What would be more insane is if that lens actually would perform ok in the long end..
wat
And I thought the 16-300 was insane. All the more remarkable is the fact that it's still f/6.3 at the long end, which is nothing to sneer at @ 400mm.
We'll just have to see how it does in real life!.......
Meanwhile, in another galaxy (Sigma): also 400mm f6.3 in the long end, and rather quite good:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=ob...est_ob=502
0.26x at 1.6 meters gives it a slight edge over my EF 70-200mm f4 lens (0.21x at 1.2 meters), so it makes it quite attractive to me.
That Sigma was one of the pleasant surprises I experienced not long ago at a Sigma event in La Tour de Peilz.
But; 100-400 is less complicated than 18-400. A 4× zoom contrary to a 22(!)× zoom
Quote:That Sigma was one of the pleasant surprises I experienced not long ago at a Sigma event in La Tour de Peilz.
But; 100-400 is less complicated than 18-400. A 4× zoom contrary to a 22(!)× zoom
That I understand, it was not my purpose to put it straight against the Tamron, which is a super zoom for APS-C and not a telezoom for FF that the Sigma is. Like I said, "in another galaxy" :lol:
Oddly enough, I would like to try that lens now (the Tamron).
Quote:That I understand, it was not my purpose to put it straight against the Tamron, which is a super zoom for APS-C and not a telezoom for FF that the Sigma is. Like I said, "in another galaxy" :lol:
I only wanted to point out that the Sigma indeed is a nice lens, light and good enough in it's class. I was not expecting that performance. I didn't want to say "those lenses can't be compared".
Quote:Oddly enough, I would like to try that lens now (the Tamron).
Pervert ;-)