08-16-2017, 08:23 AM
If you ever get hands on both lenses, you might ask yourself how much sense can be found in a comparison between these two.
The Sigma weighs 1130 grams, the Tamron 660 (Nikon version). It's not just a bit heavier. It's super massive and needs a lot of space in a bag. So, by comparing bokeh, I strongly recommend to stay in the same class. Also, my impression is, that "bokeh" says a lot and nothing at the same time. Blur quality depends in my experience from a lot of parameters. It's very difficult to create meaningful tests of that - one has a beautiful background blur, but the foreground sucks as soon as highlights are involved, the other is rendering double contours, but only at close distances, the next gives a nice bokeh at the cost of massive aberrations... I think, anybody who dares to place a "bokeh" verdict, puts himself in a questionable position.
The Sigma weighs 1130 grams, the Tamron 660 (Nikon version). It's not just a bit heavier. It's super massive and needs a lot of space in a bag. So, by comparing bokeh, I strongly recommend to stay in the same class. Also, my impression is, that "bokeh" says a lot and nothing at the same time. Blur quality depends in my experience from a lot of parameters. It's very difficult to create meaningful tests of that - one has a beautiful background blur, but the foreground sucks as soon as highlights are involved, the other is rendering double contours, but only at close distances, the next gives a nice bokeh at the cost of massive aberrations... I think, anybody who dares to place a "bokeh" verdict, puts himself in a questionable position.