TDP posted Sigma 135 1.8 Art Image Quality VS 135L

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351484
Wow.

Put the 24-70 tammy against a 24-70 canon for another WoW moment

Tamron is horrible at 100%. seriously dont know why anyone would consider a tammy

umphotography wrote in post #18351826
Put the 24-70 tammy against a 24-70 canon for another WoW moment

Tamron is horrible at 100%. seriously dont know why anyone would consider a tammy

I don't know that I have heard many people called it horrible. My understanding is the VC was as good as the V1 Canon but not as sharp as the V2. Anyhow, Looks like Tamron is releasing a G2 soon:

http://www.canonrumors​.com …vc-usd-g2-lens-this-year/

I would imagine there has got to be a sport version of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS coming soon too.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351825
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.

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.

my monitor is calibrated and there is a very slight difference in color between the 2. the tamron has a very slight warmer tone to it. nothing that couldnt be adjusted in light room with a slider in 2sec. Never understood the whole thing about one lens may render a hair cooler or warmer when we pretty much ALL shoot RAW and have total control over that in post

FEChariot wrote in post #18351813
This is hilarious. Way to prove you have confirmation bias on the same post and on two different posts in the same thread. ...

those silly test charts that show clearly that SONY sensors have better DR,. no one believes them. Certainly not C.C.!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351853
those silly test charts that show clearly that SONY sensors have better DR,. no one believes them. Certainly not C.C.!

Hey now, that's going too far. Sony is a fighten word...

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18351853
those silly test charts that show clearly that SONY sensors have better DR,. no one believes them. Certainly not C.C.!

Sensor DR is an absolute quality indicator, while resolution test charts can only tell you about lens resolution on a b&w 2D slice of the tridimensional space at a specific aperture and focusing distance.
The sad story is that too many people only use test charts to decide whether to buy a lens, and therefore some manufacturers optimize lenses for test charts only.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351825
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.

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.

Warmer color cast = not true blacks... whites not true whites... I can go over and over and there are many times it can be tough to see but in front of my calibrated monitor at home and at work and viewing the raw within lightroom I can pick the differences. It's harder to see in the uploaded sampels but the gate is is not true black vs the canon, the brick has a warmer cast to it and so does the leaves in the background are not true green like the canon. It's a tradeoff and for portraits it's actually a nice affect.

The canon is actually at the 190... it was a fluke when I took the image at the time however the canon at 190 vs the tamron at 200 means the tamron had the disadvantage.

Seems like everyone is freaking out on the G2 being so good but honestly I see it being pretty darn identical to the VC model.

What people fail to recognize is how good the VC model was. I know... I owned two copies and the canon II version and also own the 200/2. I know what good is suppose to be. The Tamron is 96.5%ish of the canon.

Now slap a TC on the tamron and the tamron falls apart... even with 1.4xIII. Again... I know. Tamrons and TC's just don't work... but i haven't tried the new tamron TC to see if that makes a difference.

Now look at AF. The tamron is very good but still was only 95% of the canon. For the dollar... excellent performer. I'd recommend it to anyone.

EDIT: Looks like I screwed up that sample vs on the dish photo. I'll correct it tonight.

umphotography wrote in post #18351826
Put the 24-70 tammy against a 24-70 canon for another WoW moment

Tamron is horrible at 100%. seriously dont know why anyone would consider a tammy

I did... my tamron held it's own against the canon II.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18351944
Sensor DR is an absolute quality indicator, while resolution test charts can only tell you about lens resolution on a b&w 2D slice of the tridimensional space at a specific aperture and focusing distance.
The sad story is that too many people only use test charts to decide whether to buy a lens, and therefore some manufacturers optimize lenses for test charts only.

I use it as a basis... I also check other sites then I also buy the lens myself and test and draw my own conclusion.

Many of the examples I've tested first hand (and owned at same time):

300 2.8 IS V1 vs 120-300 2.8 OS (with and without TC's)
70-200 2.8 IS II vs Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC
70-200 F4 IS vs Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC
15-30 VC vs 16-35 F4 IS
85A vs 85L II
24-70 2.8 VC vs 24-105 IS V1
24-70 2.8 VC vs 24-70 2.8 II
24 1.4 II vs 24A
Canon 8-15 vs Sigma 15 2.8 FE vs Rokinon 12mm 2.8 FE
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS vs 70-200 F4 IS

I have also compared all this list to charts from TDP, Lens rentals, lens tips, slrgear.com and any other site I could find information. I've analyzed 1000's of images from this bunch and have drawn my own conclusions and have a solid comparison of what my results where vs what online results where and I have a good understanding of where things should be.

Someone said Rokinon/Samyang colors sucks and are horrible... but my 12mm 2.8 fisheye faired better than the 8-15L in many areas.

I'm not trying to brag or anything and I'm not saying my tests are perfect but I test in a consistent manner that gives me the results I need. After I test a bunch of samples vs lenses then I usually run a couple thousand shots through them. I goto the zoo a bunch and usually try out the lenses there for overall quality. Good place to capture alot of different things.

Remember though... I'm just a dad with gear lust lol

Talley wrote in post #18351969
I did... my tamron held it's own against the canon II.

you must have a magic Tammy 24-70

I tested 6 copies at the store. All were crapola at 100%. I would not touch one with a 10 Ft pole

The tamron 70-200 is pretty sharp. But the problem with the lens is that It cant elephant a wounded aunt in a dark room. I thought my assistant was just not using her equipment right until I tried it. I was shocked. Useless in a dark church or reception environment

I have no love loss for Tamron lens. However, I did rent the 150-600 for my Yosemite trip. It worked great in good light. But lens feels cheap and the lens hood would not stay on unless I taped it. Images were good. Build was another story.

Freely admit Im very tough for products that I will buy and use for my business. I Only want the best I can get to a point. Most of my stuff is all top of the line products but I will use 3rd party products when I feel they can do a good job.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351813
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.

A good test chart result can only tell how good the lens is on a b&w 2D slice of the otherwise colored, infinite 3D subject space.
The fact a lens looks good on a resolution test chart, does not prove the lens is as good when shooting a color photo of a complex tridimensional subject.

FEChariot wrote in post #18351813
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?

I rather think that the sharper lens from one of these test charts may suddenly become the worse lens when taking photos of real subjects.

You know, there's color rendering, longitudinal chromatic aberrations, coating performance, bokeh rendering quality, AF performance, IS performance, ... et cetera.
And don't forget subjective artistic rendering quality that makes normal people (not lens nerds) prefer a lens because of its "character", something often related to imperfections.

Talley wrote in post #18351971
Someone said Rokinon/Samyang colors sucks and are horrible... but my 12mm 2.8 fisheye faired better than the 8-15L in many areas.

I don't own the 12/2.8 yet, but from photos I've seen, it seems nice exception.
I also love its stereographic projection, and will probably get one as soon as I sell my Canon 15 FE.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18351990
A good test chart result can only tell how good the lens is on a b&w 2D slice of the otherwise colored, infinite 3D subject space.
The fact a lens looks good on a resolution test chart, does not prove the lens is as good when shooting a color photo of a complex tridimensional subject.

I rather think that the sharper lens from one of these test charts may suddenly become the worse lens when taking photos of real subjects.

You know, there's color rendering, longitudinal chromatic aberrations, coating performance, bokeh rendering quality, AF performance, IS performance, ... et cetera.
And don't forget subjective artistic rendering quality that makes normal people (not lens nerds) prefer a lens because of its "character", something often related to imperfections.

OK I get it. Confirmation bias plus magic = your opinion.

umphotography wrote in post #18351988
It cant elephant a wounded aunt in a dark room.

OK I give

umphotography wrote in post #18351988
use for my business.

I'm just a dad so I have different needs and/or might let certain things slide.... however if I had a business it would be 100% canon glass. I would want rock solid AF, and CPS mainly for quick checks/repairs. Sorry no other way to say it but all my sigma glass would be gone and I'd do nothing but L.

Glad I'm just a dad though... or at least my wallet is lol. Although I could sell one lens and buy the L zoom trinity