Let's review something we do not own

[ricktas]

There are some hilarious reviews out there in interweb lands. Photography gear gets its fair share.

Take some recent reviews on the Hasselblad H4D-50 which sold for around $19K (USD).


"i sold my family into white slavery to secure the funds necessary for the purchase of this stellar piece of camera equipment. i must say i’ve never regretted my decision and as a bonus; i never have my kids bothering me about borrowing my camera anymore."

"I used the money from my daughters college funds to pay for this item and I must say that it came in the greatest quality box I have ever seen. You can use this box as a hat, glove, or even just a place for your cat to sleep. The camera is also decent I can take pictures of my box and I can see every detail when I look at the images."

"I’m one of the scientists working at NASA on the Hubble Deep Field project, and managed to convince the project management team to forgo a high-power scanning antenna for two of these cameras. We sent up the latest module with one of these wired into the module’s communications relay system, and are planning to use it for deep-space imaging. The module should be online and operational by December 2011, and I am seriously anticipating the first tests. The second camera has been used extensively to photograph the Pleiades cluster from Earth with astonishing results. Unfortunately, due to atmospheric lensing, the pictures are slightly blurry, leading to complications making out the detail of the atomic structure of the stars’ cores. Only 4 stars because a $29,000 camera should come with a quantum tunneling sub-system for short range photonic teleportation to avoid the lensing problem"

So, I thought let's have some fun here on Ausphotography.

The Sigma 200-500 f2.8 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html) sells for well over $20K. So pretend you are going to buy one, or have one, and post a review (fake) below on how you afforded it, and what you think of it. :D Looking forward to seeing members whit and humour.

[Tannin]

Ordered my Sigma 200-500/2.8 today. Paid cash for it, which I saved up for by not buying useless consumer junk like soap and underpants for 109 years.

[John King]

Ordered my Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 today.

Paid for it by not buying my life preserving medications for 3 months, and dropping my private health insurance. Have to find some other way of paying for my stays in Cardiac 1 ward. After all, my recent 6 day stay would have only cost me around $60,000 ... ;).

(Seriously, thank goodness for the PBS and private health insurance!)

[arthurking83]

I received my copy an hour ago, and I've shot test targets for the past 55mins and find it's soft at the edges with the 2x TC mounted on a D850 when viewed at 400%.
Also I find it's biggest negative point is that's it so front heavy, any wonder not many people have bought one.
The other downside is that it's so expensive, especially when the credit card is used to pay for it. No more takeaway coffee for me for the next 5,023 days now.
Haven't had the time yet to test focus speed and accuracy yet, but so far I'm so disappointed with it.

[John King]

Arthur, I will use mine with an adapter on my E-M1 MkI. I wonder how it will compare for handling with my 14-42 EZ pancake zoom? Will it still be pocketable? I find that my pancake zoom is slightly inadequate for taking shots of the left nostril hair of performers from the back of the auditorium. Do you think my new lens will help? Will it also be able to take photos through the bouffant hairdo of the person who invariably sits in front of me?

I look forward to your guidance on this.

[ameerat42]

My test results are shown below for this lens.

I shot a heap of dollars and used three key focal lengths wide open at f/2.8,
200mm, 350mm and 50mm. Quite pronounced barrel and pincushion distortion
is visible at respective ends of the FL range, as well as some fairly consistent
light fall-off in the corners. The mid-range performance was the best, though
still with some vignetting.

Hmm! Maybe I should have tried a cheaper subject :(

1. @ f=200mm
136920

2. @ f=350mm
136919

3. @ f=500mm
136918

[arthurking83]

...

I look forward to your guidance on this.

I reckon it should be pocketable.
Note tho, I do have deep pockets! .. so YMMV!
Is you're adapter an AF type? Manual focus is very awkward when handheld. The focus collar doesn't fall easily to the hand that supports the lens.(bad design in my opinion)

I think compared to the 14-42, which reads similarly in physical specs to my 50/1.2 lens(for Fx) .. I reckon the 200-500 will possibly a bit more front heavy.

I just went for a quick stroll down the street with mine, and discovered another slight disadvantage(maybe two).
1/. Police looked at me very suspiciously, and had it not been green, I couldn't have hidden easily amongst the bushes as they did a violent U turn to chase me down. So the the possibility of arrest may be a consequence of using it in built up areas.
2/. Also, it has an internal battery, that died fairly quickly. But I did use a really cheap NiMH rechargeable type, so I couldn't capture any images when it died. So all I ended up doing was carry around a large green bazooka, attracting unwanted attention to myself.

I'll do more test target shots to confirm Am's results when I find the courage to come out of hiding in the bushes.

[Brian500au]

Arthur, I am new at photography but have been asked to do my friends wedding in a couple of weeks. I tried ordering this lens from B&H but they are all on back order, luckily I have seen one on Ebay I will bid on but I am having second thoughts now I have read your review on this lens. Would you please clarify a couple of my concerns below

1. Do you think the sharpness of the lens will improve if I use a flash?
2. Is it hand holdable or will I need a monopod in the church?
3. Can you recommend a back pack to carry the lens between the church and the reception?
4. Was the 2x extender you tested it with a version 2 or version 3? I have heard the version 3 is sharper
5. In your opinion will this lens be good to photograph the rings / shoes before the ceremony?
6. If I did bid on Ebay what do you think is the most I should pay?

Thank you in advance for your help.
PS I will be using this with my Canon 1300D and my other lens is a 50 F1.4mm (I got the 1.4 for the wide angle shots).
PPS Do you think I would be better to buy another prime lens instead of the zoom? (I just worry I might miss some shots)

[Tannin]

STOP THE THREAD!

If he laughs any harder, John K will have to change his handle to John RIP; dear old Kel will be taking Johns bed in the cardiac ward, and they will be putting me to bed with a shovel.

[jim]

I have returned my 200-500 because, to my surprise and disappointment it has the word SIGMA printed on the side in large red letters. Now alright, I appreciate that this lens is actually manufactured by the Sigma company, but really! They should be aware that there is little cachet in that name and really ought to have come to some arrangement with the Nikon company that would have allowed them to print NIKON on the side in large YELLOW letters. The word CANON would also be acceptable at a pinch, since it would always be possible to purchase an acceptably large Canon camera to attach to the lens, after all it's not as if one would be required to learn the controls. But no, nothing, not even an option.

This is a pretty expensive prestige product and that sort of attention to detail ought to be de rigeur. Who wants to tell the world that they've spent $25 000 on a Sigma product? It's ridiculous, what would be the point?

Not happy.

[Tannin]

Hmmm ... Good points, Jim. To maximise prestige, they should make it white with a red ring - or three red rings, why not? - and coat various bits of it in tacky gold-leaf just like an expensive Nikon.

[jim]

Absolutely, Tony. That's the sort of thinking the marketing department should have come up with instead of releasing this thing half-cooked. Indeed, why not coat the whole lens in gold leaf? Gold leaf is comparatively inexpensive.

[Brian500au]

If they had added gold leaf, I will need to buy a lens coat to use the lens for BIF.

[jim]

I'd be very cautious about using the lens Kel, you might scratch it.

[arthurking83]

........read your review on this lens. Would you please clarify a couple of my concerns below

1. Do you think the sharpness of the lens will improve if I use a flash?
2. Is it hand holdable or will I need a monopod in the church?
3. Can you recommend a back pack to carry the lens between the church and the reception?
4. Was the 2x extender you tested it with a version 2 or version 3? I have heard the version 3 is sharper
5. In your opinion will this lens be good to photograph the rings / shoes before the ceremony?
6. If I did bid on Ebay what do you think is the most I should pay?

....

1. maybe :confused013 took me forever to escape the bushes. Will come back with more testing once I get home.
A little old lady saw me lying there in the bushes and commented that she thought I was a plumber fixing the dilapidated sewer pipes. So much for prestige value!
2. definitely hand holdable, but the camera body used may make a difference. large pro camera just adds weight, so I'd say best to go for the smallest camera body available, I think Panasonic make a teeny camera in m4/3rd mount that should work. Even the ~500g D70s just makes it all feel too heavy.
3. I had to sell off my backpacks as they were all no longer suitable. I do have a heavy articulated license, so plan to use just such a combo from here on for my photography trips.
4. I think v2 on my TC, will look into the v3 TC then .. thanks :th3:
5. I dont' think photographing rings will be a problem, best to do some planning tho as you may have to stand on the other side of town to get them in frame .. if you need a semi trailer for a short time for transport, I could arrange some help with that!
6. On ebay (considering the lack of interest in the lens by all and sundry) I'd say somewhere about the $200-500 range, depending on condition. Considering todays Police incident, I don't think it's worth the hassle, so it's making more sense why so few people have shown interest in what would otherwise be a good lens.
It wouldn't surprise me that more people actually bought one, just that we haven't heard from them as they're all locked up in max security institutions.

ps. I reckon the 50/1.4 would make a good companion lens, so you'd save on needing to take too much gear. If you need a focal length perspective between 50 and it's 200mm end(eg. 85mm), you could just use the Brenizer method to get widescape images with the Siggy .. easy done.
(9 quick shots then stitched would be a doddle)
Primes are over rated, zooms(especially the 200-500-1000mm range are massively under rated).

One other thing I just found out. the 200-500 doesn't work with Sigma's USB console device, and I desperately need to adjust focus accuracy by a -1 setting at the 350mm focal setting, at 10.35m focus distance!
What were Sigma thinking by not allowing access to it's settings! :rolleyes:

Sorry to hear your thoughts Jim... and that you've had to return it. I'm going to persevere with mine for a few more hours yet ...
I'm not sure gold leaf would be 100% practical. It obviously increases prestige level, but I'm sure that when hiding in bushes to evade arrest, the low enforcement folks may see the glistening gold leaf.
I'm thinking that for prestige value, they could add some card slots. Obviously not just a single, as no self respecting pro photographer would ever be caught with any device with just a single card slot! Dual card slots only.
AND maybe more buttons and dials too. Pros seem to love buttons and dials to help with all the variables this lens may avail them of.

[jim]

AND maybe more buttons and dials too. Pros seem to love buttons and dials to help with all the variables this lens may avail them of.

See, this is the sort of thinking we need.

[Tannin]

Good thinking chaps.


To this end, I am experimenting with a cutting-edge technology cross-fertilisation project aimed at developing a state of the art telephoto lens with the ultimate in control features.


At this stage, the pilot project plans to crossbreed a Sigma 200-500/2.8 with a piano accordion. See here for details:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjHCZWdopsQ

[ameerat42]

It clearly didn't work - "video unavailable", or is that part of the plan? :p

[Tannin]

^ Just click where it says "watch this video on Youtube".

[ameerat42]

OK, after an ad it went there this time. Before it went to a completely different one.
- Maybe it will work, then. - Whatever it is :p

[arthurking83]

OK, got home, out on bail now .. they're still sus on me.
But as soon as I got home I popped him on my trusty Yellingbo Joe titanuim tripod I recently got off ebay for just $29.99(can't believe how cheap and light their titanium products are) whipped out my trusty resolution chart and WOW!

Absolutely razor sharp dead centre.
Just a small amount of fringing, as I suspected there would be .. easily worked in post.

Here's the image no pp just straight conversion to jpg.

136926

You'll notice that the $ sign in the centre is not a black ink rendering, it's actually missing!
The lens is so sharp in the centre it physically cut the paper when taking the shot .. so the black $ sign is a cutout.
The $ signs are actually printed in a 18% grey rendering to show lens aberrations more clearly.
Wasn't expecting it to be so sharp.
But there is minimal fringing as you can see, and some weird distortion too, kind of moustache like but it also has some double rendering effects where it appears to add info into the scene that may not be there.
I'm thinking could be moire, will have to do more testing.
Interesting to see that my distortion results differ from Am's results. No doubt sample variation between lenses.

Anyhow, below is the edited version with a simple one click CA removal routine added in post ...

136927

You can see that for portraits, it works wonderfully.
Perfect central sharpness and the small amount of CA is easily smoothed out and eliminated.

Will have a quick try at macro too, but it's working distance is a bit of a problem, being only 5 cm or so from the front of the lens. I reckon it may suffer from focal length shortening too.
Not holding out too much hope tho, I have 62, 67 and 77mm macro lens accessory diopters(and filters in general) and the lens seems to use 72mm drop in types .. so an other additional expense in needing rare and hard to find 72mm filters.

[Tannin]

Q: Let's review something we do not own.

A: OK. Can I review some of what Arthur is smoking?

[arthurking83]

Q: Let's review something we do not own.

A: OK. Can I review some of what Arthur is smoking?

Port Royal .. only! No additives, no need. does the job, kills brain cells(as per the instructions on the packaging).

[Brian500au]

Arthur how to you think this lens compares to the Canon 600DO due to be released in the near future? Should I wait to buy the 600? Do you think the 600 would be better for weddings (B&H have them on back order also)?

[ricktas]

Well I saw this on Ebay and decided I needed one. So last Wednesday I stopped having avocado. And voila, I am now flush with cash and might buy two.

[arthurking83]

Arthur how to you think this lens compares to the Canon 600DO due to be released in the near future? Should I wait to buy the 600? Do you think the 600 would be better for weddings (B&H have them on back order also)?

Can't say .. too hard basket for me, as I don't use Canon gear.
Although, I think 600 may be just a bit too long for weddings.
200-500mm would be just about perfect me thinks.
Only other lens of that exact focal range is Nikon's f/5.6, I can't say if the 150-600 lenses would be of any help for weddings tho.

My testing is just about complete, but this arvo was the last straw.
I had the lens on the D800 with grip and put it down with the hood resting on the ground. Made a really nice bar stool alternative if you ever find yourself at a bar and it's packed to the rafters! BYO seating .. can't ask for better than that.
But the last straw was when a poodle came wandering close by and lifted it's hind leg and did it's business on the lens. May have looked a little like a stumpy tree, but surely even a pooch would know the difference.
So I cleaned it up and did as any self respecting internet based lens reviewer would do, and placed it into a hermetically sealed glass case so I can admire it and hope it will one day appreciate in value.

my summary is that it's a keeper(but never to be used lest it loses value) :D