Full frame sized imageLenses that create APS-C sized image are designed for digital only. They cannot be used on cameras that have image sensor larger than the APS-C format. These lenses are not suitable for film cameras either. Ultrasonic AFLenses with ultrasonic focusing mechanism tend to be quiter and faster than traditionally focusing lenses. One or more Low Dispersion lens element is usedLow Dispersion lens elements help to reduce chromatic aberration. Not stabilizedImage stabilization helps to reduce blur caused by hand shake, especially at high focal length or in low light situations. Image stabilization can give 1 to 3 stop advantage over none stabilized lens, based on the reciprocal rule. Metal mountCheaper lenses are usually equipped with plastic mount, while more expensive, professional lenses have metal mount. In general, metal mounts are more durable, and a good thing to have when lenses are changed a lot. When a camera is used mainly with one lens, the material of the lens mount is not that important. Internal FocusingInternally focusing lenses don't change their size while setting focus. The front lens is fixedThe fixed front lens is not rotating during zoom and/or focusing. This allows the photographer to use petal shaped lens hood. Fixed front lenses also make the use of polarization filters a lot easier. Supports drop-in filtersDrop-in filters are used in those lenses where either the front lens is too large, or the field of view doesn't permit the use of traditional filters at the front of the lens. Usually bright tele and ultra-wide angle lenses support this filter type. |
|
|
This large-aperture 500 mm lens that is ideal for digital cameras. ELD glass is used to deliver high contrast and high resolution across the entire aperutre range. The lens housing accommodates a rear insertion type filter. The HSM makes fast AF speeds and quite shooting a reality, and it is also capable of full-time manual focus. And, by adding an optional APO 1.4X Tele Converter, you can ue this lens as a 700 mm F6.3 MF lens, or with a 2X Tele Converter, as a 1000 mm F9 MF lens.
|
| Available mount(s) | Canon EF, Nikon F, Pentax K, Sony / Minolta A, Sigma |
| Application(s) | Sports, Wildlife |
| Category(s) | Super telephoto |
| Multiplier | 1× |
| Stabilizer | no |
| Focal length | 500 mm (prime) |
| Lens construction | 11 elements in 8 groups |
| Angle of view |
35mm: 5° digital: 2.9° |
| Number of blades | 9 |
| Maximum aperture | f/4.5 |
| Minimum aperture | f/32 |
| Minimum focusing distance | 400 cm |
| Magnification | 0.13× |
| Filter size | 46 mm |
| Size | ∅ 123 × 350 mm |
| Weight | 3150 g |
| Notes |
|
| AF speed | N/A |
| AF sound | |
| Internal focusing | yes |
| Internal zoom | N/A |
| Fix front lens | yes |
| Mount type | metal |
| Weather sealed | N/A |
| Drop in filter | yes |
| Ultrasonic AF | yes |
| APS-C sized circle | no |
| Low dispersion lens element | yes |
| Hard case | N/A |
| Soft case | N/A |
| Lens hood |
LH1236-01 printable lens hood |
| Tripod adapter | N/A |
Jul 16, 2010
I am surprised at the performance. I also own the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It is pretty good also. The 500 is excellent in a light weight 500 super telephoto. And not to cheap anymore. Kinda pricy. If i had it to do over again i would buy the canon or nikon version. They have many features that are better. But I already owned the Pentax K-7 and 1.4 and 2.0 T.C. 's. So as not being one to make a living shooting wildlife it is just exceptional for me. Don't listen to the guys that say Sigma is second best in IQ. It is almost there with them now...
Update:
After shooting with the lens and using a dedicated Sigma 1.4 T.C. I can say that in good light I cannot tell the difference between this and the Canon or Nikor counterparts. It really is that good. It is exactly where it should be with the MTF chart readings I think. This is one product i can recommend without any problems. It is extremly sharp.
Jul 16, 2010
I am surprised at the performance. I also own the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It is pretty good also. The 500 is excellent in a light weight 500 super telephoto. And not to cheap anymore. Kinda pricy. If i had it to do over again i would buy the canon or nikon version. They have many features that are better. But I already owned the Pentax K-7 and 1.4 and 2.0 T.C. 's. So as not being one to make a living shooting wildlife it is just exceptional for me. Don't listen to the guys that say Sigma is second best in IQ. It is almost there with them now...
Update:
After shooting with the lens and using a dedicated Sigma 1.4 T.C. I can say that in good light I cannot tell the difference between this and the Canon or Nikor counterparts. It really is that good. It is exactly where it should be with the MTF chart readings I think. This is one product i can recommend without any problems. It is extremly sharp.
Jul 16, 2010
I am surprised at the performance. I also own the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It is pretty good also. The 500 is excellent in a light weight 500 super telephoto. And not to cheap anymore. Kinda pricy. If i had it to do over again i would buy the canon or nikon version. They have many features that are better. But I already owned the Pentax K-7 and 1.4 and 2.0 T.C. 's. So as not being one to make a living shooting wildlife it is just exceptional for me. Don't listen to the guys that say Sigma is second best in IQ. It is almost there with them now...
Update:
After shooting with the lens and using a dedicated Sigma 1.4 T.C. I can say that in good light I cannot tell the difference between this and the Canon or Nikor counterparts. It really is that good. It is exactly where it should be with the MTF chart readings I think. This is one product i can recommend without any problems. It is extremly sharp.
Jul 16, 2010
I am surprised at the performance. I also own the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It is pretty good also. The 500 is excellent in a light weight 500 super telephoto. And not to cheap anymore. Kinda pricy. If i had it to do over again i would buy the canon or nikon version. They have many features that are better. But I already owned the Pentax K-7 and 1.4 and 2.0 T.C. 's. So as not being one to make a living shooting wildlife it is just exceptional for me. Don't listen to the guys that say Sigma is second best in IQ. It is almost there with them now...
Update:
After shooting with the lens and using a dedicated Sigma 1.4 T.C. I can say that in good light I cannot tell the difference between this and the Canon or Nikor counterparts. It really is that good. It is exactly where it should be with the MTF chart readings I think. This is one product i can recommend without any problems. It is extremly sharp.
Jul 16, 2010
I am surprised at the performance. I also own the Sigma 300mm f2.8. It is pretty good also. The 500 is excellent in a light weight 500 super telephoto. And not to cheap anymore. Kinda pricy. If i had it to do over again i would buy the canon or nikon version. They have many features that are better. But I already owned the Pentax K-7 and 1.4 and 2.0 T.C. 's. So as not being one to make a living shooting wildlife it is just exceptional for me. Don't listen to the guys that say Sigma is second best in IQ. It is almost there with them now...
Update:
After shooting with the lens and using a dedicated Sigma 1.4 T.C. I can say that in good light I cannot tell the difference between this and the Canon or Nikor counterparts. It really is that good. It is exactly where it should be with the MTF chart readings I think. This is one product i can recommend without any problems. It is extremly sharp.