new Sigma 150-600mm lens (Page 4): Noting only the difference in lens diameters, f5.6 is f5.6, so light gathering will be no different between the two, unless there is a difference in...

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

oldtool2 wrote:

I got my Sigma 150 600 mm lens today. So far, j... (show quote)

Noting only the difference in lens diameters, f5.6 is f5.6, so light gathering will be no different between the two, unless there is a difference in rate of change from f5.6 to f6.3 as the lenses are extended.

glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA

tamalero wrote:

I never said there were filters. Not sure why you mention that.. just Said how the difference in photos were for each lens.

I was the one who asked if filters were used, and reckon he just accidently replied the wrong quote, is all

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

tamalero wrote:

I never said there were filters. Not sure why you mention that.. just Said how the difference in photos were for each lens.

I'm sorry, I quoted the wrong message. I meant to quote this message.

glgracephoto wrote:

I would hope the Sigma was better for twice the price

I am curious in these test samples, if the filter used, if any, was the same, or turned same way if a CPL; if so th color definitely looks better on the Sig. However I have seen some sample images with the Tamron elsewhere that were superb both in color and contrast as well as focus, and I suspect the Sigma also does better than shown here. I would want to see better samples for comparison.

All I was saying is there were no filters used on either lens. And yes there is a fairly large difference in the photos, both in color and detail. As I stated in other messages these are as they came out of the camera, no post processing or cropping, or anything else done to them. This is the way they would come to you, so you could do your post processing to them.

Jim D

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

oldtool2 wrote:

I took a few photos out the back door with my new lens today.
All photos were taken at the same setting using a Canon 7D2 camera, on a tripod. Six photos in total, Sigma followed by the Tamron photo.
Jim D

With your naked eyes which shots Sigma or Tamron shows what you could actually see.
Craig

glgracephoto Loc: Arlington, WA

oldtool2 wrote:

All I was saying is there were no filters used on either lens. And yes there is a fairly large difference in the photos, both in color and detail. As I stated in other messages these are as they came out of the camera, no post processing or cropping, or anything else done to them. This is the way they would come to you, so you could do your post processing to them.

Jim D

Thankyou Jim D, I had saw your comment about no post processing. I do not consider a filter attached to the end of a lens to be post processing. I had asked, because, forinstance, if the Sig had a CPL attached and the Tamron did not, and the light was from the right direction, that would cause a dramatic increase in the color intensity, which would not be due to the lens image quality but due to the effects of a CPL filter.

Thanks for the answer.

Jim Bob

Well so far you have told us everything but what is vitally important. Thanks a lot.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

glgracephoto wrote:

Thankyou Jim D, I had saw your comment about no post processing. I do not consider a filter attached to the end of a lens to be post processing. I had asked, because, forinstance, if the Sig had a CPL attached and the Tamron did not, and the light was from the right direction, that would cause a dramatic increase in the color intensity, which would not be due to the lens image quality but due to the effects of a CPL filter.

Thanks for the answer.

Both of these lenses where as if they came off the factory assembly line and put on my 7D2 camera. I have added nothing and done nothing to the photos. I understand your reasoning and agree if I had taken a CPL and put it on the lenses they may not of been adjusted the same. Actually it was a very good question.

I don't even know if I have filters that would fit these lenses. I very rarely use them.

Jim D

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

CraigFair wrote:

With your naked eyes which shots Sigma or Tamron shows what you could actually see.
Craig

Craig,

The photos that closely match what I see are from the Sigma. The color is almost identical to what I see when I look out the door.

Jim D

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Well so far you have told us everything but what is vitally important. Thanks a lot.

Jim,

What is it you consider vitally important?

The construction of a lens is vitally important to me, possibly not to you. That information gives me an idea of how well a lens may up over the years. It also tells me that in the middle of winter I can take that lens and not worry about a little bit of snowfall, where's with the Tamron I would have to worry about it.

The color on the Sigma lens matches what I see very well, however I can in PP adjust that on the Tamron lens. The detail coming from the two lenses I can't adjust as well, but I can sharpen the Tamron a little if I wanted to. In today's world there is a lot you can do with post processing.

Looking at the IQ of the two lenses I think the Sigma is better. Is that what you want to hear?

One thing I haven't mentioned yet is the Sigma docking system. There is a lot I can do to the Sigma lenses using that system to improve the lens for the way I shoot. You can't do anything with the Tamron. What you see is what you get with the Tamron lens, no adjustments can be made to improve it for your style of shooting.

Jim D

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

oldtool2 wrote:

Jim, br br What is it you consider vitally import... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: The other difference being the cost of the two. Personally, I'm willing to spend the $$$ for those extra features as they are important to me and how I plan to use the lens.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

cjc2 wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: The other difference being the cost of the two. Personally, I'm willing to spend the $$$ for those extra features as they are important to me and how I plan to use the lens.

Exactly my feelings also. This is why I am listing everything I have so far. To some of us the lens is worth the extra money.

Of course the IQ is important also, and from what I have been seeing so for the IQ on the Sigma lens is slightly better. If the Tamron's IQ was better I would have to seriously consider keeping it. When you add everything together the Sigma is worth the extra money, at least it is to me.

Jim D

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

oldtool2 wrote:

Craig,

The photos that closely match what I see are from the Sigma. The color is almost identical to what I see when I look out the door.

Jim D

Thank you Jim, it's kind of what I thought.
I really did want the Corvette but the Camaro was in my price range.
Craig

Jim Bob

oldtool2 wrote:

Jim, br br What is it you consider vitally import... (show quote)

Are you kidding me? You neglected to say anything about the performance of the lens. Construction is one thing, PQ another. Geesus.

tamalero Loc: Mexico

Jim Bob wrote:

Are you kidding me? You neglected to say anything about the performance of the lens. Construction is one thing, PQ another. Geesus.

I dont see what the issue is and why you're getting angry now.

he said "Looking at the IQ of the two lenses I think the Sigma is better. Is that what you want to hear?"

He also mentioned the SIGMA USB dock to adjust the Sigma lens.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Are you kidding me? You neglected to say anything about the performance of the lens. Construction is one thing, PQ another. Geesus.

Give me a break. Since I had my amputation I haven't had a chance to get out and do much shooting. I did say when I have a chance I would take some shots and post and I'm trying to get out.

Sorry have I haven't given you all the information you need. You could always go out and buy one and try it yourself.

These three shots were taken using the Sigma lens. I did do some PP work to them.

Jim D

(Download)

(Download)

Taken during a rainstorm.

(Download)