Why does this cost $25,000?

[Rhys]

That's a telescope, not a lens. You can buy a Meade telescope and have the same power for a ton less money.

 

[Buszaj]

It's a 2.8 throughout the whole zoom range, that means its 2.8 at 500mm! I don't think there's a prime from Canon or Nikon or Sigma that has a 500 2.8. Personally, I hate that sigma lens, too big and bulky, I find it pointless. But the research and new features are definetely state-of-the-art.

 

[Overread]

canon go as good as f4.
f2.8 would be great in low light and for using teleconverters with.

 

[usayit]

That's a telescope, not a lens. You can buy a Meade telescope and have the same power for a ton less money.

Same power yes... but same image quality.. no.

 

[Alex_B]

2,8 does huge part of the price here.

Those lenses require lots of R&D and are only produced in small quantities. Often only on demand. Hence all of the R&D costs spread on only a few specimens of the lens. Hence the price.

Sigma makes extremely good lenses in that price range, not to be compared to the low-end Sigma lenses most of us know.

 

[Overread]

So far the only downside to sigma that I know of is that they don't make lenses for companies like canon from the source data - its reverse engineered so there is a "risk" that they might not work in the future with canon bodies

but you can always get them rechipped so its hardly worth the worry!

 

[Alex_B]

So far the only downside to sigma that I know of is that they don't make lenses for companies like canon from the source data - its reverse engineered so there is a "risk" that they might not work in the future with canon bodies

but you can always get them rechipped so its hardly worth the worry!

In that price range that does not matter anyway

 

[Mike_E]

People who would buy this lens probably aren't the same ones who write the checks. (think big brother or major magazine)

 

[Alfred D.]

It would surprise me if Sigma sold more than a few dozen of these. But that's not the point of this lens, imo. The point of this lens is that it's an attention getter with unique specs! It's a P.R. lens really. More intended to incite us to discussions like this one = rumour around the brand, than to be sold in large numbers. It's a communications director's wet dream.

 

[Goldeeno]

Did you say take a mortgage for that lens sir???
http://gizmodo.com/353073/canon-120056l-usm-the-bfg-of-telephoto-lenses

 

[Overread]

sooooo in light of this - who is holding off on canon/nikon and waiting for the sigma 500mm f2.8?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR:

Sigma 200-500 f/2.8:

I'll take the 200-400 please. 100mm less on the long end isn't THAT much of a difference, the 1 stop loss is negligible, the Nikon has VR, and is (for a little bit) hand-holdable.

One is practical, the other is not. Sigma made the 200-500 because they could, knowing that nobody for the most part was going to buy it. The Nikon 200-400 is constantly out of stock at most retailers.

 

[jg123]

If you could use it to get the first pic of some hot celebs baby you could pay for it in one-shot.

It would be a good deal if it offered x-ray vision too!!!

 

[Alfred D.]

If you could use it to get the first pic of some hot celebs baby you could pay for it in one-shot.

It would be a good deal if it offered x-ray vision too!!!

Keep dreaming.

 

[Garbz]

Pffft. It may be the fattest ugliest lens, but it's not the longest. 1700mm is far more practical than 500mm.

Nikkor 1200mm - 1700mm f/5.6-8

Actually come to think of it didn't canon have something absolutely ridiculous too?