mogul wrote:
That 15 fps limitation is overblown; just a few years ago, that was the fastest cameras. I personally shoot slower unless I see a need for culling hundreds of photos.
Horses for courses. If your shooting style doesn't need higher than 15 FPS, that's perfectly fine. But plenty of people shoot at 20, 30 FPS, some even at 60 or 120 FPS. A lot of us wish the A1II could shoot higher than 30 FPS, almost 4 years after the A1's launch. Given the capabilities of some of the newer cameras, like A1, A1II, A9III, Canon R5II and Nikon Z8 Z9, a lot of the owners of such camera would like to have higher than 15 FPS. The marker has moved. But again, if it's not important to you, 15 is more than fast enough.
Owners of A9 and A1 camera series are less likely to be interested in 3rd party lenses specifically because of the 15fps limitation. I'm not buying 3rd party because of that. I really hope the A7V gets a boost in fps, to something above 15 (for ex 20) because then it's going to push Sigma to renegociate with Sony. I think Sony is not getting any royalties with their free licensing terms. For now, most of the users are not interested in >15 fps because most of the Sony cameras sold don't even reach that speed.
dclark wrote:
Many of the comments about focal length are not correct. You need to learn about focal length, FOV, and focus breathing. A well designed lens will have a constant FOV as it focuses between infinity and its MFD (i.e. no focus breathing). That means it will not have a constant focal length. For example, the 600/4 focused at 6.0 meters does not have a focal length of 600mm, which is good.
---------------------------------------------
Choderboy wrote:
Assuming TDP results have been accurately measured, at 10m shooting distance,
the 600 f4 has a longer focal length than the 200-600 zoom, at 600mm.
I assume you agree with that statement?
TDP measurements: (9920mm and 9491mm being shooting distance required to fill the frame with the same target)
Sony 600 4
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9920mm
Sony 200-600
600mm x 400mm Target:
600mm = 9491mm
I do not agree with that statement.
I agree that the FOV of the 600/4 is narrower than the FOV of the 200-600 at that distance.
I do not know where the principle planes and nodal points of the lenses are so it is unclear how the focal lengths compare.
Operationally I care about the FOV not the focal length. I want the FOV to remain constant regardless of focus distance.
This is off topic for this thread, and has been discussed in prior threads, Thread 1, Thread2.
Nothing in Sony's design/planning philosophy has ever made me think that they'll put some R&D into a new faster mechanical shutter mechanism. My Nikon Z6III has a faster mechanical shutter FPS rate than the A1II... octo wrote:
Owners of A9 and A1 camera series are less likely to be interested in 3rd party lenses specifically because of the 15fps limitation. I'm not buying 3rd party because of that. I really hope the A7V gets a boost in fps, to something above 15 (for ex 20) because then it's going to push Sigma to renegociate with Sony. I think Sony is not getting any royalties with their free licensing terms. For now, most of the users are not interested in >15 fps because most of the Sony cameras sold don't even reach that speed.
Douglas L wrote:
If Sony allows more than 15 FPS, I may get one if it's close to the Nikon 800 PF in size and weight. If it's capped at 15 FPS, I will probably take a pass.
Agreed. I would never buy a lens for 800/6.3 type money aimed at shooting birds and handicap my A1 to 15FPS. Sure I could still get lots of good shots and all my perched shots but not worth it to me for a lens that will be many $1000s.
A7RV + sigma 800 would be an interesting combo, but it feels bad gimping my A1 30 fps to 15 for no reason. If that cap wasn't there, I'd buy the 800 sigma most certainly.
If this rumor is true (I am not sure this is a credible rumor as yet) then what would the minimal weight of a conventional 800mm f6.3 lens be? I don't believe such a lens has been made.
Personally, it's the lack of TC support for Sigma lenses that hurts me more than the 15 FPS. But I definitely see why, if you have an A1 or A9, the FPS limit will be disappointing.
At this point, Sony should just fully embrace third party lens manufacturers. It was the third party lens manufacturers that made the Sony E ecosystem shine and has put pressure on the Nikon Z and Canon RF systems. As cameras get faster, Sony is going to hamstring one of the E mount's greatest assets.
mogul wrote:
That 15 fps limitation is overblown; just a few years ago, that was the fastest cameras. I personally shoot slower unless I see a need for culling hundreds of photos.
I understand it's a YMMV thing, but if a camera has a capability that enables you to get better results why would you not want to use it? Culling photos is the least of my worries; potentially getting that one in a thousand shot is worth the extra time in front of the computer.
Plus the A1ii has a nice compromise system with its speed boost function. I usually leave my frame rate at 10-15fps but have a custom button that toggles the speed boost to 20fps for when I might need it... I just have to remember to turn it off again
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
I'd have preferred a 100-300 competitor, or a 200 1.8, but 800mm 6.3
Wonder what the price might be. I don't really have any use for it, but would be a really cool wildlife lens. Or to take pics of the moon
The 500 f/5.6 is $3,000, so I would guess if Sigma makes an 800 f/6.3 that it would be 50% more or $4,500 which keeps it comfortably below the price of the Nikon lens, but that is just a guess. They kept the 500 f/5.6 pretty small at 1,400g. I think they could keep this to about 2,600g which is only a couple hundred grams heavier than the Nikon.
mogul wrote:
The A1 II is really pedestrian with the fps. My A9III can boost up to 120fps, which I never use.
Yeah, the A1ii is a bit disappointing with its unchanged framerate, especially if (like me) you shoot lossless RAW that limits it to 20fps
tuomkok wrote:
Regarding the new lens, looks like 200-600 G is till the preferred economical wildlife zoom. 400-800 G will not be smaller, is not as bright, and looses the sometimes very practical 200-399mm focal lengths. I bet the 400-800 G is also more expensive than 200-600 G! All I can thing is that 400-800 G has (maybe) improved AF motors and is little better at 800mm compared to 200-600 G with 1.4x TC.
As price and size of Sony 400mm and 600mm GM tele primes is too much for me, I do not see a reason to update my 200-600 G to anything. Or maybe Sigma 500/5.6, it is a fine lens despite the software limitations.
Time to wake up Sony! Stop hallusinating with the uninteresting semi-improvements of excisting lenses, and make us the light and compact 300/4 and 500/5.6 duo....Show more →
Yes, I'm a bit puzzled, too, and will be keeping my 200-600 for now. Not to mention that fact that a 400-800 f6.3-8 will probably hit f8 at about 500mm if it follows the lead of the 200-600, which hits f6.3 at 300mm
arbitrage wrote:
SAR says Sigma is going to announce an 800 f/6.3 for e-mount at CP+. An 800mm alternative. Will see if they can get it anywhere near the Nikon's weight and size without using PF/DO.
If Sigma can do a normal refractive 500 f/5.6 lighter than Nikon's 500 PF f/5.6, I think they are in with a chance to match Nikon's 800 PF in size and weight.
Sigma 500mm: 107.6 x 236.6 mm 1400g
Nikon 500mm PF: 106 x 237 mm 1460g
also
Fuji 500mm: 104.5 x 255.5 mm 1330g!
Nikon's own 400 f/4.5 shows PF is not seemingly necessary now for compact superteles either.
Hopefully, Sigma 800mm is < 2.5kg and under $5K.
I'm not as concerned about the 15fps limit as the no TC rule from Sony, but with 800mm that's also not a concern, unlike with the 500mm.
ChrisMak wrote:
If this rumor is true (I am not sure this is a credible rumor as yet) then what would the minimal weight of a conventional 800mm f6.3 lens be? I don't believe such a lens has been made.
Well Sigma and Fuji conventional; 500mm f/5.6 are both lighter than Nikon's 500mm f/5.6 PF and Sigma is same size. Technically, a PF can reduce length as they "effectively" increase refractive index compared to standard refractive lens, which allows shorter focusing distances. However, it seems like that aspect is not so important now with these new gen superteles like 400 f/4..5 and 500 f/5.6 being already light and compact.
I'll bet Sigma's benchmarks are the Nikon PF and they'll get as close as technically possible in size and weight while being considerably cheaper.
The 400/4.5 Nikkor is lightweight, but not so short. The newer lens designs can reduce the number of large, heavy elements in the front, but PF/DO can shorten the lens more. I'd bet that Nikon could make a smaller, lighter 500/5.6PF Z today than the 2018 DSLR lens if they wanted.
EB-1 wrote:
The 400/4.5 Nikkor is lightweight, but not so short. The newer lens designs can reduce the number of large, heavy elements in the front, but PF/DO can shorten the lens more. I'd bet that Nikon could make a smaller, lighter 500/5.6PF Z today than the 2018 DSLR lens if they wanted.
EBH
It's same length as Canon 400 f/4 DO II to within 2mm and is so light it's hard to worry about what I think is an already short lens. You cannot make a lens of a certain aperture arbitrarily shorter, DO/PF have their limits. I doubt they could make a new 500 PF much shorter other than it would now be for a 16mm registration rather than 46mm.
I'd much prefer Nikon offered a 500 f/4.5 than another 500 f/5.6, 500mm is too short for a lot of birding and1.4 TC would be glued on it making 700 f/8. Thus, 600 f/6.3 seems to be their preferred choice over 500 f/5.6. I could accept 700 f/6.3, though which 500 f/4.5 offers as possibility.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well Sigma and Fuji conventional; 500mm f/5.6 are both lighter than Nikon's 500mm f/5.6 PF and Sigma is same size. Technically, a PF can reduce length as they "effectively" increase refractive index compared to standard refractive lens, which allows shorter focusing distances. However, it seems like that aspect is not so important now with these new gen superteles like 400 f/4..5 and 500 f/5.6 being already light and compact.
I'll bet Sigma's benchmarks are the Nikon PF and they'll get as close as technically possible in size and weight while being considerably cheaper.
I get it that the PF element in the Nikon Z800mm is expensive to make, and that Sigma would save on that cost. But a 800mm f6.3 lens has about the same front element size as a 500mm f4 lens, and there is a lot of coated glass in such a lens. Plus the PF element in the Z800 enabled Nikon to shrink the glass elements behind the PF element, and only the two front elements are really big, behind them the lens shrinks dramatically in diameter.
I am not sure how I can see Sigma bringing a 800mm f6.3 lens that is lighter and less expensive than the Nikon Z800PF, unless they have designed a lens that approaches 800mm and f6.3 but is in reality somewhere inbetween 700-800mm and between f6.3-f7.1?
If sigma releases this lens I suspect they will work out a deal with Sony to “fix” the 15fps limitation. I don’t see them having a line of wildlife lenses with this significant limitation.
arbitrage wrote:
Agreed. I would never buy a lens for 800/6.3 type money aimed at shooting birds and handicap my A1 to 15FPS. Sure I could still get lots of good shots and all my perched shots but not worth it to me for a lens that will be many $1000s.
I had a Sony 200-600 which I used with the 1.4 tc and was happy. Not a serious shooter in any sense with birds and other distant small things, but I would be interested in the 400-800 as long as it is not huge, and the price point of $2500. Same with the Sigma spoken of. These lenses reach a hobby market and are good enough to work in good light very effectively, and that is all I would really be after. I'd never leave Sony for Nikon or Canon to explore this type of photography, but I am happy the E mount makes it available more or less.
Justin Stone wrote:
If sigma releases this lens I suspect they will work out a deal with Sony to “fix” the 15fps limitation. I don’t see them having a line of wildlife lenses with this significant limitation.
FPS and TC compatibility are stumbling blocks, but do you need a TC or faster than 15fps with an 800mm lens?
