[JJ_SO]

It was meant as a general notice regarding high end Sigma lenses. Sigma decided not to use drop-in filters on any of their lenses, including way more expensive ones, like the 300-800 or the 120-300 OS. And other brands already used drop-in filters on less expensive lenses (take the old Nikon AF 300/4 as an example)

Not any longer, it seems… any idea why not? The current 300/4 is the only tele with 77mm Filter.

 

No need to tell Canon how it has to be done, you should check their sites again. The 200-400 L IS uses the same drop-in filters as the other big L guns. The geared CPL is called "PL-C WII" and is also compatible with the 300/2.8 L IS II, the 400/2.8 L IS II and the new 400/4 DO IS II. Maybe you should occasionally tend to believe people who have actually used the gear they're talking about

Maybe. I just read too often wrong things from people who owned stuff but never found time to read a manual. I prefer to get my own picture which went as far as I downloaded the manual for the 200-400/4. Meanwhile I know this small 52mm Filter costs around 250$ - the Sigma 105mm version is 300. There's still the advantage of better handling, I agree - but where and how Canon places the drawer would not work on Nikon because of the overhanging prism finder. Sideways? On the left side the lens buttons, on the right side the grip, bottom might be occupied by a battery grip - not convincing. Making two versions? But anyway, forward that input to Sigma, it's a better address for those ideas than I am.

 

And even if a Sigma with a 105mm CPL is cheaper: it's still a lot more hazzle to handle it in the field (which is the polite way of saying: such a large CPL under such a large hood is nothing but a PITA).


-- Markus

No doubt about the handling - it just increases the (comparatively low) costs of that 150-600 we're actually talking about. And of course, it also opens up the possibility of dust and moisture inside the lens.


And if they don't do it with the 120-300 which uses also a very massive front diameter - the very same 105 - and if Nikon stopped doing it with 300/4 it might be a lower priority to most users? I do consider buying the Sport version if the tests confirm the MFT, but I don't expect that lens coming close to a 200-400 or any prime. For those rare occasions I would need such a thing, a decent prime or genuine tele zoom would be overkill.