Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Oh my GOD

  1. #1
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  2. #2
    Member RainGull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The S.E. of the N.W.
    Posts
    950

    Default

    First "Common Sense," and now this! You truly do have a unique religion!

  3. #3

    Default

    Wow. What was that small smudge on the end of it, a camera or do I have a spec on my screen?

    C.F.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default What Was Sigma Thinking???

    & Who the heck are the catering too? Papparazzi??

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoalie View Post
    & Who the heck are the catering too? Papparazzi??


    It should work for that, and maybe for wildlife that bites back photography, moon shots, etc. The price will be high, of course. After all, f/2.8 all the way through 1,200mm means that other zoom lenses are not needed.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    It's f/2.8, but only goes to 500mm. Adding the 2x converter turns it into a 1000mm f/5.6 lens. Still, and all, that's quite a feat. And if you mount it on a crop frame body like a Canon Rebel XTi or 30D, it acts like a 1600mm f/5.6 lens. That'd be cool.

    The posters on dpreview.com were complaining that "it has no image stabilization! What were they thinking?!?" But there is no way you're going to hand hold this sucker anyway. A heavy duty a tripod will be manditory. All in all, it's not the kind of lens I would want, but that's OK, as it's not the kind of lens I could afford either.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    BTW, isn't this the fastest (f/2.8) 500mm lens ever made? I've seen some f/4 versions, but f/2.8? And in a zoom, no less?

  8. #8
    Member Hunt'N'Photos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I saw the original release of this lens on the PMA report. Will be interesting to see what the release price is and reports on its performance. I think this is geared more for law enforcement and paparazi than wildlife, but may also be useful and show up in sports photography as well, where they are stationary in one location and zoom all over the court/field. It will be the largest aperature available in a 500mm lens and hopefully get canon motivated more to produce the lens I have been waiting for. A 200-400mm F4 like nikons!
    US Air Force - retired and Wildlife photographer

    To follow my photography adventures check out my facebook page

  9. #9
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I think they are gearing those for sports shooters, there aren't any 500mm f 2.8 white lenses...
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  10. #10
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default Well speaking from experience..

    and with the load you would have to carry. Just the tripod and that monster lens. I would be worn out lugging all of that all over the place.

    Whew! what are you taking photos of from that distance.? Wildlife ? In a different country ?

    SHARPNESS is the most important quality I am looking for in any of my images that I create. 4 lens elements? 2 x convertor? = poor quality in my opinion.

    Nikon used to have a 1000 mm lens many years ago.. price was 40k

    Depth of field ? non existant w/ lens wide open! very shallow depth.Yes some people like that effect. I prefer razor sharpness... .. everywhere !

    http://majikimaje.com/FrontPage.jpg

  11. #11
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    I bet it will produce some rediculous football and baseball shots though... I mean imagine a blurry pitcher and perfectly in focus batter then a blurry catcher all from center feild, that'd be awesome, not to mention being able to shoot night games with iso 200
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  12. #12
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default In 38 years of creating photographs

    I have only used two lenses.

    90 mm NORMAL lens for the Mamiya RB 67

    360 mm tele lens for same camera which is the equivlent of 200 mm on a 35 mm.

    but.. .. .. .. since my negatives are so large, 5x over 35 mm I can zoom in

    on the negative to get the results I need want quickly.

    my 360 mm lens is F6.8 that is the maximum opening of the aperture.

    the minimum is F 45.

    that is the F-stop I like to use, as much as possible. Camera mounted on a Bogen 350 heavy duty tripod.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Depth of field shooting this at 2.8 at 500mm would make for terrible wildlife photos. Such a small portion of the imange would be in focus I do not see the point.
    Tennessee

  14. #14
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default Depth Of Field

    Depth of field works in two different ways.

    Up close to your subject the depth is very narrow even at the smallest F-stop.

    As you move away from your subject, depth of field INCREASES, @ ANY f-STOP.

    so, from say 100 /200 yards away, your depth of field @ F 2.8 would be considerable for sure!

    the further you are away from your subJect, the field of depth INCREASES.

    I don't think there is an "animal" created that is going to be that wide as to blur the depth of field.

    at those great distances. depth of field is quite broad, but it looks shallow BECAUSE the foreground and the background become COMPRESSED, or squeezed.

    I was riding in a pick up truck once, down to soldotna to work on a hospital, as an electrican. I was riding shot gun in this truck that had bugs splattered all over the windshield. I was taking photographs right through the bugs.!! (TRY IT ) The driver kept saying to me.. I thought you said you were a photographer, with all of those bugs on the windshield, how are, or what are you wasting your film on, even I know that you can't do that. ( and they were thick all over) When I showed him the photos (1981) he just couldn't believe it, he kept insisting that these were not the ones taken through that windshield.! I was focused at infinity not 18" in front of me!

    The photos were astounding. F- 5.6 F 8 or F 4 but wide depth of field at infinity which does not approach or come close to the windshield.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    I would see no use in taking photos of wildlife 100-200 yards away.
    Even with my Canon 500 F4 the depth of field is so limited that when I take photos of moose, lets say 25 yards away, there eyes will be in focus but 50% of the antlers will not be crisp.
    Not sure what you mean by for "wide" animals. But generally any bear or moose for example will be 2 feet deeper or more and that is a good amount to ask to get into focus.
    Ignoring what is up close is common. That is why so many people can take photos though a chain link fence and not have the fence show up. But that doesnt anything for having more of your subject in focus.
    Tennessee

  16. #16
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default Depth of field plays a very IMPORTANT part.. ..

    of any image.

    By the words you used in your post 25 yards away F 4, well no wonder.

    I want/need RAZOR sharpness, from edge to edge, not just in the middle of the final print itself, that is why I always shoot MINIMUM aperture.

    That is not always easy to do, it takes much practice, and skill.

    I notice that lens companies always stive for that one extra stop, by introducing F 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 not me..

    I will stay away from a lens like that, I am not interested in ever shooting like that. Because the results are obvious.

    But when you have a camera on a tripod F22 F32 will ALWAYS give me the results I need. That is with a 35 mm camera.
    I quit using those in 1973 and went to a negative 5 times that size. 6 x 7 cm 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 = PERFECT FORMAT

    You can compose an image that goes to all four edges, and put it exactly that way, on any standard size sheet of paper.

    Maximum depth of field adds "texture(s)" that just are not visible when using wide apertures.

    Creating images using F 45 - F64 -F90 Produces incredible startling results.

    I learned this method from a Pro: I was working at General electric in Lynn mass. their factory had a huge shutdown and 100's of electric cranes were being overhauled. I was up on a ladder working and I saw a genteman walk by with a speed graphic camera and I came down off that ladder and followed hiim! I was pasionate about photography & I wanted to learn this. I followed him right to his office and DARKROOM whow!

    WowoW! He showed me some 8 x 10 b& w prints! I fell over, my eyes Popped ! OMG !!! I have NEVER, EVER, SEEN anything like this in all my life. I had been studying images for years, and I have never seen results like this. NEVER !!

    TEXTURES so believeable, I had to touch the image.

    The images were just ordinary "parts" from around the huge factory,

    but the detail was unsurpassed. The secret? always shoot with the lens SHUT. minimum aperture.

    wildlife ? SHURE! but you gotta have a ROCK SOLID tripod.

    just try shooting using the lens SHUT instead of always having it OPEN or mid-way. I PROMISE YOU, the results are going to knock you over!

    My students used to use this method, all the time. complete rookies, when they entered my classes.

    1st roll of film ( my method ) NO LIGHT METER - lens shut -these students, would create the most incredible images.

    time and time again! each and every class.
    for years!

    I am nothing, no body, I have never attended one class on photography ever.
    But I wanted to learn this in 1969, and I jumped in feet first. I was bored with b&w and wanted to learn how to process color at home.

    Everyone said it couldn't be done, it was too hard, too difficult,
    NO IT WASN'T.. all I had to do was follow the instructions and the results have kept me going all these years.

    I am retired I.B.E.W. I made good paychecks and everything went into my darkroom in 1970 - onward.

    I had one goal.. to learn this well enough to get OUT OF THE TRADE. and find a much nicer way to spend the day.. making much more money.

    My home darkroom was huge. I put an add in the newspaper.

    Color printing classes Learn how to Print your own color images

    8 week school 1 night per week $200.

    I provide 8 rolls of color film per student

    during the 8 weeks they will print 50 - 8x10 color enlargements
    20 - 11 x 14 enlargments

    10 -16 x 20

    I had 25 students instantly! $ 5k to play with

    every 8 weeks.. for years.

    THIS IS HOW I LEARNED.. .. BY teaching others.. AND WATCHING THEIR RESULTS.

    LEARN.. ... by practicing,, to keep your lens shut! F-32 !

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    But how are you to shoot a long lense like a 500mm at F22 or 32 in the wilds of Alaska using an ISO film rating of 100 or a comparable setting on a digital body. Your shutter speeds would be so slow camera movement and or animal movement would be impossible to stop.
    Not sure of what you are trying to convey that pertains to the Sigma lens that this topic is the discussion of.
    Tennessee

  18. #18
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default

    That lens > used on a tripod. with settings for good depth of field WILL produce remarkable results! that is all.

    sorry for getting off topic about THAT LENS.!

    1/4 of a sec, is enought to "catch" an animal with that "look" most of the times, maybe it isn't. ! All I have ever used is 100 ISO film. I have just entered the digital world camera wise, and I am not impressed, I have a 10 mega pixel.

    25 ISO is what the professional photograhers National Geographic used or demanded that all photographers use.

    There in. ends the argument! @ 25 ISO those photograhers used their SKILLS to capture what most people seldom achieve.

  19. #19
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    Obviously the sigzooka has a very limited market namely pro sports photographers and maybe some pro bird photographers. Limiting DOF definately has some awesome applications

    P.S. I'd bet that most Nat'l Geo photogs use velvia 100, ektachrome 64, or 1D MkIIs you simply cannot stop motion with iso 25 except with well timed strobes in a darkish setting and even then you still get ghosting. But I agree with you film is the way to go, I just picked up and EOS 3 just because digital is way to easy
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    A few years ago I had the opportunity to be on Kodiak when they opened a new bear viewing platform. Since this was the very first time it was opened we had the good fortune to share the week with a National Geographic photographer. If memory serves me correctly his name was George Mobley but he has since retired.
    He shot exclusively with Kodachrome 25 and 600 mm Canon lens. Mind you he claimed his amount of "keepers" was very low but boy could he go through the film!
    Half way through the trip he relayed some radio calls to get to Kodiak and then on to Anchorage where he arranged to have another huge shipment of film delivered to him at the bear viewing site. It was interesting listening to his stories about how many images were tossed in the trash to get just one great one. He even managed to take a photo of all of us walking back to camp one day and it made into that edition of National Geographic.
    But this was pre digital age and I doubt they use film anymore. My own expereinces show my 30D Canon is equal to or better than any 100 ISO film I have ever used but I have never sold any prints larger than 20x30.
    My printing laboratory (Fine Print-Colorado) tells me the 30D will give a gorgeous print up to 30x40 but I have never tested there opinion.
    Sorry for being long winded.
    Tennessee

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •