Thanks Roger - great thoughts as always (and cool new test too!)
This lens is worthy of consideration for a lot of folks, certainly. Optically, it's about where I expected it, at least in a "lab test" environment. I think most telling is what people will be able to squeeze out of this thing in the field. The coming weeks and months should be most interesting - not just in terms of what people post as far as images, but what responses we might see coming from Canon, Nikon and Sigma.
One time I dropped my camera, the shutter went off when it hit, and it made a great macro of the bottom of a dandelion
Yeah, one time I dropped my camera and - well, I didn't get a picture, put it that way.
Every time there are no decent reviews and no 100% crops I know the lens isn't very good.
I can make even 18-55 look sharp when I downsize it to web resolution, so what's the point of even posting.
Here's Sigma 50-500(V2) All photos are 100% crops.
Edited in lightroom with sharpening set at Radius 1.0 and Sharpening amount set to 80.
One of the worst 100-400L shots I've seen. Having used the 100-400L + 1.4x a lot, this shot bears no resemblance to reality even excluding the fact is underexposed.
DmitriM wrote:
Every time there are no decent reviews and no 100% crops I know the lens isn't very good.
I can make even 18-55 look sharp when I downsize it to web resolution, so what's the point of even posting.
Here's Sigma 50-500(V2) All photos are 100% crops.
Edited in lightroom with sharpening set at Radius 1.0 and Sharpening amount set to 80.
And you took all these during the first 2 days after the release of the 50-500?
Just for reference I also have a very sharp copy of the 50-500mm OS.
My 150-600 is a little sharper than that, has 100mm advantage and a focus limiter.
Will still keep the 50-500mm for my wife but I will be using the 150-600mm myself (as a lightweight alternative to my 500mm f4.5)
Also, just for reference, my 150-600 also compared very well with my Sigma 500mm.
Below is an 100% crop of the Sigma 500mm + Kenko 1.4x at 700mm f6.3 (open wide).
That's what I call sharp.
hoodlum90 wrote:
Like most zooms you would need to stop down at the very long end to improve sharpness.
Not with the 100-400L, I shoot it wide open 90% of the time at 400mm, where it also glued 90% of the time. You only stop down for a bit more DoF. A good copy is only a hair behind the 400 f/5.6L for IQ.
DmitriM wrote:
Every time there are no decent reviews and no 100% crops I know the lens isn't very good.
Lenrentals results would seem to suggest the Tamron is much sharper above 400mm vs the 50-500mm. And since Lensrental has access to many copies of each lens I would give more weight to their results.
hoodlum90 wrote:
Lenrentals results would seem to suggest the Tamron is much sharper above 400mm vs the 50-500mm. And since Lensrental has access to many copies of each lens I would give more weight to their results.
They aren't photographers so why would you trust results of a guy who seats behind a desk and rents lenses over someone who takes photos for a living...
Real world results are all that matters and not meaningless numbers that are absolutely useless.
I don't have Tamron so I can't test it and I don't know which one is better. I just posted a few of my shots I took( I have a ton more,including from the Sigma 50-500 V1 that I used to have).
Extremely sharp lens that I kept over 100-400L
DmitriM wrote:
They aren't photographers so why would you trust results of a guy who seats behind a desk and rents lenses over someone who takes photos for a living...
Seriously?
You make that sort of blanket judgement about any line of work?
Yeah, I can see starting a car magazine because I knew absolutely nothing about cars, didn't really care about them, but liked the pretty colors they come in.
micloi wrote:
And you took all these during the first 2 days after the release of the 50-500?
My 150-600 is a little sharper than that, has 100mm advantage and a focus limiter.
I don't know if it was 2 days after the release, that shouldn't make a difference. I bought this lens right after it came out so it's pretty old now.
Your 150-600 may very well be sharper, but I've yet to see a sharp image from this lens. I guess we all have different opinions on what a sharp image looks like.
AnthonyRay wrote:
Seriously?
You make that sort of blanket judgement about any line of work?
Yeah, I can see starting a car magazine because I knew absolutely nothing about cars, didn't really care about them, but liked the pretty colors they come in.
Or are you just trolling?
I am serious... Do you have something to say or you just like to disagree with people?
micloi wrote:
And you took all these during the first 2 days after the release of the 50-500?
He already clarified this that no, he didn't: Here's Sigma 50-500(V2)
I'm a huge fan of Sigma, but they've come back and "tweaked" more than a few of their designs after the fact.
I'm assuming we'll see some pretty good things out of the Tamron, but bottom line is it's a $1k lens for crying out loud.
Again, I'll wait and see what people do out in the field with this thing.
DmitriM wrote:
Well, is he or is he not a working photographer? What's the point of the argument if I am right?
You are welcome to put be back to my place if you give facts disapproving my statement. Otherwise it's a pointless argument.
Ah, I see. We've gone from "photographers" to "working photographers". Are we going to hone in on specifics of photography? Is portraiture more photography than wedding or architecture?
Some make money doing what they love, some don't. Some don't need to. I fall into all of these categories. I've also been in a business where I've hired many photographers, both for my own company or as independent contractors. I now find myself being hired for something I've never considered myself all that good at. My clients think otherwise. Go figure. Then again, a lot of people are a lot worse at it than I am.
I'm in awe of the quality of photography I see here (yours included) and consider myself a hack that loves the subject.
As for your question, I don't care to "put you back in your place", and ultimately Roger is the only one that can answer that question (if he cares to). In the meantime, I will trust his judgement on lenses regardless of whether or not he's actually made money shooting. And you're free to not!
