New 200-500mm F/2.8 lens from Sigma

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by default, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. default

    default Guest

    default, Mar 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. default

    Buy_Sell Guest

    Buy_Sell, Mar 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. default

    default Guest

    default, Mar 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Joseph Meehan, Mar 8, 2007
    #4
  5. In the camera?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 8, 2007
    #5
  6. You don't need image stabilization when you have to use an anti-aircraft gun
    carriage for a tripod in the first place :)
     
    Ståle Sannerud, Mar 8, 2007
    #6
  7. In message default sprach forth
    the following:
    "As yet", not "as of yet".

    We have enough people from West Virginia to need others pretending they
    are.
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 8, 2007
    #7
  8. Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 8, 2007
    #8
  9. default

    C J Campbell Guest

    C J Campbell, Mar 8, 2007
    #9
  10. default

    M-M Guest


    It seems any photographer would be embarrassed to be seen with this
    thing. I thought it was a joke at first but it appears Sigma is serious
    about this.

    That handle looks like it was borrowed from a kitchen cabinet.
     
    M-M, Mar 8, 2007
    #10
  11. default

    default Guest

    default, Mar 8, 2007
    #11
  12. default

    Ken Lucke Guest

    That is OBHL [One Big Honkin' Lens]!. Look how it dwarfs the camera :^)

    It'll be interesting to see the quality of images from it.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Mar 8, 2007
    #12
  13. default

    M-M Guest

    Can someone please tell me where something like this would be practical?
    I know 2.8 at 500mm would be great for sports or wildlife, but the thing
    appears so hard to move around.
     
    M-M, Mar 8, 2007
    #13
  14. default

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Goes the other way around. The focal length is a physical
    part of the lens and is always quoted directly. It is really
    a 200-500mm lens. With the "supplied" 2x teleconverter it is
    a 400-1000mm lens. With a Canon and the 1.6 "crop factor" it
    is the equivalent in some sense of a 320-800mm lens or a
    640-1600mm lens.

    I wonder how many pounds "light weight" means?
     
    Paul J Gans, Mar 8, 2007
    #14
  15. default

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Did you see the handle on the thing?
     
    Paul J Gans, Mar 8, 2007
    #15
  16. default

    Paul J Gans Guest

     
    Paul J Gans, Mar 8, 2007
    #16
  17. default

    Ken Lucke Guest

    Yeah - looks a lot like the old handle/sight on the M-16 :^)

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
     
    Ken Lucke, Mar 8, 2007
    #17
  18. default

    Grumman-581 Guest

    On no! An "assault lens"... The Brady Bunch leftists will want to ban
    it... Buy it now before they require a waiting period and background
    check before you can buy it...
     
    Grumman-581, Mar 8, 2007
    #18
  19. default

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sprots & wildlife... astronomy?
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 8, 2007
    #19
  20. default

    nsag Guest

    Is this for real? Or is is as real as the Sigma 18-200 image stabilizied
    lens announced last September and still a no-show in stores?
     
    nsag, Mar 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.