100-400mm f/5-f/6.3
My thinking was much the same... Something is going to have to "give" in this new lens to make it the logical alternative to the 600mm's. That means weight and price-point if I had to guess.I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.
Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.
Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, when they already have 2 versions (S and C) of the 150-600 mm f/5-f/6.3 lens.
Unless they are aiming this at folks who want a lighter telephoto. Other then that, it makes no sense to me.
I don't know what you read but DG, in Sigma parlance, indicates a full-frame lens (vs DC for ASPC glass).Did I read somewhere that the 100-400mm was a DX lens?
I don't know what you read but DG, in Sigma parlance, indicates a full-frame lens (vs DC for ASPC glass).
Blame the media; fake news and what not... It's my Go-To Excuse!I was a blog post I thought I read somewhere, maybe Nikon Rumors, where they were also wrapping their mind around the 14mm. It was early rumor info, so quite likely wrong and par for the course for me lately.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
you need to eat some spinach @mikew and get your old combo back. lol oj.