- Messages
- 6,507
- Name
- Stuart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its really good Stuart, test any lens and it will prove the same results you see on there
ok
Best Converter for my Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8
- Thread starter Joeturner11
- Start date
okits one thing in a studio environment on a tripod shooting flat text. its another thing altogether to actually be out taking pictures in real life. So many people get so caught up in shooting brick walls and plain text. i suppose its what keeps people that dont actually take real photographs entertained!
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TonyNI said:
Come on mate. Difficult to say I don't take real photographs and I think it's important to know a lens’s potential before going out in the field.
One could say people like to make excuses for their lenses when they have found out its not as good as they thought
Better optics will produce a sharper image. Studio or "field". If I compare that to my line of work its like saying "testing someone's punching power isn't imporant when I'm a boxing match" ...obviously that sounds as ridiculous as talking about sharpness and optics tests don't really matter when choosing a lens...
I make it know that I am by no means a pixel peeper - I'll shoot high iso without battering an eyelid, but having the best lens you can afford is important and these tests will help. Of course a lens won't perform differently just because you've taken it out of the studio...
- Messages
- 218
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When setting the 3 lenses in question, manually to infinity, and then using AF to bring the lens back to focus on a closer subject, there wasnt much in it at all, though of course the Nikon won but only by a gnats sack or 2, so rubbish is certainly not the right description.
Like when buying any high end piece of equipment I debated for a long time over which way to go and looked at options from all the manufacturers when I was looking to buy my 70-200.
I discounted the Tokina straight away as while I love the build quality of there glass I couldn't find enough info on comparisons between it and the rest and didn't know anyone else who had one. In my opinion everyone gets caught up too much in test charts etc. anyway and real world circumstances are much more important. While reviews etc. are useful I always prefer to hear first hand from end users or try something myself before making a decision on what for me is a fairly expensive item.
I read many reviews on the Tamron Vs the Sigma O.S and the Tamron pretty much always came in a poor second. The Tamron seemed to be only every recommended on price and that was mainly due to how over priced the Sigma was on launch. For a couple of hundred pound more the Sigma is better built, has better A.F, better optics and has the O.S. Having had Tarmon and Sigma gear before I also know that while both can have issues with lenses, Tamron certainly appear to have more issues with back focusing etc.
Deciding between the Nikon version and the Sigma was more difficult. I borrowed a friends AF-S 80-200 and had a play with his 70-200 vr2 and was impressed with the quality of the build but hated the weight and bulk of the 80-200 but was blown away by the optics and the V.R on the 70-200.
Then the decision came down to cost. The Sigma is well worth the extra couple of hundred pounds more than the Tamron, so that was a no brainer. I decided that the Nikon was not worth more than twice the cost of the Sigma for me and eventually decided to run with it after much deliberation. For the same price as it would of cost me to buy the Nikon even second hand, I was able to buy the Sigma, a D300 as a spare body and a 2x teleconverter and still had some change left over.
Now that I have had the Sigma for a little while I can honestly say I am delighted with it. I have no issues with it all, the A.F in real world conditions is super fast and I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon 70-200 even though test charts and reviews online say it is not as sharp in the corners, in my opinion from using both it is sharper than the 80-200. I let my friend who has both the 80-200 and the 70-200 have a play with the Sigma and he agrees.
No doubt that there is likely poor copies of the Sigma around as you would expect and this in no doubt accounts for some of the reviews etc. online. My copy is perfect, if it had not of been I would of sold it and got the Nikon.
I let TonyNI on here have a play with it as he was having the same problems making a decision as I was and he went straight out and bought one as well.
I discounted the Tokina straight away as while I love the build quality of there glass I couldn't find enough info on comparisons between it and the rest and didn't know anyone else who had one. In my opinion everyone gets caught up too much in test charts etc. anyway and real world circumstances are much more important. While reviews etc. are useful I always prefer to hear first hand from end users or try something myself before making a decision on what for me is a fairly expensive item.
I read many reviews on the Tamron Vs the Sigma O.S and the Tamron pretty much always came in a poor second. The Tamron seemed to be only every recommended on price and that was mainly due to how over priced the Sigma was on launch. For a couple of hundred pound more the Sigma is better built, has better A.F, better optics and has the O.S. Having had Tarmon and Sigma gear before I also know that while both can have issues with lenses, Tamron certainly appear to have more issues with back focusing etc.
Deciding between the Nikon version and the Sigma was more difficult. I borrowed a friends AF-S 80-200 and had a play with his 70-200 vr2 and was impressed with the quality of the build but hated the weight and bulk of the 80-200 but was blown away by the optics and the V.R on the 70-200.
Then the decision came down to cost. The Sigma is well worth the extra couple of hundred pounds more than the Tamron, so that was a no brainer. I decided that the Nikon was not worth more than twice the cost of the Sigma for me and eventually decided to run with it after much deliberation. For the same price as it would of cost me to buy the Nikon even second hand, I was able to buy the Sigma, a D300 as a spare body and a 2x teleconverter and still had some change left over.
Now that I have had the Sigma for a little while I can honestly say I am delighted with it. I have no issues with it all, the A.F in real world conditions is super fast and I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon 70-200 even though test charts and reviews online say it is not as sharp in the corners, in my opinion from using both it is sharper than the 80-200. I let my friend who has both the 80-200 and the 70-200 have a play with the Sigma and he agrees.
No doubt that there is likely poor copies of the Sigma around as you would expect and this in no doubt accounts for some of the reviews etc. online. My copy is perfect, if it had not of been I would of sold it and got the Nikon.
I let TonyNI on here have a play with it as he was having the same problems making a decision as I was and he went straight out and bought one as well.
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
I think this sums it up for me. Tommy let me test his like he said and I was impressed with all aspects of the lens.
Recently shot a wedding with it and there wasnt a single AF miss, even in a dimly lit chapel. I can't say I'd of had the same faith in the tamron. The tamron also has issues metering With TTL-BL flash
I bought my sigma a few hours after using tommys
Last edited:
Phil Young said:Come on mate. Difficult to say I don't take real photographs and I think it's important to know a lens’s potential before going out in the field.
One could say people like to make excuses for their lenses when they have found out its not as good as they thought
Better optics will produce a sharper image. Studio or "field". If I compare that to my line of work its like saying "testing someone's punching power isn't imporant when I'm a boxing match" ...obviously that sounds as ridiculous as talking about sharpness and optics tests don't really matter when choosing a lens...
I make it know that I am by no means a pixel peeper - I'll shoot high iso without battering an eyelid, but having the best lens you can afford is important and these tests will help. Of course a lens won't perform differently just because you've taken it out of the studio...
I didn't say you don't take photographs.. I meant that that real world use is usually very different than static tests in a studio on a tripod in perfect lighting
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TonyNI said:
Fair enough and I hear what you're saying.
Regardless, a sharper lens in the studio will not change to being less sharp outside of those environments so it gives the potential buyer a benchmark to go by.
I'd buy a lens (and have) without testing it purely based on mtf charts and sharpness tests because I know if it's usable wide open, what I can expect in terms of corner sharpness etc. I know a lot of people will say something like "what if that one in the test was a good copy and you get a bad copy?" etc but I don't buy that companies as big as these can afford to have such vast differences in their lenses.
I found that even if I go to a shop and test it, I always second guess myself and think "maybe this or maybe that" but with the charts, if it proves excellent sharpness wide open, I know I'll get that if I use the lens properly at whatever event / job.
Everyone has their own opinions and methods and that's how I buy my lenses - if it lasses for me on the digital picture it gets bought, if it's a fail and doesn't meet my standards I go nowhere near it.
For those more interested in the site: so far the tests haven't proved to be misleading in my experience...
I think digital has sent people into a pixel peeping lens sharpness wide open obsession frenzy. I think we would all agree that if the energy and time we spend obsessing over this was put into making the photographs even greater we would be in a much better place.
its like you say yourself phil the 55-200 VR is capable of astounding pictures for a next to nothing price.
i have on a few occasions printed 10X8 pictures were the focus was clearly out on a pc screen but in the print you couldnt tell at all!!
As for one of the most commonly spoke about lens performance indictors "corner sharpness" how often is the far corners of a picture a point of interest most of the time we are trying to draw a viewers eye into the photograph! A vignette or bokeh to some degreee is usually in my corners!
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TonyNI said:
Absolutely agree with you about three being too many pixel peepers...but then how do you explqin people like me. I'm not fussed about noise but I do want the most detailed image, a soft lens simply doesn't cut it for me and it's no use of its a little soft wide open, for me to use it as a lens it has to be able to acurately produce fine details at any aperture - again, I look at image as a photograph and not as individual pixels...but that doesn't stop me wanting exceptional quality in my gear.
Corner sharpness is very important because softness there will mean you are always framing your subject dead center because it's too soft elsewhere.
I think pixel peeping is often confused with having high standards.
The pixel peepers will zoom into every image at 100% for noise and try everything in their power to get less of it, even reducing shutter speeds to silliness where as someone else may want to know that at whatever aperture and wherever they frame their subject, it will retain detail.
That's my views anyway...
Joe, you still here mate Lol
Edit: interesting debate this Tony and I do think it will help make better photos and lens choices.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TonyNI said:
I've thought about it but at the moment there's nothing I would prefer for what I use...possibly the D800 but can't justify the price over what I get at the moment.
I really need a FF that is capable of good MP dx mode and has great video capabilities. Having said that, I suppose I could just get a second body being a D700.
Keeping my eye and hopes on the D600 having everything it has been predicted.
To be fair Tones your D7000 was a nightmare, what were you dialing in for lens adjustment on your primes?
Soda Farl said:
Approx -10 or thereabouts. To be fair they performed perfectly at that and I'm not sure it would have been noticeable as sometimes with AF fine tune switched off gave fine results. The D7000 has probably the most discussed AF issues ever in a camera body lol
- Messages
- 1,908
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
spoken like a true Nikon fanDecent lens but inferior body unless he got the 5dmk3
what about the canon 1dx
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
TonyNI said:
Have you seen my thread?
Twice now my AF has decided to go bad on me! Fine tuning has no effect for my problem.
Last edited:
Rebel t3i said:spoken like a true Nikon fan
what about the canon 1dx
I'm a Nikon user and will happily say the 5d mk2 from my experience is a stellar piece of kit. I think whole AF debate with it was a non runner for me as I generally used it for wedding/portraits, it has many advantages over the d700 and vice versa
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rebel t3i said:spoken like a true Nikon fan
what about the canon 1dx
Gosh. Canon vs Nikon...
spoken like a true Nikon fan
what about the canon 1dx
Not as good as the D4.....
Your not a good judge of character anyway Tones as your first love was and remains Canon.
Super camera for landscape I would imagine. Try to shoot sports or some over active kids with it and it will fall flat on it's face.
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:Not as good as the D4.....
Super camera for landscape I would imagine. Try to shoot sports or some over active kids with it and it will fall flat on it's face.
I was able to photograph the kids no problem at all with the mk2. Have you used one tommy? LOL
Also as you know I was offered a complete kit change very recently to a mk2 and declined some very nice glass that would have been included!
Last edited:
None of the pictures I seen you take of your kids with it showed any sort of movement. They were in the main posed.
I have not used a mk2 for any period of time just when I was deciding between it and the D700. I do like those f/1.2 bits of glass. Would probably consider a Mk3 but I don't really like the way they feel. Although I rate it as a better camera overall than the D800.
- Messages
- 1,908
- Name
- Tony
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:Probably just as well considering sho likes them
So you heading to the Mill?
Lol nah lad. Taking the child to the park after school. Would like to go down though definitely. If I have any time in the afternoon may try to get down
Was hoping you would get down then I could decide if it was worth my while going over the weekend.