Ok, scrap the 300-800mm. This is the lens I want;

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 09:57

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp

Lens name APO 200-500mm F2.8/400-1000m F5.6 EX DG
Focal length 200-500mm
Maximum aperture f/2.8
Minimum aperture f/22
Lens construction 13 groups 17 elements
Angle of view 12.3°-5°
Closest focus distance 150cm / 59.1in
Maximum reproduction ratio 1:4.2
Aperture blades 9
Filter attachment size 77 mm
Focusing Motorized internal focus
Dimensions 236.5mm×726mm (9.3in × 28.6in)
Weight 15,700g (553.7oz)
Supplied accessories • Dedicated hard case
• Strap
• 400-1000mm f/5.6 attachment
• Battery charger BC-21
• Battery pack BP-21

Helium_Junkie · 31 Jan 2008 at 09:59

Holy......
go on, how much?

And where does the 77mm filter go :O

V-Spec · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:01

lol.

lenses like this always seem really impressive in the first glance, but then you actually think about how the hell you'd use it, and it just becomes an unusable lump of glass, like the canon 1200mm 5.6 or the Nikon (forgot focal length) they all cost like £100k, weigh about 25KG.

That said if you were working for CNN or a sports publication and had an army of people to help set it up and you just did the shooting, would be quite good!

Could always whack a 2x on the front of it

I'd love to know how much it cost, if it turns out that its actually buyable, and they do actually make more than 3 a year and its below £8-9k I might consider one lol.

<edit>

Ok I read the whole thing, and its only 16KG, (which is akin to 2x canon 600mm F4s)

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:02

Helium_Junkie said:
Holy......
go on, how much?

And where does the 77mm filter go :O

God knows. I would guess in the region of £30,000? Whatever it is, its going to be way out of my range until I win the lottery. The Filter will be a drop in at the back, like my 300mm f2.8 uses. Although my 300mm uses a 46mm one, not 77mm!!

Slinky1989 · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:03

That is NOT gonna fit 77mm filters! :eek:

edit: ahh i see

SDK^ · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:04

That was announced a while back.

Helium_Junkie said:
And where does the 77mm filter go :O

Probably a drop in filter at the end of the lens.

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:05

V-Spec said:
<edit>

Ok I read the whole thing, and its only 16KG, (which is akin to 2x canon 600mm F4s)

I was just about to say before you made the edit. I already lug around about 17Kg of kit each time I go out, so this lens, a body and a solid tripod wouldn't be out of the question.

V-Spec · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:14

Messiah Khan said:
I was just about to say before you made the edit. I already lug around about 17Kg of kit each time I go out, so this lens, a body and a solid tripod wouldn't be out of the question.

Its a lot of weight, and you might have to spend a fortune on a tripod for it, I must admit, I am struggling to think of a situation where i'd have practical use for it, at 16KG its not going on a plane so I can only use it in the UK, which flies in the face of my future plans..
It'd be fantastic to use from a hide, but a lot of the time 600mm is perfect from a hide, and lets not forget that most of our wildlife stuff is shot at F8, which makes the main selling point of the ultrabigma a little moot, it'd be great for low light owl photography, but i'm mainly learning to do that handheld or from a van which is bad enough with my friends borrowed 800 F5.6.

I suspect it'll be vastly more expensive than anything else, any indication on what its actually going to cost?

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:16

I knew someone would post this when I saw the updated news this morning. I do like it in green. Looks like Afgans might even run away from this.

SDK^ · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:26

V-Spec said:
I must admit, I am struggling to think of a situation where i'd have practical use for it

Moon/planet photos

Although scope is prolly more practical and cheaper.

V-Spec · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:27

Losers,

This is what i'll be turning up with at the next shoot..

FYI, the tiny thing on the far right is the camera body itself.

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:40

V-Spec said:
Losers,

This is what i'll be turning up with at the next shoot..

FYI, the tiny thing on the far right is the camera body itself.

*Gulp!*

Yeah, but enjoy you lovely doughnut bokeh and f14, even if you can shoot targets 32 miles away! also look at the minimum focus distance; 120 metres.. Rofl!

Raikiri · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:55

1700mm f/4

V-Spec · 31 Jan 2008 at 10:56

Messiah Khan said:
*Gulp!*

Yeah, but enjoy you lovely doughnut bokeh and f14, even if you can shoot targets 32 miles away! also look at the minimum focus distance; 120 metres.. Rofl!

lol

I wonder how many kingfishers I can get in a single shot down a 32 mile stretch of the river nene

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:03

screw all that. You are way too easily excited.
I mean the only reason I don't post pictures anymore is because Nasa still have my dslr while they adapt it to a current imaging system they said they will build me as a thank you for using my pet monkey that currently works in their exploration and discovery program.

Its great. Sigma have got it wrong having to put a big handle on their lens. I mean hows that gonna work.

Least with my system the thing floats and weighs hardly anything (So Nasa claim all I need is zero mavity and I'm sorted)

Silver too

V-Spec · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:13

pmsl.

Great idea, also with the giant caterpillar track machine they use to move the space ship to the launch pad, I can borrow it afterwards to shift my 5200mm lens around with it

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:17

actually its not so great of an idea... I mean the minimal focusing distance is an issue. If I want to take a sharpness shot of a duck I have to stand on the moon and take it!

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:34

Talking of minimum focusing distance, the 200-500mm f2.8 has one listed as 150cm which seems pretty damn good if that all the way up to 500mm. Whack the converter on and you would have a seriously oversized macro lens.

titchard · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:46

Gonna sound a total retard - but what is it? a 200-500MM 2.0 or a 400-1000MM 5.6? Tad confused by the spiel at the bottom.

Is it 200-500 2.8 then it can do the rest at 5.6?

Rich

Messiah Khan · 31 Jan 2008 at 12:47

titchard said:
Gonna sound a total retard - but what is it? a 200-500MM 2.0 or a 400-1000MM 5.6? Tad confused by the spiel at the bottom.

Is it 200-500 2.8 then it can do the rest at 5.6?

Rich

Its a 200-500mm f2.8, but comes with a dedicated teleconverter to take it up to a 400-1000mm f5.6