Re: Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Image Thread
Choderboy wrote: Ripolini wrote: MAubrey wrote:
Yes, that's how the math works. But obviously, focal length is standing metonymically for AoV. We can learn to be comfortable with non-literal language.
Yes, it's like saying that focal length (or magnification) increases by reducing the sensor size. It's a physical nonsense.The focal length of a lens is the same regardless of which camera you attach it to.
And perpetrating nonsense doesn't make it truth.
Anyway, a reduction of the AoV from about 5° to 4° does imply a focus breathing around (5-4)/5 x 100 = 20%.
People should be aware that the AoV might change with magnification (i.e., by changing the focus distance), even if the focal length does not change. That's why cine lenses are so expensive: they have to compensate the actual focal length and the pupil factor to keep the AoV as constant as possible by changing the focus distance (thus avoiding the "breathing" effect). The Sigma 500/5.6 is surely NOT a lens designed for videographers, so why stressing its focus breathing in a review? Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
P.S.: I wish to remind that a lens we Nikonians blamed for focus breathing was the 70-200/2.8 VR II; its maximum FL was 135 mm at portrait distances! It's like having a 0.67X TC; we couldn't fill the frame with the face of the model.
The 1.28TC like feature of it's focus breathing, while useful, only changes the max magnification from very low, to average.
The 200-600 Sony has is more useful in this regard but it's max magnificaton is considered a con.
This is typical that a zoom will have higher max magnification than a prime.
Filling the frame with not so distant subjects though is not a strong point for the Sigma 500.
Sony 200-600 is better bare and a TC can be used without loss of infinity focus.
A Sony 100-400 is better again.
Really have you used both extensively the 200-600mm is good for what it is ,but it does not get close to the sigma in many ways ,ok if your saying better magnification at close focus distance then yes ,and versatility,with high FPS and t/c ,but on a high MP sensor the t/c option in not great so i never use it ,lens iq is not even close ,and the auto focus is not as good either,this lens is more user specific and really only limited by sonys protocol otherwise it would be a firm favourite amongst Sony users ,In fact most would skip the 200-600mm and 300mm f2.8 for bird photography for this lens .The only weakness is close focusing and Sonya protocol.
Of course, an extension tube can be used with loss of infinity focus.
We don't know if the Sigma plays well with the tubes on Sony though.
Then there is the issue that the best available E mount tubes are crap.
So I think it's fair to say, until tested, tubes are currently not a viable option.
Re: Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Image Thread
Choderboy wrote: Ripolini wrote: MAubrey wrote:
Yes, that's how the math works. But obviously, focal length is standing metonymically for AoV. We can learn to be comfortable with non-literal language.
Yes, it's like saying that focal length (or magnification) increases by reducing the sensor size. It's a physical nonsense.The focal length of a lens is the same regardless of which camera you attach it to.
And perpetrating nonsense doesn't make it truth.
Anyway, a reduction of the AoV from about 5° to 4° does imply a focus breathing around (5-4)/5 x 100 = 20%.
People should be aware that the AoV might change with magnification (i.e., by changing the focus distance), even if the focal length does not change. That's why cine lenses are so expensive: they have to compensate the actual focal length and the pupil factor to keep the AoV as constant as possible by changing the focus distance (thus avoiding the "breathing" effect). The Sigma 500/5.6 is surely NOT a lens designed for videographers, so why stressing its focus breathing in a review? Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
P.S.: I wish to remind that a lens we Nikonians blamed for focus breathing was the 70-200/2.8 VR II; its maximum FL was 135 mm at portrait distances! It's like having a 0.67X TC; we couldn't fill the frame with the face of the model.
The 1.28TC like feature of it's focus breathing, while useful, only changes the max magnification from very low, to average.
The 200-600 Sony has is more useful in this regard but it's max magnificaton is considered a con.
This is typical that a zoom will have higher max magnification than a prime.
Filling the frame with not so distant subjects though is not a strong point for the Sigma 500.
Sony 200-600 is better bare and a TC can be used without loss of infinity focus.
A Sony 100-400 is better again.
Really have you used both extensively the 200-600mm is good for what it is ,but it does not get close to the sigma in many ways ,ok if your saying better magnification at close focus distance then yes ,and versatility,with high FPS and t/c ,but on a high MP sensor the t/c option in not great so i never use it ,lens iq is not even close ,and the auto focus is not as good either,this lens is more user specific and really only limited by sonys protocol otherwise it would be a firm favourite amongst Sony users ,In fact most would skip the 200-600mm and 300mm f2.8 for bird photography for this lens .The only weakness is close focusing and Sonya protocol.
Of course, an extension tube can be used with loss of infinity focus.
We don't know if the Sigma plays well with the tubes on Sony though.
Then there is the issue that the best available E mount tubes are crap.
So I think it's fair to say, until tested, tubes are currently not a viable option.
Re: Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Image Thread
Choderboy wrote: Ripolini wrote: MAubrey wrote:
Yes, that's how the math works. But obviously, focal length is standing metonymically for AoV. We can learn to be comfortable with non-literal language.
Yes, it's like saying that focal length (or magnification) increases by reducing the sensor size. It's a physical nonsense.The focal length of a lens is the same regardless of which camera you attach it to.
And perpetrating nonsense doesn't make it truth.
Anyway, a reduction of the AoV from about 5° to 4° does imply a focus breathing around (5-4)/5 x 100 = 20%.
People should be aware that the AoV might change with magnification (i.e., by changing the focus distance), even if the focal length does not change. That's why cine lenses are so expensive: they have to compensate the actual focal length and the pupil factor to keep the AoV as constant as possible by changing the focus distance (thus avoiding the "breathing" effect). The Sigma 500/5.6 is surely NOT a lens designed for videographers, so why stressing its focus breathing in a review? Moreover, we should appreciate that the AoV shrinks at close focus: this helps filling the frame with not so distant subjects, like birds.
If we use your figures ("483mm AoV at infinity and up to 618mm AoV when close focus"), it's like having a 1.28X TC at close focus (3.2 m); it's quite useful!
P.S.: I wish to remind that a lens we Nikonians blamed for focus breathing was the 70-200/2.8 VR II; its maximum FL was 135 mm at portrait distances! It's like having a 0.67X TC; we couldn't fill the frame with the face of the model.
The 1.28TC like feature of it's focus breathing, while useful, only changes the max magnification from very low, to average.
The 200-600 Sony has is more useful in this regard but it's max magnificaton is considered a con.
This is typical that a zoom will have higher max magnification than a prime.
Filling the frame with not so distant subjects though is not a strong point for the Sigma 500.
Sony 200-600 is better bare and a TC can be used without loss of infinity focus.
A Sony 100-400 is better again.
Really have you used both extensively the 200-600mm is good for what it is ,but it does not get close to the sigma in many ways ,ok if your saying better magnification at close focus distance then yes ,and versatility,with high FPS and t/c ,but on a high MP sensor the t/c option in not great so i never use it ,lens iq is not even close ,and the auto focus is not as good either,this lens is more user specific and really only limited by sonys protocol otherwise it would be a firm favourite amongst Sony users ,In fact most would skip the 200-600mm and 300mm f2.8 for bird photography for this lens .The only weakness is close focusing and Sonya protocol.
Of course, an extension tube can be used with loss of infinity focus.
We don't know if the Sigma plays well with the tubes on Sony though.
Then there is the issue that the best available E mount tubes are crap.
So I think it's fair to say, until tested, tubes are currently not a viable option.
May 01, 2024 at 07:20 AM
Previous versions of Xraypaul's message #16536574 « Sigma 500mm f/5.6 DG DN OS Sports Image Thread »
