RikWriter wrote:
Sony doesn't care about that, though. They aren't interested enough in wildlife photography as a separate market, at least not for their GM glass, and they probably think the 200-600 is enough for the consumer glass. They're in it to make money and with Nikon gobbling up most of the pro wildlife market and Canon grabbing the consumer end, there's not much incentive for Sony to spend a lot of money to horn in on what is basically a niche market. Our best hope is that Sony can negotiate a deal with Sigma that allows the bodies to use their full range of features with the third-party glass....Show more →
I wonder how niche wildlife photography is though? I know that this forum probably skews towards wildlife more than in the regular world, but I spend a lot of time in nature areas and feel like wildlife photography is getting more and more popular. I don't have any actual data to back this up though, so I could be exaggerating the size of the market.
40Driggs wrote:
I wonder how niche wildlife photography is though? I know that this forum probably skews towards wildlife more than in the regular world, but I spend a lot of time in nature areas and feel like wildlife photography is getting more and more popular. I don't have any actual data to back this up though, so I could be exaggerating the size of the market.
I spend most of my time in the Yellowstone area, surely a mecca of wildlife photography and though I no doubt see more big primes than most people will in a lifetime, the vast majority of tourists are carrying consumer superzooms like the Tamron 150-600 or the Sony 200-600. A smaller percentage have something like the Canon 800mm f11 and I expect to see a lot of Canon 200-800s around this coming spring and summer.
Wildlife and kids sports are two of the applications for which a phone doesn’t work. 20-100mm is pretty well covered by a phone and pinching. I would think long lenses would absolutely sell cameras. I know the families with whom I share youth sports photos are amazed at what I can do with a long lens and a fast camera. Do most people who have kids in sports buy a rig? No. But even if 5% do then you have expanded a market. Sony is foolish to leave that end of the market to Nikon, and wildlife photogs in my experience.
40Driggs wrote:
I wonder how niche wildlife photography is though? I know that this forum probably skews towards wildlife more than in the regular world, but I spend a lot of time in nature areas and feel like wildlife photography is getting more and more popular. I don't have any actual data to back this up though, so I could be exaggerating the size of the market.
Yes, I'll never understand why Sony hadn't invested a lot more into R&D of various lenses with the headstart they had in mirorless. Sony had the chance to completely dominate mirrorless, but chose to release 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 one after another ...
Justin Stone wrote:
Wildlife and kids sports are two of the applications for which a phone doesn’t work. 20-100mm is pretty well covered by a phone and pinching. I would think long lenses would absolutely sell cameras. I know the families with whom I share youth sports photos are amazed at what I can do with a long lens and a fast camera. Do most people who have kids in sports buy a rig? No. But even if 5% do then you have expanded a market. Sony is foolish to leave that end of the market to Nikon, and wildlife photogs in my experience spend.
RikWriter wrote:
But that was the other thing that decided me. $3,000 seems just too expensive for the Sigma.
Interesting, for me the price is a reason to get one. I think differently: Sigma lenses have to undercut native lenses by about 30-40% in price to be succesful.
The fact that it is priced relatively high for a Sigma lens, means they really put in an effort to make it a high quality lens.
But yes, there are the stupid restrictions that Sony put's on this lens because they neglect making such lenses themselves, with all the resources they have.
I guess we will soon see the 5th iteration of a 24-something zoom...
ChrisMak wrote:
Interesting, for me the price is a reason to get one. I think differently: Sigma lenses have to undercut native lenses by about 30-40% in price to be succesful.
The fact that it is priced relatively high for a Sigma lens, means they really put in an effort to make it a high quality lens.
But yes, there are the stupid restrictions that Sony put's on this lens because they neglect making such lenses themselves, with all the resources they have.
I guess we will soon see the 5th iteration of a 24-something zoom...
no it will be another 50mm to go along with other 40 or so for the e-mount
Would have considered this over the 300mm 2.8 if it could be coupled with TCs
As such , it's too short for my birding needs
Sigma , are you reading this? ;-)
deevee wrote:
Would have considered this over the 300mm 2.8 if it could be coupled with TCs
As such , it's too short for my birding needs
Sigma , are you reading this? ;-)
Same here. But it's Sony who would have to change.
And one big disadvantage on the A1? 15FPS max with the Sigma I would only get half the frame rate my camera supports
ChrisMak wrote:
The review and images convinced me as well, I really like the look of some of the samples, enough to go for the Sigma.
I had the D500/500pf combo for two years, and although 500mm is 100mm too short for me, it still enabled me to get some very nice images.
The Sigma 500 has the advantage of the A1 camera it will be mounted on, silent shutter, no mirror slap and very accurate AF, and the images might stand cropping a bit better.
RikWriter wrote:
Huh. I can't understand that mindset.
The gap between a TC and cropping is smaller than you think...
For a perfect lens we have:
angular resolution = 1.22 λ/D
D = focal length / f-stop
combine the above two formulas and we get:
angular resolution = 1.22 * λ* f-stop / focal length
Remove the constants (lambda in our case is visible light frequencies), and we see the relationship:
angular resolution ~= f-stop / focal length
For the TC case, using a 2x TC with a 300/2.8 lens:
angular resolution ~= f/5.6 / 600mm = 0.009
And for the case of cropping:
angular resolution ~= f/2.8 / 300mm = 0.009
Notice that the angular resolution provided to the sensor by the lens in both cases is the same.... which means that the smallest detail you can resolve through using the TC and cropping is the same!
However in the real world...
The sensor is not infinite resolution, using a TC gives a low res sensor an easier time compared to cropping.
The lens is not perfect, which reduces the resolution requirement on the sensor
The TC is not perfect, using a TC reduces resolution as a result
Particularly if you use a high res sensor, its very possible that you get a better image from cropping compared to using a TC.
edit:
autofocus and tracking also works better without the TC, the brighter the lens the better for AF.
aCuria wrote:
The gap between a TC and cropping is smaller than you think...
For a perfect lens we have:
angular resolution = 1.22 λ/D
D = focal length / f-stop
combine the above two formulas and we get:
angular resolution = 1.22 * λ* f-stop / focal length
Remove the constants (lambda in our case is visible light frequencies), and we see the relationship:
angular resolution ~= f-stop / focal length
For the TC case, using a 24mm height FF sensor and 2x TC with a 300/2.8 lens:
angular resolution ~= f/5.6 / 600mm = 0.009
And for the case of cropping, we only use half the sensor height:
angular resolution ~= f/2.8 / 300mm = 0.009
Notice that the angular resolution provided to the sensor by the lens in both cases is the same.... which means that the smallest detail you can resolve through using the TC and cropping is the same!
However in the real world...
The sensor is not infinite resolution, using a TC gives a low res sensor an easier time compared to cropping.
The lens is not perfect, which reduces the resolution requirement on the sensor
The TC is not perfect, using a TC reduces resolution as a result
Particularly if you use a high res sensor, its very possible that you get a better image from cropping compared to using a TC....Show more →
Yeah, get both is what I say. I use a TC and crop, a lot of times.
I never used a 1.4TC with the Nikon 500mm f5.6PF when I used it on the D500. The results just weren't any better than cropping.
I do use the 1.4TC on the Sony 600GM, but that is a f4 lens.
Even if the Sigma was allowed to be used with a TC, I would never use one with the Sigma 500 mounted on the A1.
I wóuld use a 1.4TC when using an A9III, but I don't have one and have no intentions of ever getting one.
Chris, I too used/loved/enjoyed the 500PF back in my Nikon era. I remember even when I was switching
to Sony wishing for a Sony APS-c that wasn't a rangefinder style/not that I loved the loud clanky D500 but its AF was really good and the colors were fantastic. I bet when the Sig500/5.6 gets here I'll
revisit that wish and then just enjoy the 21mpx of the A1 in crop mode. I can take the grip off and enjoy a 4.4 pound rig (A1+Sig).
When the Sig gets here I'll first put it on the wife's A7Riv-a for the backyard birds.
lf you crop, you get your sensor resolution whatever your sensor resolution is, divided by your cropping factor. If a TC is used, you get the full sensor resolution. At least in theory, it works that way. I like to get the full 50MP from my A1 and as such, I know what I prefer but it is your call...
...
I would only get half the frame rate my camera supports 
