That's right, it already is IS for you KM/Sony folks! Sweet!
That was one of the reasons for me to purchase my 7D's instead of c or n....I did not want the added cost of an IS or VR lens....however the more I shoot ...the more I shoot tripoded...so the AS is turned off....getting bqack to the way I shot with 2 1/4 format.....
But stillwith the size of t-pod that thing will take .....You aint gonna need no stinking IS,VR OR AS........:D
Would like to see it sitting next to the Siggy 300 - 800.
"The drums rolled louder. Fires leapt up. Great engines crawled across the field; and in their midst was a huge telephoto lens, great as a forest tree a hundred feet in length, swinging on mighty chains. Long had it been forging in the dark smithies of Mordor, and its hideous head, founded of apochromatic glass, was shaped in the likeness of a ravening lightbucket; on it a handy LCD display lay. Grond they named it, in memory of the Hammer of the Underworld of old. Great beasts drew it, orcs surrounded it, and behind walked mountain-trolls to weild it."
Apologies to the unfamiliar, this was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the pictures of this thing.
How freaking huge is that front element glass gonna be? Could you possibly imagine the lens hood that comes with it? Good lord!
My first thought is, this caters to who exactly? Also, who the heck would possibly want to travel with such a monstrosity? As a surf photographer, I already am burdened w/ my 400 2.8L on trips...
I think I'd rather try to travel around with the Canon 1200mm 5.6 ROFL!
Professional Ancient Smugmug Shutter Geek
Master Of Sushi Noms
Amateur CSS Dork
How freaking huge is that front element glass gonna be? Could you possibly imagine the lens hood that comes with it? Good lord!
My first thought is, this caters to who exactly? Also, who the heck would possibly want to travel with such a monstrosity? As a surf photographer, I already am burdened w/ my 400 2.8L on trips...
I think I'd rather try to travel around with the Canon 1200mm 5.6 ROFL!
Maybe concert shooters? Or cloudy day wildlife? I don't know, but it's pretty freaking sweet!!
"a circular polarizing filter can be used with its ingenious rotation mechanism."
what is that like a 300mm thread size? or more? how would you even zoom, you'd need 2 hands.
are bird photographers really this rich?
edit: actually, this reminds me of attaching my 20d to a 10" Meade telescope. Now I get it. It's an astro lens without a tracking device...
There are days I wish my 500 was 2-something. Mostly on early mornings.
But then I think about that DOF thingy...at f/2.8, your focus better be spot
on.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
HS!!! I'd hafta sell everything I own to afford that!
NO OS??
Man you'd hafta have it for that monster. Also a tripod made outta steel.
Can't believe the size of the thing.......looks like it could fir heat seeking missles or mortar rounds. My 80-400mm is like 2lbs wonder what that weighs.....10lbs?
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Two Questions When is Andy putting his up for sale , and why does this not say 'NASA' or on the side? I mean they are looking for a Hubble replacement aren't they?
My 80-400mm is like 2lbs wonder what that weighs.....10lbs?
I bet it is close to 20+ pounds, Graphy, and that is without a tripod or a gimballed mount. The tripod and head would add more than 10 pounds as well. A pro camera is about another three pounds.
I bet it is close to 20+ pounds, Graphy, and that is without a tripod or a gimballed mount. The tripod and head would add more than 10 pounds as well. A pro camera is about another three pounds.
Not a very portable combination.
Did you see the photo of it that dpreview posted? :yikes I am thinking it will be well in excess of 20 lbs, maybe 20 kilos. Time to start lifting weights professionally.
Did you see the photo of it that dpreview posted? :yikes I am thinking it will be well in excess of 20 lbs, maybe 20 kilos. Time to start lifting weights professionally.
You may be right, Patch.
For starters, Sigma's 300-800f5.6 weighs 13 pounds without a lens plate.
The diameter of the front optic of the new 200-500 f2.8 calculates at about 500/x= 2.8 --> x= 21.7 cm in diameter.
A 300mm Canon f2.8 IS L (300/x=2.8 x=10.7 cm) has a front element 10.7cm in diameter.( This calculation matches precisely what I measure on my 300 f2.8 IS L )
The diameter of the 300 f2.8 optic at 10.7 cm is about 1/2 the calculated diameter of the 200-500 front element. But weight will go up by a factor of about four, since the diameter is twice as big, the surface area will quadruple . The Canon 300 f2.8 IS L weighs 6 pounds.
That suggests the Sigma 200-500f2.8 may weigh nearly 24 pounds.
Hopefully the price does not rise at the same ratio as other teles:D
Comments
IS.....by the time you get a tri pod under that thing IS won't be needed
That's right, it already is IS for you KM/Sony folks! Sweet!
That was one of the reasons for me to purchase my 7D's instead of c or n....I did not want the added cost of an IS or VR lens....however the more I shoot ...the more I shoot tripoded...so the AS is turned off....getting bqack to the way I shot with 2 1/4 format.....
But stillwith the size of t-pod that thing will take .....You aint gonna need no stinking IS,VR OR AS........:D
Would like to see it sitting next to the Siggy 300 - 800.
BTW, after 10+ pages at FM (yep, we're lagging here at only 4 pages) the leading nicknames are SigZilla and PigMa.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Was thinking Sigzooka was more accurate....
Apologies to the unfamiliar, this was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the pictures of this thing.
Canon 40d | Canon 17-40 f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
And you will be req ronnie coleman to carry it there for you mate.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
and I want macro!
"Camera shown sold separately"
My first thought is, this caters to who exactly? Also, who the heck would possibly want to travel with such a monstrosity? As a surf photographer, I already am burdened w/ my 400 2.8L on trips...
I think I'd rather try to travel around with the Canon 1200mm 5.6 ROFL!
Master Of Sushi Noms
Amateur CSS Dork
Maybe concert shooters? Or cloudy day wildlife? I don't know, but it's pretty freaking sweet!!
what is that like a 300mm thread size? or more? how would you even zoom, you'd need 2 hands.
are bird photographers really this rich?
edit: actually, this reminds me of attaching my 20d to a 10" Meade telescope. Now I get it. It's an astro lens without a tracking device...
50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 24-70 2.8L, 35mm 1.4L, 135mm f2L
ST-E2 Transmitter + (3) 580 EXII + radio poppers
But then I think about that DOF thingy...at f/2.8, your focus better be spot
on.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I'd hafta sell everything I own to afford that!
NO OS??
Man you'd hafta have it for that monster.
Also a tripod made outta steel.
Can't believe the size of the thing.......looks like it could fir heat seeking missles or mortar rounds.
My 80-400mm is like 2lbs wonder what that weighs.....10lbs?
Manfrotto Mono | Bag- LowePro Slingshot 100AW
http://www.graphyfotoz.smugmug.com/
How about for portraits & weddings? I need a good portrait & wedding lens.
I knew, of course, that trees and plants had roots, stems, bark, branches and foliage that reached up toward the light. But I was coming to realize that the real magician was light itself.
Edward Steichen
Alpha 99 & VG, 900x2 & VG; 50mm1.4, CZ135 1.8; CZ16-35 2.8, CZ24-70 2.8, G70-200 2.8, G70-400, Sony TC 1.4, F20, F58, F60.
I bet it is close to 20+ pounds, Graphy, and that is without a tripod or a gimballed mount. The tripod and head would add more than 10 pounds as well. A pro camera is about another three pounds.
Not a very portable combination.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
No kidding.
Did you see the photo of it that dpreview posted? :yikes I am thinking it will be well in excess of 20 lbs, maybe 20 kilos. Time to start lifting weights professionally.
Kevin
www.rightangleimages.com
You may be right, Patch.
For starters, Sigma's 300-800f5.6 weighs 13 pounds without a lens plate.
The diameter of the front optic of the new 200-500 f2.8 calculates at about 500/x= 2.8 --> x= 21.7 cm in diameter.
A 300mm Canon f2.8 IS L (300/x=2.8 x=10.7 cm) has a front element 10.7cm in diameter.( This calculation matches precisely what I measure on my 300 f2.8 IS L )
The diameter of the 300 f2.8 optic at 10.7 cm is about 1/2 the calculated diameter of the 200-500 front element. But weight will go up by a factor of about four, since the diameter is twice as big, the surface area will quadruple . The Canon 300 f2.8 IS L weighs 6 pounds.
That suggests the Sigma 200-500f2.8 may weigh nearly 24 pounds.
Hopefully the price does not rise at the same ratio as other teles:D
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Will
Will
________________________
www.willspix.smugmug.com
The Sigma 300-800f5.6 is listed for $6999.00 on B&H, and it is 2 whole fstops slower glass.
The Canon 500mm f4 IS l lists for $5249.00 and it is one stop slower and is a fixed lens not a zoom.
So I think the Sigma 200-500f2.8 is likely to be significantly more than either of these.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter