• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

tamron 70-200VC vs Sigma 70-200OS


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,329 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 09:59 AM

  Hi Arthur...how are you doing?

 

   First off here's a link to Tony Northrup's new video about focus breathing and his test with extension tubes in order to be able to test for FB on any lens.

      I don't do much portrait shooting, but have three lenses that I would like to check the effect with extension tubes, the Nikor AF85mm F1.8D and the Sigma 150 F2.8 macro (a lens I like a lot) and the Tamron 150-600mm G2, the latter just as an experiment. 

 So far I haven't been that tempted to with the 70-200mm focal length on FF, I had 50-150mm on APSc (my last remaining unsold PK mount lens) and didn't really use it often, too short for nature work and I don't shoot sports much.

  Anyway nice to see that the info is now out there as this subject has become talk of the photographers town!



#22 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,329 posts

Posted 27 February 2017 - 10:29 PM

  Continuing the Tamron G2 70-200 VC saga, Ephotozine has just posted a review, it is one heck of a sharp lens, it barely misses a beat at all settings and all FLs,

 

They give it 5 stars! they also comment on the quality and smoothness of the bokeh, and half the price of the Nikon!



#23 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 27 February 2017 - 11:35 PM

This "half of the price of the Nikon"... coool18x18.gif

 

Here the Nikon empties your pocket if you are just going out with not more than 2800,- Swiss francs in. Nobody does that, knowing the prices of a Pizza in Switzerland.

 

The Tamron leave you 900,- francs in these pockets - a small side salad and maybe a glass of tap water.

 

But 1900,- simply is not the half of 2800,- or are there new mathematical rules and nobody told me?

 

Just checked the German prices 2800,- vs 1600.- € - again, not excatly half of it...

 

But just between us, I would prefer the non-Nikon version as well  :D



#24 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,329 posts

Posted 28 February 2017 - 02:42 AM

Half price in the States at least   1,299 vs 2,800 dollars!

 

 The Nikon is already fairly old  :P

 

  Give it a few weeks in euros!



#25 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,950 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 28 February 2017 - 07:48 AM

Gosh, you're right! I was not aware of that situation. The distributing company in CH is the same as the one for Gitzo. And Leica. So they are used to different margins, I guess  :huh:



#26 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,370 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 28 February 2017 - 10:00 AM

Without looking into focus speed/tracking and accuracy, it looks like the Tamron is the better choice for "infinity" type work. If you are after 200mm and closer focus photos, you still need to look at the Canon and new Nikkor.



#27 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:14 PM

Thanks for the link Dave!  This is a much worse problem even than what they presented it as here.  Yes, you can add an extension tube, but really if you are going to go that route, maybe you'd be better off with two or three prime lenses!  (Which isn't to say that close focusing primes don't do this as well!)

 

Here is something that bugs me.  I'm not going to name names but a particular photography site compares results of different lenses using focus charts.  What they seem to do is to move the focus breathing lens closer in order to end up with the same field of view.  This so wrong!  For one thing it is always a good idea to get closer to your subject if you need maximum sharpness.  They are saying that the G2 is actually less than 135mm when focusing close.  Well, hell, forget comparing its sharpness to my Canon 70-200!  That's not a fair comparison!  They should compare it with my EF 135 f/2L!  And lets see which has better corner sharpness in that test!  And better background blur! 

 

This is one way that a lens can appear to be sharper than it is!



#28 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,329 posts

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:58 PM

  Arthur,

   I'm not so sure that Tony Northrup has it right with the Tamron G2 70-200mm, and maybe it doesn't help that he is not going to test it. He states that it has worse focus breathing than the first version, this doesn't tally with some other reports which state it is actually a slight improvement.

I'm not so sure that the closer distances of your different sites if it is air distortion is what you are referring to, also some lenses actually have worse resolution at MFDs, Klaus/BC may know more here.

 I thought as the Tamron G2 could focus closer the FB problem might have been slightly alleviated(not eliminated though)  Anyway the lens seems nothing other than excellent.

  The Tamron 10-24mm G2 also looks like a winner...... who is their lens designer with this magic wand and where have all these lens designers been hiding up till now?

 

Ephotozone reviews the two:

 

https://www.ephotozine.com/reviews



#29 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,370 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 March 2017 - 01:37 PM

Do you mean The Digital Picture, perhaps?

 

2 things about their charts: 

  1. I find them useless and often misleading. They simply often show a worse lens look better, highly unreliable in short.
  2. You are supposed to shoot the charts at a certain distance, the distance depends on the FOV. So naturally, they have to shoot closer with a lens that has a wider FOV. This is not wrong. What is wrong is that they omit explaining that the Nikor VR II, Sigma and Tamrons have such a loss of focal length that the FOV widens significantly.

Of course, one should compare the Tamron's sharpness, when shooting somewhat close up, to how other lenses perform with a similar FOV, not to their "200mm setting". You easily can do that, what you can't do is set a similar FOV on the Tamron as lenses which stick close to 200mm close to MFD.


  • Arthur Macmillan likes this

#30 Arthur Macmillan

Arthur Macmillan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 March 2017 - 09:01 AM

Heh! I knew you'd figure that one out.  Hey, I like Bryan and think he's a great photographer.  The idea of providing a direct comparison is fantasy stuff.  But that implementation is flawed! It depends on a lot of variables.  And even if done perfectly it takes a trained eye to see the differences.  In fact all I can tell shooting a test chart is if a lens is flat out broken.  And I'd probably figure that out eventually. 

 

After cooling down some I guess what bothered me was the appearance of misrepresentation.  But then I had to remind myself.  That is they way products are marketed.  I always wish I knew the MFD, the Magnification, and the MOD.  Those tell you what you need to know.  Minimum Object Distance (working distance, or distance from the Object to the front of the lens) for this type of lens could well be considered more important than Magnification or Minimum Focus Distance (the distance from the Object to the imager).  Because it means you can physically be nearly as close. 

 

I guess I have a bias towards Magnification.  But that might not matter for portrait work.  Or most active shooting.  What can I say?  I like frogs and snakes!  But thinking about it for people shooting there's not a huge difference.

 

LOL- the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro is really something like 75mm at MFD.  People don't take to the streets because the first things you look at are the MOD the MFD, and the Magnification.  Those are what you are paying for.  Basically with 90-105mm macros you want 5 or 6 inches of working distance if you get 1:1.  The MOD is necessary to insure you have enough room.  But in a general purpose lens it is more important that it isn't so large it puts you over in the next room.

 

Dave, I really did enjoy Tony Northrop's take on focus breathing.  But really, the implications aren't as bad as they seemed at first.  The G2 is elegant, sharp, portable, useful, and black!  I see the beauty of the lens now that you point it out!  To me, the Magnification is still probably a deal breaker.  But it won't be for a lot of people.  It has a lot of value!

 

By the way, thanks for asking how I've been Dave (way up at the top of the page).  I'm doing a bit better.  I think I need another lens though!  Other than that, I am still hoping my friends and family hang in there.  The world is less bright if I see it through my eyes only.  And I sure hope you are well, too.  And Wim, who really is one who has given some much encouragement and good will.  I'm not trying to leave anyone out.  I just miss seeing his comments.  I don't always have the words but we are sort of a band of brothers, don't you think?  But you guys take it to another level.  For instance, I love your bush suit.  I know that's not the proper word.  The suit in your icon photo.  You become invisible, so that you can see more.  Brilliant, and poetic!  I can't help but find encouragement in logic like that!


  • dave's clichés likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de