Maxxus46 wrote:
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
.
I kept the A1 and 200-600 and added the Z8 and 600pf. I will be returning the Sigma. It’s a very nice lens but a bit short for me. My A1 seems to work very well after the updates and depending on what I do, one will be a backup to the other.
I was very surprised at how configurable the Z8 is. Perhaps even more than the A1 which also provides a lot of options.
MAubrey wrote:
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.
Yes, it's like saying that focal length (or magnification) increases by reducing the sensor size. It's a physical nonsense.The focal length of a lens is the same regardless of which camera you attach it to.
And perpetrating nonsense doesn't make it truth.
Anyway, a reduction of the AoV from about 5° to 4° does imply a focus breathing around (5-4)/5 x 100 = 20%.
People should be aware that the AoV might change with magnification (i.e., by changing the focus distance), even if the focal length does not change. That's why cine lenses are so expensive: they have to compensate the actual focal length and the pupil factor to keep the AoV as constant as possible by changing the focus distance (thus avoiding the "breathing" effect). The Sigma 500/5.6 is surely NOT a lens designed for videographers, so why stressing its focus breathing in a review? Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
P.S.: I wish to remind that a lens we Nikonians blamed for focus breathing was the 70-200/2.8 VR II; its maximum FL was 135 mm at portrait distances! It's like having a 0.67X TC; we couldn't fill the frame with the face of the model.
Ripolini wrote:
Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
That's the point they make in the review .
I think focal lengths are used in the comparison between MFD and infinity because it's just something people are familiar with...
Ripolini wrote:
Yes, it's like saying that focal length (or magnification) increases by reducing the sensor size. It's a physical nonsense.The focal length of a lens is the same regardless of which camera you attach it to.
And perpetrating nonsense doesn't make it truth.
Anyway, a reduction of the AoV from about 5° to 4° does imply a focus breathing around (5-4)/5 x 100 = 20%.
People should be aware that the AoV might change with magnification (i.e., by changing the focus distance), even if the focal length does not change. That's why cine lenses are so expensive: they have to compensate the actual focal length and the pupil factor to keep the AoV as constant as possible by changing the focus distance (thus avoiding the "breathing" effect). The Sigma 500/5.6 is surely NOT a lens designed for videographers, so why stressing its focus breathing in a review? Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
P.S.: I wish to remind that a lens we Nikonians blamed for focus breathing was the 70-200/2.8 VR II; its maximum FL was 135 mm at portrait distances! It's like having a 0.67X TC; we couldn't fill the frame with the face of the model.
The 1.28TC like feature of it's focus breathing, while useful, only changes the max magnification from very low, to average.
The 200-600 Sony has is more useful in this regard but it's max magnificaton is considered a con.
This is typical that a zoom will have higher max magnification than a prime.
Filling the frame with not so distant subjects though is not a strong point for the Sigma 500.
Sony 200-600 is better bare and a TC can be used without loss of infinity focus.
A Sony 100-400 is better again.
Of course, an extension tube can be used with loss of infinity focus.
We don't know if the Sigma plays well with the tubes on Sony though.
Then there is the issue that the best available E mount tubes are crap.
So I think it's fair to say, until tested, tubes are currently not a viable option.
j4nu wrote:
I think focal lengths are used in the comparison between MFD and infinity because it's just something people are familiar with...
I understand that people nowadays have difficulties in using neurons, so our lives are full of easy-to-understand mystifications
I still remember the Decalogue about misconceptions in photographic optics Paul van Walree published long time ago. Fortunately, somebody saved most of his valuable webpages:
Ripolini wrote:
I understand that people nowadays have difficulties in using neurons
Alternatively: Different people are specialists in different things and use their neurons differently—with no difficulty at that!
Anyway...apologies to everyone that I brought this up and distracted an image thread, especially to the lens owners sharing wonderful pictures!
Choderboy wrote:
The 1.28TC like feature of it's focus breathing, while useful, only changes the max magnification from very low, to average.
The 200-600 Sony has is more useful in this regard but it's max magnificaton is considered a con.
This is typical that a zoom will have higher max magnification than a prime.
Filling the frame with not so distant subjects though is not a strong point for the Sigma 500.
Sony 200-600 is better bare and a TC can be used without loss of infinity focus.
A Sony 100-400 is better again.
Of course, an extension tube can be used with loss of infinity focus.
We don't know if the Sigma plays well with the tubes on Sony though.
Then there is the issue that the best available E mount tubes are crap.
So I think it's fair to say, until tested, tubes are currently not a viable option.
MAubrey wrote:
Anyway...apologies to everyone that I brought this up and distracted an image thread, especially to the lens owners sharing wonderful pictures!
Xraypaul: Could you correct your post please?
It makes it appear that I said:
Really have you used both extensively the 200-600mm is good for what it is ,but it does not get close to the sigma in many ways ,ok if your saying better magnification at close focus distance then yes ,and versatility,with high FPS and t/c ,but on a high MP sensor the t/c option in not great so i never use it ,lens iq is not even close ,and the auto focus is not as good either,this lens is more user specific and really only limited by sonys protocol otherwise it would be a firm favourite amongst Sony users ,In fact most would skip the 200-600mm and 300mm f2.8 for bird photography for this lens .The only weakness is close focusing and Sonya protocol.
So, I said none of that. All your words.
I did say maximum magnification was better on 200-600 and 100-400. That is all I said.
Every other point you state is better with the SIGMA, I never mentioned.
So while I'm sure it was a mistake to misquote me, was there any point debating numerous aspects of the lens in response to me mentioning only one aspect?
Regarding your question "have you used both extensively?".
200-600 I have used extensively for over 5 years.
I have used Sigma 500 Sport for even longer.
Here's the thing though, it's the 500 f4 Sport. How could I have used the 500 f5.6 extensively?
Choderboy wrote:
Xraypaul: Could you correct your post please?
It makes it appear that I said:
Really have you used both extensively the 200-600mm is good for what it is ,but it does not get close to the sigma in many ways ,ok if your saying better magnification at close focus distance then yes ,and versatility,with high FPS and t/c ,but on a high MP sensor the t/c option in not great so i never use it ,lens iq is not even close ,and the auto focus is not as good either,this lens is more user specific and really only limited by sonys protocol otherwise it would be a firm favourite amongst Sony users ,In fact most would skip the 200-600mm and 300mm f2.8 for bird photography for this lens .The only weakness is close focusing and Sonya protocol.
So, I said none of that. All your words.
I did say maximum magnification was better on 200-600 and 100-400. That is all I said.
Every other point you state is better with the SIGMA, I never mentioned.
So while I'm sure it was a mistake to misquote me, was there any point debating numerous aspects of the lens in response to me mentioning only one aspect?
Regarding your question "have you used both extensively?".
200-600 I have used extensively for over 5 years.
I have used Sigma 500 Sport for even longer.
Here's the thing though, it's the 500 f4 Sport. How could I have used the 500 f5.6 extensively?...Show more →
ok not really the same though ,the 500mm f4 is a stop faster and near 2kg heavier and not e mount ,yes i appologize it seems i misinterpreted what you meant ,yes the bare 200-600mm is better at close focusing no doubt ,but could be better still if it were not for focus shrinking/breathing ,bring on the mk2
I just scrolled up and back in this thread.
Am I the only one who took the Sigma bait?
Sure looks like so.
I read about Laslo keeping the A1+200600 and adding a Z8+600PF. I think that is a very clever approach.We still have a 200-600. The wife is using it on the A7IVa. I need a 200-600ii that is a pound lighter! Don't laugh, Sony could do it if they really wanted to.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I just scrolled up and back in this thread.
Am I the only one who took the Sigma bait?
Sure looks like so.
I read about Laslo keeping the A1+200600 and adding a Z8+600PF. I think that is a very clever approach.We still have a 200-600. The wife is using it on the A7IVa. I need a 200-600ii that is a pound lighter! Don't laugh, Sony could do it if they really wanted to.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I just scrolled up and back in this thread.
Am I the only one who took the Sigma bait?
Sure looks like so.
I read about Laslo keeping the A1+200600 and adding a Z8+600PF. I think that is a very clever approach.We still have a 200-600. The wife is using it on the A7IVa. I need a 200-600ii that is a pound lighter! Don't laugh, Sony could do it if they really wanted to.
With the light weight, I am much more successful in capturing BIF than with my 200-600mm. The lens is also a bit sharper and noticeably higher in contrast. I checked my Lightroom lens statistics; and, since 94% of my shots from the 200-600mm were at 600mm, I wonder if I will ever use that lens again (my "zoo" lens is the Tamron 50-400mm).
I purchased a neoprene cover from E-Bay and find the fit and finish to be outstanding (much better than the Lenscoat covers I have had). I was surprised that it arrived from China in four days.
You will also see the Hejnar Photo replacement foot, which works great for using as a handle for carrying and works well with gimbals. I think that MedicineMan worked with Hejnar in developing this part.
In the picture, below, you will see my "Red Dot" aiming device. With it, combined with Zone or Wide focus, nearly 90% of my test BIF shots were perfectly framed (good for an uncoordinated klutz like me ).
With the light weight, I am much more successful in capturing BIF than with my 200-600mm. The lens is also a bit sharper and noticeably higher in contrast. I checked my Lightroom lens statistics; and, since 94% of my shots from the 200-600mm were at 600mm, I wonder if I will ever use that lens again (my "zoo" lens is the Tamron 50-400mm).
I purchased a neoprene cover from E-Bay and find the fit and finish to be outstanding (much better than the Lenscoat covers I have had). I was surprised that it arrived from China in four days.
You will also see the Hejnar Photo replacement foot, which works great for using as a handle for carrying and works well with gimbals. I think that MedicineMan worked with Hejnar in developing this part.
In the picture, below, you will see my "Red Dot" aiming device. With it, combined with Zone or Wide focus, nearly 90% of my test BIF shots were perfectly framed (good for an uncoordinated klutz like me ).
Does the Sigma cropped at 600mm give about the same sharpness as the 200-600 at 600mm ? The idea of using a great tele for BIF that only weights 3 lbs is tempting.
.
