200-500mm....

Fair enough I hear you say, been done....

Not at constant f/2.8 :eek2:

With a converter...

to give 400-1000mm at f/5.6!!!

Rambo-esque physique required....


The big gun (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp)

mamma mia......:eek2:

Holy cow :D

Rambo-esque physique required....


And that's just to carry the banknotes required to buy it I imagine :lol:

Sigma have been busy...
Sigma - News (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp)

Try getting that thing through Customs, it looks like a SAM launcher! :D

Someone has already nicknamed it Sigmasaurus, to go along side the Bigma (50-500) and the Sigmonster (300-800)

Will it actually be any good though, or just soft as a baby's bum like every other Sigma lens ever made?:D

My 100-300 f4 is pretty sharp :)

My 100-300 f4 is pretty sharp :)

My 80-400 f4,f5.6 wasn't.:cry: What do you reckon the price tag will be on this monster?

I saw a price of $ 25,000 mentioned somewhere.

Will it actually be any good though, or just soft as a baby's bum like every other Sigma lens ever made?:D


My 17 - 55 aint soft :D











Although it aint as good as the 28 - 70 Nikkor I sold :cry:

I would suggest that the lens would be totally impractical to use at that size, not focal length wise, but physically. I'll stick with a crop on the 400mm f2.8 ta very much.

Gareth

Could be good for wildlife though if it is sharp.

I saw a price of $ 25,000 mentioned somewhere.

chump change :D

Ive seen shots of the moon taken with the Sigmonster with a TC on it and they were not soft, and managed to get Saturn complete with rings in the shot too :eek:

LOL 'No we don't supply the Sherpa' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K77UvaiHii0) :p

See it next to people to put the size in perspective!!

I reckon it would be good for portraits....
















from the next county!!

Ive seen shots of the moon taken with the Sigmonster with a TC on it and they were not soft, and managed to get Saturn complete with rings in the shot too :eek:

I know those - were on Talk Photography.
They were taken with a Sigmonster and stacked T/Cs

Ive seen shots of the moon taken with the Sigmonster with a TC on it and they were not soft, and managed to get Saturn complete with rings in the shot too :eek:

I have never had a Sigma lens that was not soft and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone. YMMV and fair play to you but I have had nothing but bad experiences with them. Needless to say if I had 25 grand to spare
, a lens would not be what I would be looking at spending it on....

I know those - were on Talk Photography.
They were taken with a Sigmonster and stacked T/Cs

And probably a lot of unsharp mask too :p :D

Sorry, I'm a bit cantankerous when it comes to Sigma lenses :)

I had a cheap 55-200 I didn't like but a 70-200 HSM I wish I'd never sold, I've revisited some stuff taken with it recently and would get another in an instant.

I'm generally not very tolerant with brands, if it pees me off twice, there's no third chance. the 70-200 never did so Sigma are still in with a chance...

but a 70-200 HSM I wish I'd never sold,

I'm more than happy you did :D


Its still doing sterling service, thank you :p

:p

Glad to hear it.

Chasing mm at the time, now I'm not doing that so much, would like faster again.