Sony's prophetic mode...

[David Kilpatrick]

The leaflets inside my new 70-400mm G SSM - strangely enough apparently a European market lens with European warranty form and Engish/French box sticker despite coming from Hong Kong at a 40% saving - are dated 2008.

They refer to fitting the lens to the E-mount via an adaptor... someone forgot to change the copyright date, I think. Looks like this lens was made after mid-2010.

David

[Lonnie Utah]

Lucky...

[mvanrheenen]

I bought a new 70-400G from a Dutch dealer this august. Never read the leaflets, but will look it up.

[mikeriach]

David,

Welcome to the bazooka brigade!
Aching arms ahoy.

Mike

[Dr. Harout]

Congrats David.

[lonewolf16x9]

You got it! I'm pleased, now you please don't go showing me how good it is with the A77! As I reckon they could be a match made in heaven...
Oh sod it!
Got to find a legal way of earnng a thousand or so quid sharpish because I find myself wanting the A77 again!

[Greg Beetham]

Are you going to travel with that one David, or is it for a special purpose locally? The print date on the enclosed forms wouldn’t be any kind of issue…would it?
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

This lens replaces my Sigma 70-200mm HSM and converter. It does the same overall range in a single lens, and in fact it's actually smaller in its carrying case than the Sigma (without converter) is in its case. So it is not for travel, and probably never will be. But I had stopped using the Sony 70-300mm SSM G for travel - even that was too big.

I have bought a new Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro before they discontinue this lens. It may be screw drive, and the gears may be famous for falling apart, but it's small and light and the optical quality is equal to any other lens in the range, 70-300mm SSM G included. I really valued the 1m close focus of the 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro from Sigma, and don't like the 1.5m of the new OS/nonOS design. The 1.2m of the 70-300mm G was good too. But the 95cm of the APO Macro and its half life size repro is ideal.

With this lens on 24 megapixel APS-C I'm getting the same actual image/subject size as a Canon user with an 18 megapixel full frame would get from a 1:1 macro lens - and at a much better working distance. The old-fashioned design of this clockwork Sigma means 1:2 at a fraction under 1m, and almost 1:4 at 1.5m. Such long focus and zoom travels would never work with HSM, so they can not repeat this design.

The 70-400mm will probably sit in a cupboard most of the time, like the 70-200mm Sigma did. It works very well in manual focus mode with my Teleplus MC7 DG converter, showing no sign of CA. AF not possible, but apertures correctly reported (8 to 11). Interestingly the Sigma HSM compatible 2X also fits, and works, but won't AF and reports incorrect apertures (it fails to apply the factor and still shows f/4 to f/5.6).

And my Teleplus also works with the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro - and even autofocuses, in room light at short focal lengths, daylight at longer.

David

[pakodominguez]

I really valued the 1m close focus of the 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro from Sigma, and don't like the 1.5m of the new OS/nonOS design. The 1.2m of the 70-300mm G was good too. But the 95cm of the APO Macro and its half life size repro is ideal.

Did you ever tried the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8? Other than the slower AF (less noticeable on Sony mount because it is screwdriver, not whatever-motor like the Canon version) the lens is wonderful, including close focus -supposedly corrected for Macro.

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, I've had the Tamron in both Nikon and Canon fit. Not impressed. Too much coma/spherical aberration and very wiry bokeh. That's why I bought the Sigma instead after comparing the two on both APS-C and full frame. The Tamron's sharpness is a 'dirty' sharpness where the Sigma's softness (as seen by some) is a smooth artefact-free softness. And lovely bokeh so using apertures like f/4 or f/5.6 is rewarding, which was not the case with the Tamron creating double edges and confused defocused detail.

The Tamron does have a slightly closer focus by 5cm. I just preferred the colour, contrast, bokeh and general 'look' of the Sigma HSM Macro II images by a considerable margin.

I may have been influenced by Canon's sensors, of course - I was comparing Sigma on Sony with Tamron on Canon most directly. The Sony colour and tonal range is so far superior to Canon's output that it might have clouded my judgement.

David

[pakodominguez]

Ah! Another lens from my "collection " you need to try... when are you coming to NYC?

[Greg Beetham]

I remember Don (Sonolta) taking lots of very sharp photos with his Sigma 70-300APO, I often thought it was a very good lens and great value for the money, it’s peculiar that it was so undervalued by Sigma that they didn’t fix it’s gear train issue and charge a few bucks more for it, I’m sure a MKII version with unchanged optics would have sold heaps had they bothered. My KM100-300apo will only let you get to 1.5M minimum focus and it suffers from a busy bokeh, on the plus side I guess it’s small and light the optics seem quite acceptable for the compact size and I don’t think there are any gear train issues too worry about, so I guess Minolta had portability in mind high on the priority list with that one. I find I can leave the lens on a camera in a snoot or top loader and it’s ready for action if needed in a very short time, whereas if I had the very desirable 70-400 G I’d have to think about how I’d manage to have it ready to use in a similar time frame, I mean it’s not much use having it and it’s not able to be used in a reasonably short time, very necessary if your passion is capturing small birds now and then when the opportunity suddenly arises, as it often does.
I thought back when Sigma and Tamron announced their new respective 70-200 F2.8’s that the problems with the huge price of the Sony version (at the time, and is still expensive) would be of much less concern, but after they were released and reviewed I was left a tad disappointed that they both didn’t seem to quite nail that one properly.
Greg
Comparison of size between the 100-300apo and the 18-200 lenses (so you can see what I mean)

DSC03831.jpg (183.42 KiB) Viewed 6485 times

[artington]

This lens replaces my Sigma 70-200mm HSM and converter. It does the same overall range in a single lens, and in fact it's actually smaller in its carrying case than the Sigma (without converter) is in its case. So it is not for travel, and probably never will be. But I had stopped using the Sony 70-300mm SSM G for travel - even that was too big.

David

Why is this, David. Is it to do with airline carry-on baggage allowance (not a problem with BA) or is tbere some other reason?

All best

Martin

[David Kilpatrick]

The 70-300mm Sony attracted too much attention. The very first time I used it, in Alicante, I was 'heckled' across the road with the usual 'you must be a professional with such a huge lens'. It also occupied too much space in my single carry-on bag, which when weight limits allow contains two DSLRs and four or five lenses, laptop, accessories.

What I now have or will have is a set of lenses to use in the UK with full frame and APS-C - 12-24mm Sigma, 24mm f/2 CZ, 28-75mm SAM full frame and 16-50mm SAL f/2.8 APS-C, 70mm macro, 70-400mm G; then a set of lenses for APS-C only for travel - 8-16mm Sigma, 16-80mm CZ, 70-300mm Sigma APO Macro alongside which we have Shirley's A580 with 18-250mm Sigma OS. That is not small, but it has quite exceptional performance and bettered my CZ 16-80 on A77 combination by a long margin on many scenes last month. Exquisite fine detail at f/8 across the entire zoom range. In fact, I have considered the idea of simply getting another Sigma 18-250mm OS and using the 8-16mm where anything wider is needed, as that lens also has strikingly good performance.

One big difference between the 8-16mm and the 12-24mm is that the full frame lens gets much worse when zoomed to 24mm because of the curvature of field pattern. The 8-16mm does not, and its 16mm performance is significantly better than for example the CZ 16-80mm at 16mm.

David

[mikeriach]

.... Shirley's A580 with 18-250mm Sigma OS. That is not small, but it has quite exceptional performance and bettered my CZ 16-80 on A77 combination by a long margin on many scenes last month.

David

David,

Did you manage to find the source of the problem with the CZ 16-80 and the A77?
I love the idea of the 16-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 but like you worry about losing the 50-70 coverage. I'm still keen on the CZ but worry about the quirks you reported.

Cheers,
Mike