Haha Chris! Is any camera/lens ever exactly what we want! But it's keeping me in the Sony game.
I tell you what I'd like now, a mark II 200-600 1.5 pounds lighter!
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Me? I just pre-ordered from B&H just like normal/always.
I suppose I was lucky with the 'q'.
My favorite camera store got a couple of them in today. I purchased one of them. Of course I only have the Nikon Z8 and 600 6.3 with me this weeks from my bald eagle shoot 🥲.
I've been using the R3 and the Canon 400 F4 DO version 2 for shooting sports (football, lacrosse, baseball). I'm very happy with the quality of the images of the 400 but I'm wondering if I should switch to this 500 instead. A couple reasons:
1. Most of my lenses are Sony so this would streamline. I purchased the 400 (before getting the R3 as I was using the R6) as a way to purchase a long lens (used) for less money (couldn't do that with Sony at the time). Now I can get a Sony long lens for (relatively) cheap that seems to have high quality.
2. I could get a backup A9 and still save some money after selling the 400 and the R3.
3. I would get a longer focal length which I want for football.
However, I won't do this if the 500 isn't at least as good as the 400 F4 DO version 2 as far as quality of images as I am very happy with the images from that lens.
I know it's a long shot but figured I'd ask - anyone here that has used both or can help on this decision?
Thanks!
I can help you in that the Sigma 500/5.6 is as sharp as the 400DOii and indeed actually sharper (my copy).
I cannot help you in that almost all of my 400DOii work was done with the EOS 1.4TCii and you know the imposed
limitations by Sony.
I enjoy the Sig500/5.6 more than the 400DOii only do to size and weight.
Another fact to throw in the mix. Almost all images in my Sig500/5.6 album were with the A1 (one or two with an A7iv and same with an A7C). Either of these cameras is superior to anything I ever used the 400DOii on including a 1DXii (that dates me doesn't it haha!).
Good luck with your decision. I know it's a tough one. For me it was easy, it was a way to stay in the game weight wise.
Forgot to mention renting. Soon enough LensRentals will have one; then you can know firsthand if you can wait.
Thoughts on the Z8 and 600pf? I hear it's an excellent combo... Thx
Laslo Varadi wrote:
My favorite camera store got a couple of them in today. I purchased one of them. Of course I only have the Nikon Z8 and 600 6.3 with me this weeks from my bald eagle shoot 🥲.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Thoughts on the Z8 and 600pf? I hear it's an excellent combo... Thx
Good question. I do prefer the Z8 and 600pf. Ergonomically it feels better for me. Camera and lens seems better balanced (the Sigma seems to be front heavy with the A1} and it seems like the image stabilization is better with the Z8. Also longer reach with the lens, it works with TCs and 20fps. Image quality is very good with both lenses and the Sigma does have a 1 stop advantage. Sony needs to up their game with these type of lenses. I’m still not sure if I will keep the Sigma since I have the 200-600 Sony zoom.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
Good question. I do prefer the Z8 and 600pf. Ergonomically it feels better for me. Camera and lens seems better balanced (the Sigma seems to be front heavy with the A1} and it seems like the image stabilization is better with the Z8. Also longer reach with the lens, it works with TCs and 20fps. Image quality is very good with both lenses and the Sigma does have a 1 stop advantage. Sony needs to up their game with these type of lenses. I’m still not sure if I will keep the Sigma since I have the 200-600 Sony zoom....Show more →
my sigma does not feel front heavy but admit it looks it,the sigma is only a 1/3 of a stop better ,i hope sony changes protocol on t/c and fps ,in fact neither are that serious a problem t/c puts you at f8 so for a lot of work it would not be used ,i would like the option of more fps but fairly satisfied with 15fps, 20 is the sweet spot though on occasions i would like more .but sigma have made a wonderful lens that did not require diffractive elements so kudos to sigma for that ,and cheaper than alternatives
I can help you in that the Sigma 500/5.6 is as sharp as the 400DOii and indeed actually sharper (my copy).
I cannot help you in that almost all of my 400DOii work was done with the EOS 1.4TCii and you know the imposed
limitations by Sony.
I enjoy the Sig500/5.6 more than the 400DOii only do to size and weight.
Another fact to throw in the mix. Almost all images in my Sig500/5.6 album were with the A1 (one or two with an A7iv and same with an A7C). Either of these cameras is superior to anything I ever used the 400DOii on including a 1DXii (that dates me doesn't it haha!).
Good luck with your decision. I know it's a tough one. For me it was easy, it was a way to stay in the game weight wise.
Forgot to mention renting. Soon enough LensRentals will have one; then you can know firsthand if you can wait. ...Show more →
I appreciate the insight you've provided me. I do really like the 400 so it's really impressive that based on what you've written this 500 is just as sharp as the 400 but I believe that comparison includes the teleconverter on the 400. I like your photos with the 500 and see that you are able to get really sharp ones with that lens.
One of the things that keeps me from the Sigma 500 as well (and getting rid of the 400) that I forgot to mention is the AF hit that a Sigma lens is probably going to take vs the Canon white. I hear they are getting closer to Sony OEM in this department. And I know it's hard to quantify - and given the cameras you used with the lenses it's probably impossible to do a comparison. But it's a major reason I went with the 70-200 version 2 of the Sony vs a third party, as well as the 135mm Sony vs a third party. In sports, AF is obviously really important (as it is in BIF). I know this is probably confusing to the readers here but I own and use both Sony and Canon cameras.
Anyway, you're definitely right in saying it's not an easy decision! But until I hear more I'll probably keep the 400.
I definitely appreciate the time you took to write your insightful response!
It's not clear how they measure the focal length at the minimum focusing distance.
When you focus from infinity to the minimum focusing distance, magnification changes from zero (by definition of infinity: a subject at infinite distance is reproduced with a nil size on sensor/film) to 1:6.
Consequently, the angle of view, AoV, shrinks, according to the equation:
AoV = 2 arctg {X/[2F(1+M/P)]}
where X is the diagonal (in mm) of the sensor (43 mm for a 24x36 mm sensor), M the magnification, P is the pupil factor, which measures the lens asymmetry and changes with focusing distance.
Therefore, according to the laws of optics, it is NORMAL that the AoV is smaller at close focus even if the focal length doesn't change.
Now, I have no idea which is the P value of the Sigma 500 at minimum focus; neither LensTip gives this information.
Now, let's assume P = 1 (i.e., let's assume the lens has a symmetric design).
Under this assumption
AoV = 2 arctg {X/[2F(1+M)]};
then we can calculate the AoV (along the FF diagonal) for a 500 mm at infinity and @ 1:6:
at infinity AoV = 2 arctg (43/1000) = 4.9 degrees;
at 1:6 AoV = 2 arctg [43/1167) = 4.2 degrees.
In other words, the AoV changes from about 5° to about 4°. But this is not due to a change in focal length!
Now, if we take into account the pupil factor, P, and the change of FL of a lens with floating elements, the calculations are much more complicated, and require the knowledge of all the details of the lens design.
Ripolini wrote:
It's not clear how they measure the focal length at the minimum focusing distance.
When you focus from infinity to the minimum focusing distance, magnification changes from zero (by definition of infinity: a subject at infinite distance is reproduced with a nil size on sensor/film) to 1:6.
Consequently, the angle of view, AoV, shrinks, according to the equation:
AoV = 2 arctg {X/[2F(1+M/P)]}
where X is the diagonal (in mm) of the sensor (43 mm for a 24x36 mm sensor), M the magnification, P is the pupil factor, which measures the lens asymmetry and changes with focusing distance.
Therefore, according to the laws of optics, it is NORMAL that the AoV is smaller at close focus even if the focal length doesn't change.
Now, I have no idea which is the P value of the Sigma 500 at minimum focus; neither LensTip gives this information.
Now, let's assume P = 1 (i.e., let's assume the lens has a symmetric design).
Under this assumption
AoV = 2 arctg {X/[2F(1+M)]};
then we can calculate the AoV (along the FF diagonal) for a 500 mm at infinity and @ 1:6:
at infinity AoV = 2 arctg (43/1000) = 4.9 degrees;
at 1:6 AoV = 2 arctg [43/1167) = 4.2 degrees.
In other words, the AoV changes from about 5° to about 4°. But this is not due to a change in focal length!
Now, if we take into account the pupil factor, P, and the change of FL of a lens with floating elements, the calculations are much more complicated, and require the knowledge of all the details of the lens design.
...Show more →
Yes, that's how the math works. But obviously, focal length is standing metonymically for AoV. We can learn to be comfortable with non-literal language.
You are welcome.
I don't have any problem with the hit rate/AF acquisition/tracking with the A1+500/5.6.
We went back to the bird park for a chance of seeing an Indigo Bunting and while there
I worked the Swallows for a few minutes. For me Swallows are THE test for focus motors, tracking
and 'getting on them' with the green squares. The A1 and the Sig can do it IF I can.....which truly
depends on the background.
When the Swallows are in the sky it is a piece of cake.
When they duck down and the forest is well behind them it is a no go. Might
be me and an A1 setting?
Anyway, here's a Bunting from this past weekend (I hope I've not already posted this---old age)
and a Swallow where the kit nailed a long flight sequence.
The Bunting was in cropper mode.
The Swallow in FF mode.
interesting and mostly good if this is the case so even at infinty it is just 17mm short and anything less it is increasing f/l so at worst it is just shy of 500mm but at best it is over 100mm increased f/l weird hard to get my head around ,and i really only take moon shots at infinity
Thanks for your feedback. I am still trying to decide whether to part with my A1. (best camera I've ever had so very difficult decision to be made). The question is whether i would be better served with the Z8 +600pf vs my A1 + 200-600G? I will miss the 30fps that the A1 can muster Even with the 200-600. Of course the 600pf is super light and sharp (from reviews I've read). That said, both lenses have Max apertures if f6.3. Tough choices.. sigh
. Laslo Varadi wrote:
Good question. I do prefer the Z8 and 600pf. Ergonomically it feels better for me. Camera and lens seems better balanced (the Sigma seems to be front heavy with the A1} and it seems like the image stabilization is better with the Z8. Also longer reach with the lens, it works with TCs and 20fps. Image quality is very good with both lenses and the Sigma does have a 1 stop advantage. Sony needs to up their game with these type of lenses. I’m still not sure if I will keep the Sigma since I have the 200-600 Sony zoom....Show more →
