Sigma APO 200-500 F2.8 telephoto lens hands-on

We spent some quality time around Sigma's monstrous APO 200-500 F2.8 lens this afternoon, and what can we say? It's gigantic. If you've ever wanted to the look of a portable rocket launcher without all the hassle at the airport, this is definitely the way to go. A feast for your eyes awaits in the gallery below.

Gallery: Sigma APO 200-500 F2.8 telephoto lens hands-on

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[erhan @ Feb 1st 2008 2:44PM]

Im going to take a picture of mars and find life.
damn it!!

[zfurie @ Feb 1st 2008 2:44PM]

Holy s**t!!! Look at the DSLR's size in comparison. Looks more like a compact P&S.

I bet I can fit my big head at the wide end of the barrel!

[tom @ Feb 1st 2008 2:46PM]

so at PMA are there any workshops to help the journalists take clearer photos?

[chrisk67 @ Feb 1st 2008 2:46PM]

Gigantic...May need 2 people to hold it up!
When you write about a "camera lens" wouldn't you think that the pictures of it would be clear?

Peace out...

[TheNomad @ Feb 1st 2008 2:51PM]

DAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM I want one!!!!!!

Would be able to see every single blemish on the girl across the ways booty with this in perfect clarity!!!!!

[Scott G. @ Feb 1st 2008 2:51PM]

Not so much the camera holding the lens, but vice versa. Maybe this is a defensive tactic to get football and basketball players to stop running in to them.

[john_v_phipps @ Feb 1st 2008 2:52PM]

I wonnder if it will enable me to take pictures of the future?

[Josh @ Feb 1st 2008 2:53PM]

Anyone have any pictures from this lens?? What are the specs?

[James Cameron @ Feb 1st 2008 2:58PM]

I see paparazzi will be head over heels about this.

[Joe @ Feb 1st 2008 3:00PM]

I don't want pictures _of_ the lens, I want pictures _from_ the lens! Come on!

[Jason @ Feb 1st 2008 3:14PM]

Holy crap...... if it was not for the curvature of the planet.. I would be able to take photo's of the nude beaches in the South of France from... New York (England would be closer.. but no one wants to see naked English people)

[ian9outof10 @ Feb 4th 2008 7:35AM]

No, everyone wants to see pictures of yo mama naked though.

[Fraggle.Rock @ Feb 1st 2008 3:22PM]

Aside from very specific applications, I'm not sure I really understand the purpose of this lens...

It is certainly huge and undoubtedly heavy. The fact that the lens is able to maintain f/2.8 across the focal range from 200-500mm is impressive, but those are massive glass lenses. I own the Canon 100-400mm L lens, which is not nearly as quick at f/4.5-5.6, but then again, its also about 1/20th of the size and who knows in terms of weight.

At 4.5 to 5.6 the lens really requires some decent light, so early evening low-light shots of a 24 Le Mans race would prove difficult. But if one were to look at other low-light photography, such as basketball or indoor football stadiums, a lens with f/2.8 would be nice, but it's certainly not necessary. The vast majority of sports and action photogs use Canon's L series, some prefer the Nikkor range, but this Sigma is just a bit odd (again with the caveat of very specific uses).

[Elliott @ Feb 1st 2008 3:27PM]

Well, I guess it's cheaper than buying a Corvette.

[Fraggle.Rock @ Feb 1st 2008 3:31PM]

BTW - 200-500mm isn't that great in terms of telephoto (@ Jason).

If you're looking for a lens with serious capabilities, look at the Nikkor 600mm, the Canon EF 800mm or 1200mm, when used with the 1.4x or 2.0x extenders, now you're getting some serious telephoto action... even Sigma's own 300-800 f/5.6 is pretty decent.

[Joe @ Feb 1st 2008 3:33PM]

In Soviet Russia, lens mounts YOU!

[Josh @ Feb 1st 2008 3:43PM]

200-500 isn't that great in terms of telephoto? Are you being serious? For almost all applications 500 is a spectacularly long length, especially when most photographers use 400 f/2.8s because that is as fast as you can get with maximum range. This would be spectacular for low light sports etc where 2.8 and a nice long end can really prove useful, and you have to stay in one spot in the stands or one part of the field anyways, so just get yourself a heft tripod and go.

I am not sure if they are offering any kind of multiplier for it, but imagine a 300-750 f/4 - that would be pretty handy...

In any case there is now way i could ever justify buying one of these hefty babies, but it is nice to see sigma getting inventive with their business model and pushing the limits...

[Jim @ Feb 1st 2008 3:49PM]

Anyone notice the 2x converter really making it a 400-1000 F5.6?

[Oktobr @ Feb 1st 2008 3:55PM]

I completely agree with tom. The photographs are embarrasingly blurry considering their subject. In fact, they look like cameraphone pictures. I expect more from journalists.

[Alex @ Feb 1st 2008 4:07PM]

Um, seriously engadget, could you at least send your picture takers to the show with an SLR and VR/IS lens (because we all know too well that given fast glass your staffers would shoot it wide open not considering DOF...sigh....) itd be nice to have some good quality pictures that are blurred or marred by iso 200 on ur compact looking like pooooo

[KC @ Feb 1st 2008 4:28PM]

Hands-on? You didn't even touch it!

Anyway, I can't see a practical reason for this lens. Maybe to zoom in at night to take photos of some... urm... wild life.... yeah.

[Jeff @ Feb 1st 2008 4:34PM]

This is truly hilarious.

I guess now we know why nobody's ever done a 200-500 f/2.8 lens before...

That thing is practically a parody of itself. I don't know who could possibly actually need this so badly that the size and weight would not just be a complete deal-breaker. Astronomy photographers? But they can just use somewhat longer exposure times...

I seriously have no idea who this is for.

[Jeff @ Feb 1st 2008 4:39PM]

btw, to add to my comment above, I'm no stranger to big lenses - this is my Sigma 135-400: http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k176/badasscat/sigma_135-400-009.jpg

I thought that thing was big! But this 200-500, this thing is just freakin' gratuitous.

[HansVB @ Feb 1st 2008 4:51PM]

Does it come with a lense cap?

[nathan @ Feb 1st 2008 5:23PM]

I think the problem with the photographer taking pictures of that Sigma decided to do a handhold/available light job and unfortunately he failed miserably because he either didn't open up his prime f/1.4 lens (yea, highly unlikely he was using a lens like that) or didn't increase his ISO to a faster speed. More than likely, as others pointed out, he was probably using his camera phone.

As for Sigma, they make some really good lenses with a great reputation. Their old 300mm/400mm APO's were supposedly great and reasonably priced.

[kevjohn @ Feb 1st 2008 5:27PM]

Restraining order be damned! I'm getting me some good pics of the ex-wife now, even if I DO have to stay 500 feet away from her!

[Mehul @ Feb 1st 2008 5:37PM]

You guys NEED to learn how to take clear pics. Just use a nice camera, high ISO and IS lens damn it! I'm sure Engadget can afford it...

[Mike Lane @ Feb 1st 2008 5:41PM]

Seriously, can't you engadget folks splurge on a tripod?

[Chris @ Feb 1st 2008 5:42PM]

Jeff, I sincerely doubt that you'd feel the same way if a first-party lens manufacturer had come out with it first.

[madgamer @ Feb 1st 2008 6:39PM]

After realizing how big this thing is, the briefcase handle on the top suddenly makes sense...

[Kranz @ Feb 1st 2008 8:10PM]

Some of you are asking what this is for.

Wouldn't it be perfect for wildlife photography?

[dlibrach @ Feb 1st 2008 8:32PM]

I managed to pop my CF card in it today. If anyone is interested some of the images can be seen here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/611539.

[kj @ Feb 3rd 2008 5:09PM]

now, those are nice shots!

[ian9outof10 @ Feb 4th 2008 7:40AM]

And in one go, you show Engadget how a hands-on should be done. Congrats, great shots.

[Mikey @ Feb 1st 2008 10:23PM]

Oh my, that camera sure has a... Big pair of shoes!

[chrisk67 @ Feb 1st 2008 10:26PM]

Dibrach,
Thank you for the pics. It gives a much better perspective on what that thing can do. As for HansVB comment, I would imagine the lens cap having a handle like a trash can on it. LARGE!
Enjoy yor weekend all.

CK

[Jeff @ Feb 1st 2008 10:49PM]

Chris:

Uh, no. Did you click the link I posted showing my own "big" lens?

Yeah, that's a 135-400 *Sigma* lens.

Never make assumptions, dude. You just got a minus!

Kranz:

What the hell kind of wildlife photography? You're going to go walking around the woods with that thing?

The whole point of a 2.8 lens is that you can shoot in *low light*. That's not necessary for wildlife photography, and in fact there are tons of lenses (like my 135-400 f/3.5-5.6) that are much smaller and would work perfectly for that. You don't need a 2.8 aperture at 500mm for wildlife.

One of my co-workers suggested that this would be great for spy photography, or Rear Window type voyeuristic stuff. That's about all I can see it being useful for too.

[chrisk67 @ Feb 2nd 2008 1:29AM]

Wake up Jeff, it was a compliment.

I hope that you have a crappy weekend and the rest of the people that left comments have a great weekend.

Go have fun with your "lens" big guy.

Whatever....minus...LOL That hurts.

[max andrews @ Feb 2nd 2008 1:48AM]

engadget, reference your own posts!:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/13/carl-zeiss-creates-over-five-foot-long-telephoto-lens/

[Sphynx @ Feb 2nd 2008 7:12AM]

Is there a shoulder mounted version available? ;)

[Joe T. @ Feb 2nd 2008 9:10AM]

@Jeff

"The whole point of a 2.8 lens is that you can shoot in *low light*."

Not necessarily. Lenses typically perform best when stopped down 1-2 stops. This 2.8 lens is going to be much sharper at F4-5.6 than your lens.

[Joe Templeman @ Feb 2nd 2008 9:36AM]

@Max Andrews,

How has that got any relivence? 500mm is not the impressive part, its the fact that its F2.8 at 500mm!

[Anon @ Feb 3rd 2008 10:53PM]

The Sigma 135-400mm you speak of is hardly a 'big' lens by comparison. It's actually quite compact without the lens hood. In fact, next to my 300mm it's positively tiny.

What kind of wildlife photography? Have you tried sticking a 2x convertor on your 'big' lens?

Thought not.

[KJ @ Feb 5th 2008 6:35AM]

hmm... somebody's compensating for something...