Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Holy Cow: new Sigma lens APO 200-500mm F2.8 EX DG
- Thread starter superted666
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tripod-wise it should be fine on a large Gitzo, head-wise we'll have to see what they do about a tripod collar/foot. So long as it's not more than about 30lbs, my Gitzo should support it...
If the 600 f/4 is $9800, then I think it's very possible that it's more than $10,000, even if you were to start comparing Canon super-tele prices. This thing has a zoom and a teleconverter designed for it and included. It's also not f/4 like many of these long primes are......it's an f/2.8. That's probably worth several thousand dollars.
Then there's the ability to zoom. To me, the zoom is going to make this thing much more attractive than a prime to many people.
But recently, Sigma has started pricing their pro lenses closer to Canon prices, and I really don't think it's unfair because when they make a good lens, it's usually as good as anything Canon and Nikon make (along with Pentax and Olympus, I'm sure). The Sigma 100-300 mm f/4 is one such lens.
Sigma's prices are still cheaper than lenses from the big names, but it's not dirt cheap anymore. They're a "good deal", but not a "steal." Maybe saying that Sigma's prices are 90% that of Canon's prices was wrong, but it's probably closer to 80-90% on a lot of their newer pro level glass. The Sigma 150 mm f/2.8 is only $100-200 less than a Nikon 180 f/2.8, according to SLRGear. How about the very small price difference between the Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8, and the Sigma 70-200 mm??
I would be concerned about the tripod collar/foot, as even in the photo this "Sigzilla" thing looks massive -- not just heavy and long, but very large in all-over diameter. Looking at the foot in the photo I don't think it would fit on a Wimberley they'd have to make a special plate, and really, I'd think a gimbal head would be a safer way to use it than a traditional ballhead, but balancing that thing on a gimbal would be tricky!
We'll see, but the Sigmonster and other super teles haven't been that expensive in comparison. I'm not sure Sigma will do well if it's 15K, but if it's 12K or under, I think they'll do well, and under 10, it's a no-brainer for the folks who need it. Comparing with lenses 200mm and under really isn't germane because the pricing there is different- they're massive volume lenses compared to the supertelephotos, so the market pricing is significantly different. It's really important to compare apples to apples, and the 120-300 and 300 prime are as close as we're going to get with Sigma- both of those lenses are very good values. This lens has the potential to put Sigma into the high-end market as a solid player, but not if it's priced too exotically. The 120-300 seems to be a good starting point- and I really don't see this lens as more than 3x the price without including the adjustment for the LCD and the TC. I'd be really surprised if it's over 12k.
There may be some wishful thinking there though- I'm not ready to ROI a 15k lens
Below 10k, it just has the potential to replace a later 600/4 purchase, and up to 12, I think I can justify the delta...No doubt you'd want it on a gimbal, and though it looks almost big enough to be a two tripod lens, I'm hoping we'll see something out of the Wimberlys. Makes me glad I didn't get the wimpy Gitzo though- even with a new head so long as it's not a 35lb lens I'm pretty safe from having to get new legs. That's 'cause my Gitzo can beat up your Gitzo
When I saw the photo, I thought at first they were showing it without the camera attached.
Then I looked more closely at that small black pimple at the back end.
o...m...g...
Here's another photo that illustrates the size of it. How can I persuade my partner that I need one of these? Is my house big enough to fit it in?
Then I looked more closely at that small black pimple at the back end.
o...m...g...
Here's another photo that illustrates the size of it. How can I persuade my partner that I need one of these? Is my house big enough to fit it in?
Is that the new tripod holder?
Ah I see why it's called a tripod, it's got three structural elements that support a third of that lens mass each.
Disturbingly, that photo reminds me of some sort of porn video involving gaping black holes..
Ah I see why it's called a tripod, it's got three structural elements that support a third of that lens mass each.
Disturbingly, that photo reminds me of some sort of porn video involving gaping black holes..
Unless they hook some sports photographers, not really- a prime would be lighter, cheaper and more fully optimized to the long end. While the Nikkor 200-400/4 has certainly expanded the number of people willing to spend over $4k for a lens pretty significantly, this beast is going to appeal most to dedicated wildlife folks, race shooters and a few others because it's not even close to easily portable and it's going to take a significant support investment too.
That's 'cause my Gitzo can beat up your Gitzo
Probably! Mine's the 1325, with the Wimberley II and then I'e also got the RRS BH-55 ballhead as well. Got a Gitzo monopod with the Wimberley C-10 clamp on it, too.....
Hah I guess the camera body would not compensate for that. If anyone could manage just to hold the body I'm almost sure the mount would fall off.
I wonder if you can use that as a telescope... 2.8 would make a lot of astrophotogs very happy if it's under 10k and can be mounted on a good EQ mount.