EB-1 wrote:
It seems odd to look for the obsolete version now, but I suppose anything is possible.
EBH
The new version is 50% more than the old version and the Sigma | C, so...
-----
To answer the OP's question, the Sigma | C is largely superior, not so much more as just better a little in every way. I purchased it instead of the OG Tamron for this reason, and for its price, I am quite satisfied.
However, the G2 Tamron (if you can get over Tamron's unergonomic zoom direction) does make a good upgrade in that it is likely at least as good as the Sigma | C optically and in terms of AF and stabilization (you'll want to check reviews as they come available to be sure), while adding weather sealing but not the extra size and weight as seen in the Sigma | S.
Sigma sports to justify the ridiculous weight needs to be a true f/5.6 lens, but I suspect they could do that and still make it lighter. Things like getting rid of the metal hood and using a lightweight plastic would save almost 0.5kg alone. If it remains f/6.3 it should aim at no more than 2.3-2.4kg. Given that the new Sigma 500 f/4 is almost as light as the Canon, Sigma looks to have turned a corner in telephoto weight, so I live in hope.
Sigma C is very good, but I like the look of the Tamron G2 has a a couple of nice features and build is better than Sigma C.
Pixel Perfect wrote: Sigma sports to justify the ridiculous weight needs to be a true f/5.6 lens,but I suspect they could do that and still make it lighter. Things like getting rid of the metal hood and using a lightweight plastic would save almost 0.5kg alone. If it remains f/6.3 it should aim at no more than 2.3-2.4kg. Given that the new Sigma 500 f/4 is almost as light as the Canon, Sigma looks to have turned a corner in telephoto weight, so I live in hope.
Sigma C is very good, but I like the look of the Tamron G2 has a a couple of nice features and build is better than Sigma C....Show more →
Very interesting thought,which I too feel the same way.
From the basic calculations (learnt from this forum), as the filter size is huge 105mm for the sports, the F-stops comes to 600/105 = 5.71 , which is very close to 5.6. Or for that matter, if it were to be 588mm ( only 12mm short of a true 600mm), it could have been a true 5.6 lens.
Very strange to find it termed as a '6.3' lens either way.
In future if any 600mm/f5.6 zoom lens is released, the filter size might be again at or near 105mm. This might also be true as the 105mm sized filter is the largest one to be found .(Plz correct me if I am mistaken)
PIXPHATIC wrote:
Very interesting thought,which I too feel the same way.
From the basic calculations (learnt from this forum), as the filter size is huge 105mm for the sports, the F-stops comes to 600/105 = 5.71 , which is very close to 5.6. Or for that matter, if it were to be 588mm ( only 12mm short of a true 600mm), it could have been a true 5.6 lens.
Very strange to find it termed as a '6.3' lens either way.
In future if any 600mm/f5.6 zoom lens is released, the filter size might be again at or near 105mm. This might also be true as the 105mm sized filter is the largest one to be found .(Plz correct me if I am mistaken)...Show more →
The filter size doesn't correspond exactly to the front element size. If you look at the 150-600 lens you will see the it continues to taper outwards past the front element. The filter is 105 but the element is likely closer to 95 which it would be for a 600 6.3.
PIXPHATIC wrote:
Very interesting thought,which I too feel the same way.
From the basic calculations (learnt from this forum), as the filter size is huge 105mm for the sports, the F-stops comes to 600/105 = 5.71 , which is very close to 5.6. Or for that matter, if it were to be 588mm ( only 12mm short of a true 600mm), it could have been a true 5.6 lens.
Very strange to find it termed as a '6.3' lens either way.
In future if any 600mm/f5.6 zoom lens is released, the filter size might be again at or near 105mm. This might also be true as the 105mm sized filter is the largest one to be found .(Plz correct me if I am mistaken)...Show more →
arbitrage wrote:
The filter size doesn't correspond exactly to the front element size. If you look at the 150-600 lens you will see the it continues to taper outwards past the front element. The filter is 105 but the element is likely closer to 95 which it would be for a 600 6.3.
Thanks Sir, point taken.
So,should that mean in reality that huge 105mm optical 'opening' isn't contributing to the IQ of the lens.??
On the contrary,I felt the IQ of the Sports seems to be better due to it's 105mm opening ( enabling better light gathering). I think read abt this somewhere..
Also anyone intending to put a sort of protective filter (I guess..??) would also have to invest quite a bit of amount.
Another thing is that for those other (600mm f6.3 zooms) having 95mm filter size isn't loosing anything, or for them the light gathering even lesser ?
---------------------------------------------
qc_mountain wrote:
In screw type filter it can go up to 138mm size .
Francois
Thanks Francois.....I was unaware of that.Must be very costly.
Thanks friends again. So much to learn from this forum.
Until a number of people have bought and used the new Tamron (and posted samples), we will not know if the IQ or AF is any better than version 1, or the Sigma C.
PIXPHATIC wrote:
Thanks Sir, point taken.
So,should that mean in reality that huge 105mm optical 'opening' isn't contributing to the IQ of the lens.??
On the contrary,I felt the IQ of the Sports seems to be better due to it's 105mm opening ( enabling better light gathering). I think read abt this somewhere..
Also anyone intending to put a sort of protective filter (I guess..??) would also have to invest quite a bit of amount.
Another thing is that for those other (600mm f6.3 zooms) having 95mm filter size isn't loosing anything, or for them the light gathering even lesser ?
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Francois.....I was unaware of that.Must be very costly.
Thanks friends again. So much to learn from this forum.
The larger glass will certainly help minimise vignetting wide open, it's collecting more light from highly skew rays.
I would never use a filter on this sort of lens however, so the cost of such large filters never worries me. I'd prefer a rear mounted one like in the superteles.
PIXPHATIC wrote:
Thanks Sir, point taken.
So,should that mean in reality that huge 105mm optical 'opening' isn't contributing to the IQ of the lens.??
On the contrary,I felt the IQ of the Sports seems to be better due to it's 105mm opening ( enabling better light gathering). I think read abt this somewhere..
Also anyone intending to put a sort of protective filter (I guess..??) would also have to invest quite a bit of amount.
Another thing is that for those other (600mm f6.3 zooms) having 95mm filter size isn't loosing anything, or for them the light gathering even lesser ?
---------------------------------------------
Thanks Francois.....I was unaware of that.Must be very costly.
Thanks friends again. So much to learn from this forum.
The minimum front element size would be about 95 mm to achive f/6.3 at 600 mm. That does not mean a 600 mm lens with 105 mm front glass has an aperture of less than f/6.3.
For example, the first 80-200/2.8 Nikkor had a 95 mm filter.
.