Tannin's new bird-watching lens

Handruin

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
14,043
Location
USA
This lens makes me smile...it's so friggin big it has to make you laugh.

200-500_28_s.jpg



Look at this thing! :D

pma_sigma14l.jpg



Details:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp

Sigma APO 200 - 500 mm F2.8 lens
 
Damn, that is quite large. It makes me wonder about the stability of the lens-camera attachment mechanism. Obviously you will be carrying this thing by the lens, with the body hanging off...
 
Heh, I considered posting about the 200-500/2.8. :) It is really more of a showpiece lens than a practical one. It is too large and heavy to use on a monopod for sports and Sigma already has the 300-800/5.6 for the birds. The 200-500 won't fit as an airline carryon. As ISO 6400 and beyond reaches the market, the need for f/2.8 in that range diminishes. Sigma should have produced some sort of f/4 telezoom, IMO.

I'm sure Tony would agree that a 200-500/4 IS or even a 200-600/4 IS (if DO could keep the size/weight reasonable) would be more desirable.
 
You'd have to have a decent camera with a metal mount, but you're right, even at that I'm sure it has its limits. I do wonder how much that thing weighs. Perhaps the body of the lens is carbon fiber rather than aluminum?

That, and how the hell do you travel with it? I mean...think of bringing that thing on a plane. You'd have to check it, and unless you have a serious case for it, it'll likely get some serious bumping around.
 
LunarMist said:
Heh, I considered posting about the 200-500/2.8. :) It is really more of a showpiece lens than a practical one. It is too large and heavy to use on a monopod for sports and Sigma already has the 300-800/5.6 for the birds. The 200-500 won't fit as an airline carryon. As ISO 6400 and beyond reaches the market, the need for f/2.8 in that range diminishes. Sigma should have produced some sort of f/4 telezoom, IMO.

I'm sure Tony would agree that a 200-500/4 IS or even a 200-600/4 IS (if DO could keep the size/weight reasonable) would be more desirable.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the main reason the optics are so large is for the F2.8? Man...buying lens filters must be like buying a windshield for a car. They can't be cheap at that size!
 
No, it must use a rear filter. The newer Canon long teles (with IS) use a 52mm rear filter and the Sigma one may be larger, but not that much. The front of modern long teles (Canon and Nikon at least) have a built in UV filter to protect the front elements. The newer ones have a slight curvature to reduce sensor refelection ghosts.
 
LunarMist said:
Heh, I considered posting about the 200-500/2.8. :) It is really more of a showpiece lens than a practical one. It is too large and heavy to use on a monopod for sports and Sigma already has the 300-800/5.6 for the birds. The 200-500 won't fit as an airline carryon. As ISO 6400 and beyond reaches the market, the need for f/2.8 in that range diminishes. Sigma should have produced some sort of f/4 telezoom, IMO.

I'm sure Tony would agree that a 200-500/4 IS or even a 200-600/4 IS (if DO could keep the size/weight reasonable) would be more desirable.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen how 'useable' that ISO 6400 is? full of noise and relatively no detail, then it is useless for long range birding use. We can almost never have enough sensor sensitivity or dynamic range(early morning or dawn is a quite common time to 'birding', exacly when extreme reach of lens, and high sensitivity/high detail/low noise sensors are most beneficial, or for that matter those of us who recall the Ansel Adams f64 club, resolution!...human eye usually exceeds the camera in use.

If money were no object I'd go for a Questar 3.5, plus a Q7 ;). If adapter would work with the Questars, a Hasselblad H3D.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012902hasselbladh3d-31.asp

While probably in the same relative diameter, the Q7 must weight much less @19lb. than the speedy Sigma. With EFL of 635mm & T4.4(f3.6), you'd probably get sharper images with this 'prime' than the Sigma.
http://www.company7.com/questar/surveillance/que7bar.html

Cost? both likely in the $10k range, but if you have to ask ;).


the much smaller/ligher Q3.5 gets you EFL of the Sigma w/2x tele conv., just much higher T or F#.

http://www.company7.com/questar/surveillance/quebird.html
 
Which gear are you using now for wildlife and what are your main limitations?
 
Sure, the Hasselblad H3D is a "ooooh ahhhh" device, but how rapidly can it take pictures? At 39 megapixels, I can't imagine you have much of a buffer like the new canon MK III. I somehow doubt the H3D is ideal for bird watching, but I could be way off.
 
ddrueding said:
Damn, that is quite large. It makes me wonder about the stability of the lens-camera attachment mechanism. Obviously you will be carrying this thing by the lens, with the body hanging off...
Click to expand...

With these sorts of lenses (and there have been lots of these sorts of lenses available for many years), the camera body ALWAYS hangs off the lens and the lens is tripod-mounted. If it is particularly windy, you might tripod-mount both the lens AND the camera body using two separate tripods!

Most of these tripod-mounted lenses also use "internal focusing," meaning that the lens elements move around within the lens body as focus is adjusted. Without internal focusing capability, the balance of some of these large lenses can change a lot, possibly causing the tripod head lock to slip resulting in your camera+lens pointing suddenly at the ground due to increasing downward force of a lens that starts moving out as you focus on something closer than infinity -- or the front of your lens protruding out of the bushes as you focus, scaring away bambi.



 
Handruin said:
I'm guessing the main reason the optics are so large is for the F2.8? Man...buying lens filters must be like buying a windshield for a car. They can't be cheap at that size!
Click to expand...

As Lunar was saying, practically every one of these sort of telephoto lenses (as well as ultra-wides and fisheyes) use internal or rear-element filters. Such filters are quite small, actually.

Large, expensive telephotos will likely come with a decent moulded case, but you still need to get an ATA-rated case if you are going to travel on an airline.

As for large front optics, this Sigma lens is not the craziest telephoto lens I've ever seen. The craziest looking telephoto lens ever is the hyper-rare Nikkor (Nikon) 400mm f/2.0. There are 400mm f/2.8 Nikkor lenses around (and quite expensive), but only (I believe) 7 of these 400mm f/2.0 lenses. The front element on the Nikkor 400mm f/2.0 telephoto is about 50% larger than that Sigma lens pictured above. The body of the Nikkor 400mm f/2.0, though, is about half the length of that Sigma lens.

I read that Nikon sold far more of the very exotic 6mm fisheye lenses (several dozen) than the huge and reportedly heavy-as-hell 400mm f/2.8. By the way, the Nikkor 6mm fisheye's field of view was more than 180 degrees -- meaning you could see everything in front of you as well as some of what was behind you!


 
Me either...wow, that's an expensive lens. I'd love to see example photos of his with that lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top