RUN YOU FLIPPING FOOLS, Tamron 150-600mm $679 NEW, NO REBATES (box dented)

[AllGold]

Billybob wrote:
Is the current Sigma 500mm prime close to the Canikon exotics? If so, then I might take a look.

I have no idea. I only know that the 500/4.5 is not new; it has been around for a while.

[Billybob]

AllGold wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
Is the current Sigma 500mm prime close to the Canikon exotics? If so, then I might take a look.

I have no idea. I only know that the 500/4.5 is not new; it has been around for a while.
For 4-5 yrs now, Sigma has been introducing "Art" and "Sport" series lenses, which perform as well (in terms of image quality and build quality) or better than their Canikon counterparts at lower price points. For example, Sigma introduced the 35mm f/1.4 that was sharper with less distortion and chromatic aberrations than Canon's. L lens (it was much sharper than Nikon's 35mm f/1.4). for less than $1000. Canon's lens was $1200-$1300. Their version II lens purports to be better than Sigma's, but sells for over $2000. Similarly, the 50mm Art is very sharp, and one-of-a-kind 18-35mm 1.8, and 50-100mm 1.8 lenses haven gotten rave reviews.

There is speculation--perhaps, more wishful thinking--that Sigma will apply this same magic to long prime lenses.

[Gareth]

Billybob wrote:
Their version II lens purports to be better than Sigma's, but sells for over $2000.

While the Canon 35mm f/1.4L II is expensive, it's an $1800 lens, not over $2000. And it's worth it to some for the AF performance (which, while Sigma has gotten better, still isn't as good as native lenses).

[Billybob]

Gareth wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
Their version II lens purports to be better than Sigma's, but sells for over $2000.

While the Canon 35mm f/1.4L II is expensive, it's an $1800 lens, not over $2000. And it's worth it to some for the AF performance (which, while Sigma has gotten better, still isn't as good as native lenses).
I daresay that Sigma has matched or surpassed Canon in many respects. Sigma clearly has forced Canon to step up its game. At the time of release, the Sigma 35 Art surpassed the Canon in almost every respect. Admittedly, some Canon users had AF trouble. It took Canon two or three years to respond. And respond they did but with a lens that costs twice as much. Oh, and Canon has nothing to compete with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, which is compared favorably to the $3k Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 lens (the Canon 50mm 1.2 L has to be stopped down to f/2.8 to get sharp results in the center and to f/8.0 to get sharpness across the frame. By contrast, the Sigma is sharp wide open and sharp across the frame from f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I have little doubt that a new Canon 50mm L is coming soon. I suspect that it will be spectacular (but not cheap).

Oh, but your main concern is AF, right? Brad Hill, a highly respected wildlife photographer "auditioned" the Nikon 200-500mm against the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (see Brad Hill Photo Blog). To make a long story short (you would need to read through his blog to get the full story), the Sigma won over the Nikon in part because it produced slightly more keepers. However, the lenses were very close in most key respects including IQ, AF, and bokeh. Oh, the biggest knock against Sigma Art and Sports series, is that they are big, hulking, huge lenses.

So, I conclude that Sigma has not only matched but exceeded native lenses in many instances. However, it's a moving target, so I'm happy to see Canikon up their game to match or stay ahead of Sigma.

In the meantime, I'm hoping for a Sigma Sport series super prime...miley-music039:

[Billybob]

Gareth wrote:
[quote=Billybob]
Their version II lens purports to be better than Sigma's, but sells for over $2000.

While the Canon 35mm f/1.4L II is expensive, it's an $1800 lens, not over $2000. And it's worth it to some for the AF performance (which, while Sigma has gotten better, still isn't as good as native lenses).
Gareth,

You actually sidetracked me from the point I was making. I don't really care, whether Sigma is better or as good as Canikon. What I do know is Sigma Art and Sport lenses are darn good and affordable. I also know that Canikon super telephoto lenses are extremely good but out of my price range. Therefore, my only hope of getting a lens that approximates that quality is with a Sigma or Tamron. I know that what they produce may not be better than current Canikon super teles, but it will be at least on par with those exotics from a decade ago, and that would be good enough for me.

For some, especially professionals, they cannot risk a lack or loss of compatibility. I'm not in that boat. I can take a chance especially if it saves me $7000-$10000.

[Gareth]

Billybob wrote:
Oh, but your main concern is AF, right? Brad Hill, a highly respected wildlife photographer "auditioned" the Nikon 200-500mm against the Sigma Sport 150-600mm... the Sigma won over the Nikon in part because it produced slightly more keepers.

Well, the Nikon 200-500mm isn't known for its AF speed... I've shot the Sigma 150-600mm Sport (Canon mount) and the 100-400mm II in similar situations and the 100-400 seemed to lock on faster and generally had more shots in focus. With the Sigma, there seemed to be a lot of shots that should have been in focus, but just weren't quite there.

Billybob wrote: Canon has nothing to compete with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art

Likewise, one could say that Sigma has nothing to compete with the Canon 50mm 1.2L, b/c no one is buying the 1.2L for sharpness.

I should say, I still own a fair number of Sigma lenses, but for certain users and uses, native lenses are still going to be better. I'm excited to try out the Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony E-mount though, since supposedly it was developed using Sony standards and not a reverse-engineered approach like for Canon/Nikon, and then I can use my Sigma lenses on Canon and Sony.

[pRICE cUBE]

While I have not personally tried the Sigma, I have confidence it is a good lens. Sigma has raised the bar. I used to be so so on Sigma and regarded it as a value brand. That ll changed when I took a chance on the 85mm 1.4. It was impressive on the Nikon D3. Then I bought a D800 several years later and that is when I saw how good the lens actually was. It is sharper than my 70-200 2.8 VR and the 85mm 1.8 I had been using at the time.

That all being said, the Tamron at the $675 range is a fantastic deal. I went with the Tamron a full year before the Nikon 200-500mm was introduced. I wanted a lighter long range zoom. Since I have a larger aperture longer range lens, I didn't need the Tamron to be the best performer I could get. The other downside of the Sigma for me is it zooms the Canon clockwise direction. I zoom quickly to focus on action using muscle memory so the reverse zoom from Nikon counterclockwise messes with me.

Whatever you chose, have fun. This Tamron deal seems to pop up every 8 weeks or so.

[pRICE cUBE]

MEG wrote:
Dammm you Price Cube...ordered... urrender:

Soon all will know the power of the Dark Si....Photography.

[Lew Zealand]

BTW, to ape what Billybob is saying but from a lower end perspective, Sigma is also trying to fill niches where Canikon does not have much of a presence and I appreciate those efforts as my 3 lenses are all Sigmas:

18-35 f/1.8 not low end, but mid-grade and no competition anywhere for it
17-70 f/2.8-4 nothing like this anywhere and a good complement to the above
18-250 f/3.5-6.3 lots of other choices here but frankly, the Sigma was cheaper than the other options and seems not to have the lens creep that I've seen in the others. Which probably means I need to use it more and it'll loosen up more (too much) like the others. Fun lens in bright light.

I'll be getting the 50-100 f/1.8 assuming it performs well though the initial sample shots seem to have lateral chromatic aberration in the corners. Sharpness seems to be pretty good at f/1.8 but not as spectacular as the 18-35. Where the 18-35 really seems to be a prime-quality zoom, the samples from the 50-100 seem to be a very good quality zoom but not necessarily a prime replacement lens.