Larry thanks. The lens is exactly what I wanted it to be.
Now this is the same RBWP I shot a couple of days ago with the a7iv+Sig500/5.6.
This time with the A1 and a major major crop. The bird occupied 1/20 of the frame.
The portrait is 1300x1500 pixels.
While shooting I did pop in and out of crop mode and that's one consolation the A1/A7Riv/v
have for not TC use.
Also attached the RBWP in 'missileer' mode coming to the perch area.
I like the lens...it reminds me of the Nikkor 500 PF...but better. I've been impressed by the level of contrast and tolerance of backlit scenes. Looking forward to more time with it.
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/3200s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/3200s250 ISO-1.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/1600s100 ISO-1.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/1250s200 ISO-1.0 EV
Here's the Sony 300 2.8 with a 2X TC on and A7RIV attached compared in size to a 600 f4 with a 1.4X TC and an A1 with grip attached, just to compare with earlier pics of the Sigma 500.
LarryChen wrote:
Some reviewers report that the sigma works fine with the 1.4 and 2.0 x just WITHOUT AUTOFOCUS. Has anyone tried this?
The SEL14TC attaches to the lens but MF doesn't work, probably because it's focus by wire and not communicating properly with the body. Perhaps there's a workaround I'm unaware of.
While it continues to be a disappointment that Sony removes functionality on third party lenses, I knew that going into it and have no expectation that it ever will work like a native lens or TCs. That being said I'm much happier than I ever was with the 200-600 and while that's a much different lens, being reach limited most of the time the Sig 500 makes so much more sense for my use case.
Bobby V wrote:
The SEL14TC attaches to the lens but MF doesn't work, probably because it's focus by wire and not communicating properly with the body. Perhaps there's a workaround I'm unaware of.
While it continues to be a disappointment that Sony removes functionality on third party lenses, I knew that going into it and have no expectation that it ever will work like a native lens or TCs. That being said I'm much happier than I ever was with the 200-600 and while that's a much different lens, being reach limited most of the time the Sig 500 makes so much more sense for my use case. ...Show more →
Thanks so much for clarifying that. So the Sigma at least with Sony bodies is a 500mm lens period. That helps making a decision about what I might buy.
Mar 28, 2024 at 03:16 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
LarryChen wrote:
Thanks so much for clarifying that. So the Sigma at least with Sony bodies is a 500mm lens period. That helps making a decision about what I might buy.
That is true, but with a higher megapixel body (A7rV, A7rIV, or A1) you will still get a very nice image with lots of megapixels with in APS-C mode. In my experience the image from a lens with the 1.4X TC downsampled to the size of an APS-C image is a pretty similar image. In other words cropping it is hard to pick between using a 1.4X TC and cropping and cropping would still be available for the Sigma 500 f/5.6.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That is true, but with a higher megapixel body (A7rV, A7rIV, or A1) you will still get a very nice image with lots of megapixels with in APS-C mode. In my experience the image from a lens with the 1.4X TC downsampled to the size of an APS-C image is a pretty similar image. In other words cropping it is hard to pick between using a 1.4X TC and cropping and cropping would still be available for the Sigma 500 f/5.6.
I would have preferred TC capability to inch out every bit of reach possible in some scenarios, but I generally agree with you. I also have a hunch we'll eventually see an A7RVI with even higher megapixels (new sensor every other generation), so I'm not that worried about it. This lens also saves me the $8K+ I'd have otherwise likely invested in something like the Z8/600PF.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Thanks Bob, eternally evolving process
Today finally put the A1 on the Sigma 500/5.6.
The bushes behind the Blue J, for those bokeh curious, is right at 10 feet from where the bird was
landing in one of the shots.
The brown bokeh behind the Blue J en route is pine needles.
I'll spare you all all the in between shots. The Blue J was on a low stump 20 feet from the feeding array.
Would be nice to have Oly's pro-capture but I followed/the A1 tracked from the launch to the turn and landing on
the three shots with the clearer background.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That is true, but with a higher megapixel body (A7rV, A7rIV, or A1) you will still get a very nice image with lots of megapixels with in APS-C mode. In my experience the image from a lens with the 1.4X TC downsampled to the size of an APS-C image is a pretty similar image. In other words cropping it is hard to pick between using a 1.4X TC and cropping and cropping would still be available for the Sigma 500 f/5.6.
True and true comparing two quality lenses. Both can have their images cropped. So I ordered the 300mm f2.8 as I can also use it at 300, 420 and 600. And it is barely heavier than the Sigma. I would have preferred the Sigma if it could have been a 500, 700 and 1000.
LarryChen wrote:
True and true comparing two quality lenses. Both can have their images cropped. So I ordered the 300mm f2.8 as I can also use it at 300, 420 and 600. And it is barely heavier than the Sigma. I would have preferred the Sigma if it could have been a 500, 700 and 1000.
I would definitely have gone with the Sigma in that case as well.
The alternative lens foot via hejnarphotostore.com for the Sig500/5.6 has
been prototyped and a test model is approx. 1.5 week from reality. If
all is good a batch will be made. I think my test model will not be anodized; that
will come with the batch.
Mar 29, 2024 at 06:21 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
LarryChen wrote:
True and true comparing two quality lenses. Both can have their images cropped. So I ordered the 300mm f2.8 as I can also use it at 300, 420 and 600. And it is barely heavier than the Sigma. I would have preferred the Sigma if it could have been a 500, 700 and 1000.
My point is that the Sigma 500 can be a 750 in APS-C mode with about the same quality that it would be a 700 if it could take a 1.4X TC. Of course the 300 f/2.8 GM is a more capable lens, but costs double (more than double with the TCs) what the Sigma costs and if you carry both TCs and the 300 f/2.8 GM it will weigh almost exactly a pound more. Both good choices, but it is nice to have such choices. It sucks that Sony doesn't allow the Sigma to work with their TCs, but I think that is more of an issue if you want to get to the equivalent of 1000mm than if you want to get to a 700-750 equivalent. The Sigma still allows you to get to a 700-750 equivalent with quite decent quality if you have a high MP body.
Steve Spencer wrote:
My point is that the Sigma 500 can be a 750 in APS-C mode with about the same quality that it would be a 700 if it could take a 1.4X TC. Of course the 300 f/2.8 GM is a more capable lens, but costs double (more than double with the TCs) what the Sigma costs and if you carry both TCs and the 300 f/2.8 GM it will weigh almost exactly a pound more. Both good choices, but it is nice to have such choices. It sucks that Sony doesn't allow the Sigma to work with their TCs, but I think that is more of an issue if you want to get to the equivalent of 1000mm than if you want to get to a 700-750 equivalent. The Sigma still allows you to get to a 700-750 equivalent with quite decent quality if you have a high MP body....Show more →
But if the Sigma took TCs and I chose it, then I'd be carrying those TCs anyway.
OK I'm being silly, but continuing the logic, since the Sigma doesn't take them I won't forget them, pack them or
drop them haha!
But an incidental story....with my guide in Costa Rica working off the pick up tailgate back in my EOS days. A TC got bumped by the guide
and hit the ground, gravel to make it worse.
The guide looks at me and says 'it's a Canon, can't hurt it'. True story.
And the TC landed correctly to avoid any damage. Now how Canon did that I don't know
Mar 29, 2024 at 10:08 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
RikWriter wrote:
But if the Sigma took TCs and I chose it, then I'd be carrying those TCs anyway.
I think we are talking past each other. I am not talking about a hypothetical Sigma that doesn't exist that takes TCs. I am talking about the actual Sigma 500 that does exist and comparing it to the actual Sony 300 f/2.8 GM that exists. The Sigma is about a pound lighter (if you consider the weight of the TCs), less than half the cost, but really only does 500mm at f/5.6 and a quite capable 750mm equivalent with the depth of field of an f/8 lens in APS-C crop mode. The Sony does 300 f/2.8, 420 f/4, 600 f/5.6, and 900 with the depth of field of an f/8 lens in APS-C crop mode. No question that the Sony is more capable especially in that it covers a wider range of focal lengths and at wider apertures for the shorter focal lengths. No question the Sigma is a lot cheaper and a little lighter and still covers a range that will be useful for a number of wildlife targets.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think we are talking past each other. I am not talking about a hypothetical Sigma that doesn't exist that takes TCs.
Just to put the blame where it's due, it's not that the Sigma won't take TCs, it's that Sony won't let it work with TCs on their cameras. I blame Sony for that.
