Tom Reichner wrote in post #17864449
Hey, Jack!
Thank for getting back to me by responding to my questions.
Sure thing, Tom, I appreciate the feedback.
Tom Reichner wrote in post #17864449
I currently own one of the lenses in your review - the "Sigmonster".
I also have used the other two - the Canon 200-400/560 and the Sigma 120-300.
My experience with the Sigmonster is extensive, while my use of the other two has been limited and sporadic.
This is very interesting to learn.
However, since you haven't taken the time to elaborate on your findings, nor provide any details, there's not much to go on or discuss.
Tom Reichner wrote in post #17864449
I was interested in comparing my own experiences with these three lenses to your experiences with them; the conclusions you drew were somewhat different than my own, and different from other full time nature & wildlife photographers whom I know and who have used all of these lenses. Whenever something is different from what is normally reported, I want to learn more about the exceptional findings, as they might indicate a different type of usage or usage under different conditions, and that is something that I would indeed find interesting. That is why I was interested in learning about your experiences with the lenses.
I am interesting in your experiences, the time put in, the camera you used behind the lenses, as well as the names and published opinions of those "full-time nature & wildlife photographers" to whom you refer.
That is one of the things I tried to do in my article was cite my references, rather than make empty, limited, unverifiable statements.
For example, I know of no hard-line rating system that has actually rated The SigMonster, so I cited several references (at the bottom of the table) of pro photographers who have used it for many years, and who took the time to compose their published opinions/reports. I even communicated with LenScore to ask about if they've rated it, and Richard indicated that he had not, but intends to do so at some point.
What I like about LenScore is they test their lenses on the same custom, 200 mpx sensor that far out-resolves any commercial grade offering. IMO, this provides greater uniformity/reliability in findings than some guy who tests one lens on a Canon 5D and another guy who tests a second lens on a Nikon D810. Because of the vast disparity in cameras/sensors used, the reportings are thereby invalid and not properly-compatible.
LenScore has various custom-made mounts to fit all lenses over the same sensor, and tests all lenses overtop of this unchanging sensor, which (again) is why I prefer to them over (say) a PhotoZone review ... that still has results of Canon lenses overtop of a 20D and tries to compare them to other tests over a 5DSr.
Which brings us to my point: are you still using the EOS 50D as a camera to form your opinions?
Are you comparing the results you get with the original SigMonster or the more modern SigMonster with updated elements?
Are you comparing the results of the SigMonster on your 50D with results of a collegue's 200-400 overtop a 1Dx?
All of these details are material to a valid analysis, of which you have provided no meaningful clarification.
Tom Reichner wrote in post #17864449
Congratulations on the purchase, and soon to be acquisition, of the Sigma 120-300mm. I will be interested in learning about your experiences with this lens once you have had a chance to use it extensively.
Thank you.
I started with a 50D in 2008, but quickly got rid of it for the 7D.
The 7D has become yesterday's news, and I didn't like the results of my Sigma 150-600 on the 7D, so I feel the quality I was (not) getting was as much the fault of the 7D as anything else.
I have recently made an upgrade to the Nikon D810 and have a pre-order for the Nikon D500.
I am hoping to upgrade some of my own results, and have been mulling over several different lens options to go with (and was excited to share some of my findings with a blog post to be helpful to others).
I stand by my statement that no 2 lens purchases will give any nature photographer more of a gamut than the Sigma 120-300 and the Sigma 300-800, with corresponding scores at/near 1000 pretty much across the board.
What's interesting is that LenScore
scores the Sigma 120-300 slightly lower than the Canon and Nikon 200-400s, but according to DxO Mark
it rates slightly higher.
(Again, note how I cite my references
)
What is indisputable seems to be at they're all in the same high-end ballpark, optically, noticeably-superior to other zoom lenses.
What is also indisputable is that that Sigma 120-300 ($3,599) is half the price of the Nikon 200-400 ($6,996.95) and roughly 1/3rd the price of the Canon ($10,999.00), while offering something neither offers, which is f/2.8 versus an f/4.0 max.
These are the facts. How each person interprets/uses these facts is up to them, their budget, etc.
If I could afford an $11,000 lens, I might go with the Canon 200-400.
(However, I may come to the decision that $11,600 would be better-spent on a Sigma 120-300 and a SigMonster 300-800).
If I was a Nikon shooter, I might go with the Nikon 200-400 for the extra reach ... or I might decide that I could drop the extra 100mm in reach, gain an extra 2.8 f/stop, and keep the extra $1,400 in my pocket going with the Sigma.
I can't make decisions for everybody, but I can (and have) presented the strengths/weaknesses of each lens, so that each unique person can come to their own conclusions.
Again, hope to see some useful additional comments (rather than veiled nitpicking).
Jack