro mode. And the focal length is superb as i told before. 150-500 almost the same size and weight of 50-500. I feel the compromise on the 50-500 is just taken out and the best 150-500 focal length is given a tweak.

If i shud guess i would guess a price tag of around 1300.


On the other hand the 120-400 looks just like the old 80-400, another excellent lens but now with HSM...


One selfish wish is to have made a 100-400 F4 OS instead of the 120-400. Or just made a 120-400 F4 like a big brother to the 100-300. But i feel this lens is a direct aim on 100-400 IS


IMO the 300-800 f/5.6 is a much better buy than this 200-500 f/2.8 - weight and $ wise
-> Can you believe that 72mm for a rear filter?


Firstly i cannot believe having a lens thats 16KGs..I cant even carry it in the flight . So i am still not going to believe that 72mm rear filter.

I feel this would be a good sports lens similar to the 400mm f2.8 just that it has the zoom range. Except news agencies and similar agencies i dont see this as a hobbiest lens.

For what i know, the costliest hobbist lens so far is a 500mm which i have seen many using. And why not when every picture of that lens is worth it



Overall happy with Sigma to come out with great ranges. None of the major brands have any lens in this range.



nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2008, 4:04 PM   #5
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nymphetamine wrote:
Quote:
... 150-500 almost the same size and weight of 50-500. I feel the compromise on the 50-500 is just taken out and the best 150-500 focal length is given a tweak.

If i shud guess i would guess a price tag of around 1300.
I tend to agree you - If anything the EF 100-400 L looks pretty long in the tooth now and need an upgrade urgently from Canon...
-> IMO this Sigma will also challenge and undercut the AF-S 200-400 VR as well now with built-in OS and HSM which is both lighter and longer reach than the Nikon!

This is what I used to carry on my birding hikes:
o Top-row left to right (12-24, 1.4x/2x/padded case, 100-400, 580EX, all stacked neatly in my Thinktank "bazooka" case) slung over my shoulder - Sometime I would exchange the 100-400 position with my other 120-300 f/2.8 in the same case
o Bottom row EF-500 L carried by the handle





... and now:
o Top-row left to right (12-24, 580EX/Metz58AF-1N, 50-500, D300, all stacked neatly in the "bazooka" case) across my shoulder again
o Bottom row EF-500 L still carried by the handle




I have now gained enough confidence in the Bigma that I may leave the big gun behind if the weight is of concern for travel. Plus together with the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 I pretty much have the full 24mm to 500mm covered with just two lighter lenses!



Quote:
I feel this would be a good sports lens similar to the 400mm f2.8 just that it has the zoom range. Except news agencies and similar agencies i dont see this as a hobbiest lens.

For what i know, the costliest hobbist lens so far is a 500mm which i have seen many using. And why not when every picture of that lens is worth it
I agree with the zoom feature; However, IMO a 500 f/2.8 is not very useful - I can see the merit of a fast lens for night sports, but check out this DOF:
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=11

-> I couldn't even get this tiny bird leg in focus @ f/5.6
IMO you can safely shoot with f/8-f/11 with a 500mm and still be able keep the subject well isolated from their background (even on a smaller cropped sensor like the ones on my D300 let alone a MrkIII)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2008, 10:20 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

nice set up there. That bazooka is a wonderful carry on. I am using the low pro lens trekker back pack. It fits the makr III, 500, Tele converters, Flash, and two lens's(24-105 and a smaller lens) While i add the waist pouch with 40D and 70-200 attached it just makes carrying easiers.

And the flights really dont bother about the waist pouch and i sometimes carry two lens with the camera. But or usual trek trips the lens trekker is my best bet now. Like u i almost seldom carry the tripod except if i can drive all the way up tothe place. If it involves lots of walking i prefer just the lens trekker with my three lens and the belt pouch...Everything on the shoulder makes easier to hike.

i will be excited if olympus ups the ante and brings out abtter AF 4:3rd system. i dont mind a light 100-1000 system



Judging from the picture I'm getting from my Bigma, I think they have a winner here in the 150-500 (externally it looks just like the 50-500), scale the 50mm back to 150mm and add OS. Just wonder if it still support the (1:3) macro mode of the Bigma

Sigma 50-500-

Minimum Focusing Distance: 100cm –300cm(39.3"-118.1")
Maximum Magnification: 1:5.2


Sigma 120-400


Closest focus distance
150cm / 59.1in

Maximum reproduction ratio
1:4.2



Sigma 150-500

Closest focus distance
220cm / 86.6in

Maximim reproduction ratio
1:5.2


The 120-400 has a 77mm filter size(thats neat)

while the other two has 86mm filter size



nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:23 PM.