TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

Talley wrote in post #18351302
When it comes to any canon vs tamron glass I can pick out the tamron all day long.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

FEChariot wrote in post #18351467
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Wow.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351484
Wow.

I know right. Seriously thinking about trading in my 85/1.8 and 70-200/4 IS for that: keeping my 135/2 though regardless.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351484
Wow.

Thats the same difference between the Canon 135 and the Art... but I've yet to see "wow" on that lol... even more of a difference better toward sigma

Talley wrote in post #18351540
Thats the same difference between the Canon 135 and the Art... but I've yet to see "wow" on that lol... even more of a difference better toward sigma

I think the Wow at least for me is because nobody really thought Tamron was up to this level in sharpness where as Sigma's sharpness has been knocked out of the park for a while now on several lenses.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351467
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Give me two photos of any kind.... two at all one being canon L and one being Tamron and I will pick the tamron out hands down at least 9/10 times. It's not about sharpness it's about the color cast that Tamron glass produces. It'll be a warmer color tone than Canon or Sigma.

Just look at the black gate in this full size image example. both are exposed identical and both are white balanced identical.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351551
I think the Wow at least for me is because nobody really thought Tamron was up to this level in sharpness where as Sigma's sharpness has been knocked out of the park for a while now on several lenses.

The 70-200 VC... actually both times I owned that lens was very very very close to the II. Just wish Tamron didn't let that model sink. However the focus accurace was around 93% vs the canon being say 99%.

Here is a 100% crop. It was close. Tamron made good on that 70-200 and to me was up to the canon level. the 15-30 I had was also equal to the 16-35 F4 I owned when I had them both for roughly 6 months.

Talley wrote in post #18351540
Thats the same difference between the Canon 135 and the Art... but I've yet to see "wow" on that lol... even more of a difference better toward sigma

No, not remotely the same.

Because the 135L is 20 years old. The SIGMA cost a lot more, and is 20 years newer,. big whup if it's better. It damn well should be better.

The Tamron G2 just knocked out Canon's very latest and one of it's best ever zooms, and the Tamron costs less. That really never happens.

Now see why it's not remotely the same?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351569
No, not remotely the same.

Because the 135L is 20 years old. The SIGMA cost a lot more, and is 20 years newer,. big whup if it's better. It damn well should be better.

The Tamron G2 just knocked out Canon's very latest and one of it's best ever zooms, and the Tamron costs less. That really never happens.

Now see why it's not remotely the same?

I'm pretty sure the 135L will be used for another 20 years.... it's a stellar lens. I wouldn't call the G2 "knocked out" the canon II lens. The Sigma 35A takes the king as knocking off the Canon equal... Pretty significantly I might add. (until canon released II which slightly bests it now)

Talley wrote in post #18351555
Give me two photos of any kind.... two at all one being canon L and one being Tamron and I will pick the tamron out hands down at least 9/10 times. It's not about sharpness it's about the color cast that Tamron glass produces. It'll be a warmer color tone than Canon or Sigma.

Exactly, and that is why I am staying away from Tamron.
However, some Canon or Sigma lenses also have inferior color rendering performance, and even many L lenses can't touch the color purity of the best Zeiss glass.

The worst color rendering is arguably that of Samyang/Rokinon lenses, as they probably save on glass and coating quality.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351569
The Tamron G2 just knocked out Canon's very latest and one of it's best ever zooms, and the Tamron costs less. That really never happens.

Uhm... let's rather say that the Tamron G2 seems to be a slightly sharper lens when shooting black and white test charts at chart distance.
I'd never "upgrade" my Canon 70-200 v2 based on that.

You may also want to check what happens when adding a 2x extender:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=2

You usually get what you pay for.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351467
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

We should also compare them at 200mm, where the Canon is at its best, and then the tables are turned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Both lenses are great, 'nuff said.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

CheshireCat wrote in post #18350657
I shoot no charts, so I prefer to see actual shots of 3D subjects,

CheshireCat wrote in post #18351666
Uhm... let's rather say that the Tamron G2 seems to be a slightly sharper lens when shooting black and white test charts at chart distance.
I'd never "upgrade" my Canon 70-200 v2 based on that.

This is hilarious. Way to prove you have confirmation bias on the same post and on two different posts in the same thread. I now see how this works for you. When the test charts go against your confirmation bias, they are just silly black and white test charts. Do you think that the softer lens from one of these test charts just magically becomes the sharper lens when the lens is pointed at a person for a portrait or a tree for a landscape? These are just tests of one aspect of a lens performance. There are many tests for many different aspects of lens performance.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18350657
You may also want to check what happens when adding a 2x extender:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5​&APIComp=2

Now you see a silly black and white test chart that supports your confirmation bias so now its relevant, "Look how bad that lens does on this test chart."

Really I was expecting to see a picture of you in this wikipedia article after this one:

https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Confirmation_b​ias

MatthewK wrote in post #18351734
We should also compare them at 200mm, where the Canon is at its best, and then the tables are turned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Both lenses are great, 'nuff said.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

Yes it would seem that 135 is the strong point for the G2. Also if you look at 70mm the G2 looks sharper in the line area of the chart but softer in the number area. Maybe there is a slight decentering on one of the two lenses? I am not sure what the placing is on the whole picture from the crops Brian has:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

And also as the Cat pointed out, the 2X extender does look terrible compared to the Canon. I think the Tamron was shot using the Tamron extender so I wonder how the Tamron G2 lens would look if Brian used the same 2.0 III Canon extender on it. Is it a problem with the design of the Tamron 2.0X extender? Personally I would rather just have a 400/5.6, 100-400 or 150-600 type of lens if I really needed 400mm then rely on a 2x with a 70-200.

Talley wrote in post #18351555
Just look at the black gate in this full size image example. both are exposed identical and both are white balanced identical.

Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=183​51555&i=i60891996
forum: Canon Lenses

I am at work with a crappy monitor so I am having a hard time seeing the difference. Are you saying the black gate in the Canon shot is a darker more pure black where as the Tamron is more of a grey? And you saw that in your other Tamron lenses you used to own: 15-30 and 24-70 as well? I wonder if the same is true of the new G2 versions.

Talley wrote in post #18351562
The 70-200 VC... actually both times I owned that lens was very very very close to the II. Just wish Tamron didn't let that model sink. However the focus accurace was around 93% vs the canon being say 99%.

Here is a 100% crop. It was close.

Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=183​51562&i=i41254836
forum: Canon Lenses

Both images say Canon just one at 190mm and the other at 200. Is one supposed to be a Tamron? Also it has been my understanding and a lot of it comes from testing that you have done on this forum over the years that the Tamron G1 versions were very close but not quite there in sharpness making them good value for the money but still the weaker lens. With the new G2 it appears that it is at least trading punches with the 2.8 II so its not necessarily the weaker lens but still around $500 cheaper.