A Tale of two lenses: I just purchased two newly issued lenses for the full frame Sony E mount. They are the Tamron 28-200 and the Sigma 100-400. Both lenses have been tested with...

grichie5

I just purchased two newly issued lenses for the full frame Sony E mount. They are the Tamron 28-200 and the Sigma 100-400. Both lenses have been tested with local shots of my usual test targets and both yield results that are better than I expected.
These two lenses can replace three lenses in my arsenal; a 28-75 Tamron, a Sony 70-200 G lens, and a monster Sigma 150-600 c lens.
Both the Tamron 28-200 and the Sigma 100-400 are lighter and smaller than the Sony 70-200 F4 G lens, but they both yield equivalent results
I recognize that the reach of the Sigma 100-400 is less than the 150-600 lens, but since I shoot mainly scenery and not birds or wildlife, the weight savings is worth the sacrifice.

I found the 150-600 Sigma an excellent lens but much to large and heavy for me to handle conveniently.
I guess old age is catching up.
The first image was taken with the Tamron 28-200 and the second with the Sigma 100-0400, both at full extension.

(Download)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

grichie5 wrote:

I just purchased two newly issued lenses for the f... (show quote)

Looking good.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Enjoy them, looks good!

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

If you really want to know how sharp your lens is, then you have to test it against a lens target or a book shelf full of books. Since we have a pretty good built-in sense of how sharp type should be, reading those titles is a great way of checking your lens. This is especially true when looking at the edges of the lens. Also, use a good tripod. Although the shots here do not really show sharp the lens it, they are still very good.

I have the Sigma 150-600 C and it is a very sharp lens. You are right about the size and weight so wherever possible, I use a tripod. This makes a big difference for me and this lens.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

If it works, don't fix it. ENJOY!

grichie5

This is why I abandoned the Sigma 150-600 lens.

(Download)

Bill_de Loc: US

grichie5 wrote:

This is why I abandoned the Sigma 150-600 lens.

Obviously you abandoned it because the tripod mount was too short. Otherwise it looks like a perfect fit.

--

User ID

abc1234 wrote:

If you really want to know how sharp your lens is, then you have to test it against a lens target or a ........

The OP has stated that results are “better than expected”. Real photographers do not need finer data than that.

Real photographers actually do not give a ratzazz to “really know how sharp your lens is”. The sharpness of their images is all that matters.

Now run along and go test your lenses.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

User ID wrote:

The OP has stated that results are “better than expected”. Real photographers do not need finer data than that.

Real photographers actually do not give a ratzazz to “really know how sharp your lens is”. The sharpness of their images is all that matters.

Now run along and go test your lenses.

ShooterRod

Bultaco wrote:

Your second shot begs the question of metering using a telephoto. There
is an awful lot of sky with it's brightness...
Looks to me like you could've used a small spot meter if you wanted the
front of the house to be sharp, or more of an averaging setting if you
wanted a snapshot. I don't shoot big telephotos, so have never thought of
exposure being a problem at large magnification...but it's there to see. We
have a great many birders on this site, so I've never noticed exposure..the
birds usually fill the frame, do averaging or spot...either would do the trick.

Hanson

grichie5 wrote:

I just purchased two newly issued lenses for the f... (show quote)

They both are amazing. I never expect that.

grichie5

I would have thought that a real photographer would know what he is talking about.

Since a lens has no intrinsic quality of sharpness, it would seem apparent that when the expression "sharpness of a lens is used" that one is talking about the quality of the image produced by a lens in terms of sharpness and resolution.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

grichie5 wrote:

I would have thought that a real photographer would know what he is talking about.

Since a lens has no intrinsic quality of sharpness, it would seem apparent that when the expression "sharpness of a lens is used" that one is talking about the quality of the image produced by a lens in terms of sharpness and resolution.

Make sure to use "Quote Reply" so we know who you are referring too. Otherwise it can get hard to follow the discussion.
...Cam

grichie5

CamB wrote:

Make sure to use "Quote Reply" so we know who you are referring too. Otherwise it can get hard to follow the discussion.
...Cam

Sorry but I thought I had done that. Here is the text of the post that I responded to.

"The OP has stated that results are “better than expected”. Real photographers do not need finer data than that.

Real photographers actually do not give a ratzazz to “really know how sharp your lens is”. The sharpness of their images is all that matters.

Now run along and go test your lenses."

Jomisamson

Your post highlights one of my concerns/fears. On one hand, I’d love to have a 150-600 for the reach. On the other, the weight difference compared to the 100-400 has me a bit spooked. I’m not into birding that much; other wildlife if & when I can find them. What have you noticed other than your post relative to reach & weights.? Do it again?