Which lens ?

[ajohnw]

As it looks like Olympus will not be making the long lens I would like I am wondering about what lens to use on crop. They are going to make a 300mm F4 prime but for my use it's often either too long and ideally at times not long enough.

Looking at lenses there seems to be 3 options

Tamron 150-600mm. By all accounts a decent lens but needs F11 or lower at the long end.

Sigma 150-600mm Sport. Weather proofed but very very heavy and no info on performance at the moment. It's on pre order in the UK. They will also be doing a light weight one at some point.

Nikon 80-400mm with a 1.4x converter at times. Lightest of the lot and would allow me to get rid of my 55-300mm meaning one less lens to carry. No idea how well this lens will work with a converter on. Performance wise it appears to offer similar performance to the Tamron over it's working range. Maybe a touch more contrast. No signs of any weather proofing.

All down to the usual fall off in performance of long zooms from anybody on the Olympus 75-300mm which I feel is better than the panasonic equivalent. The real question at the moment is will the Nikon 80-400mm be any better, ok with 1.4x - or would one of the other lenses be better still..

John
-

[John 2]

John, I've made the point before that I'm more than happy with the Tamron on my D7100 and at half the price of the Nikon it was a no brainer. For what it's worth, at the time I bought it, one or two forum members expressed an interest in it's performance and I posted some test shots. They don't cover the full range but give you some idea of the performance at the long end. You can view them here:

Tamron 150-600mm - Part 2

I have a Kenco Teleplus Pro 300 1.4x converter which was rated at the time I bought it but I never managed decent results with my Nikkor 70-300mm with it. I haven't tried it with the Tamron yet but if I get a chance I will do and let you have the results. The unknown of course is the new Sigma. If it's as good as some of their recent offerings, it must be worth considering. Inevitably, there will be plenty of comparison tests once it is generally available and that might be worth waiting for.

[ajohnw]

Thanks John. I had seen part 2. It's a tough decision in many ways especially as I like to minimise what I carry around with me. The Nikon scores highly in that respect. The Sigma to come really does seem to be very very heavy. For me that might rule it out completely. Price wise it's not all that different to the Nikon. The Nikon doesn't improve on my m 4/3 gear equiv focal length wise but in this case there is likely to be some gain from sensor size but a lot depends on just how good that lens is.

On the F11 comment it comes from a review. I find this site useful for pure photographic reviews.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...vc_usd_review/

The AF-S version of the Nikon is also on there. Technical tests which I also like don't seem to be about. Not in the form I want anyway. I wouldn't touch the previous version with a barge pole.

John
-

[JR1]

Well as I said in another post I received one of the very first siggy 150-600s (S) in the UK, and have used it extensively, I also tried out the Tamron.

I would say sigma all the way.

What Nikon 80-400 I have the more expensive NANO version with the NEW Nikon 1.4 converter, not the old version, also the siggy with the new 1.4 sigma converter is a great piece of kit

[JR1]

John, I've made the point before that I'm more than happy with the Tamron on my D7100 and at half the price of the Nikon it was a no brainer.

Welllllll

It depends what Nikon, the cheaper or the Nano version which is superior to the Tamron

[Downrigger]

I was considering a 1.4x for my Nikon 80-400, but this review put me off the idea.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr/4
If there is data to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

[JR1]

I was considering a 1.4x for my Nikon 80-400, but this review put me off the idea.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr/4
If there is data to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

WHAT 1.4 the OND or the NEW one

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-n...1rbboclrhw_wcb

I have the new one

Also there isn't a TC in the world that does not degrade the quality to some extent, the better the lens, such as the 80-400 NANO which I use is better than the standard 80-400 with the converter and the new converter is better than the old, you need to take care what you are looking at

[Downrigger]

you need to take care what you are looking at

Thank you for your wise counsel.

The source I cited used the 1.4 TCE II
Perhaps the 1.4 TCE III is better - I have seen marketing comments and statements to that effect but no data. Data would be nice.

If it is not a good better superior to its predecessor, which dropped imatest scores 25-30%, I wouldn't really want to use it.

[JR1]

Thank you for your wise counsel.

The source I cited used the 1.4 TCE II
Perhaps the 1.4 TCE III is better - I have seen marketing comments and statements to that effect but no data. Data would be nice.

If it is not a good better superior to its predecessor, which dropped imatest scores 25-30%, I wouldn't really want to use it.

To be blunt, pixel peeping, never done it in 40 years from "grain" to pixels, test charts, and comparisons mean little in the real world.

I doubt if there is anyone here or anywhere who could tell an image taken with / between different makes of camera and lens on the market when shot in identical conditions

[ajohnw]

Thanks Mark. That's useful. The site too as they have tested what some might want to do.

Not sure I would dismiss the 80-400mm totally on that basis. I see typical Sigma - great central resolution and so so away to the edges which I suppose given a little bird etc too far away and small in the viewfinder is ok.

On converters I have seen photographic tests stating that the Nikon is better than Kenko however when the photo results were examined things were most definitely not that simple as light conditions had changed significantly.

Jeremy shouldn't run down the Tamron. This site has really gone to to town on it and photo style tests are also remarkably good for a lens of this type

http://www.lenstip.com/403.1-Lens_re...roduction.html

I'm not too keen on this site but they have tested both. Also photo's but believe they are processed.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ni...i-review-22065

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/ta...s-review-23866

John
-

[JR1]

I like anyone have an opinion, I don't like Ford cars, I don't like the Tamron as I have tried and used it, in my opinion it is NOT as good as the Sigma.

To say this.....

Jeremy shouldn't run down the Tamron. This site has really gone to to town on it and photo style tests are also remarkably good for a lens of this type

Makes forums pointless

[xpatUSA]

To be blunt, pixel peeping, never done it in 40 years from "grain" to pixels, test charts, and comparisons mean little in the real world.

I doubt if there is anyone here or anywhere who could tell an image taken with / between different makes of camera and lens on the market when shot in identical conditions

By golly, that is blunt, Jeremy!

Could that last sentence be a challenge? - or are you making a point by saying something outrageous?

[ajohnw]

I think by all accounts Tamron have caught the main manufacturers napping and will just leave it at that.

The aspect that bugs me somewhat is weather proofing. The Sigma S has that but I'm not sure if I would want to carry a 2.9kg lens around. The C when it comes out just has an O ring on the mount. Suspect the Tamron has too. Big deal. Nikon - weather proofing - no problem with cameras.

The other aspect for me is wanting to improve on this - 65% quality SOOC jpg crop at 100% taken at 300mm m 4/3, distance 35m. I need to figure out if any of these crop lenses will in real terms do any better. Slightly over exposed and a slight focus problem. Noise would be easy to remove. Sort of shot few would post.



LOL it might be a better shot of the ducks head.

Double the size of the bird and 300mm would be fine. Probably even 50% bigger. This is why I pixel peep. A sub £500 quid lens and I am sure Olympus could do better than that probably up to 400mm with a relatively low zoom range. Ranting cause I feel they are being a bit silly not filling this range.

John
-

[ajohnw]

By golly, that is blunt, Jeremy!

Could that last sentence be a challenge? - or are you making a point by saying something outrageous?

What Jeremy do that?

John
-

[John 2]

John, I'm pretty certain that the Tamron is advertised as weatherproof but the Tamron EU site describes it as moisture resistant with a diagram of a fitted "O" ring. So I think you are right. Not a ball breaker for me but it might be for some.

[ajohnw]

John, I'm pretty certain that the Tamron is advertised as weatherproof but the Tamron EU site describes it as moisture resistant with a diagram of a fitted "O" ring. So I think you are right. Not a ball breaker for me but it might be for some.

I did have the impression that all Tamron SP's were weather resistant but looks like that is in correct.. My concern is water gettiing in the lens via the trombone. On balance especially considering weight it is the winner in my view. Sigma TBD but knocking on 3kg ??????? Going on the test results the 80-400mm nano with converter would be hopeless on a crop camera.

John
-

[JR1]

By golly, that is blunt, Jeremy!

Could that last sentence be a challenge? - or are you making a point by saying something outrageous?

What is blunt !!!!!!!!!

It is a fact

These days take any five, six etc near identical cameras from different manufacturers, use similar lenses, all 50mm, same'ish zooms, same iso, and shoot at the same time under the same conditions, print off a4, a3 from each camera, mix the photos and I dare anyone to match the image to the camera. Fact.

[JR1]

I did have the impression that all Tamron SP's were weather resistant but looks like that is in correct.. My concern is water gettiing in the lens via the trombone. On balance especially considering weight it is the winner in my view. Sigma TBD but knocking on 3kg ??????? Going on the test results the 80-400mm nano with converter would be hopeless on a crop camera.

John
-

The Sigma is water resistant, another good reason for Sigma

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/15...63-dg-os-hsm-s

Dust and splash-proof construction
Water & oil repellent coating on the front and rear glass elements

But, I have NOT knocked Tamron except for my own "personal" view and I have tried both, I prefer and bought the Sigma, surely a forum is where we can be honest and speak from personal experience, and after all the cost of something is the very least of "my" concern.

[JR1]

[QUOTE
[IMG]http://i60.tinypic.co
John
-[/QUOTE]

It is NOT a carry about lens, it weight a ton, the 80-400 Nano Nikkor is better

The weather proofing goes far beyond an o ring!, believe me, I have used this lens for a month now.

[John 2]

I think the point Jeremy is that there is such a thing as a cost/benefit analysis. Is the Nikon worth the extra cost for the degree of benefit that it brings over the competition. If that wasn't the case, Tamron wouldn't have bothered marketing a lens in the niche that they did. In my case (and I stress "..in my case"..), why would I pay the extra £1200 or so when the Tamron is more than good enough given the size of image I generally need. Owning the best for the sake of it isn't a luxury I can afford.