Sigma 16-300 APSC

[pdk42]

In addition to the 300-600 and BF launches this week, Sigma also launched this:



It's a 16-300 for L and FE mounts. APSC only, but on a 44 or 47Mp sensor, it would give you around 20Mp and an effective FL of 24-450mm !!

 

[Nevyn72]

In addition to the 300-600 and BF launches this week, Sigma also launched this:

View attachment 8661

It's a 16-300 for L and FE mounts. APSC only, but on a 44 or 47Mp sensor, it would give you around 20Mp and an effective FL of 24-450mm !!

For video it is also very interesting on the S5ii(X) : You would use it instead of the 28-200mm.
With hybrid zoom the 28-200 would be 28-300mm, but this camera gives you a much larger 24-450mm reach FF equivalent (Without hybrid zoom ofcourse, you are already in APS-C).

 

[mal-edgar]

That is an amazing focal range. It appears to be more versatile than the Panasonic Lumix 28-200mm telephoto lens, but 50% heavier and longer.

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c025_16_300_35_67/

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

It's reassuring to see that Sigma haven't left the super-zoom market but it would be nice to have a FF one - all they'd need to do is make it start at 24mm and I'm sure it would trounce the Panasonic 28-200 in usefulness (and probably IQ).

 

[mal-edgar]

@pdk42 - newbie question here: being an APS-C lens, it's not going to use all of the full-frame sensor?

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

@pdk42 - newbie question here: being an APS-C lens, it's not going to use all of the full-frame sensor?

Correct. It will only use the central 50% area of a FF sensor. It will work on any L-mount camera but on FF it will only use that central part of the sensor.

 

[cascadian]

It doesn't come in RF but persists in the canon zoom rotation. I never get used to that for some reason.

 

[CharlesH]

This looks very interesting for my Sony A6700. Looking forward to any reviews.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I've never used a crop sensor on a L-mount body. Do the raws get smaller as well as the JPEGs?

With the smaller body of the S1RII, this certainly could be a compelling alternative to the 28-200 for travel, etc. Usefully wider, and much longer - even if you account for cropping in post from the 28-200.

Of course, it's significantly larger and heavier, but it's good to have options.

 

[dirk]

but on a 44 or 47Mp sensor, it would give you around 20Mp and an effective FL of 24-450mm !!

I was thinking exactly the same. This is a huge range and 20MP would be enough for me - if that zoom is able to deliver the required image quality for such an enlargement.

But the lens is still heavier than a similar MFT lens, isn't it?

 

[dirk]

I just checked:

Filtersize	67 mm
Size	74 x 121 mm
Weight	625 g

The Olympus 70-300 weights around 450g, the Leica MFT 50-200 around 660g

 

[Oíche]

APSC lenses on L-mount FF are completely stupid...

 

[dirk]

With a zoom range from 24mm up to 450mm, around 12cm long packing size, 67mm filter and 625g, this would not be a bad idea as a travel zoom, if the image quality would be good enough.

The stupid thing wohld be that you need to buy for this a 3.600 USD Lumix S1Rii, to have a high MP sensor in a small body for cropping.

I do not think that I will find good arguments for this combination at my inofficial finance minister.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

On one hand I think it's a bit ridiculous to use APS-C lenses on FF but then I think that I started with a Pentax K200D, an APS-C camera with a 10MP sensor, and if I put this lens on my S5 I'd still have more resolution than that. I don't think the S5 can be manually switched between FF and APS-C crop but I imagine RAW files would be the same and you could use a 1:1 crop if processing from RAW.

I'd still much prefer a proper FF super-zoom even if it had less reach. I'd buy a 24-200mm if there was one.

 

[dirk]

I'd still much prefer a proper FF super-zoom even if it had less reach. I'd buy a 24-200mm if there was one

Same for me. Even 150mm would be enough for me on the long end, if it would make it even smaller an lighter.

There is a Zoom from Olympus for MFT. 12-100/4.0. It weights 100g less, has the same pack size, but a larger filter size (72mm). And all modern MFT cameras have 20MP.

But this 72mm filter size is one of the major reasons why I do not buy that zoom, although the IQ is very good. It makes it very difficult to put more than one lens in a small Billingham bag.

Therefore a 16-300 with the same size but "only" 67mm filter size is appealing. But I doubt that for this huge focal range the IQ will be for my use cases "good enough" - and I do not have a small 45MP LMount camera.