slau wrote:
Undefined One,
I was just asking a serious question and not trying to be a smart ass or being skeptical.
I never thought you were. I just wanted to make sure I was being clear, in case there was any confusion over what I meant. Glad you appreciated the explanation.
The results are kind of surprising. I will do a quick summary/observation that is nothing scientific but interesting:
(1) Mark Booth & Photon are the winners with two right guesses each.
(2) NOBODY got the 135f2L right, and everyone thinks my 70-200f4 is the 135f2. I may consider that I have a very good copy of 70-200f4.
(3) Only Mark Booth got the 70-200IS right. 4 wrongfully guessed that my 135f2L was the 70-200IS. I am taking this as an excellent reflection on my 70-200IS and is better than most people would expect.
(4) Only Melissa and Mark Booth got the 28-135IS right. My copy of 28-135IS is not bad at all, even at wide open and at 135mmm.
(5) Marh1958 & Photon got the Bigma right. Personally, from this test, I think the Bigma clearly shows it does not belong to the same league of most other L lenses. It hurts as I really like my Bigma and it was my first long lens.
Thank you for practicipating in this little game, from which I learned a few things andI hopefully you do too. If anyone needs some clarification please ask. I have each image by each lens as a named layer in one PS file. I can turn things on and off and it is easy to check and verify data.
Guy, today may be a good day to do the 135+1.4X test (vs 70-200IS). But, from the results/expectation of the above game, I think I know the answer already. But, I will try to do the test and post the results today.
Very interesting. I was pretty sure about the Sigma, because of the different color rendition. It really doesn't look bad for a 10:1 zoom, I'd say. I'll stick with my statement that you have 6 very decent options for shooting at 135 mm, depending upon what you can carry, what other focal lengths you need, how bright the light, whether the subject is stationary, etc.
Photon wrote:
Very interesting. I was pretty sure about the Sigma, because of the different color rendition. It really doesn't look bad for a 10:1 zoom, I'd say. I'll stick with my statement that you have 6 very decent options for shooting at 135 mm, depending upon what you can carry, what other focal lengths you need, how bright the light, whether the subject is stationary, etc.
Ok, you picked the Sigma because of its color rendition. That is interesting and a releif (on my part), as it is better than because of the image quality. I really don't think there is a dog among those 6 lenses. Also, a lot of the contrast and color can be corrected or enhanced in post processing. I hope people would stop looking down on lenses like the Bigma, 28-135IS and 100-400IS, as they can definitely hold their own in the real world usage.
slau wrote:
Ok, you picked the Sigma because of its color rendition. That is interesting and a releif (on my part), as it is better than because of the image quality. I really don't think there is a dog among those 6 lenses. Also, a lot of the contrast and color can be corrected or enhanced in post processing. I hope people would stop looking down on lenses like the Bigma, 28-135IS and 100-400IS, as they can definitely hold their own in the real world usage.
Exactly. I find my copy of the 28-135 (one of the first ones made) a bit soft wide open (at long focal lengths), which means it falls a bit short when I need a higher shutter speed to stop motion. I wouldn't badmouth any of this group of lenses, however.
Not really. Got to go to work once in awhile and put food on the table . May have to wait until I have time and the light is good.
I noticed that you have the lenses and the TCs. Are you thinking about doing a shoot out with two different sets of lenses but with the same subject? It is still tough as the lighting can play a big part in determining the results. Suggestions?
Or, you can send me your lenses and I will test them nicely on your behalf .
Yes, I am planning on doing the same test between the 100-400 vs 70-200IS+2x in the next week or so. The extenders are brand new, so I am trying to decide if I can live with the 70-200IS and converter combo and get rid of the 100-400 (and possibly pick up a 300 IS or a 400 instead).
I've only seen one good comparison and I want to make sure it isn't dependent on the particular samples used.
