08-28-2011, 10:50 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1314524844' post='11097']
You must have had an exceptionally bad Sigma copy there. Although, I do see clear evidence of camera shake in the Sigma crops, so one should first use non-moved images to compare[/quote]
For both the Tamron and the Sigma shots I used a steady tripod and 2" timer (with MLU). The Sigma was consistently less sharp than the Tamron, across all apertures.
Since Photozone tests also show that the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma, they too must have had a bad copy of the Sigma and a great copy of the Tamron, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
You must be joking. What lens isn't sharp at 85/6.3? The Tamron is razor sharp at this focal-length and aperture, practically rivaling prime lenses, but at 300mm wide-open it's a different story. It's only usable, which is more than I can say for the Sigma.
You must have had an exceptionally bad Sigma copy there. Although, I do see clear evidence of camera shake in the Sigma crops, so one should first use non-moved images to compare[/quote]
For both the Tamron and the Sigma shots I used a steady tripod and 2" timer (with MLU). The Sigma was consistently less sharp than the Tamron, across all apertures.
Since Photozone tests also show that the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma, they too must have had a bad copy of the Sigma and a great copy of the Tamron, right? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Quote:100% crop from the Sigma (pentax mount):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozadr1an/56...otostream/
You must be joking. What lens isn't sharp at 85/6.3? The Tamron is razor sharp at this focal-length and aperture, practically rivaling prime lenses, but at 300mm wide-open it's a different story. It's only usable, which is more than I can say for the Sigma.