Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Edit .. no matter how I resize/sharpen, etc .. the other 3 pics I tried to upload look horrible once I post
But, trust me .. it's a very good lens for the $$$. Probably not anywhere near the $13,000 600 GM, but for the price!
Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Re: "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences"
molson wrote:I wasn't too impressed with the one copy of the Sigma 500mm f4 I tried.
Perhaps a bad copy? These downsized images don't show how good the Sigma 500 is.
On my 5K monitor, these and others taken with the Sigma 500 f/4 Sports look terrific.
As Chris said - it's a beautiful lens, and it makes sense why he is trying to figure out camera bodies,
on which he can continue using this lens.
For $6000 new ($3000 to $3500 used), you have very few options for a super-telephoto at f/4.
Nov 10, 2021 at 02:28 PM
Previous versions of saaketham's message #15764154 « "Nikon Z9 vs Sony A1 – The 10 main differences" »
