[JJ_SO]

Would not run for it, really not:

 

• The price already tells the difference and the buyer of my Sports who ad a Contemp confirmed that and sned me a picture
  
• I suspect the G2 is already equal to the Sports but comes with a better feature package
  
• and smaller weight
  
• also a dock connector to update firmware and customizing settings is avaliable
  

I already made my summary:

• current Telezooms in this range between 150 and 600 are better than any of these kind of lenses before
  
• price as indicator to make a decision is saying something about quality to be expected
  
• they are no competition in speed or IQ to modern primes but cost a fraction
  
• At the interesting long FL they show a bigger gap to primes
  
• but for occasional moon-pictures, sports in bright daylight with not much experienced sport photogs beginners they are great value
  

I will follow this thread because dave gets now first hand experience and I rate those meanwhile higher than test numbers. It was for me i.e. always bothering to be able to switch the focus min distance only from full to 5 m  - ∞ with the Fuji 100 - 400. Not to get a close range is less practical.

[davidmanze]

 Well I've just ordered the "Tap in" console, (it's frankly a bit pricey 84 euros). Obviously it's a handy thing to be able to modify AF settings independently as well as the min. focusing distance which I want to change.

 

 This is the forth tele-zoom I have used, the first, the Sigma 50-500mm F4/6.3 screw-drive...it was good as a starter lens but at 500mm the IQ was only OK but very soft at the edges...500mm.

The Tamrons and the Sigma 150-600mm are way better, to the extent that the older Tammys and Sigmas are more or less made redundant. Hopefuls on Le Bon Coin are still trying to get decent money S/H but the more S/H 150-600s are coming up for sale, the less likely the chances of them selling at a decent price.

 

 A brief comparison to the AF-S 500mm F4D shows that it's all about shooting at larger apertures, stopped down, the TamSigs compare fairly well, I do however think that the modern 500mm F4 have improved IQ over their older sibblings.

 

BTW JoJu, How do you get the symbol for infinity?

[JJ_SO]

BTW JoJu, How do you get the symbol for infinity?

I created a shortcut. Whenever I type 

Code:

-infn

 

my Mac's autocorrection replaces it with the  - ∞ 

 

The symbol itself is part of the character table. I just needed to find it. If you look at my post and switch to "source text" you should get the HTML-code for it.

[JJ_SO]

That weekend I watched a comparison of the new Tamron and the less new Sigma Sports: https://youtu.be/dP7mWRAWW2s

 

It's in German which for me is a nice change for once 

 

I summarize: Tamron's strengths is the list of features, zoom-lock, the Arca-foot i.e., the weight and the performance at 150 mm

 

Sigma's strenths are to be a bit better at 600 mm and a little bit better (more reliable) AF. The differences in IQ were visible, so I just pull back and remain without a 150-600. Maybe Tamron needs to make a G3?

[Brightcolours]

Thanks for the link, JoJu. Both lenses appear to be very nice. I'd personally choose the Tamron for the weight saving, but that Sigma at 600mm is very impressive.

[Arthur Macmillan]

The Sigma 150-600mm C will come at some stage.

But I really have to process my backlog first (7 lenses). And thereafter I have to do two that I'm personally interested in ;-)

 

Or you could do your favorites first!  (I have to play the devils advocate!)

[davidmanze]

 Before committing to buying the G2 I spent some time reading the arriving reviews and the results are close, however the jury is not yet in, but this review gives clear visual resolution charts.

 

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron...ness.shtml

 

 

I have it that the Nikon wins up to 400mm, after that it's a close run thing between the G2 and the sport.......after the charts I would say that the G2 wins at the long end in the center and the APSc corners, the sport hangs in though to the corners.

 

But I think you have to read many reviews because everybody's mileage may vary!

 

 

  Taken this afternoon, 1/800 @ F8                         

 

  I'm starting to "bond" already!

[JJ_SO]

Great shot 

[Arthur Macmillan]

 

 

  A test of the three missing lenses would be sweet...

 

   I know Klaus is cringing here  :wacko:  no problems Klaus...just delegate.....Marcus where are you? 

 

Nice shots Dave, and I must say you are the telephoto king.  Maybe Klaus should delegate the job to you! 


Is even possible to measure differences in lenses this close?  Anyway, for some people the improvement in MFD might be more important than other figures that may not be noticeable in the field.  Anyway, rain, rain, and more rain here.  I should start reading my instruction manuals!  I was at the Honda dealership today where I spotted two awesome Honda 2000 convertibles!  One fire engine red, and one a light metallic blue.  I never realized what monsters they are.  2.0, and 2.2 Liters, and both produce 240 HP!

 

Sorry, having a second childhood moment here!  So I took photos of them!

[Brightcolours]

Arthur, with longer lenses the distance for testing does increase a lot. That is a reason Klaus has issues with doing them. So the are not measured at MFD, but a certain longer distance. I forgot which distance is needed for the specific target charts PZ uses, but I believe it is at least over 10 meters. So not near MFD.