The Sigma L-Mount I really want is a 70-200mm f2.8 Sport DN. I have the DG version on my Nikon D500 and it is great! I am sure that a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 DN L-Mount would be a popular high volume lens.
molson wrote:
I'm curious to see how well the lens works with teleconverters.
I would be curious about that as well. I seem to remember reading that on the Canon-mount Sigma teleconverters, they could only be used on certain parts of the focal range on at least some zoom lenses. I don't know if this was true for all of their zoom lenses or not, but I certainly thought it was crippling.
Anyone have insight into when they will come out with a Canon RF mount version? Trying to decide whether to purchase the EF for wait, depending on how long it will be.
Jeffrey Myers wrote:
Anyone have insight into when they will come out with a Canon RF mount version? Trying to decide whether to purchase the EF for wait, depending on how long it will be.
There’s reliable gossip that Canon has prevented Samyang from using their RF AF protocols. Samyang have discontinued their RF lenses as a result.
That may be Samyang specific, but it’s moderately likely that it means no third party AF lenses for Canon for the forseeable future, unless specifically licensed which they show no sign of doing. Of course you’ll still be able to get RF mount no communication lenses from China.
There are now two adapters available to adapt E mount lenses to Nikon Z. I previously used sigma 70mm macro on nikon z with very good results. I also tested the 100-400 lens which was ok. However that was with the techart adapter. I the new adapter that is it promises more compatibility and performance. So I think that this lens should work too.
ajamils wrote:
FTZ allows to adopt Nikon lenses not FE or L-mount. I'm sure he is referring to the older DSLR version of the lens.
DavidBM wrote:
There’s reliable gossip that Canon has prevented Samyang from using their RF AF protocols. Samyang have discontinued their RF lenses as a result.
That may be Samyang specific, but it’s moderately likely that it means no third party AF lenses for Canon for the forseeable future, unless specifically licensed which they show no sign of doing. Of course you’ll still be able to get RF mount no communication lenses from China.
Wow, wasn't aware of this happening. That's really crappy of Canon to continue this kind of policy against 3rd party lenses.
Another reason to stay in the Sony ecosystem I guess .
In order from best to worst.
IQ:
Sony
Sigma
Tamron
Build Quality:
Sony
Sigma
Tamron
Portability:
Tamron
Sigma
Sony
AF Speed:
Sony
Sigma / Tamron
Price:
Tamron
Sigma
Sony
I like your summary, but I think IQ here is a nebulous label. It seems to be based on resolution, but there's a lot more to IQ than absolute resolution, much of which he only touches on even in his full reviews. He rarely looks at backlit performance, distortion at varied focal length and focus distances, bokeh at varied lengths and distances. His testing tells us some about the resolution of a lens, some aspects of its CA performance, and some aspects of its distortion performance at an unspecified focus distance. While Sony and Sigma run neck and neck for resolution, with one lens weaker at some focal lengths and stronger at others, the CA correction on the Sigma isn't great. Sony and Tamron are very close in their correction. The Sony and Sigma had a distortion advantage, and appear to be about equal.
Anyway, I should note I'm not trying to belittle you or Frost. I like his videos, and I feel like he does a good job of introducing me to lenses I plan to rent. He's also one of the least pretentious vloggers and doesn't try to sell you on his personality, which I appreciate, but, like with anyone else out there giving you an overview with a single copy of a lens, you have to appreciate it for what it is, and it's usually a fraction of the whole story, especially with zooms.
What all the reviews I've seen so far, the optical quality seems to be very similar as the Sony 200-600
Some find a bit more sharpness on the Sony at some FLs, some others can't find a difference or even find the Sigma a bit sharper at some FLs (DustinA found the Sigma to be a bit sharper in the center at 600mm). Rendering, CA, distortion, are not an issue on any of these 2 lenses.
AF tracking seems to be very good as well for BIF and sport. This is a complicated comparison because there are many variables that can affect the performance and keeper rate. Light available, camera model and settings, subject being tracked, etc. The known limitation of the Sigma is 15fps. The 200-600 seems to actually achieve ~20fps on the A1, according to some youtubers.
My compilation of Pros for each lens:
Sigma:
- $500 less
- more compact, will fit in most bags
- better tripod collar mount (with Arca-Swiss and click when it hits the 90 degrees angle)
- starts at 150mm
- close focus
- not white (personal preference)
Sony:
- internal focus
- faster burst rate with AF (although 15fps is already good)
- compatible with the 1.4x converter
- safe choice for AF tracking and optical perfs.
Fboss wrote:
I'm thinking about getting this new Sigma.
What all the reviews I've seen so far, the optical quality seems to be very similar as the Sony 200-600
Some find a bit more sharpness on the Sony at some FLs, some others can't find a difference or even find the Sigma a bit sharper at some FLs (DustinA found the Sigma to be a bit sharper in the center at 600mm). Rendering, CA, distortion, are not an issue on any of these 2 lenses.
AF tracking seems to be very good as well for BIF and sport. This is a complicated comparison because there are many variables that can affect the performance and keeper rate. Light available, camera model and settings, subject being tracked, etc. The known limitation of the Sigma is 15fps. The 200-600 seems to actually achieve ~20fps on the A1, according to some youtubers.
My compilation of Pros for each lens:
Sigma:
- $500 less
- more compact, will fit in most bags
- better tripod collar mount (with Arca-Swiss and click when it hits the 90 degrees angle)
- starts at 150mm
- close focus
- not white (personal preference)
Sony:
- internal focus
- faster burst rate with AF (although 15fps is already good)
AF tracking is actually the thing that is still unclear to me. Most of the reviews I've seen seem to position it close enough to Sony, but there was one or two which spefically mention that it's visibly inferior when tracking fast action. The latter would match my experience when it comes to DN lenses with stepper motors and I think that's the main usage of such a lens...
I really don't know who to believe on this.
And another recent full review : https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_150_600mm_f5_6_3_dg_dn_os_sports_review
"The full frame at 600mm; At both the the centre and the edges of the image, sharpness is a little soft at the maximum aperture, sharpening up at f/8. It maintains that level of sharpness until f/22, where it remains excellent but is ever-so-slightly softer due to diffraction. "
Still not sure if I get this one, or the Sony 200-600mm.
And another recent full review : https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_150_600mm_f5_6_3_dg_dn_os_sports_review
"The full frame at 600mm; At both the the centre and the edges of the image, sharpness is a little soft at the maximum aperture, sharpening up at f/8. It maintains that level of sharpness until f/22, where it remains excellent but is ever-so-slightly softer due to diffraction. "
Still not sure if I get this one, or the Sony 200-600mm.
.