f2.8 @ 500mm Lens

It's for still cameras. You could use it with an XL2 if you had an appropriate still-camera mount, but it wouldn't give you 500mm in that case, it'd be more like 3500mm.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's for still cameras. You could use it with an XL2 if you had an appropriate still-camera mount, but it wouldn't give you 500mm in that case, it'd be more like 3500mm.
Click to expand...

Barry, shame on you... 500mm focal length is always 500mm. The angle of view varies with the frame (sensor) size but focal length is focal length and you know that.

Let's keep the facts straight.

Why do not we state fields of view in degrees and do away with this stupid "35mm equivalent"?

What comes to this lens being something special, well, there have been 400mm 2.8 lenses, this is just a small step forward. There was also a more or less one-off 1700mm f4 or similar lens introduced for Hasselblad (?) in last Photokina, commissioned by a Saudi prince or somebody...

5-7k$ would be cheap for that kind of lens even for prime.

For telescopes this is not very good, telescopes are even faster. For that reason they use mirrors, as lenses are not practical and they are too heavy and expensive for large apertures. There is no need for an iris in telescopes, thus mirror construction suits them fine.
 
Petrus, you make a good point, but Barry's statement still stands true in that the EF Converter by Canon does magnify the AOV seen by the sensor, as you said. Obviously he was merely stating a comparison to focal length in relation to field of view.
 
I was speaking in "equivalent" terms because that was the language of the thread. Read post #17, hopefully I adequately acquitted myself there.

And yes there's been a 400mm 2.8 or whatever, but a 200mm-500mm zoom? This isn't a fixed lens, it's a zoom, with a constant 2.8. Maybe I'm behind in still-lens technology, but an apochromatic zoom at those focal lengths with a fixed 2.8 sounded rather interesting, no?
 
I know Barry knows his stuff, but still we should be carefull with this "35mm equivalent" thing and remember that the focal length does not change no matter where we put the lens. Angle of view might.

And those extenders do chage the focal length of the lens/extender combination, that's the way they work, and wide-andle converters also.
 
Hopefully its better than the other sigma offerings. I've heard of people loving them, but the ones i've used are soft and not too impressive. Now if Canon offered this focal length and aperture in the L-series glass, i'd be all over it (and so would my second mortgage to afford it!)
 
kai said:
Hopefully its better than the other sigma offerings. I've heard of people loving them, but the ones i've used are soft and not too impressive. Now if Canon offered this focal length and aperture in the L-series glass, i'd be all over it (and so would my second mortgage to afford it!)
Click to expand...
The cheap ones aren't particularly brilliant, but the EX series are very good.
The EX designation stands for EXcellent, and is Sigma's equivalent of Canon's L series.

I have the 105mm f/2.8 EX macro, and it is fantastic. very good at 2.8 and stunning by 5.6.
I have also used the 12-24mm, and that's a very nice bit of glass too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top