Sigma 300-600mm F4 DG OS Sports

[Oíche]

Here we go... Who needs Canikony for sports?

Also only $5999 US RRP

Lusting already

 

[CH_CH]

I do not think I would ever buy, but renting if I ever go on a safari... Yes!

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I will never use such a lens but it's good that it exists for those that want a beast like this.

 

[Oíche]

It really is a beast at 4kg, you'd have Popeye arms after using this handheld on a regular basis.

It would be amazing for video obviously using a tripod. It would be Planet Earth UHD stuff and the zoom is much more versatile than the 600mm f4 prime.

Canon and Nikon users are a bit peaved LoL and now L-mount has a top notch sports telephoto zoom and f4. There has been loads of moaning up to now about this void so lets see if they buy it, probably not even with the insane value... the whingers

 

[Oíche]

Should be reviews of it in a few days time and hopefully downloadable RAWs. Hopefully a good photographer is providing samples, test charts are mehhhhh on their own for such a lens . You want to see colours, renders, bokeh and 3D pop along with the generic stuff.

Hopefully local shop gets one in for a demo

 

[pdk42]

Not my sort of lens, but for those who shoot little birdies, I’m sure this will be the biz! With the specs predicted on the S1R, for around $10k you’d have quite a decent setup!

 

[Oíche]

Is that a bazooka or camera he's pointing at us?

 

[RBecker]

Even if it is much cheaper than any other 4/600 it is still not cheap in absolute terms.

Not my sort of lens, but for those who shoot little birdies, I’m sure this will be the biz! With the specs predicted on the S1R, for around $10k you’d have quite a decent setup!

normally these high aperture teles are not for birders. They prefer lighter equipment with even longer focal range. Must be usable handheld…
These f4/600 are more for classic sports and wildlife. Used from tripod, maybe in a hide…

That is the point with any f4/600: such a lens could not be lightweight by specification. The first lenses in that area where 5 or even 6kg. Over the years CaNiSo where able to reduce these lenses to nearly 3kg. But this looks now like the end of possible development. And these lenses are no zooms, all fixed focal lenses!

If the Sigma can reach the same level of picture quality, it is a milestone as zoom and also for this price. The first 4/600 in the 90s was already near to 10k€ and that was 30 years ago…

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

The Canon RF and Nikon Z 600mm f/4s cost around €15k each so this Sigma is less than half the price (or maybe half with taxes) and with the flexibility of being a zoom. Assuming that image quality is similar that's a great deal for someone that needs this kind of lens.

 

[Oíche]

normally these high aperture teles are not for birders. They prefer lighter equipment with even longer focal range. Must be usable handheld…
These f4/600 are more for classic sports and wildlife. Used from tripod, maybe in a hide…

Yip, my small birding entry above was a satire, it is 4.5m minimum focal at 600mm which is not the most ideal but still OK.

Thinking of it as a small birding lens is an incredibly small point of view. I was looking at some older photos of my Pentax 300mm f4.5 on APSC eq. 450mm of the Belfast marathon and they are nice, the compression, the bokeh etc. You can use it for stealthy street photography being so far away which is what I was doing.

Otherwise my use would be surfing competition (think Nazarrre), boating, sailing etc. as they are frequently available targets close to me.

It is really versatile, long portraits etc. Longer focal length is something that has always appealed from the above to landscapes.

The idea that landscapes are necessary with UWA or WA is nonsense, a parroted thought. It is wonderful with longer focal length.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

The idea that landscapes are necessary with UWA or WA is nonsense, a parroted thought. It is wonderful with longer focal length.

Yes, landscapes can be anything from ultra-wide to long telephoto. Many ultra-wide landscapes would have been better composed at longer focal lengths.

 

[Oíche]

Yes, landscapes can be anything from ultra-wide to long telephoto. Many ultra-wide landscapes would have been better composed at longer focal lengths.

Yip, I learned this from zooming and pixel peeping in the early days. In general UWA unless you are close up makes anything uninteresting, featureless too small, irrelevant, and includes 80% of further irrelevant skies and foreground, unless they too are relevant. The 'get more in' terrible advice!

Unfortunately this UWA advice still exists purported by some ever-lasting noobs and most beginners seemingly follow, also some never see it. You see it everywhere... need 14mm etc. for landscape... But if they have any hope or scope and analyse what they are producing they are going to self-learn.

This is why you look at Ansel and others and not some random geezers on forums parroting parrots.

 

[The Rigger]

I could almost make a case for this lens in astrophotography, except most decent 600mm apochromatic telescopes would be considerably cheaper, albeit slower. But having a slow lens/scope isn't much of a hindrance when you're already shooting 5-minute exposures.

On the other hand, being able to vary the focal length (provided its got a functional zoom lock) could be advantageous, depending on the target you're shooting.

 

[Oíche]

I could almost make a case for this lens in astrophotography, except most decent 600mm apochromatic telescopes would be considerably cheaper, albeit slower. But having a slow lens/scope isn't much of a hindrance when you're already shooting 5-minute exposures.

On the other hand, being able to vary the focal length (provided its got a functional zoom lock) could be advantageous, depending on the target you're shooting.

I was thinking the same thing as I always consider astro use when considering buying equipment. Obviously you need a serious mount for this which you probably already own. 300-600 f4 has serious light gathering capability along with stacking by a skilled user magnificent images can be produced.

It'll be interesting to see the astro IQ regarding coma/astigmatism etc. Most likely being a general purpose lens it won't match specialist flat field Williams Optics RedCat etc. but it could be very useable indeed.

 

[RBecker]

in Terms of Astrophotography please consider that a 4/600 lens is a 6inch telescope. That will be a huge apochromat, not comparable with typical scopes for astrophotography like the Redcats or Askar SQAs.
Also typical apo telescopes for photography use 3 to 5 elements, not 28! Even with the best coating every lenselement will consume at least a bit of light.
From my experience with Sigma I expect the 300-600 on a very high level, but the usability for astro needs to proven.

 

[The Rigger]

Obviously you need a serious mount for this which you probably already own.

Sky-Watcher Wave 150i strain-wave mount; 25kg capacity. No problem.

Regarding image quality, I suspect there'll be some flattening & coma issues, depending on the camera sensor size.