Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even if it were a fixed f5.6 I would at least have to give it a try and then see.
So just 1/3 stop is too far over the edge?
in this day and age 1/3 stop of ISO pretty much makes or breaks a photo.
I don't believe this lens was designed with indoor sports or dark woods in mind. Would you shoot in dark woods with your 70-300 VR? This lens is pretty much the same. A 70-300 will be at f/5 at ~150mm and hits f/5.6 at 300mm. The 150-600 is below f/5.6 at 300mm and hits it closer to 400mm.
Going to 6.3 is what loses it for me because with almost any camera you will lose auto focus once you plop a 1.4TC on there, so that 1/3 stop does make a difference.
Why would you put a 1.4TC on a 600mm lens? I'm sure autofocus would still work at 840mm f/8.
but that's just my feeling for how I would need to use it. Not saying it's a bad choice for someone else to use for what they do
ujellybro?
And to think Gav was on another TPF thread today telling us what crap the lens would be at more than 500mm in length... so undoubtedly thousands upon thousands of otherwise potential buyers will cancel their pre-orders an be content with old yellow Sigma 150-500's...
Even if it were a fixed f5.6 I would at least have to give it a try and then see.
So just 1/3 stop is too far over the edge?
in this day and age 1/3 stop of ISO pretty much makes or breaks a photo............
Maybe in a few circumstances, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be able to see the difference between, say, ISO 400 and 500 in many of the mid- to top-end cameras.
Maybe in a few circumstances, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be able to see the difference between, say, ISO 400 and 500 in many of the mid- to top-end cameras.
Maybe in a few circumstances, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be able to see the difference between, say, ISO 400 and 500 in many of the mid- to top-end cameras.
you missed my sarcasm.
Maybe in a few circumstances, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be able to see the difference between, say, ISO 400 and 500 in many of the mid- to top-end cameras.
you missed my sarcasm.
Maybe in a few circumstances, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you wouldn't be able to see the difference between, say, ISO 400 and 500 in many of the mid- to top-end cameras.
you missed my sarcasm.
Oh, ho, ho, sarcasm ! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so sarcasm's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any sarcasm here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.
I wish Sigma and Tamron made long lenses for micro four thirds. A lens like this would make my OMD the ultimate wildlife camera.
I wish Sigma and Tamron made long lenses for micro four thirds. A lens like this would make my OMD the ultimate wildlife camera.
I wonder how much of that is the idea that most people who buy something like a micro 4/3 do so for portability, so they figure a bigger heavier lens probably won't sell all that well for them?