RikWriter wrote:
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.
Of course, and I have said all along I think that is a stupid decision by Sony.
I think Sony has arrived at a position as a camera brand, where they can hand over a lot to the commercial managers, who of course are out to maximize Sony product sales.
It shows in crippling third party lenses, but also in crippling their own cameras, like the flagship A1, that 3,5 years after launch still lacks things like focus bracketing and animal eye AF in video after the latest, rare firmware update.
Sony is starting to show signs of the famous old Canon cripple hammer, although giving it their own flavor. I doubt it will work though, since it won't make me buy a 300GM instead of the Sigma 500mm f5.6, and the lousy firmware support for the A1 has made it léss likely, not more, that I will get an A1 mkII when it comes out. I'd rather peter on with the A1 and take a look over the fence...
But enough of the Sony cripple hammer, it's a real bore.
The Sigma is still a very attractive option despite the Sony crippling.
Is it just me? I just spent a few minutes quickly scrolling through each of the 9 pages here looking for "sports" images made with the "sports" lens, but didn't see one. Maybe I missed it. I did see some birding images. And some rather nices ones at that. Maybe they should rename the lens.
Here is the same male Bluebird, A1 used on both.
Day one with the 600/4, day two the Sig 500/5.6.
Of course sky was different and I cropped the Sig output more
to approximate the framing from the 600.
But might give some an idea of the feather detail possible from
the Sig. No sharpening applied other than what Bridge normally does
(slide is default at 40).
ISO 500 with the Sigma 500 and F5.6
ISO 320 with the Sony 600 and F6.3
As always, the rendering looks much better (to my eye) of Flickr.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Here is the same male Bluebird, A1 used on both.
Day one with the 600/4, day two the Sig 500/5.6.
Of course sky was different and I cropped the Sig output more
to approximate the framing from the 600.
But might give some an idea of the feather detail possible from
the Sig. No sharpening applied other than what Bridge normally does
(slide is default at 40).
ISO 500 with the Sigma 500 and F5.6
ISO 320 with the Sony 600 and F6.3
As always, the rendering looks much better (to my eye) of Flickr.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Here is the same male Bluebird, A1 used on both.
Day one with the 600/4, day two the Sig 500/5.6.
Of course sky was different and I cropped the Sig output more
to approximate the framing from the 600.
But might give some an idea of the feather detail possible from
the Sig. No sharpening applied other than what Bridge normally does
(slide is default at 40).
ISO 500 with the Sigma 500 and F5.6
ISO 320 with the Sony 600 and F6.3
The difference is bigger than what I'd have expected. But a lot of that, even most of it, could be atmospheric conditions and of course the light. Do you think these shots are representative?
Yes I do, but again not via what gets translated here at FM. The Flickr shots, whether from the Sig500 or
my 600/4 are so much better. I have them posted in a row on my Flickr page, maybe worth a 5 second
scan after opening the page....that will change as other various images are added. https://www.flickr.com/photos/medicineman4040/
nice picture ,the comparison of the small bird on flicker almost equalises not sure why ,other than better light on the 600mm f4 shot that was closed down and sigma wide open ,although the focus looks more on the eye on the sony gm ,so maybe the sony has better focusing also.I guess you stopped the gm down to match the dof
Finally found a Sigma in stock and it’s arriving in two days. It looks like the only lens cover available right now is from Chasing birds. Does anyone have experience with this brand?
Thanks for the head's up on the 'Chasing Birds' covers. I'd not heard of them.
Just ordered one in Yellow Tree Pine. I hope there are Rolanpro level covers.
The Hejnar prototype foot should be here Monday or Tuesday.
Another from the bitter cold yesterday.
If there is one thing we have here it it Cardinals and Blue J's.
In one glance I can see 7 Blue J's and 4-5 Cardinals.
ILCE-1500mm F5.6 DG DN OS | Sports 024 lens500mmf/5.61/1000s2000 ISO-1.0 EV
Prototype Hejnar foot is here.
Market versions will be anodized.
Sorry about my dirty fingers/I've planted 10 rhododendrons, 48 hosta, 2 winterberry, 2 hawthorn, 3 crepe myrtle,3 hibicus
and 12 redbud in the last two days....dirt is ground in
Goals realized-
1. much longer foot for handle use
2. longer foot allowing use of Kirk Security Strap AND can still attach a monopod
or put on tripod without having to remove the Kirk Strap
3. MORE finger room between barrel and the foot
4. Strap lug on the rear for the Op-Tech Uni-loop that acts as insurance with the
Op-Tech Uni-loop on the Kirk Strap lug.
This lens needs no foot but I use the foot to effect carry via my Kirk Strap. This past weekend I carried the
A1+Sigma 500 over 4 miles on varied terrain/some steep rocky and rooty. I used a Tembar Sling which is great
but each time I wanted to shoot I'd have to pull out the camera (not bad because the Tenbar accepts the A1+500/5.6
in shooting configuration=hood in place/lens cap off; BUT I prefer the camera+lens riding in the small of my back
much more ready to shoot.
The foot itself. Typical Hejnar work. Krys has helped me several times in the past dialing in feet for various lenses.
Please note I use a SmallRig cage on my A1 for protection (I don't do video), and there is room for the Hejnar foot
when a cage is used. If not cage then you'll have just a bit more room in that area.
Wife and I've used Kirk Security Strap for years. Never a problem.
The knurl knob that clamps down onto the Arca-Swiss portion of the foot
could theoretically loosen. Ours never ever have after countless hours/miles
walked......but if it does the Uni-loop is the Plan B.
Now my brother goes even a further step.
He puts a Uni-loop half on his camera and the other Uni-loop half onto the lug
of the Kirk....that way if his camera separates at the lens it won't hit the ground.
Now when is the last time you heard of a camera spontaneously becoming unattached
from the lens? I suppose if you didn't give it a test when mounting the lens it is possible, but
again something that has never happened to me.
timgangloff wrote:
Is it just me? I just spent a few minutes quickly scrolling through each of the 9 pages here looking for "sports" images made with the "sports" lens, but didn't see one. Maybe I missed it. I did see some birding images. And some rather nices ones at that. Maybe they should rename the lens.
Yea I'm eyeing this lens to use for Lacrosse...but apparently I'm in the minority on use cases.
BTW great shots posted, the detail this lens seems to provide looks good to me.
