Ok, I'm officially baffled, need your opinions...

[coastalconn]

First of all I think the Tamron did very well today.. Do these look sharper? I tend to agree the Sigma 120-300 is sharper, but I did a few side by side tests today and the results say the exact opposite.. Any opinions on this? First test Sigma 120-300 F2.8 VS Tamron 150-600: Third Party Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

1
Barn Swallow 1 5_25 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

2
Common Yellowthroat 5/25 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

3
Egret and reflection 3 5/25 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

4
Osprey in flight 5_25 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

5
Barn Swallow Portrait 5/25 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

6
Mockingbird in the shade by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

 

[dxqcanada2 1]

Hmm, I am also confused.
These shots look very good in IQ.

 

[tirediron]

Now you're just showing off!

 

[BillM]

To me these just look like all of your other photo's, just friggin amazing. But then again I think we could give you two magnifying glasses, a cardboard tube and some duct tape and you'd figure out how to take sharp pictures with it

 

[baturn]

Amazing! The Mocking Bird is gorgeous. Can't help wishing that my problem was which one of my amazing lenses is the most amazing.

 

[jaomul]

If you have to put them side by side and still are not sure then they are both good enough. Nice shots btw

 

[nzmacro]

No nits here Kris. I gave up comparing lenses because all of them are sharp !! If I had a doubt about a certain lens, it would be goodbye and it would go. These are extremely sharp, but as you already know, it doesn't mean a lot unless a distance is given as well You know how it all works huh. LOL.

All excellent shots Kris, if people can't tell what took what, does it matter.

All the best Kris and of course, wonderful work.

Danny.

 

[Radical]

Kris it really comes down to you, do you like it?

 

[photoguy99]

I can't tell which lens these are shot with, even after reading a couple times. It doesn't matter, the photos are fine.

You could be seeing sample variation, or cleaner air one day then another, or more contrast from a softer lens, or any number of things. Subjectively 'sharp' correlates only loosely with the relevant properties of the lens MTF.

 

[sm4him]

Two things.

1. I don't know if it's sharper than the 120-300 or not, but it is plenty sharp enough. If I could achieve pictures like that, happy would not even begin to describe how I'd feel. But then, I've always said I think you could get sharper pictures using a Coke bottle for a lens than I can get with my Sigma 150-500. That Common Yellowthroat is just spectacular.

2. That last one isn't a Mockingbird. It's a Gray Catbird. And a nice shot of it, too!

 

[snowbear152 82]

I love number 5. The DoF is a tad less than the bird in one or two, but I'd expect that. Are the "fuzzy-wavy" areas on top of the egret's neck (not the reflection) stray feathers or a Flickerism?

 

[shefjr]

After reading your review I would have to agree with you that the Tammy appears to be sharper. I don't think it matters though when it comes to the lens that you have on your camera body and your ability to get so close to the birds. I think you could take any lens and produce beautiful images with it. It's like many have said here before, it's not the gear, it's the photographer.

Edit, I also noticed that the Tammy seems to be brighter.

 

[Overread40]

I think the key is put the birds down and pick up a dull brick wall and some ideal lighting and a tripod.

At least for a pure sharpness test - yeah its dull, its not going to be anywhere near as pretty as the fantastic bird photos you get. But its informative and isn't going to be swayed by things like shifts in settings, lighting and fatigue.

 

[Derrel]

The light on this day was beautiful and crisp, and that ALWAYS makes a lens appear to be sharper and more-contrasty. I dunno...I looked at the other thread and on the POSTED sign, the Tamron appeared to produce the better image quality. I am wondering if on duller-light days, if the Tamron just doesn't look quite as snappy as it does on a bright-light day?

 

[matthewo]

I guess i would expect the tamron to do better than the sigma with the 2x on it. I guess it comes down to the focal distance you use the most of. If always over 420mm ish than the sigma and a 1.4 converter cannot be used and the tamron is probably going to be more contrasty and more accurate at auto focusing.

I think there are very few lenses if any that can match performance of a lower end zoom like the tamron 150-600 when used at the same focal distance with a 2x tc. Maybe the prime 2.8 like the 300mm or 400mm or 200mm f2.0. But even with them i found af to be not very accurate at times. But when it was accurate it was plently sharp