What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Sigma 16-300 APSC

pdk42

pdk42

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

1740392352594.png

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

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.
 
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.
 
pdk42 said:
but on a 44 or 47Mp sensor, it would give you around 20Mp and an effective FL of 24-450mm !!
Click to expand...
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?
 
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. Teufel Grinsend Schwanz

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. Z04 Flucht

I do not think that I will find good arguments for this combination at my inofficial finance minister. Z04 Wife
 
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.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
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
Click to expand...

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. Z04 Menno
 
Nikon has a 24-200 that's got half decent IQ. It's about the same size as the Oly 12-100, but of course it's got a smaller max aperture, and it's variable f4-6.3.
 
dirk said:
What about a 28-90 with same IQ like the 24-105, but smaller and lighter?
Click to expand...
Personally, this would not be different enough from what I have (Sigma 24-70/2.8 or the Lumix 20-60mm for when I need small and light). I'd agree that 24-150mm would be the minimum I would consider.
 
pdk42 said:
Me too - so long as it performed better than the 28-200 !
Click to expand...
That's comparing a corrected for APSC lens to a FF lens which is hardly a fair comparison. Put the 28-200 into APSC mode and compare with equivalent focal length.

I said before the 28-200 looks great at shorter and macro judging by winnie on dp review, you said it sucks at longer, landscape reach. Interestingly both do 0.5x macro so all focal lengths and distances need comparison.

Most likely you'll not like it despite the advancement of such uber zooms from DSLR days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top