March 05, 2015, 11:26:42 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 87
166
Side-by-side comparison of the Tamron vs Sigma

http://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/tamron-vs-sigma-150-600.html

Claimed to be a fair comparison on Safari in Madikwe, but were the odds stacked against the Sigma as it was on a 12 mp D3S and the Tamron on the 36 mp D800? Probably not as the photos all appear to have the big game filling most of the frame and at reduced size where you wouldn't be able to tell any differences! However, both lenses stood up well to the conditions. The Sigma was described as being good on the jeep but the Tamron was good for walking around. I can handle the Canon 300/2.8 2xTCIII combo which is as heavy as the Sigma. However, the Tamron is that much easier at a kilo less. I am hoping that the new 100-400II on the 7DII will be a much lighter combination with a similar reach as it is good at f/5.6, with a 1.4xTC in reserve.

ps
Another review, complaining about the weight

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-s-field-test

What I hadn't realised is that it has a big metal lenshood, which will add to the weight. Given the extra length of this lens with the extra weight in front, it will be difficult to hand hold, especially with that leverage against you.

The Canon 300/2.8 II is
128x248mm
2350 g
But plus
+ hood + camo + 2xTC = 2900 g (weighed on my kitchen scales)

Sigma 150-600
121 x 290.2 mm (unextended)
2860 g.
But I guess the hood weighs another 300 g.

It's worth noting that the IS on the Canon is just so much better, e good 4 stops. The Tamron is 3 stops in my hands, and the difference is noticeable at 600mm when you are handholding and focussing in. Lenstip have the Sigma at only 2-2.5 stops, about the same as the old 100-400.

167
Here is comparison of MTFs from Lenstip - a very useful site. Basically, the Sigma 150-600 beats the Tamron 150-600 at 300 mm and below. At 450 and 600mm, the Sigma at f/6.3 is very similar to the Tamron at f/8, and the Sigma is hardly better at f/8. So, in practice, for the long shots the Sigma gains you 0.7 stops (f/8 is my default aperture for the Tamron).

The Sigma looks remarkable at 300mm vs the incredible Canon 300/2.8 II. But, the Canon gives the same quality 3 stops faster in the centre and roars ahead going to the edges. Also, as my 300/2.8 + 2xTC beats my Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, I would now predict that it would easily do the same versus the Sigma.

Some pictures taken with Sigma 150-600 :

http://www.birdnet.cn/thread-867901-1-1.html

http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-173.html

https://www.flickr.com/photos/guccidpo/15601214150/in/photostream/


Comparison with 150-600 tamron:

http://www.birdnet.cn/thread-867901-4-1.html

Thanks for MTFs from Lenstip and clear compillation

The comparison between the Sigma and Tamron in http://www.birdnet.cn/thread-867901-4-1.html appears to be at f/6.3 where the MTFs show that the Sigma is significantly better, and so the results are indeed consistent. It will be interesting to see the comparisons at f/8, where the MTFS suggest they should be similar. My customs settings are f/8 for the Tamron at 600mm, and I don't use f/6.3. The lens diameter of the Tamron is too small for a decent f/6.3 - 95mm filter size vs 95.2 mm calculated, and I consider it an f/8 lens with the f/6.3 nominal for focussing. The Sigma S is the better lens - a very good lens indeed - but at the cost of size and weight. I would be surprised if the Sigma C does not have the same weakness as the Tamron.

168
Photography Technique / Re: Share 3x your own advice to yourself!
« on: November 27, 2014, 04:45:45 AM »
.
I now rarely make the dreadful errors you see in this picture I took 54 years ago...



If it's helpful at all, here are my three primary rules:

1. SEE the image.

2. Get the image into the box.

3. Get the image out of the box.

Never quite as easy as it sounds.

It's a really great photo that tells a story of its period. The gross American car just peeking through on the left, the single-storey house behind a metal fence with a bored canine looking sideways, and the very clever touch of showing the photographer in a military helmet via the shadow.  That was 1960 - a real classic of which you should be proud.

ps, the composition is great - the massive, triangular shadow leading in to the scene, culminating in the helmeted head about 1/3rd up and 1/3rd in, then moving centre to the dog and swinging into the tailfins of the car about 1/3rd down.

169
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 is ii vs new 100-400
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:17:42 PM »
There has been thread, after thread, after thread on this topic. There is even a current one, started on 20 Nov: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....   http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23768.0

No one has to read any thread, and it their choice to ignore the obvious, but sometimes you feel people should consult the topics list first before repeating the well covered topics.

170
Lenses / Re: Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III
« on: November 25, 2014, 07:01:51 AM »
maybe for indoor sports, if 200mm is not enough, instead of buying a new 100-400 and a 135 you can stretch your Budget to get a 300 2.8 IS, for maybe 3000-3500 this should be available used.

Thats a fantastic lens, with great AF and better you crop a Little than have 2 stops more ISO and worse AF on a 5.6 zoom. The newer 300 2.8 ii would bave even better IQ and AF, and most important better IS, but for sports when you can use a tripod this is maybe not woth 2x the price

It's worth twice the price! The IS and performance with TCs are worth every penny.

171
Lenses / Re: MY GAS. ILLNESS COME TO VISIT ME AGAIN.
« on: November 19, 2014, 10:34:56 AM »
Your Mk I is more than adequate for your 2-3 times a year use, especially as you think it sharp enough. Why don't you donate the price of the Mk II to a suitable charity, like one for ebola, instead. Think of the satisfaction you will get from that. You could also sell off your unused lenses and donate the cash raised for a worthy charity as well. It will cure your GAS and do some good.

172

 The C version will have fewer lens elements, which means lass corrections for distortion and CA's.  So far, I haven't seen any test reviews of the "S" version that indicates a big advantage over the Tamron lens, that may change as more carefully done tests come in.  There is always a variation in test results, so I tend to ignore the outlier results and accept the ones that are reported by the most testers.  Astute lens testers also make sure that values do not exceed the MTF curves, if they do, it indicates a error in the testing.
 
I'm wondering if the "C" version is delayed due to manufacturing difficulties, or just to allow them to fill the huge volume of "S" orders first.  I'd think its just the latter, cranking as many of the "S" lenses thru the line to meet initial demand, then starting to produce the "C" version which will sell in greater numbers for sure.
[/quote]

I wonder if it really is manufacturing difficulties or even allowing themselves to fill a huge volume of S orders first. More prosaically, they were in the process of finishing the design and tooling up for the S when they were taken by surprise by the Tamron and decided to build a C competitor. Also, if they marketed the C first, then it would take away from the later S sales if there wasn't that much of an IQ increase. Whatever the case, the new 100-400 L II is going to dent the opposition.

173


Don't forget that Sigma have the >600mm CONTEMPORARY edition of the lens on its way! It's shorter, it's narrower and no doubt lighter (the dimensions' specs are available online, though the weight is yet to be announced)

Sigma have apparently said it's not going to be a great difference in image quality - though it lacks the sturdier (heavier) build and advanced weather-sealing of the SPORTS version.

Personally, I'm very excited to see how the CONTEMPORARY version measures up and having never had problems with my 400mm f/5.6L and its apparent "poor weather sealing" (I aaalways have neoprene camoflage covers on the lens) I think the >600mm C and a nice set of neoprene covers (custom if necessary) might just be the lens for me :D

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/150-600mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-c  - Official Contemporary Specs
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/150-600mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-s  - Official Sports Specs

So that's  4.8" x 11.4" Vs 4.1" x 10.2"

...and .1" longer in "lugging mode" than the 400mm f/5.6L - I can deal with that :)

Lest we forget - our greatest lenses are the ones which DON'T stay at home ;)

Who's joining me in Sigma 600mm C excitability?!!

EDIT: PS. I've seen ONE online retailer claim this lens was to be around £1099, so I reckon this may well be in direct competition-obliterating competition with the Tamron, in regards to price et al!

If the Contemporary is going to be on a par with the Sports, not many would buy the far more expensive and monster Sports because of its sturdier build. So the C will be in "direct competition-obliterating competition with the" S!

174
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?
« on: November 16, 2014, 05:03:23 AM »
The question is: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II? not 6D -or- 7D Mk II? It is not FF vs crop?

The 1.4XTC lowers aperture by a stop and slightly degrades the image. So, the advantage of FF having better iso noise is lost by having to use a 1.4x higher f number. My choice, therefore, would be the 7D II.

175
Dear Teachers and Friends.
Form all the Details that Indicate = Sigma  150-600mm. is better than Tamron 150-600 mm.
My stupid question is =  Do the better /sharper Lens of Sigma worth $ 1,000 US Dollars more than Tamron ( Which Better AF for all of my Canon Camerta bodies ???)
$ 1999  Sigma VS $ 1199 US Dollars of Tamron.
Thank you, Sir/ Madam.
Have a great Weekend.
Surapon.
PS. Yes, I already have Canon 600mm. / The Great Lens for Birds, But  too big to carry on the small airplane= Yes, I will need  smaller 600 mm.  Lens soon. Yes, I  use 100-400 mm L + 1.4X and 2X all of my trip, and worth it too.

It is not the price but the weight and size:
Tamron 150-600
105.6 x 257.8 mm (unextended)
1951 g

Sigma 150-600
121 x 290.2 mm (unextended)
2860 g

The Sigma weighs 909 g = 2.00 lb more and is considerably bigger. I can easily manage 2860 g hand held, nearly the same as my Canon 300/2.8 + 2xTC. But I travel with the Tamron because it is smaller and lighter. And, I am hoping the new 100-400 II will be as good for even more convenient travel. (For a specialist safari or birding trip, I would take the best not the lightest, of course).

176
Here is comparison of MTFs from Lenstip - a very useful site. Basically, the Sigma 150-600 beats the Tamron 150-600 at 300 mm and below. At 450 and 600mm, the Sigma at f/6.3 is very similar to the Tamron at f/8, and the Sigma is hardly better at f/8. So, in practice, for the long shots the Sigma gains you 0.7 stops (f/8 is my default aperture for the Tamron).

The Sigma looks remarkable at 300mm vs the incredible Canon 300/2.8 II. But, the Canon gives the same quality 3 stops faster in the centre and roars ahead going to the edges. Also, as my 300/2.8 + 2xTC beats my Tamron 150-600 at 600mm, I would now predict that it would easily do the same versus the Sigma.

177
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54694447

OK, I know it's versus a Nikon, but even so: the Sigma 150-600 at 600mm easily beats the Nikon 300/2.8 + 2xTC!

Looking at the Sigma's superb MTFs measured by lenstip on a 5DIII, I can believe that. If only it wasn't so heavy, it seems a remarkable lens.

ps more detailed in http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens-review.aspx/

They also noticed some focus breathing...I am hoping at longer distances, this will not be much of an issue.  That is one item I am watching (I have not yet canceled my pre-order).

Also, I know it is heavy, but the way I look at it:
EF 300 f/2.8 plus 2x TC with hood: 100 oz
150-600S: 101 oz

Bottom line...to get to 600 mm, you will be carrying some weight. That does make the Tamron and, assuming here, the 150-600C, remarkable.

The reviewer states specifically that there is focus breathing at 9 feet, and the Sigma is only on a par with the Nikon at that distance. But, at 50 feet there is insignificant breathing (as yu would expect) and the Sigma beats the Nikon.

I can't wait to see side-by-side comparisons of the new 100-400L ± 1.4xTC, Sigma 150-600 S and C, Canon 300/2.8 II + 2xTC and Tamron 150-600mm.


178
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54694447

OK, I know it's versus a Nikon, but even so: the Sigma 150-600 at 600mm easily beats the Nikon 300/2.8 + 2xTC!

Looking at the Sigma's superb MTFs measured by lenstip on a 5DIII, I can believe that. If only it wasn't so heavy, it seems a remarkable lens.

ps more detailed in http://nikonrumors.com/2014/11/09/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens-review.aspx/

179
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 14, 2014, 12:41:37 PM »
Throwing this out there for the sake of discussion, but is anybody worried about the performance of this lens?

My thought process is this.
- 4x on a lens does lead to some inherent difficulty in getting an ultra sharp shot throughout focal range
- extended time in between lens generations, including a delay in what was supposed to be the debut date earlier this year, suggests that there might be manufacturing QC issues, or at least difficulty in improving IQ


Canon publishes the MTF curves of this lens as well as the old one, and you can clearly see the curves are better on the new one.
 
The IS has been modernized, lens coatings are now updated to eliminate reflections off digital sensors, even if IQ wasn't a whole lot better, it has a lot more going for it.
 
That close MFD means I can put on a 1.4X TC and get some close ups of small creatures, flowers and birds like Hummingbirds that are not so shy.
 
The major US camera stores have a 30 day return policy, and often longer for Christmas items, so there is no risk except for return shipping cost.
 
Unlike a body that is obsolete in 2-4 years, this lens will be the current model for 10 years, probably 15.



...have you looked a the MTFs for the 400/5.6?

Not very good are they - yet this is a highly rated little lens even today.

My point is you should not judge a new lens which is not even in the shops yet by its MTF

It's a very popular lens, especially on CR. I used one for a while and had a great fun with it and got some great shots. But as slrgear says about it:

Sharpness
The 400mm ƒ/5.6L USM produces sharp results - not tack-sharp, but certainly very good.

which you can see from their "blur tests" http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/167/cat/10

The more modern white lenses are much more expensive but the best are "tack-sharp", and you can see that from their MTFs. If the 100-400mm II had poor MTFs, I personally wouldn't go near it. But, it does look very good on paper and as TDP says "When all of the lines get crushed into the top of the chart, the lens promises to be amazing."
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

180
Lenses / Re: Preorder: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 13, 2014, 01:55:30 PM »
The reason Roger is more trusted than you is because he wouldn't have said he got one good one out of four, he would have said he tested six (he would have tested the two you didn't) and he found two to be off, and those two were from the same batch.

I wrote the following in my first post about this: "2 copies were very soft at 400mm, 1 was decent and 1 was super sharp." Which is a fact and the only point that I wanted to make was that there were QC issues with the old 100-400. I didn't elaborate on when and where those copies were tested until you insinuated that the pick was completely random and therefore labelled my post as untrustworthy. I then gave more details, but how does that change my original statement? You buy a new lens and chances are that you get a bad copy. With the old 100-400, chances were quite high. After all, at one point in time, 4 buyers bought a 100-400 from my camera store. One got a perfect lens (that was me), another got a decent lens and 2 got lenses that were really bad. You may find this ok, but I don't.

See slrgear's commentss:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/77/cat/11
"Build Quality and Handling
The story of our testing the 100-400mm is a story of sample variation. We went through four copies for evaluation, the first three showing problems which made our test results either impossible or questionable (for example, our first sample had extreme softness in the central region of the image, leading us to believe it had been damaged in shipping). The moral of the story is don't commit to a sale unless you have a chance to test the lens to establish its performance, as in addition to our experience, there are widespread reports of both excellent and poor samples of this lens on the market."

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 87