WOW!!!!! Talk about a lens. . . 500mm f/2.8?????

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013101sigma250500.asp

Sheeesh, just think about that for a second. . . with a good 2x teleconverter, that gives you 1000mm at 5.6 (or, with a crop factor of 1.5 on a Nikon body, 1500mm at 5.6). . . now THAT would make a great wildlife lens.

And I thought my 70-200 was heavy. I bet you could get some fine shots with this though, if you were set up somewhere.

:P

Hehehehe, can you picture the tripod you'd need to use this thing properly?

But seriously, how are supposed to use that thing? I have a good tripod I believe but even then, I wonder if this monster will fit on it. But, hey, I give Sigma props for developing this. That is one mighty fast lens with a long focal length.

. . . now THAT would make a great wildlife lens.

"Photograph endangered species around the world...without leaving the comfort of your home!" :rofl:

Olympus exotics. As I recall they had a 350mm f 2.8 that weighed about 30 lbs. It was a monster and quite a handfull. Nice lens tho even if it did cost $3000 in 1980 dollars.

Of course in those days we had to do all the focusing while trying to shoot and compose so the Sigma would be much easier to handle with it doing so much of the work.

Still, I'm not up to carrying that kind of glass around. There's a limit to the usefulness of something that big and ungainly. Besides, the cost of such things is such you'd not get as many good shots because you'd be too scared of hurting it. Unless, of course, you've got a Sugar Daddy like the factory . . .