Woa... TDP posted Sigma 100-400 C IQ tests!

Tapeman wrote in post #18373280
If my memory serves me, the best lens I ever owned was a Rokar 135mm. Of course it just may have been way better than the other lenses I had at the time. (Over 40 years ago.)

Ha, it is funny how nostalgia works. It's interesting to see what old movies hold up in HD or ultra HD. Some had really good production values and filmed on good film stock: they hold up pretty well, but the majority still don't quite have the quality of a movie produced in the intended format. There are some exceptions (especially 70mm). Then in the late 80s, super 35mm showed up and film detail really took a nose dive. Now with the push for 4K and eventually 8K...digital is pushing things to a higher standard.

I bring up cinematic film, because I think there's parallels to photographic film as well. Videography is also, coincidentally, the main area where people are buying old used lenses. They buy them for the great manual focus ability, the all metal construction, and a "vintage" look. For giggles, I've found a recent review of a Rokkor 135mm. The reviewer is impressed with the build quality, but affirms that optical quality has improved with the demands of better recording mediums:

minolta-mc-rokkor-pf-135mm

davesrose wrote in post #18373529
Ha, it is funny how nostalgia works. It's interesting to see what old movies hold up in HD or ultra HD. Some had really good production values and filmed on good film stock: they hold up pretty well, but the majority still don't quite have the quality of a movie produced in the intended format. There are some exceptions (especially 70mm). Then in the late 80s, super 35mm showed up and film detail really took a nose dive. Now with the push for 4K and eventually 8K...digital is pushing things to a higher standard.

I bring up cinematic film, because I think there's parallels to photographic film as well. Videography is also, coincidentally, the main area where people are buying old used lenses. They buy them for the great manual focus ability, the all metal construction, and a "vintage" look. For giggles, I've found a recent review of a Rokkor 135mm. The reviewer is impressed with the build quality, but affirms that optical quality has improved with the demands of better recording mediums:

minolta-mc-rokkor-pf-135mm

I looked at the crops, and they're about as good as the 135L crops.......

the zeiss 100-300, an old vintage lens, pretty darn sharp and high contrast.

davesrose wrote in post #18373529
Ha, it is funny how nostalgia works. It's interesting to see what old movies hold up in HD or ultra HD. Some had really good production values and filmed on good film stock: they hold up pretty well, but the majority still don't quite have the quality of a movie produced in the intended format. There are some exceptions (especially 70mm). Then in the late 80s, super 35mm showed up and film detail really took a nose dive. Now with the push for 4K and eventually 8K...digital is pushing things to a higher standard.

I bring up cinematic film, because I think there's parallels to photographic film as well. Videography is also, coincidentally, the main area where people are buying old used lenses. They buy them for the great manual focus ability, the all metal construction, and a "vintage" look. For giggles, I've found a recent review of a Rokkor 135mm. The reviewer is impressed with the build quality, but affirms that optical quality has improved with the demands of better recording mediums:

minolta-mc-rokkor-pf-135mm

As long as they stick to the true 24P for movies I'll be ok. When they move to the 48P I won't be happy. I have a projector setup and a 135" screen and the 24P rocks. It reminds me of being at the theaters.

Charlie wrote in post #18373543
I looked at the crops, and they're about as good as the 135L crops.......

the zeiss 100-300, an old vintage lens, pretty darn sharp and high contrast.

I don't see it. The 135L seems to have much more edge sharpness at 2.8/original size. I'm not saying that vintage lenses are bad optically....just that with the current demands of higher density sensors in smaller formats, there's a higher demand for optics to continue to improve.

davesrose wrote in post #18373553
I don't see it. The 135L seems to have much more edge sharpness at 2.8/original size. I'm not saying that vintage lenses are bad optically....just that with the current demands of higher density sensors in smaller formats, there's a higher demand for optics to continue to improve.

look at them both wide open rather than same aperture. Same with the zeiss 1.8. Both 135L and zeiss 135 are considered good lenses. Also consider that these lenses are shown at 100% and tested on a high pixel pitch camera. So it's not pin sharp wide open, but it's pretty darn usable regardless of the site owner's commentary.

Talley wrote in post #18373001
Not a challenger... I doubt the sigma will match the build, AF and focus speed.... also the Canon aperture IS faster.

But the Sigma is a lightweight and heck of a lot cheaper. This will be a great option for those on a budget and where size is an issue....

Again good option for a lightweight travel tele.

True, I would say it is a affordable travel option. cheaper and lighter and black on black make it sleeker....