Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX plus Minolta Dynax 7

Dear all,

Anyone can advise the performance (AF speed, optical performance) for above setup?

Thanks/Brgds

[ralphii82sg]

Quote: Originally posted by jeffreychu Dear all, Anyone can advise the performance (AF speed, optical performance) for above setup? Thanks/Brgds

i guess u should consult ninelives...think he's the only guy with this setup

[ninelives]

1: It is a heavy lens, around 1.5 KG, therefore you need a sturdy tripod. I got tired after carrying it around for awhile.

2: Auto focus speed is not fast(at longest range ie 500mm). Remember , this is a 4-6.3 lens, not 2.8.

3: I am very happy with the optic. You can look at the example here : http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...&threadid=1633

Hope this help.

Quote: Originally posted by ninelives 1: It is a heavy lens, around 1.5 KG, therefore you need a sturdy tripod. I got tired after carrying it around for awhile. 2: Auto focus speed is not fast(at longest range ie 500mm). Remember , this is a 4-6.3 lens, not 2.8. 3: I am very happy with the optic. You can look at the example here : http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...&threadid=1633 Hope this help.

ninelives and ralphii82sg,

Thanks for your inputs!
I like the optic but it may be too heavy for me (lens plus tripod), so it will be rejected. I will consider Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (non-HSM), can u also advise on this setup?


My equipment in use now is Dynax 7 with AF 85mm 1.4G(D) and AF 24-105mm(D).

Thanks/Brdgs

[ninelives]

Quote: Originally posted by jeffreychu ninelives and ralphii82sg, Thanks for your inputs! I like the optic but it may be too heavy for me (lens plus tripod), so it will be rejected. I will consider Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (non-HSM), can u also advise on this setup?

i got know nothing about Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX but you can check this site out :

http://www.photographyreview.com/Len...C_3787crx.aspx

i think 70-200(80-200)/2.8 will be a better config than 50-500,
plus a 1.4x or 2x converter you won't need any more lens for a period of time.

[andre]

Quote: Originally posted by penty i think 70-200(80-200)/2.8 will be a better config than 50-500, plus a 1.4x or 2x converter you won't need any more lens for a period of time.

yup.....80-200/2.8 will be better, specially G lens...and if u put on TC 1.4x or 2 x, the lens speed (apertures) only one stop slower (F/4.6)...

-Andre

[Bluestrike]

Quote: Originally posted by jeffreychu ninelives and ralphii82sg, Thanks for your inputs! I like the optic but it may be too heavy for me (lens plus tripod), so it will be rejected. I will consider Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (non-HSM), can u also advise on this setup? My equipment in use now is Dynax 7 with AF 85mm 1.4G(D) and AF 24-105mm(D). Thanks/Brdgs

The diff in weight bt the 100-300/4 and the 50-500/4-6.3
is 170grams......

[ninelives]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike The diff in weight bt the 100-300/4 and the 50-500/4-6.3 is 170grams......

Sigma 50-500mm is 1840 grams.
Sigma 100-300 /4 is 1480 grams.

weight diferent is 360 grams.

[Bluestrike]

Quote: Originally posted by ninelives Sigma 50-500mm is 1840 grams. Sigma 100-300 /4 is 1480 grams. weight diferent is 360 grams.

see again!
The 1840 is for the HSM version which is not applicable to Minolta.
The 50-500 for Minolta weight at 1650g.

see
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/lenschart.htm

[ninelives]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike see again! The 1840 is for the HSM version which is not applicable to Minolta. The 50-500 for Minolta weight at 1650g. see http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/lenschart.htm

ha, you are right. But how no 100-300mm non-hsm ????????

[Bluestrike]

Quote: Originally posted by ninelives ha, you are right. But how no 100-300mm non-hsm ????????

Well from the len chart, it say that the len can be used on the Minolta....??

So why not you buy it and try?

Quote: Originally posted by andre yup.....80-200/2.8 will be better, specially G lens...and if u put on TC 1.4x or 2 x, the lens speed (apertures) only one stop slower (F/4.6)... -Andre

Thanks!!!
But G lens is expensive!!!

[ninelives]

Quote: Originally posted by Bluestrike Well from the len chart, it say that the len can be used on the Minolta....?? So why not you buy it and try?

talk cok, why not u give me the money, i buy it and try it.

/me smashes his guitar against bluestrike's head.

I wonder when the 3rd-party lens makers will support Minolta's new SSM technologies.
Then sth such as Sigma 70-200 or even 50-500 will be worth buying.

Quote: Originally posted by penty I wonder when the 3rd-party lens makers will support Minolta's new SSM technologies. Then sth such as Sigma 70-200 or even 50-500 will be worth buying.

WAITING.............

[erwinx]

u lose 2 stops for the 2 x, and 1 stop slower from 2.8 is not 4.6

also, just wondering, does vignetting occur at the long end of zooms when used with TCs, esp a 2x?

Quote: Originally posted by andre yup.....80-200/2.8 will be better, specially G lens...and if u put on TC 1.4x or 2 x, the lens speed (apertures) only one stop slower (F/4.6)... -Andre

[munfai]

how much is the sigma 50-500 new?

[ninelives]

Quote: Originally posted by munfai how much is the sigma 50-500 new?

$1.6K plus filter.