[mst]

That sports lens certainly looks promising. But I really wish someone could tell the Sigma engineers about drop-in filters...

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

Then someone else would complain about lack of weatherproof… To me, the lenses are not that fast to reduce their transmission with filters. f/5…6.3 is very close to the limit of most AF sensors, isn't it? And a protection filter in a slot is pointless.

 

So I would be the one asking them to make at least one without more than the usual holes in the tube.

 

Of course, one could focus without the filter and get a second filter holder to change quickly. But as the better one is a "Sport" candidate, that would be a bit annoying, wouldn't it?

 

EDIT: Another question would be where to place the slot?

 



It looks already pretty packed. Close to the camera there's the clamp and left of it the AF section starts. Left of it OS and left of that the zoom ring and underneath the space for the extension tube. I don't see a cheap and effective spot for such an item. I guess, the extension tube needs all the space to the AF-switch section

 

[Brightcolours]

The limit of AF sensors has nothing to do with the amount of light, but with the aperture size. So, you can easily put an ND8 filter on a f5.6 lens, and have AF work just fine.

 

There are weather proof teles with drop in filters also...

[mst]

Drop-in filters are a default feature on many high end Canon or Nikon tele lenses. Any of the "Great Whites" (Canon) as well as any high-end Nikon lens from the 200/2 VR onwards has this feature. And both companies show that it can be done without losing seal protection.

I don't see any problem with light transmission. In fact, many of these lenses feature a default clear filter that needs to be in place, as well as an additional clear glass protective front element.

Where to place such a filter slot of course needs to be decided early in the development process, not afterwards.

Once one has used such a filter, one really appreciates the convenience they offer. On such a large lens, rotating a front mounted CPL is usually not possible with the hood mounted. So you have to take the hood off, rotate the filter and then remount the hood. If you use a CPL to reduce reflections (for example during a race or an air-show) one needs to do so every time one changes the camera orientation.
With a drop-in filter, it only takes a small amount of dial rotation (drop-in CPLs are usually geared and can be rotated by a small dial).

There is one issue with drop-in filters, though: price. Yes, most of them are quite expensive (as are the lenses that use them). However, this is also true for good quality 105mm filters.

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

You really compare a 2000$ Zoom lens with others (prime or zoom) costing triple or nine times the price? How many 105mm filters can you get for the difference? I just checked how it is done at Canon 200-400/4 at 12.000 $:


There's a tiny drawer for gelatine filters, no polarizers, no geared turning of filters. Maybe you two first tell Canon how it has to be done...


As for "amount of light doesn't matter, AF works fine with f/5.6 and ND8” - I prefer not to answer to that kind of rubbish.

[mst]

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)

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

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

[Brightcolours]

You really compare a 2000$ Zoom lens with others (prime or zoom) costing triple or nine times the price? How many 105mm filters can you get for the difference? I just checked how it is done at Canon 200-400/4 at 12.000 $:


There's a tiny drawer for gelatine filters, no polarizers, no geared turning of filters. Maybe you two first tell Canon how it has to be done...


As for "amount of light doesn't matter, AF works fine with f/5.6 and ND8” - I prefer not to answer to that kind of rubbish.

If you think the truth is rubbish, oh well. They say one never is too old to learn, though.

[Guest]

Didn't sigma older super tele use drop in filters ? Or was that tamron ?

[Brightcolours]

Didn't sigma older super tele use drop in filters ? Or was that tamron ?

Yes, like the Sigma 300mm f2.8 and 500mm EX lenses. They use a drop in filter system like this:

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sigma...s/p1526766

[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.