[WyldRage]

Nothing against Sigma but they are like a big mac menu these days ... super-sizing every lens.

It makes sense. People are ordering everything on the internet, so they won't handle the lenses in their local store before buying them... assuming they still have a local store to go to. So, when they shop for their new lens, they look at reviews that talk about how "sharp" the lens is and its bokeh, autofocus speed, etc., but very little on how they handle, and how big and heavy they are. 

Sigma understands this. Making a lens 25-50% bigger and heavier than its competitors doesn't matter, if it can be 10% sharper on that 40+ megapixel sensor.

---

Oh, and I really wish Sigma would release its lenses on the Fuji XF-mount, even if it's only to have more competition, and lesser prices for the lenses.

[davidmanze]

The filter size for the 60-600 is 105mm.
The 82mm for the 70-200 is a first but all the modern 16-35/24-70 lenses already have this size anyway, so it makes sense to have a common filter size - only 82mm instead of 77mm.

OK, the same as the previous sport..........that means front heavy again......

strange that the first sport is a larger lens with a larger front element yet suffered more vignetting and the F stop closed earlier zooming in than the G2...........

   Let's see what happens with this new one!

[JJ_SO]

Nothing against Sigma but they are like a big mac menu these days ... super-sizing every lens.

It makes sense. People are ordering everything on the internet, so they won't handle the lenses in their local store before buying them... assuming they still have a local store to go to. So, when they shop for their new lens, they look at reviews that talk about how "sharp" the lens is and its bokeh, autofocus speed, etc., but very little on how they handle, and how big and heavy they are. 

Sigma understands this. Making a lens 25-50% bigger and heavier than its competitors doesn't matter, if it can be 10% sharper on that 40+ megapixel sensor.

---

Oh, and I really wish Sigma would release its lenses on the Fuji XF-mount, even if it's only to have more competition, and lesser prices for the lenses.

Bit of nonsense, WyldRage: Basically you can't talk about "this lens has 800 grams while the other is 750" - the difference is harder to notice than how the two are balanced. If a lens is too heavy for somebody, he'll send it back, pretty simple. And Sigma was not the first going the heavy weight path, that were Zeiss/Cosina's Otii. But it's not only great optical performance - the prices are highly competitive, too, and in some cases the Sigma lenses are simply unique. Not available from genuine manufacturers. Affordable + High quality = big, heavy, fast primes. You shift anything in this equation to the other side will immediately affect the rest of the equation.

So it's not because people are too stupid and buy heavy glass without checking before, but people like to see great results from high resolving sensors, without paying 4k $. Next to it, if there's no tripod, IBIS or OIS, a heavier lens gets a bit steadier pictures. And replaces a couple of sandbags to stabilize a tripod...  

And I hope that Sigma will stay away from Fuji mount. Hardcore Fujistas will defend their Fujinons against anything coming cheaper and blurb a lot about the colors only possible with that lenses. Less hardcore Fuji users have choices and go Sanyang/Rokinon. It would be a waste of R&D resources which can be used to make lenses for Canon M or Sony. Honestly, Zeiss makes (or lets make) 3 Touits for Fuji. None of them ever got a firmware update. None of them is really competing well with Fujinons - says me, with a Touit 12/2.8.

---

The filter size for the 60-600 is 105mm.
The 82mm for the 70-200 is a first but all the modern 16-35/24-70 lenses already have this size anyway, so it makes sense to have a common filter size - only 82mm instead of 77mm.

OK, the same as the previous sport..........that means front heavy again......

strange that the first sport is a larger lens with a larger front element yet suffered more vignetting and the F stop closed earlier zooming in than the G2...........

   Let's see what happens with this new one!

At aperture between f/5.0 and f/6.3 it's just splitting hairs how early an aperture closes down. Front heavy? We'll see, the wider FL also needs some glass which will not gather towards the front - at least I don't think so. And the foot can balance that weight on a gimbal, it's one of the longest I know (and I had it on the Sports 150-600 before).

But no matter how vignetting it will be - I just don't see a use for an (expectedly) 3 kg 60mm/4.5, or 85 or 100 mm - That's a lens for people who thing getting most bang for the buck is the way to go. The lens hood looks a bit lighter, as if it were made of plastic instead big fat aluminum.

I'll pass anyway.

[Rover]

I guess it makes sense as a safari lens where animals may crop up unpredictably either in the distance or pretty close to the vehicle, AND the dust / convenience issues preclude the frequent changing of lenses. It could pair well with something like a 17-40mm lens on a second body to give 2-lens total coverage.

[JJ_SO]

I guess it makes sense as a safari lens where animals may crop up unpredictably either in the distance or pretty close to the vehicle, AND the dust / convenience issues preclude the frequent changing of lenses. It could pair well with something like a 17-40mm lens on a second body to give 2-lens total coverage.

Yeah, but we can't change lenses... 

A second body might be a solution...

[Rover]

I guess it makes sense as a safari lens where animals may crop up unpredictably either in the distance or pretty close to the vehicle, AND the dust / convenience issues preclude the frequent changing of lenses. It could pair well with something like a 17-40mm lens on a second body to give 2-lens total coverage.

Yeah, but we can't change lenses... 

A second body might be a solution...

You seem to have not been paying attention to what I've been saying, so let me rehash it again. There are the times when changing a lens is not a good idea, such as being in a dusty environment. I experienced it first hand when I was in Xinjiang (Western China) - I had two bodies, although one of them was not weather sealed (Canon 20D). I tried to keep lens switching to an absolute minimum but still got more than enough dust on the sensors of both cameras. I can imagine that fumbling with separate lenses while in a cramped van in the middle of a dusty African road is, well, not a good idea. Of course I'd have a second body for this kind of work but if it's occupied by a wide angle changing the long tele for a shorter one on the fly is going to work about as well (read: not at all).

This is not much different to the reason why the Canon 28-300 L lens exists, only skewed even farther into the tele side of things (out in the African plains, 60mm is probably going to be "way wide" anyway).

I can imagine that if I'd ever be on a safari or a similar journey I'd have a 16-35 (or 24-85) + 100-400 setup with two bodies but for some people/areas 400 is not enough anyway so...

I think the same goes for someone who is shooting war in Iraq or something along these lines...

[Brightcolours]

Get a superzoom "compact" ;-)

[JJ_SO]

I'll keep that in mind next time when I go shooting war in Iraq. So you would bring a Sigma 60-600 when shooting war? I'm just exaggerating, but I still can't see the benefit of a 3 kg 10× zoom in front of a DSLR.

No imagination problem with a bridge camera, but for this "more serious" or "aiming for quality" type of documentary photography i just feel it's not handy enough and at least will have troubles with sand and dust and rain. No matter how much seals Sigma crams in, there are extending tubes which will provide a higher risk of particle transport to the inside of the lens.

If I would like to go towards 50 or 85 mm, a (much faster) prime and another body still is my preference. I can see the event of animals approaching or coming close to an elephant. But basically the MFD would be too long for typical standard FL, I think.

[davidmanze]

I buy what Rover says.....great range for safaris!........

.......however, I would never use a lens with less than a 5,000mm FL for Irakian war usage..........you know giving that ability to take a few paces back!

[Rover]

Get a superzoom "compact" ;-)

And get the whole equivalence thing splashed in your face?