Nikon vs Sigma

[Solarflare]

The DxOMark ranking of DxOMark for lenses is bullocks. Complete bullshit. Useless. Pointless. Stupid. Bogus. Absurd. Superflous. Invalid. Absolutely not meaningful. Cant even be used for a HINT for the quality of a lens. Can only be ignored by anyone with HINT of competence.

The whole sharpness rating, as Thom Hogan recently discovered, is done by focusing the lens on a fixed range, then rating the sharpness of the lens. This is ALL. They do not focus at infinity and they do not focus at maximum magnification, and they dont compensate for focus plane curvature either. This is TWO basic beginner errors right there. This is purest incompetence.

Thats it. The sharpness rating describes SOMEHOW how sharp the lens at a certain range is. And its really only sharpness itself as a MTF value. It ignores completely acuity either. And god knows if and how they take into consideration increase of sharpness when stopping down.

The overall rating is only worse. For example dont even get me started how useless "rating" transmission is.

 

[wezza13]

I researched a lot before I purchased my first 70-200mm 2.8 lens.

Lots of research, I went with the Tamron about a month ago and it is easily the best lens I own. At half the price of the Nikon, thank you very much indeed.

Some people say that at 2.8 it has vignetting. All you do (if u use Lightroom) is tick the lens correction profile for that lens and it fixes it instantly, in a second.

Have a watch of this, it's really good.

Stabilised 70-200mm f2.8 SHOWDOWN - YouTube

 

[robbins.photo]

The DxOMark ranking of DxOMark for lenses is bullocks. Complete bullshit. Useless. Pointless. Stupid. Bogus. Absurd. Superflous. Invalid. Absolutely not meaningful. Cant even be used for a HINT for the quality of a lens. Can only be ignored by anyone with HINT of competence.

Solar, we love you man but you really need to stop sugar coating this stuff and just tell us how you really feel. Lol