So, who is contemplating the g\big silver beast. I promised myself that I wouldn't lust over high end equipment this year, but what I have seen thus far on Dyxum has me wallet pocket getting hot....
So, who is contemplating the g\big silver beast. I promised myself that I wouldn't lust over high end equipment this year, but what I have seen thus far on Dyxum has me wallet pocket getting hot....
Yikes! I thought Nikon lenses were expensive. Looks like a nice lense but pretty expensive for f4-5.6. Have you tried any third party options?
Cheers
Leigh
Its big, its fat, its ugly and silver?????
Thank god I own a Nikon
I just dunno if I would use the reach ..
I was seriously considering a 70-200 2.8 of some breed but after visiting the zoo the other day with my kit 55-200 I found longing for just a tad more reach ..
dont mean to hijack Ash but has anyone looked or considered this .. ive never seen one anywhere .. Sony mount also NA in HSM
Last edited by bigdazzler; 14-03-2009 at 5:55pm.
Hi Im Darren
www.darrengrayphotography.com
SONY A850 (FF)] + GRIP | SONY A350 (APS-C) + GRIP | SONY NEX-5 +16 2.8 + 18-55 E-MOUNT LENSES | CZ 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-75 2.8 | 70-200 2.8 | 2 x 42AMs | 24" imac | LR | CS4 | + loads of other junk
I looked at one a few years ago, but decided to save my pennies for a 70-200 f2.8 instead.
In time, there will be HSM available for Sony on most of the Sigma lenses.
An 400, I want the reach for ball sports (if I ever get around to doing it again)
I am, though, thinking of getting the sigma 1.4TC for my 70-200. I suppose I could go the 2x, but I am afraid that the loss of IQ would be too great (I have heard that the 1.4 is OK, but the 2 is marginal).
I suppose if I was contemplating a third party the heading of this thread would be "Sigma Bigma.....
and price? The other Brand lens that I would compare it to is the Canon 100-400L (both are F4.5-5.6), which compared to the B&H pricing is within $40
I have a 70-400G. Had a Tamron 70-200 2.8 but found the reach wasn't far enough although it's a very nice lens. And 70-300 didn't seem much of a gain.
It might be big, not sure about ugly and I wish it wasn't only available in silver (although that's no worse than white!) but I have found it amazingly easy to use in the short time I've had it. On a recent trip to NZ, I was lucky enough to catch the Albatross flying off the Otago Peninsula and was surprised how easy it was to keep up with the birds in the strong winds there.
I've put a few photos up on pBase at www.pbase.com/jb53. Most are with an 24-70 mm, but some are with the 70-400.
John
I too have a 70-300G and unless a good trade-in was on offer you need to be selling some pics to justify the cost of the 400, extra reach would be handy for the footy though..
Matty....the happy Sony user and complete novice...
Yep I love my footy pics and Id LOVE some more reach (Ive only got 200mm so stop complaining!) but theres no way I can afford it atm, I would kill for that 400mm beast, I dont care how big and silver it is
Luckily for me my reserved seat is in the front row so I just have to be a little more patient and wait for the play to come to me
really been thinking about it the last few days/weeks.
I now work at a camera store there for get "dealer" price.
Looking at it because at 200mm it would be around a ƒ5 or even less. Thats enough light now the noise is better at higher ISOs.
at 200mm of the 70-200mm its not that sharp and for its price not worth. I shoot sport, aussie rules, horse racing, cricket and other long range sports. the 70-400mm is better than 140-400mm with a teleconv. and you lose at least 1 ƒ-stop.
I think the price is not that bad if you are going to use it. I can see this lens being used a lot on my cameras.