• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

New Sigma 150/600 (1 Viewer)

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
The only way that you will know which lens is better for you is to try them both. You mock people using our crap light as an excuse when in reality it isn't an excuse. It's a real life problem, I haven't taken my lens out in good light once, I can't change that. What I do know is that in the crap light it is a better lens than my old lens, other than that, I'll have to wait and see.

You've mentioned weight in another post, the lens is heavy and that should be beyond doubt, it's 6.3 lbs as far as I know. Is it possible to hand hold? Of course it is but I think it will take practice for some and it will build your left arm muscles up.

The first time I picked the lens up I thought that I had made a mistake, after using it I found that it wasn't too bad and it will only get easier to use with time but it will not get any lighter. I have little doubt that using it will become easier because I've gone through it with my previous lens.

I don't mock anyone. Never have and never will. Not my style. Crap light is a real issue. I generally don't even try to get pics unless it is to document a rarity unless the sun is shining and the light good. I went out yesterday and shot a good 300-400 pics of Hood Mergansers. They were in a dark cove and sun not direct. Were lots of harsh shadows. Light was not ideal where they were. Results were good but not great. Light had a good deal to do with it. The end result was that I deleted all of them.

I mentioned this somewhere. Got a chance to use a friends 300 2.8 is (version 1) very quickly a couple months back. Just 5 minutes at the side or a harbor shooting some flying gulls. Lens was lightning fast and pics were very nice. But that thing was so heavy that I would never, ever buy one. Perhaps a version 2, but no way version 1. I am not weak, and am quite fit but I would not be able to hand hold that thing for long periods of time.

Here is a shot that I got with it. Like the shot but handed his lens back to him and was happy to not be holding that thing any more. The Tamron felt like nothing compared to that beast.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/16369286495/in/photostream/

As to the wait and see part. I am as well. Very much looking forward to shots with this and the Contemporary with good light.
 
Last edited:

Mickr

Well-known member
My opinion has been that I think the Sigma should be better than the results are showing. I know that sounds harsh but it is true. Sigma is making fantastic quality lenses. Way back when I mentioned that I owned the 50mm Art from Sigma. Read the reviews if you don't know about it. Build quality, and sharpness that blow away the Canon 1.2 L. Some claim the bokeh is not as creamy. So I fully expect the Sigma to be better than the Tamron, 400 5.6, and perhaps even the 100-400ii. I love that you are happy with it as you should be. Don't want you not to be or to get something else either. But plenty of people read these posts. Specifically talk about needed to save up. Being on a pension and not easy to drop a few thousand on a lens, etc. For those people especially, a critical understanding of what they are getting for their money is important. Is the extra money being spent on weather sealing, programability and build quality or better glass? Is the extra $1,000 worth that much?

I think I've read something in your previous posts which you haven't intended so I apologise for that. I had read that you were just being arrogant and I no longer think that so please accept my apology.

I understand what you're trying to find out but I'm not sure how anybody can give you the answer unless they have both lenses. Even then they would really have to put them on the same camera to take that out of the equation. Then they would have to mfa both lenses to get the best out of them as you will always get a tolerance band which the lenses are built within.

It's a pity you couldn't borrow a lens to try for yourself over an extended period.

As for what to purchase and how to come to a decision, my expectation was that the Sigma 150-600 S would be a massive upgrade on my old lens and I have already found that to be the case. I mainly photograph birds in flight and the sample photographs that I had seen from both lenses tipped me towards the Sigma, even at a 50% premium on the Tamron.

Why? Because the lens will last me for years and I don't want to spend on a new lens of this size for a good few years.

Another reason is the weather sealing which I do see as adding value, the lens dock is another with it's ability to have 16 mfa's over the length of the lens, that has massive potential. Ok, it's useless if your lens is spot on over the whole focal length but I would guess that is expecting more than a zoom lens of this size can deliver.

I like the focus accuracy and speed, compared to my old lens.

What I don't like so far is the lens hood, lens cover, tripod mount because it's not too comfortable to hold and it is my preferred handle when carrying the lens. I don't like the direction of the zoom ring because it goes the opposite way to my old lens. I'll get used to this one and it will become second nature to turn it the right way, for now it isn't and it is a pain in the butt.
 

Mickr

Well-known member
becuz like me he wants to know whats out there worth looking into and probably doesn't have $2-3k of discretionary cash laying around to do testing. I've been looking for a replacement lens myself and read every GD one of these posts in 2-3 different threads here and ALL I see is soft images being defended as tack sharp etc. If these came across my desk { oh yeah, 40 yrs in the graphics photo ad industry for starters] I'd reject every damn one of these supposed 'sharp' images. and then the attacks start and the condescending remarks and shut up and blah blah blah ad naseum.
Just out here looking for answers to questions that after all the banter back and forth still remain unanswered and defended to the death w/ excuses as 'bad light in UK". BS I lived in Cleveland Ohio most my life and we have crap light and crap weather as well. Inside 50 ft. on a semi-clear day images aren't affected by 'bad light' & IF so use a speedlite to highlight the the microcontrast the feathers have @ -2/3 thru -1 1/3 down. WE HAVE the technology to do so use it.
This post could go on for ever raising various points by everyone involved but to what end? at the end of the day/s nothing will be garnered w/o real discussion instead of sillt defenses and ad hominum attacks.
Just my opinion...that I already know will NOT matter in the least so no sense continuing.
Gooday

The effect of bad light makes a massive difference, try photographing a bird in flight at double the 50ft or more that you mention. I doubt any amount of speedlites are going to make the slightest bit of difference.
 

Mickr

Well-known member
Really which ones?
I don't see the zooms in the 500 range { 150-500 0r bigma 50-500}being any of them..
The Canon EF 400 5.6 oldie is known and touted by Canon themselves as their sharpest as well.
I just don't see the Sig 500 zooms or now the new 600 zoom comparing to a Canon 400 5.6.

I know from tests out here the Tamron 600 Z is damn close tho. UNTIL I SEE a Sig = or surpass I shall remain skeptical and require some sort of VISUAL proof not just someone saying '.........take my word for it......' as has benn touted out here by some!

The only person on here to claim to have had both the 400 5.6 and the Sigma 150-600 thinks his Sigma is better. He's used both lenses on the same camera under similar conditions and has made his own mind up based on what he's seen.
 

Paul - Herts

Paul Herts
Is that the proper method to evaluate the SHARPNESS of a lens for comparison purposes as has been asked?

If that is the purpose for which the buyer intends to use the lens then yes.

I think it's time that the arguing and sniping stops on this thread. It's purpose is for constructive discussion on the merits and faults with the lens in the title. As has been pointed out, prospective buyers will be reading this thread looking for information to help them make a decision.

Petty criticism of anybody's work is not appropriate and, lets be honest, none of us are perfect. Constructive criticism should always be welcomed but it must be justified and should not descend into a bitching session.

Paul
 

Mickr

Well-known member
Is that the proper method to evaluate the SHARPNESS of a lens for comparison purposes as has been asked?

A lot of these shots are static perched birds here BTW. I doubt they are 100;s of feet away. don't know tho how heavily are they cropped or r they full frame as shot?
There are folks here that do own both the Tam & SIG 600 zoom as well as a 500 L. Where are those head to head comparisons? Try a tree for subject, nice rough bark, nice small details and they don't fly away!!! Haven't seen that yet either. Pretty simple comparison test too. As far as LENS SHARPNESS compared! HUH!

I'm talking(typing) about my own experience with the lens and the photographs that I have taken. All have been taken in poor light and all have been much better than those taken with my previous lens.

Personally, I don't care how a photograph of a tree comes out, I don't photograph trees so the comparison is useless. I photograph birds flying with the clouds behind them. The moving birds are constantly changing direction and the light levels change by the second. I hand hold because the birds move 360 degrees around me and 180 degrees in front and behind.
 

the black fox

Well-known member
YEP! Now its my turn ISAAC!!
I buy lenses cuz they're sharp 1st and foremost. If they aren't then all the docks, OS,IS isn't worth a hill of beans now is it?

Crap Light! Yeah we are to blame, GD yanks! FYI my friend - Britain's had shit light since the dawn of time itself. But there we go par for the course, redirect the topic. Yeah throw all this garbage away and lets do cave paintings! I tell you my fiend, I've forgotten more about lighting than you obviously know. So don't try attacking mE again w this BS! YOU are the one that said the SIG is sharper than blah blah whatever, not me. AND from whats posted here- Still waiting for that proof. None offered, just excuses about how the Yanks send you all 'bad light'.
This is a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ya all have a good ay

DONT FORGET TOI TURN OFF THE LIGHTS ON THE WAY OUT V
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Really which ones?
I don't see the zooms in the 500 range { 150-500 0r bigma 50-500}being any of them..
The Canon EF 400 5.6 oldie is known and touted by Canon themselves as their sharpest as well.
I just don't see the Sig 500 zooms or now the new 600 zoom comparing to a Canon 400 5.6.

I know from tests out here the Tamron 600 Z is damn close tho. UNTIL I SEE a Sig = or surpass I shall remain skeptical and require some sort of VISUAL proof not just someone saying '.........take my word for it......' as has benn touted out here by some!

Their short primes are top notch. Universally accepted as better than the equivalent Canons and at a much cheaper price. The 50, 24 and 35 Arts to name a few.

I would imagine that the 2 150-600 Sigmas are equally good or better than anything else out there as well.
 

Mickr

Well-known member
YEP! Now its my turn ISAAC!!
I buy lenses cuz they're sharp 1st and foremost. If they aren't then all the docks, OS,IS isn't worth a hill of beans now is it?

Crap Light! Yeah we are to blame, GD yanks! FYI my friend - Britain's had shit light since the dawn of time itself. But there we go par for the course, redirect the topic. Yeah throw all this garbage away and lets do cave paintings! I tell you my fiend, I've forgotten more about lighting than you obviously know. So don't try attacking mE again w this BS! YOU are the one that said the SIG is sharper than blah blah whatever, not me. AND from whats posted here- Still waiting for that proof. None offered, just excuses about how the Yanks send you all 'bad light'.
This is a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ya all have a good ay

What are you on about, when did I blame you for the crap light? |:D| How do you know you've forgotten more about lighting than I've obviously known when you don't know what I do or don't know? |:D| Also, I've never said the sigma is sharper than anything, are you seeing things? Actually, I have no idea what you're replying to, it's certainly not what you've quoted unless you've forgotten more about quoting than I've ever known.
 
Last edited:

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
I think I've read something in your previous posts which you haven't intended so I apologise for that. I had read that you were just being arrogant and I no longer think that so please accept my apology.

I understand what you're trying to find out but I'm not sure how anybody can give you the answer unless they have both lenses. Even then they would really have to put them on the same camera to take that out of the equation. Then they would have to mfa both lenses to get the best out of them as you will always get a tolerance band which the lenses are built within.

It's a pity you couldn't borrow a lens to try for yourself over an extended period.

As for what to purchase and how to come to a decision, my expectation was that the Sigma 150-600 S would be a massive upgrade on my old lens and I have already found that to be the case. I mainly photograph birds in flight and the sample photographs that I had seen from both lenses tipped me towards the Sigma, even at a 50% premium on the Tamron.

Why? Because the lens will last me for years and I don't want to spend on a new lens of this size for a good few years.

Another reason is the weather sealing which I do see as adding value, the lens dock is another with it's ability to have 16 mfa's over the length of the lens, that has massive potential. Ok, it's useless if your lens is spot on over the whole focal length but I would guess that is expecting more than a zoom lens of this size can deliver.

I like the focus accuracy and speed, compared to my old lens.

What I don't like so far is the lens hood, lens cover, tripod mount because it's not too comfortable to hold and it is my preferred handle when carrying the lens. I don't like the direction of the zoom ring because it goes the opposite way to my old lens. I'll get used to this one and it will become second nature to turn it the right way, for now it isn't and it is a pain in the butt.

Apology accepted. And sorry if I said something in a way that was not clear enough so as to get my point across correctly.

Man I just walked away for dinner and all hell broke loose. Perhaps within all of this we have hit on something less to do with a lens and more with something else.. Maybe what is at play is a cultural difference as well as a difference in expectations.

For instance, I hardly take BIF shots as they mostly are not that sharp and I am just not happy with the results. Also don't take shots in bad light as I am not happy with the results. I also have very low expectations when it comes to BIF because of all of the variables that you mentioned. But I have that luxury as I am blessed with periods of light where as you are not for long periods of time. When the weather is bad, I just go birding and don't worry about taking pics. When the weather is in my favor then I try and concentrate on birding but also getting pics. So if faced with the option of shooting in bad light or not shooting at all then clearly I would pick shooting in bad light some of the time. If that were the case then that would also change my expectations.

As to the cultural part (does seem like my new friend :t: and I seem to share a view very different than those on the other side of the ocean). Maybe we should just accept that and move on. We like and expect solid results as proof (sharp = good, not sharp = not good), maybe tend to be more direct (can be misunderstood) and may just have a very different style (greatly caused by the access to better shooting conditions?). I am very New York. Born and raised here. Tell it like I see it. But I also don't mind being told what I am doing wrong. I think that some here are a bit too defensive when it comes to this (cultural difference?). Roy told me in what I considered a very rude way that my shots (posted early on in the Tamron thread) were woefully over sharpened. Thing is he was 100% right. Delivery not so much, but spot on with what he said. Took that and learned from it. Others have noted that some of my shots are still a bit too sharpened or sharpness applied to whole image and not just the subject (can't do that in DPP so have no option for now) but no argument from me about it. Difference in how pictures are processed leads to different images.

I do not pretend to understand why the soft images are posted or why others do not see the same thing that I see with them when it comes to how sharp they are. But don't take my wanting to see proof from the perspective of better light as anything more than perhaps a cultural difference and not a personal attack.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
What are you on about, when did I blame you for the crap light? |:D| How do you know you've forgotten more about lighting than I've obviously known when you don't know what I do or don't know? |:D| Also, I've never said the sigma is sharper than anything, are you seeing things? Actually, I have no idea what you're replying to, it's certainly not what you've quoted unless you've forgotten more about quoting than I've ever known.

Pretty sure he was referring to Jeff and not you.
 

Mickr

Well-known member
Apology accepted. And sorry if I said something in a way that was not clear enough so as to get my point across correctly.

Man I just walked away for dinner and all hell broke loose. Perhaps within all of this we have hit on something less to do with a lens and more with something else.. Maybe what is at play is a cultural difference as well as a difference in expectations.

For instance, I hardly take BIF shots as they mostly are not that sharp and I am just not happy with the results. Also don't take shots in bad light as I am not happy with the results. I also have very low expectations when it comes to BIF because of all of the variables that you mentioned. But I have that luxury as I am blessed with periods of light where as you are not for long periods of time. When the weather is bad, I just go birding and don't worry about taking pics. When the weather is in my favor then I try and concentrate on birding but also getting pics. So if faced with the option of shooting in bad light or not shooting at all then clearly I would pick shooting in bad light some of the time. If that were the case then that would also change my expectations.

As to the cultural part (does seem like my new friend :t: and I seem to share a view very different than those on the other side of the ocean). Maybe we should just accept that and move on. We like and expect solid results as proof (sharp = good, not sharp = not good), maybe tend to be more direct (can be misunderstood) and may just have a very different style (greatly caused by the access to better shooting conditions?). I am very New York. Born and raised here. Tell it like I see it. But I also don't mind being told what I am doing wrong. I think that some here are a bit too defensive when it comes to this (cultural difference?). Roy told me in what I considered a very rude way that my shots (posted early on in the Tamron thread) were woefully over sharpened. Thing is he was 100% right. Delivery not so much, but spot on with what he said. Took that and learned from it. Others have noted that some of my shots are still a bit too sharpened or sharpness applied to whole image and not just the subject (can't do that in DPP so have no option for now) but no argument from me about it. Difference in how pictures are processed leads to different images.

I do not pretend to understand why the soft images are posted or why others do not see the same thing that I see with them when it comes to how sharp they are. But don't take my wanting to see proof from the perspective of better light as anything more than perhaps a cultural difference and not a personal attack.

I'm not sure we have different expectations, at least not from what we expect from a lens. Talking about crap light is becoming boring but it is a problem for us, it's not always the case but it has been for a while. Typically Wednesday was great and I was at work so couldn't take advantage of it.

I can still get reasonable bird in flight photographs in poor light but they are never going to be as good as when taken in good light, unfortunately soft light will usually produce a soft photo. I've posted one photograph in here and it wasn't meant to be held up as a good photo and I'm sure I said that it wasn't, it was just better than I would have achieved previously.

As for proof of how the lens performs in better light, that can only come when we have better light and it will happen. The forecast is good for Sunday so hopefully the forecasters are right, I'll not hold my breath.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
I'm not sure we have different expectations, at least not from what we expect from a lens. Talking about crap light is becoming boring but it is a problem for us, it's not always the case but it has been for a while. Typically Wednesday was great and I was at work so couldn't take advantage of it.

I can still get reasonable bird in flight photographs in poor light but they are never going to be as good as when taken in good light, unfortunately soft light will usually produce a soft photo. I've posted one photograph in here and it wasn't meant to be held up as a good photo and I'm sure I said that it wasn't, it was just better than I would have achieved previously.

As for proof of how the lens performs in better light, that can only come when we have better light and it will happen. The forecast is good for Sunday so hopefully the forecasters are right, I'll not hold my breath.

If not different expectations, than it has to be something. My experience is that soft light always produces soft photos so for reasons stated I try my best and stay away. Hell, I have a hard enough time getting a solid shot in the best of conditions.

Sunday is looking up here as well. For now our first day of spring is getting dumped with half a foot of snow. No pics today... Hope the weather is good for you and greatly looking forward to some solid samples to drool over and make me want to spend some money. I've got a bad case of GAS.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
I'm not sure we have different expectations, at least not from what we expect from a lens. Talking about crap light is becoming boring but it is a problem for us, it's not always the case but it has been for a while. Typically Wednesday was great and I was at work so couldn't take advantage of it.

I can still get reasonable bird in flight photographs in poor light but they are never going to be as good as when taken in good light, unfortunately soft light will usually produce a soft photo. I've posted one photograph in here and it wasn't meant to be held up as a good photo and I'm sure I said that it wasn't, it was just better than I would have achieved previously.

As for proof of how the lens performs in better light, that can only come when we have better light and it will happen. The forecast is good for Sunday so hopefully the forecasters are right, I'll not hold my breath.

As a side note I used to bird in the early nineties with a guy named Arthur Morris. We both did shorebird surveys at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in NY. Spent some time talking about shorebirds, vagrants as well. He was also very into photography. Since then he has become quite an accomplished photographer. Sponsored by Canon, does work for them, gets paid big bucks to travel all over and run bird photography trips. That sort of guy. He has a fantastic blog that he runs as well. Many of his shots are off the charts good. Recently he posted some shots with the 1dx and the 600f4 ii plus a 1.4x taken in Florida on a gloomy day at ISO 1600. And you know what, the shots were just no where near the same quality as his usual work. If Arthur struggles in those situations than all of us will. Especially with lesser equipment and decades less experience.

Here is a link if you care to check it out.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2015...-heron-without-one-of-these-im-going-nowhere/
 
Last edited:

Mickr

Well-known member
As a side note I used to bird in the early nineties with a guy named Arthur Morris. We both did shorebird surveys at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in NY. Spent some time talking about shorebirds, vagrants as well. He was also very into photography. Since then he has become quite an accomplished photographer. Sponsored by Canon, does work for them, gets paid big bucks to travel all over and run bird photography trips. That sort of guy. He has a fantastic blog that he runs as well. Many of his shots are off the charts good. Recently he posted some shots with the 1dx and the 600f4 ii plus a 1.4x taken in Florida on a gloomy day at ISO 1600. And you know what, the shots were just no where near the same quality as his usual work. If Arthur struggles in those situations than all of us will. Especially with lesser equipment and decades less experience.

Here is a link if you care to check it out.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2015...-heron-without-one-of-these-im-going-nowhere/

I'll check the blog out, thanks.
 

Paul - Herts

Paul Herts
Please don't reignite the arguments, there are more appropriate ways to raise grievances.

Again, this is a public discussion on the merits and faults of the lens in the title.
 
I have to pitch in without trying to get in the middle of all of this haha! I do agree with Isaac to the extent of saying that a lot of photos posted have been not tack sharp. I feel like this could be due to so many different things that its hard to pin it simply on "bad light" or "bad photographer". These things take time to precisely figure out and I think that Isaac is probably after these multiple variables to see how the lens can perform in all sorts of situations. Thats not to say that the shots here havent been great. I've really enjoyed them, and although not "tack" sharp in a lot of cases, they are still quite lovely.

Unfortunately a lot of passive aggressive attitudes has led to some less than useful comments, but we've all been there and made that mistake. I feel as we move forward we will be able to deconstruct these shots from multiple sources (especially as the Nikon mount begins to become available) and less personal attacks on the photographer will result as perhaps common positives/negatives may be seen across others photos? I will try and contribute my photos (on my Nikon) as soon as I get it.

One thing that has bothered me that I havent been able to see too much information on is how effective of a change in sharpness does the micro focusing software/ usb dock work. I may try and take the lens out in to the field without adjusting it to take some sample shots and then try adjusting it later to see differences. I wont be seeing my lens for over a month though so thatll be a while.

I look forward to seeing many more posts and lots more constructive criticism as we go along! I want to once again thank the large contributors to the thread such as Black Fox who has taken time out to share images and make posts about them. The information you are supplying is definitely very helpful :) so thank you!
 

Mickr

Well-known member
I have to pitch in without trying to get in the middle of all of this haha! I do agree with Isaac to the extent of saying that a lot of photos posted have been not tack sharp. I feel like this could be due to so many different things that its hard to pin it simply on "bad light" or "bad photographer". These things take time to precisely figure out and I think that Isaac is probably after these multiple variables to see how the lens can perform in all sorts of situations. Thats not to say that the shots here havent been great. I've really enjoyed them, and although not "tack" sharp in a lot of cases, they are still quite lovely.

Unfortunately a lot of passive aggressive attitudes has led to some less than useful comments, but we've all been there and made that mistake. I feel as we move forward we will be able to deconstruct these shots from multiple sources (especially as the Nikon mount begins to become available) and less personal attacks on the photographer will result as perhaps common positives/negatives may be seen across others photos? I will try and contribute my photos (on my Nikon) as soon as I get it.

One thing that has bothered me that I havent been able to see too much information on is how effective of a change in sharpness does the micro focusing software/ usb dock work. I may try and take the lens out in to the field without adjusting it to take some sample shots and then try adjusting it later to see differences. I wont be seeing my lens for over a month though so thatll be a while.

I look forward to seeing many more posts and lots more constructive criticism as we go along! I want to once again thank the large contributors to the thread such as Black Fox who has taken time out to share images and make posts about them. The information you are supplying is definitely very helpful :) so thank you!

I hope to mfa mine today using Focal 2 which will be interesting and probably time consuming.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Please don't reignite the arguments, there are more appropriate ways to raise grievances.

Again, this is a public discussion on the merits and faults of the lens in the title.

Typical patronizing post. Don't think I saw a single person tell any of the people that were clearly offensive on many levels not to rekindle or something like that. Nor did they say anything about just being rude and inappropriate that they shouldn't be. Anyone report people for saying highly offensive comments? Anyone go to the appropriate channels? Nor were they reminded about the purpose of this thread. Just a few I wish the bickering would stop posts. Honestly tired of the hypocrisy that is evident on so many levels here.

Also tired of the rampant a$$ kissing and bullying that goes on.

It's pathetic that people need to give disclaimers when they are speaking so as not to face the wrath of certain people on here. Downright pathetic.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
I have to pitch in without trying to get in the middle of all of this haha! I do agree with Isaac to the extent of saying that a lot of photos posted have been not tack sharp. I feel like this could be due to so many different things that its hard to pin it simply on "bad light" or "bad photographer". These things take time to precisely figure out and I think that Isaac is probably after these multiple variables to see how the lens can perform in all sorts of situations. Thats not to say that the shots here havent been great. I've really enjoyed them, and although not "tack" sharp in a lot of cases, they are still quite lovely.

Unfortunately a lot of passive aggressive attitudes has led to some less than useful comments, but we've all been there and made that mistake. I feel as we move forward we will be able to deconstruct these shots from multiple sources (especially as the Nikon mount begins to become available) and less personal attacks on the photographer will result as perhaps common positives/negatives may be seen across others photos? I will try and contribute my photos (on my Nikon) as soon as I get it.

One thing that has bothered me that I havent been able to see too much information on is how effective of a change in sharpness does the micro focusing software/ usb dock work. I may try and take the lens out in to the field without adjusting it to take some sample shots and then try adjusting it later to see differences. I wont be seeing my lens for over a month though so thatll be a while.

I look forward to seeing many more posts and lots more constructive criticism as we go along! I want to once again thank the large contributors to the thread such as Black Fox who has taken time out to share images and make posts about them. The information you are supplying is definitely very helpful :) so thank you!

Wow, an actual well thought out post by someone being honest and not rude. That is rarer here than a sharp pic is. Typical tip toeing being done do avoid the wrath of the bullies. Don't forget that I tried to blame it on the weight and how much more movement there was with longer and heavier lenses as well. Then I was told how rude I was to dare to insinuate that someone is not strong enough to hold this lens. Yet it is the first con brought up by every single review worth a squirt of piss. Doubt certain individuals will be posting more of their shots. At least I hope that to be the case as how many more soft images can one really look at? Those images were not posted for others to learn. They were posted merely so the they could get accolades. As soon as he found out that people actually think that there are faults with his images we were all accused of being trollers, the thread of being uninteresting and there being no point any more. Plenty of other places he could go to not deal with reality.

Think it's my time to bow out for some time as well. Nothing to be gained at this point except pointers on how to insult foreigners, ignore reality, bully people and how to properly pat someone on the back.

Should anyone have actual info on micro adjustments, real comparisons on lenses, actual images that they would like critiqued, or something like that than I would be open to joining back in. Will check in from time to time as well as still have a genuine interest in this lens and its possibilities. I have also put myself on a list of people that a shop will call when they get their hands on one so I can test it myself. Should I ever get it then I will report back as well with real results.
 
Last edited:
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top