>>3541400There's very little reason to choose a Sigma lens over an Olympus or Panasonic lens, but they do offer some really inexpensive primes for the system, from wide angle to telephoto.
That's about all they can probably make money at considering how phenomenal the Olympus and Panasonic zooms are. I don't think Sigma can compete in that space.
>>3541403300mm with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, giving you equiv of 600mm, 840mm, and 1600mm.
f4 is f4, dumbfuck.You can jerk off to Tony Northcrap and his aperture equivalence lies all you like, it's not going to change the fact that an f4 lens is an f4 lens and will provide the same L*m^2 as f4 on any other system. It's the same in all but bokehwhoring, which is irrelevant for a lens like that.
There is also the 40-150mm with is also compatible with the 1.4x and 2x TCs, giving you the equiv. of 80mm to 600mm in one lens.
Then there's the upcoming Olympus 150-400mm, which is also compatible with both TCs, giving you the equiiv of 300-1600mm in a single lens.
There is NOTHING on FF that is even remotely comparable for price, size, weight, and performance. It's literally a completely and utterly stacked game against FF, unless you're filthy rich or work for Sports Illustrated.
