Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Sigma To Release New Lenses at PhotoKina

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    Hmm, not sure if you read me wrong Tom. Sigma have always not had a problem with their optics, the issue is more build quality, and the difference in weight makes me wonder.

  2. #22

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Hmm, not sure if you read me wrong Tom. Sigma have always not had a problem with their optics, the issue is more build quality, and the difference in weight makes me wonder.
    ic... and normally pros dun carry zoom lenses, do they?

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    Originally posted by tomshen

    ic... and normally pros dun carry zoom lenses, do they?
    Where'd you get that idea from? For starters, the first three Clubsnap people who come to (my) mind who make $$$ from their photography (i.e. pros) carry zooms around.

  4. #24

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed

    Where'd you get that idea from? For starters, the first three Clubsnap people who come to (my) mind who make $$$ from their photography (i.e. pros) carry zooms around.
    ok maybe I got a wrong impression... I've often seen pros use primes say 600/f4, 400/f2.8, 300/f2.8 for their nature/sports shots.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    Ah right. Qualify your statement then. You meant nature/action pros don't use zooms. Quite a big difference. Thing is, there haven't really been professional calibre zooms available in the focal lengths these photogs use. A number of Canon snappers use the 100-400 for sport. I'd certainly consider using that 120-300 Sigma because it's giving me the apeture I need, but I'm really not sure I'm fussed because of the weight. As in, it's really too light for what it is. We'll see. Need to know what the price is as well.

  6. #26

    Default

    I am just wondering (and actually doubting) at 2.6kg, is Sigma 120-300 a mobile lens possible for being handheld? It certainly cannot replace 70-200/f2.8 which is very mobile for many many cases.

  7. #27
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,496
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Originally posted by willyfoo
    Wow.. the 300-800 is a monster man...
    How much do you think that will cost???
    On Luminous Landscape, the 300-800 is quoted to be at least 5kg in weight and will cost between 8,000 - 10,000 Euros (roughly equivalent to US$8-10K)

  8. #28

    Default

    Originally posted by Darren
    On Luminous Landscape, the 300-800 is quoted to be at least 5kg in weight and will cost between 8,000 - 10,000 Euros (roughly equivalent to US$8-10K)
    5kg!!! That will require a camera trolley bag :P

  9. #29

    Default

    These lenses should have a counterbalancing weight attached to a shoulder harness so that you can mount it on your shoulder like a bazooka.

    Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous....

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Do the lens come with a free tank? You probably need to mount it on the tank to shoot it.
    Canon Lover :)

  11. #31

    Default

    At 5kg and at US$10k, I think I'll prefer a nice AF-S II 400/2.8 and some TCs. Gets up to 800/5.6 as well, not to mention not having to put up with the build quality issues of a Stigma.

    Jed, hehe, wanna guess what corners sigma cut? Maybe it's a 130-290mm f/2.9 lens.. hehehe.

  12. #32

    Default

    wonder why the 300-800 f/5.6 is generating so much interest since sigma's 800 f/5.6 prime has been around for some time. (US$6k at bhphotovideo).

    Maybe the 300-800 appeals to people who prefer to zoom in and out rather than moving forward and backward to compose the shot.

  13. #33

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    I've been screaming for a 100-300/2.8 class zoom for ages, with the FLM. Now that they've finally got one out, the camera manufacturers go and lose the FLM. Lovely.
    But you can still have the "FLM", if you want. Just crop.
    (void *) &NHY;

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    Sigh. Yes, just crop. So you pay 40 million squids to get your hands on a lovely lens and a camera with 14 million pixels. Then crop it all the way down to 2 million pixels. I heard someone says that's alright if the taking lens was a Leica...

    No, cropping isn't the answer.

    I don't see the interest in a 300-800 class zoom at all. And I have reasons for saying so, and people who use long teles seriously will understand what I'm on about.

    Certainly for 10k, I'd stretch a bit more to get a 400/2.8 AF-S II. Already have the TCs.

    The 120-300/2.8 is never going to be a walkaround lens, not even close. The 300/2.8 just about is. Actually now that I think about it, the Sigma's lighter than that, so goodness only knows.

  15. #35

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Sigh. Yes, just crop. So you pay 40 million squids to get your hands on a lovely lens and a camera with 14 million pixels. Then crop it all the way down to 2 million pixels. I heard someone says that's alright if the taking lens was a Leica...

    No, cropping isn't the answer.

    I don't see the interest in a 300-800 class zoom at all. And I have reasons for saying so, and people who use long teles seriously will understand what I'm on about.

    Certainly for 10k, I'd stretch a bit more to get a 400/2.8 AF-S II. Already have the TCs.

    The 120-300/2.8 is never going to be a walkaround lens, not even close. The 300/2.8 just about is. Actually now that I think about it, the Sigma's lighter than that, so goodness only knows.
    aiya... you don't talk so much lah!!!
    just...


    BUY BUY BUY!!!

    hehehehheee.....

  16. #36

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Sigh. Yes, just crop. So you pay 40 million squids to get your hands on a lovely lens and a camera with 14 million pixels. Then crop it all the way down to 2 million pixels. I heard someone says that's alright if the taking lens was a Leica...
    A calculation shows that a D1s 4064 x 2704 full frame sensor, when cropped to D60's 22.7 x 15.1 mm sensor size, still has some 4.2 Mp. Not too bad, right?
    (void *) &NHY;

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,913

    Default

    You mean 1Ds, not D1s. I was wondering what you were on about for a moment.

    Yes, not bad. Not bad, but not overly exciting. For starters, you're paying in excess of 10 grand for a camera that's 4.2mp effective with only 3fps and a 10 frame buffer. Not to mention having to crop in post processing, as well as store bigger files than you're actually getting.

    Furthermore, and I've already dealt with this in a previous thread in CS, 4.2mp off an 11mp chip is not as good as, say, the straight 4mp off a 1D would be, technological levels remaining constant. For less money the 1D delivers almost as big an effective size, with 8 whopping frames a second.

    Cropping really isn't the answer gents. Just because it's relatively easy to do in digital doesn't make it a wise idea. Put it this way, I'd sooner stick a 1.4x converter on than crop from a digital sensor. And yes that also extends to a 2x TC. And yes I'm also taking into account the loss of light resulting in higher CCD/CMOS sensitivities.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •