[JJ_SO]

Gonna send in some drones. DJI has one with a Hasselblad camera, hope this will find a way through the dustclouds which a 5000 mm could not penetrate. Same goes for photographing Lions. Or make eye to eye portrait of a giraffe.

[JJ_SO]

New "leaks" (in three days or so Sigma will just confirm...): https://photorumors.com/2018/09/21/leaked-specifications-of-the-upcoming-five-sigma-lenses/

2.7 kg for the 60-600
1.2 kg for the 40/1.4 

[Klaus]

You were not interested in the 40 anyway ;-)

[JJ_SO]

I'm not sure if it's cheaper than a membership in a gym...

[Brightcolours]

1.2 kg for 40mm f1.4 is a bit... daft. Their 50mm f1.4 weighs 815 grams and their 24mm f1.4 weighs 665 grams. Their design process seems to make wrong turns at times?

[Rover]

The MTF implies that the 40/1.4 is insanely good. Not sure how it'd compare to an Otus but it may be close (focal length differences notwithstanding).

[Brightcolours]

Get a superzoom "compact" ;-)

And get the whole equivalence thing splashed in your face?

Of course you do need to understand equivalence, to understand what the 3.8-247.0mm on the front of the Canon SX70 HS means (example of a superzoom compact). Without any reference, no one can make out what the meaning is of that 3.8-247.0mm. But with a 135 format reference... it is equivalent to a 21-1365mm FF lens.
See, you do need the equivalence thing splashed in your face.

[borisbg]

40mm f1.4 weighs 1.2kg
Is this for real?

[obican]

Wait, that is real? I thought people were joking.

[forum]

16 elements in 12 groups, 82mm filter (roughy the front element diameter) vs 13 elements in 8 groups, 77mm filter for the 50mm f/1.4

The 50 is 0.8kg so with a bigger front element and more glass ...

The 40 is also much longer (131mm vs 100mm).

BTW, the MTFs are clearly substantially superior compared to the 50 ...