# Why does this cost $25,000?



## Senor Hound (Jun 3, 2008)

http://www.adorama.com/SG200500DNKA.html

I don't get it.  I've seen telephotos go for about 8 grand, but 25 grand?  Is there something special about it?

Just curious.


----------



## ScottS (Jun 3, 2008)

Did you look at the specs!?


Haha but dont worry, shipping is free!


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2008)

Considering you can get faster Nikon primes to cover most of that focal range (and well above it if you use a doubler) for less $$, I don't know why you would want it.  Aside from that, the colour and design would get you arrested in most third-world countries (and a lot of others as well) because people would think you were toting a rocket launcher!


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

ahh but if you had primes you would have to be forever swapping them on camera - and then just think of the shots you would miss in that time!
Its attraction is its zoom - the lesser quality than a prime is always a case when comparing zooms to primes (of similar costs).
I wonder if the collection of primes is lighter or heavier than that sigma?


----------



## caspertodd (Jun 3, 2008)

What a great lens for the zoo!  :lmao:

Here is a pic of it attached to a camera body:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg


----------



## skieur (Jun 3, 2008)

When you read the specs, you realize it is the state of the art in current lens technology.  No expense was spared in its production.  The extremely low dispersion glass would be extremely expensive alone and the motor was probably created just for this lens too.

Is it worth the money? YES, if you do the kind of shooting where you could maximize its use.  It would help needless to say, if you were a very well paid pro.

skieur


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

casper forget the zoo - this is safari kit!
works well as you would need a jeep to move this around for a day!


----------



## rmh159 (Jun 3, 2008)

I'd like to see someone try to use that lens in Washington DC and watch how quickly they would get arrested.


----------



## skieur (Jun 3, 2008)

rmh159 said:


> I'd like to see someone try to use that lens in Washington DC and watch how quickly they would get arrested.


 
Yup, they would think that it was a rocket launcher, for sure. 

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Jun 3, 2008)

Not to mention f2.8 at 400mm is pretty sweet.


----------



## tim.bennett (Jun 3, 2008)

17400 euro in good old holland! But thats without rockets and advanced targeting system.

It has it's uses and they wouldn't have made if they didn't have a market for it.


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

they might have though - sigma can make lenses as good as canon and nikon when they choose to - thing is that thier budget lenses tend to get bought first - and as they are budget they give a poorer view of sigma to newer photographers.
Something like this might be a big showoff move as much as it is a move towards a lens that the big producers don't make.


----------



## Rachelsne (Jun 3, 2008)

Its environmentally friendy-anything organic or GREEN is going to be more expensive


----------



## usayit (Jun 3, 2008)

Because there are very few lenses that provide the same features.  I'd say the R&D went into that lens also cost a lot.  Products with a small market often require a high price tag.

BTW... the 1200mm f5.6 Canon goes for almost $100k used.


----------



## Mullen (Jun 3, 2008)

I wanna see the price tag on this.. http://www.canonfd.com/mirrorlenses/pages/page10.html


----------



## Rhys (Jun 3, 2008)

That's a telescope, not a lens. You can buy a Meade telescope and have the same power for a ton less money.


----------



## Buszaj (Jun 3, 2008)

It's a 2.8 throughout the whole zoom range, that means its 2.8 at *500mm*! I don't think there's a prime from Canon or Nikon or Sigma that has a 500 2.8. Personally, I hate that sigma lens, too big and bulky, I find it pointless. But the research and new features are definetely state-of-the-art.


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

canon go as good as f4.
f2.8 would be great in low light and for using teleconverters with.


----------



## usayit (Jun 3, 2008)

Rhys said:


> That's a telescope, not a lens. You can buy a Meade telescope and have the same power for a ton less money.



Same power yes... but same image quality.. no.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 3, 2008)

2,8 does huge part of the price here.

Those lenses require lots of R&D and are only produced in small quantities. Often only on demand. Hence all of the R&D costs spread on only a few specimens of the lens. Hence the price.

Sigma makes extremely good lenses in that price range, not to be compared to the low-end Sigma lenses most of us know.


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

So far the only downside to sigma that I know of is that they don't make lenses for companies like canon from the source data - its reverse engineered so there is a "risk" that they might not work in the future with canon bodies

but you can always get them rechipped so its hardly worth the worry!


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 3, 2008)

Overread said:


> So far the only downside to sigma that I know of is that they don't make lenses for companies like canon from the source data - its reverse engineered so there is a "risk" that they might not work in the future with canon bodies
> 
> but you can always get them rechipped so its hardly worth the worry!



In that price range that does not matter anyway


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2008)

People who would buy this lens probably aren't the same ones who write the checks.  (think big brother or major magazine)


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 3, 2008)

It would surprise me if Sigma sold more than a few dozen of these. But that's not the point of this lens, imo. The point of this lens is that it's an attention getter with unique specs! It's a P.R. lens really. More intended to incite us to discussions like this one = rumour around the brand, than to be sold in large numbers. It's a communications director's wet dream.


----------



## Goldeeno (Jun 3, 2008)

Did you say take a mortgage for that lens sir???
http://gizmodo.com/353073/canon-120056l-usm-the-bfg-of-telephoto-lenses


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2008)

sooooo in light of this - who is holding off on canon/nikon and waiting for the sigma 500mm f2.8?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 3, 2008)

Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR:







Sigma 200-500 f/2.8:






I'll take the 200-400 please. 100mm less on the long end isn't THAT much of a difference, the 1 stop loss is negligible, the Nikon has VR, and is (for a little bit) hand-holdable.

One is practical, the other is not. Sigma made the 200-500 because _they could_, knowing that nobody for the most part was going to buy it. The Nikon 200-400 is constantly out of stock at most retailers.


----------



## jg123 (Jun 3, 2008)

If you could use it to get the first pic of some hot celebs baby you could pay for it in one-shot.

It would be a good deal if it offered x-ray vision too!!!


----------



## Alfred D. (Jun 4, 2008)

jg123 said:


> If you could use it to get the first pic of some hot celebs baby you could pay for it in one-shot.
> 
> It would be a good deal if it offered x-ray vision too!!!



Keep dreaming.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 4, 2008)

Pffft. It may be the fattest ugliest lens, but it's not the longest. 1700mm is far more practical than 500mm.

Nikkor 1200mm - 1700mm f/5.6-8





Actually come to think of it didn't canon have something absolutely ridiculous too?


----------



## usayit (Jun 4, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Pffft. It may be the fattest ugliest lens, but it's not the longest. 1700mm is far more practical than 500mm.
> 
> Nikkor 1200mm - 1700mm f/5.6-8
> 
> ...



Garbz...  thats not a nikkor...

[EDIT]
I take that back...  It might be...  It looks just like the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 lens painted black. NOTE: it is attached to a Canon body.  heheh lol

Notice the similarity in the pic below.

http://www.e-fotografija.com/markII/1200mm.jpg

I swear it is a Canon 1200mm... but I could be wrong...  the more I look at it the more it looks like a the Canon 1200mm especially since it is attache to a 1 series body.


I have a friend that collects wrist watches... can you imagine spending a few million on a watch?


----------



## Garbz (Jun 4, 2008)

Yeah it was converted to canon. http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/unleashing-the-beast/ But it's definitely a Nikkor AI-P lens.


----------



## usayit (Jun 4, 2008)

Wow... the first time I seen it.  That photo must drive Nikon versus Canon finatics nuts.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jun 4, 2008)

I take it you'll need to buy a new house to hold one of those.  Or just build another garage.

I read the Ken Rockwell page on this lens, and as much as I know the people on TPF hate him, it did teach me a couple of things. For instance, there isn't a classic zoom ring on the Sigma; it's more like a compact's zoom where you press buttons and it slowly zooms in and out, secondly, it really is a "hey, look at me!" lens. If you can think of a practical use for it (where you'll actually be able to hold it, mind), then I'd like to hear it. And thirdly, it weighs approximately as much as Scotland.


----------



## tim.bennett (Jun 4, 2008)

Can you imagine getting this through security at the airport?


----------



## jakedoza (Jun 4, 2008)

geez.. 2nd mortgage on the house for the lense... need another tripod too..


----------



## maytay20 (Jun 4, 2008)

Holy cow I just bought a house worth 2 of those lenses.  LOL


----------



## schumionbike (Jun 4, 2008)

did anyone notice that the len weight 35 lbs??? I think you need to order a scooter along with it.


----------



## icassell (Jun 9, 2008)

Why buy a cheap third-party lens when you can buy a real Canon for only $100K?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Mother-of-All-L-Lenses.jsp


----------



## shivaswrath (Jun 9, 2008)

caspertodd said:


> What a great lens for the zoo!  :lmao:
> 
> Here is a pic of it attached to a camera body:
> 
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg



what a wimp, he's not shooting it hand held! tripod with the sigma bimga is just girley man. . .


----------



## swmocity (Jun 12, 2008)

caspertodd said:


> What a great lens for the zoo! :lmao:
> 
> Here is a pic of it attached to a camera body:
> 
> http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/51/sigma-lens.jpg


 
huge!!


----------



## Marnault (Jun 17, 2008)

A lens that is F2.8 at 500mm requires massive glass. To figure out the size of the aperture, divide the focal length by the maximum F stop. For this lens it has a 179mm apature, which is about 7". Glass elements that big are very expensive and very difficult to make. For example the 70-200 F2.8 only has a aperture of 71mm, and even the 400mm F2.8 is 143mm. 

This is one of the main reasons it commands this price. The second being that it is the only lens out there that has these specs so it can command a premium price.


----------



## Apex (Jun 17, 2008)

This will be perfect to take pictures of my kids at the park!!!  :lmao:


----------

