With raw samples at the end of the article, for those that want to play with them. Assuming that the performance is real and holds up across multiple reviewers this lens will sell like hotcakes.
With raw samples at the end of the article, for those that want to play with them. Assuming that the performance is real and holds up across multiple reviewers this lens will sell like hotcakes.
The lens looks to be a great optic and would be on my short list if it was native to the Z9.
If I shot the Leica SL3s (or improved SL3) or Panasonic bodies, this would be the first lens I'd buy. However, as a Nikon shooter, I would not buy the lens. I am not a fan of adapted optics, especially when the lens is heavy. The need for an adapter increases potential points of failure over time. These failure points include moisture creep, poor connection between electrical contacts, and mount shift/warping. It is often unavoidable to grab the camera instead of the lens, and thus shift one or both of the mounts between lens and adaptor or adaptor and body.
While the images presented are great, I'm not sure comments like this endear the reader to the reviewer...
"Yes, yes, the 300-600 f4 is heavy . So what? Well, if you’re a weakling or a 70-year-old grandpa, this isn’t the lens for you—unless you’re dragging it around in a cart. But if you’re in your prime, you’ll be fine."
OwlsEyes wrote:
...I'm not sure comments like this endear the reader to the reviewer...
"Yes, yes, the 300-600 f4 is heavy . So what? Well, if you’re a weakling or a 70-year-old grandpa, this isn’t the lens for you—unless you’re dragging it around in a cart. But if you’re in your prime, you’ll be fine."
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I'm a 71-year-old grandpa and it made me smile.
Glad to hear this... I'm "only" 60, and would love this lens. I shot the 200-400 f4 VR for a decade and really appreciated the "fast" aperture and build of the lens. I currently use the 400mm f2.8TC as my primary telephoto lens and the 180-600 as my watercraft lens... the 300-600mm f4 focal length is the perfect range for the type of work I like to do. One could pair it with a 70-200 and 24-70, and it would be my ideal photo kit. However, Nikon has not licensed the Z-mount to Sigma and the optic requires an adapter... that makes it a no-go.
As for the reviewer.. well, he's got a sense of humor, but some may not be as forgiving as you
A major downside I've heard from a local photographer who rented this lens and adapted it on the Z8 (and the linked article touches on this), is that it will not continuously focus while zooming. But that seems like it would make it difficult to track wildlife that are moving closer/farther from the camera and that you'd want to zoom while tracking to maintain or change framing. They indicated that they essentially had to treat the lens as a set of primes, and zoom to the focal length they wanted before starting to focus/track. Hopefully if Sigma ever releases this lens in Z-mount that restriction won't apply. The Power Focus feature does sound neat though to help refine the focus point without having to continuously turn the ring.
Cliff L. wrote:
That would require a different optical design.
Why is that? The Z mount has the shortest flange distance, so all it would take from an optics perspective is just a slightly longer barrel. The electrical communication is what would require work on their part.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
What a great looking lens! Wish I could afford one.
It is "only" $6k-ish. Relative to the $15k-ish for the 600/4 TC it is a bargain. Though I played with the raw images provided and they did not look super crisp to me. Not soft by any means, just without that sparkle of the Nikon super teles.
GroovyGeek wrote:
Why is that? The Z mount has the shortest flange distance, so all it would take from an optics perspective is just a slightly longer barrel. The electrical communication is what would require work on their part.
The existing lens is not parfocal - that's why it requires re-focusing after zooming. Making it parfocal, as the poster I quoted suggested, would require a revised optical design. It has nothing to do with the flange distance or barrel length.
The existing lens is not parfocal - that's why it requires re-focusing after zooming. Making it parfocal, as the poster I quoted suggested, would require a revised optical design. It has nothing to do with the flange distance or barrel length.
I thought parfocal just means that the lens will maintain a set focus point while zooming. Not that the lens won’t continue to focus while zooming. My understanding is that the Sigma does the latter, meaning that it stops AF-C (focus motor) operation when you move the zoom ring.
Many zoom lenses are not parfocal, Nikon's own 70-200 S is not either. However if camera knows which lens is mounted it can make af adjustment as lens focal length changes. This level of integration is possible with native lenses but not with adapted lenses.
Cliff L. wrote:
The existing lens is not parfocal - that's why it requires re-focusing after zooming. Making it parfocal, as the poster I quoted suggested, would require a revised optical design. It has nothing to do with the flange distance or barrel length.
indusphoto wrote:
Many zoom lenses are not parfocal, Nikon's own 70-200 S is not either. However if camera knows which lens is mounted it can make af adjustment as lens focal length changes. This level of integration is possible with native lenses but not with adapted lenses.
Are you saying Nikon cameras adjust the focus based on some arbitrary look-up table, instead of using phase detection based on the image projected onto the sensor, like virtually all other cameras do?
Cliff L. wrote:
Are you saying Nikon cameras adjust the focus based on some arbitrary look-up table, instead of using phase detection based on the image projected onto the sensor, like virtually all other cameras do?
I was just responding to your previous comment that parfocal lenses can not be focused while zooming but they can be.
I dont know for a fact that a lookup table is used, but I suspect it is otherwise there will be instances of misfocus when focusing while zooming, but there are hardly ever.
Cliff L. wrote:
Are you saying Nikon cameras adjust the focus based on some arbitrary look-up table, instead of using phase detection based on the image projected onto the sensor, like virtually all other cameras do?
They do both; Nikon Z zoom lenses are designed internally to be close to parfocal and the residual change in focus is compensated for by adjusting the focus based on a lookup table, to achieve near parfocal performance. This approach is not specific to Nikon; other manufacturers are doing similar things. Mainly this has been implemented to help video recording when the lens is in manual focus mode, one can then adjust the zoom and the AF motor keeps the focus constant (to a degree).
Nikon zooms on Nikon cameras can focus continuously without problems when the lens is being zoomed. I don't know why there are issues with focusing during zooming with the Sigma lens. Perhaps because it's a third-party Sony E mount lens? I've read reports with some other third-party lenses also not keeping tracking and focusing on the subject while the zoom ring is adjusted.
For me continuous autofocusing during zooming is a key feature and it would be unacceptable if a lens and camera combination could not do that. I would never buy such a lens and camera combination. I often photograph subjects that approach the camera and I need to be able to make adjustments to the framing while they get closer. Sony is often claimed to be open to third-party lenses yet there are manufactured limitations such as does not work with TCs and limited to 15 fps, and it seems the third-party manufacturers of E mount lenses also have problems continuously focusing while zooming. So, it's like second-tier level of support; some features work, others do not.
Nonetheless the 300-600/4 seems an interesting lens and if there are still photographers willing to deal with that weight it could be successful. I think given the availability of lighter high-quality supertelephoto lenses it is not likely that I would buy a long lens that is not weight competitive. For me the sweet spot is now around 1.5 kg as I can carry other (shorter) lenses together with such a lens without problems but if a lens is 4 kg then it would basically be the only lens that I carry when carrying it, and I would need a serious tripod with it since I would not be able to hand-hold it. For someone not specializing in long-lens photography a lens like 100-400/4.5-5.6, 400/4.5, or even 600/6.3 is a better fit as it does not compromise other lenses that I might want to carry at the same time. For a telephoto specialist the 300-600/4 sounds like a very useful lens even with those limitations that come with it. The focal length and aperture make it suitable for both general sports photography as well as wildlife and birds, though I suspect most users would not enjoy hand-holding it.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
This approach is not specific to Nikon; other manufacturers are doing similar things. Mainly this has been implemented to help video recording when the lens is in manual focus mode, one can then adjust the zoom and the AF motor keeps the focus constant (to a degree).
Which specific cameras and lens feature this technology?
