Ooo New Sigma 150-600

[runnah]

Looks like Tamron might have some competition...Sigma Announce a 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport Lens « Canon Rumors

• Construction: 24 elements, 16 groups (20 elements, 13 groups)
• Filter diameter: 105 mm
• Minimum focusing distance: 260 cm
• Dimensions: 121 x 290.2 mm
• Aperture blades: 9, rounded
• Maximum magnification: 1:5
• Weight: 2860 g / 100.88 oz.

 

[KmH]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...roducts/368696-sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-a.html

 

[pthrift]

KmH beat me to it.

 

[runnah]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...roducts/368696-sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-a.html

Yeah but this is a non tirediron thread so it has that going for it...

 

[pthrift]

Less pointless arguing over moot points.

 

[astroNikon]

Less pointless arguing over moot points.

I'm sorry, but you didn't understand the original intent of his statement.
So you are wrong.

:lmao:

 

[Derrel]

The timing on this new Sigma fairly well screams "industrial espionage!!!". Sigma must have gotten wind of the Tammy 150-600 f/5~6.3 and immediately set to work on building a high-performance, 24-element design that would hopefully, beat the competition's offering. It's a great time for camera users...lots of wonderful new lens designs finally coming to fruition. I'm really interested to see how the new Sigma shakes out. As good as the new Tamron is, I still see a slight bit of what I call "that video-y look" to its images at the longer lengths. Meaning that, although it is good at the longest lengths, it lacks the biting clarity, the ultimate clear-ness, the realism, of the highest-end long telephotos. It seems like there's a slight, hard-to-define lack of really biting, ultimate definition from the Tamron 150-600mm when it is shot above 500mm. Not that it's bad, just that it's not "excellent" , but instead just "good" or maybe even "very good". The same is true of say, the 70-300 VR-G Nikkor at like f/5.6 from around 220 to 300mm settings; the images are pretty good, but they also seem to have what I call that "video-y" look, which might be a combination of chromatic aberration, and also just lower than optimal resolving ability.

I'm guessing that, with the four additional elements, and the TWO POUNDS HIGHER weight of the Sigma over the Tamron, that Sigma is shooting for noticeably higher performance levels, befitting their new ART and their new SPORT lens categories; the new 50mm f/1.4 Sigma ART and the earlier 35/1.4 Sigma ART, and the new 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma zoom are all reallllllly high-performance lenses, and I have a feeling that this lens is also in the new Sigma mold of higher-than-class performance levels. Hoever, adding TWO full pounds in weight is going to make the Sigma a very different type of lens than the Tamron; for a lot of people, the weight alone will make the Tamron the preferred choice.

 

[runnah]

The timing on this new Sigma fairly well screams "industrial espionage!!!". Sigma must have gotten wind of the Tammy 150-600 f/5~6.3 and immediately set to work on building a high-performance, 24-element design that would hopefully, beat the competition's offering. It's a great time for camera users...lots of wonderful new lens designs finally coming to fruition. I'm really interested to see how the new Sigma shakes out. As good as the new Tamron is, I still see a slight bit of what I call "that video-y look" to its images at the longer lengths. Meaning that, although it is good at the longest lengths, it lacks the biting clarity, the ultimate clear-ness, the realism, of the highest-end long telephotos. It seems like there's a slight, hard-to-define lack of really biting, ultimate definition from the Tamron 150-600mm when it is shot above 500mm. Not that it's bad, just that it's not "excellent" , but instead just "good" or maybe even "very good". The same is true of say, the 70-300 VR-G Nikkor at like f/5.6 from around 220 to 300mm settings; the images are pretty good, but they also seem to have what I call that "video-y" look, which might be a combination of chromatic aberration, and also just lower than optimal resolving ability.

I'm guessing that, with the four additional elements, and the TWO POUNDS HIGHER weight of the Sigma over the Tamron, that Sigma is shooting for noticeably higher performance levels, befitting their new ART and their new SPORT lens categories; the new 50mm f/1.4 Sigma ART and the earlier 35/1.4 Sigma ART, and the new 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma zoom are all reallllllly high-performance lenses, and I have a feeling that this lens is also in the new Sigma mold of higher-than-class performance levels. Hoever, adding TWO full pounds in weight is going to make the Sigma a very different type of lens than the Tamron; for a lot of people, the weight alone will make the Tamron the preferred choice.

True but any sub $10k 600mm lens is going to have quality issues. But unless you are seriously sports or bird shooting the Tamron/Sigma seems perfect for the dabbler market.

 

[Derrel]

True but any sub $10k 600mm lens is going to have quality issues. But unless you are seriously sports or bird shooting the Tamron/Sigma seems perfect for the dabbler market.

I agree, there are usually quality issues in zoom lenses, but they are almost always directly related to miniaturization, and/or going for a low retail price. I think Sigma is aiming for a higher quality standard than the Tamron 150-600 was designed to. There can easily, easily be MUCH better image quality by adding elements, making a better, more-optimized design, adding weight, and setting a higher retail price point.

Nikon's new 80-400 AF-S VR-II is a good example: it's holding up pretty well for the experts like Thom Hogan, even on the 36-megapixel D800 and D800e and D810 (he said so this week). And it should, because it's basically a large-ish and $2499 lens. The Tamron is $1097 at retail, so there's quite a bit more Sigma can do by making a more-complex, better-resolving lens, with a MUCH higher weight, and probably a fairly notable price differential. I think Sigma's trying to go more for OPTICAL performance, like they have with their 35 and 50 ART lenses, which are world-class optics, better than Canon or Nikon "premium" lenses in the same categories.

It seems to me that Sigma is looking to out-perform the Tamron 150-600 with a better lens design, sold at higher retail, to a subtly different class of user. There is plenty of room above the $1,097 price of the Tamron, or the Sony 70-400, or the Nikon 80-400 VR-II, and so on. It will be interesting to see how the new Siggy actually shoots once it's available. I think the Tamron is aimed at the dabbler market, and the Sigma might be going after the semi-pro/hardcore enthusiast market that has more money to spend on a wildlife lens, but cannot afford the $10k-$12k big glass stuff, but who WILL be willing to pay another 50% or maybe 75% more for noticeable better optics.

 

[pthrift]

Yeah but this is a non Hamlet thread so it has that going for it...

Less pointless arguing over moot points.

I'm sorry, but you didn't understand the original intent of his statement.
So you are wrong.

:lmao:

Its happened before, it'll happen again. I'm usually lost on what's going on anyway

 

[runnah]

Maybe you missed the point of my post.

Entirely possible.

 

[Derrel]

Maybe you missed the point of my post.

Entirely possible.

Good. Better. Best. Three performance levels.

 

[runnah]

Maybe you missed the point of my post.

Entirely possible.

Good. Better. Best. Three performance levels.

I've strived for "Good Enough" my entire life.

 

[Vince.1551]

That videoy look is lens softness and which I tried to describe in some other previous post. Happens when on max or close to max zoom. There's a difference between blurred image and soft image.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pdq5oh]

If the Sigma is noticeably better at 600, I'd opt for it. Isn't that the point of a 150-600 lens? To use it at 600?