Choderboy wrote:
Panasonic have 'partially stacked sensor'. Therefore sensor readout speed is much slower than A1 and Z8/Z9.
Roughly twice as long as an A9.
So for most users, too slow to be considered an option leaving adapted on Nikon as the choice if more than 15 fps is wanted.
I have not made any effort to check opinions on Panasonic AF, but they'll need both AF and Fast Sensor to really compete.
I bet Sigma is hoping Panasonic get there.
Yeah the readout speed of the s1 ii works for me but I am more concerned about its AF speed and eye af accuracy coming from Sony before and from Canon now
I just got the lens last night, and had a few minutes to play with it this afternoon.
First impressions, Sigma has watched the presentation Apple does with the box. This is probably the nicest box that I can ever recall a lens coming in.
Second impression: The pouch -- this was entirely underwhelming especially after seeing the money they spent on the box. I wish they gave a better case of some type. It looks like a $1 pouch that you could buy from Amazon as a Chinese import.
Finally, using the lens...I spent about 1/2 hour taking some photos of the lens. I put some other photos in the 200 f/2 image thread if you are interested. I will include one here that I didn't put there. I have been using lenses like this for years. I own the Canon 200 f/1.8L and Canon 200 f/2.0L IS. You can see that I really like this focal length/aperture. This lens didn't disappoint. It was very quick to focus, and it didn't miss. I wasn't doing anything too demanding though. All of the images came out fantastic just as I hoped. They were all very sharp. My wife will tell me too sharp. The biggest thing that was amazing for me is that this is the first time that I have used a lens like this for 1/2 hour or more that I didn't feel the desire for a monopod. I frequently use a monopod for the Canon lenses. I had no problem with this one the entire time that I used it...didn't think a thing of it. I used it the whole time without a problem handheld. It was great. I was a little surprised that the image stabilization was turned off by default, so make sure to change that when you get it. The stabilization works great. I will say that the build quality seems to be very good. This is the first Sigma lens that I have bought in a while. So far, I love it.
I did notice that the particular photo that is below had more of a cats eye effect in the bokeh...more than any other picture that I took. I think it was the particular lighting in this one.
Your initial impressions mirror mine. The in-box presentation was classy, but the lens bag was very cheap. The lens is built solid and feels just a little heavier than my 100-400 GM in hand. I have a SmallRig cage on my A9 and the 100-400 would balance when resting on the lens tripod foot. With this lens, however, the camera falls back when attempting to balance it on its tripod foot. The white color on the 200mm is whiter than my 100-400 too. This is my first lens with 90-degree tactile feel 'stops' when rotating the lens foot so that's pretty cool.
My stabilization was delivered turned to off. I didn't realize this initially, so I blurred my first few shots due to camera shake. I didn't have anything interesting to shoot but I grabbed few shots in the backyard anyway. I'll post them here as soon as I can.
Picture This! wrote:
@BrianP@ apart from the weight, in your view is it worth moving from the Canon 200/2 to this lens ?
I use the Canon's on an R5 II, and they work great there. If I were using a Canon 200 f/2L IS on a Sony, yes I would prefer the Sigma. I like how it performs much better on a Sony. The Canon's are still incredible lenses optically, so I can't pick on them from that perspective. They are some of the best lenses optically regardless of brand. The biggest distinctions that I would make would be the weight and it works better on a Sony. The weight is a bit of a game changer though. My 2 cents.
Thank you, that was my assumption but its good to hear from you that used both lenses.
I absolutely love my canon 200/2. Yes its heavy. Canon knows their lenses...
Think I'm going to get the Sigma 135/1.4 in ef mount that I can use on my gfx and z8.
BrianP wrote:
I use the Canon's on an R5 II, and they work great there. If I were using a Canon 200 f/2L IS on a Sony, yes I would prefer the Sigma. I like how it performs much better on a Sony. The Canon's are still incredible lenses optically, so I can't pick on them from that perspective. They are some of the best lenses optically regardless of brand. The biggest distinctions that I would make would be the weight and it works better on a Sony. The weight is a bit of a game changer though. My 2 cents.
The first shot was crop mode on a Sony A9 but the other two (with the bumble bee) were normal. I failed to realize that while shooting. I was too exited lol.
Sigma 200/2 is shorter and more chunky,so it feels heavier than longer Sony 300/2.8,though they are about the same weight.
After adding up 16mm+10mm extension rings it focuses down short enough for close ups.Now I see that while 1,4x and 2x TCs are excellent for Sony GM 300/2.8, extension rings do very good with Sigma 200/2.
I have the Nikon VR II 200 f2 and paired with a D850, it is probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned in 40 years of owning pretty much everything. So the point no one has yet compared is 200 f2 to 200 f2 different manufacturers.
And I’m not talking about shooting sexy models barely moving. That’s not a lens performance test. I’m talking up against the wall fast moving sports where that extra stop is crucial and the tracking has to be snappy.
Forking over thousands to get a lighter 200 f2 that gets 15fps instead of 9fps could be enticing. Lotta money, though, when you already have a stellar version.
I have the Nikon VR II 200 f2 and paired with a D850, it is probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned in 40 years of owning pretty much everything. So the point no one has yet compared is 200 f2 to 200 f2 different manufacturers.
And I’m not talking about shooting sexy models barely moving. That’s not a lens performance test. I’m talking up against the wall fast moving sports where that extra stop is crucial and the tracking has to be snappy.
Forking over thousands to get a lighter 200 f2 that gets 15fps instead of 9fps could be enticing. Lotta money, though, when you already have a stellar version.
I’d need to see some besides static subjects to be sold on it.
pasblues wrote:
I have the Nikon VR II 200 f2 and paired with a D850, it is probably the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned in 40 years of owning pretty much everything. So the point no one has yet compared is 200 f2 to 200 f2 different manufacturers.
And I’m not talking about shooting sexy models barely moving. That’s not a lens performance test. I’m talking up against the wall fast moving sports where that extra stop is crucial and the tracking has to be snappy.
Forking over thousands to get a lighter 200 f2 that gets 15fps instead of 9fps could be enticing. Lotta money, though, when you already have a stellar version. ...Show more →
You’ll get 20 fps if you adapt it to a Z8/Z9 and probably soon 40 fps on the upcoming Z9II.
I used to work with the Nikon 200mm f2.0 VR until last year. A stunning lens indeed! However I end up selling it due to low usage after getting the Plena. Comparing it to the Plena and the 400mm f2.8 S TC I also realized that the 200mm was in fact not that sharp. 😁
Has someone already tried adapting the Sigma on a Z body?
I’m not sure which version of Nikon 200 f2 you had. I have no interest or use for a 400 f2.8 - “not that sharp” is kind of a an off statement. It renders beautifully and is extremely responsive. Are you talking about a 135 Plena? That focal length is not useful for me for sports - otherwise I’d use the Sony 135 GM I own.
Anyway, though, I’ll look into the cost of adapting the 200 f2 to a z body. I think that would be more expensive, though.
bernardl wrote:
You’ll get 20 fps if you adapt it to a Z8/Z9 and probably soon 40 fps on the upcoming Z9II.
I used to work with the Nikon 200mm f2.0 VR until last year. A stunning lens indeed! However I end up selling it due to low usage after getting the Plena. Comparing it to the Plena and the 400mm f2.8 S TC I also realized that the 200mm was in fact not that sharp. 😁
Has someone already tried adapting the Sigma on a Z body?
pasblues wrote:
I’m not sure which version of Nikon 200 f2 you had. I have no interest or use for a 400 f2.8 - “not that sharp” is kind of a an off statement. It renders beautifully and is extremely responsive. Are you talking about a 135 Plena? That focal length is not useful for me for sports - otherwise I’d use the Sony 135 GM I own.
Anyway, though, I’ll look into the cost of adapting the 200 f2 to a z body. I think that would be more expensive, though.
No doubt, it’s a sweet lens and is sharp enough and pretty responsive as long as you don’t compare it with the latest. I think we’ll have a lens doing 200mm f2.0 soon enough in Z mount.
