Login at opticallimits.com

JJ_SO · 09-02-2016, 12:53 PM

well, Sigma is selling lens and adapter. Tamron is selling a lens with the right mount. I'm not sure, but normally I'd prefer the latter.

stoppingdown · 09-02-2016, 01:18 PM

Perhaps I've lost something, but I don't see an E-mount for the Tamron mkII... Only A-mount.

Brightcolours · 09-02-2016, 01:48 PM

And Sony offers A-mount to E-mount adapters. How could you lose that?

stoppingdown · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2016, 07:30 PM by stoppingdown.)

Quote:And Sony offers A-mount to E-mount adapters. How could you lose that?

It's just another adapter. So, no advantage on Sigma. Plus, none of the APS-C sized cameras by Sony has got ISIS... so, for E-mount, APS-C shooters, no stabilisation. In the end, the Sigma solution is more palatable for a broader range of customers.

PS In theory, the MC-11 is not an adapter like others: it doesn't have to translate a specific protocol to another specific protocol with all its evens and odds; according to Sigma it "replaces" the firmware of the lens. This could leave more room for a better integration, since there are less constraints.

Whether If in practice this holds true... I don't know.

chrismiller · 09-02-2016, 02:25 PM

Also, bizarrely the sigma adaptor actually offers more af modes compared to the Sony LAEA3. The lenses behave like native e-mount lenses rather than adapted A-mount.

JJ_SO · 09-02-2016, 02:46 PM

Quote:Perhaps I've lost something, but I don't see an E-mount for the Tamron mkII... Only A-mount.

You're right. When I wrote that, I had "Sony mount" in mind, which was in some of the specs without clarification if A or E. Anyway, from Sigma there's no Sony mount at all.

09-05-2016, 10:04 AM

Quote:Don't compare these lenses only on their target camera factor: The Tamron you can put in front of a lot of APS-C bodies, then it's equiv. 225-900 and still speedy enough, plus crops the sweet spot out of the picture.

Yes the MKI is soft at F6.3, but, cropping for the sweet spot or not the Tamron is way sharper on FF than on APSc, everyone seems to forget the APSc sensor needs to be magnified to 2.25 times the area for the same picture size.....

bang goes that sweet spot advantage!

JJ_SO · 09-05-2016, 10:17 AM

Given both are 24 MP sensors, you still have the advantage of longer FL on APS-C - or you're shooting at 400 mm with APS-C and at 600 mm with FF. I'm not too sure if the outcome will be that much different?

Brightcolours · 09-05-2016, 12:23 PM

Quote:Yes the MKI is soft at F5.6? but, cropping the for the sweet spot or not the Tamron is way sharper on FF than on APSc, everyone seems to forget the APSc sensor needs to be magnified to 2.25 times the area for the same picture size.....

bang goes that sweet spot advantage!

Or just 1.5-1.6x.

09-05-2016, 06:17 PM

Quote:Given both are 24 MP sensors, you still have the advantage of longer FL on APS-C - or you're shooting at 400 mm with APS-C and at 600 mm with FF. I'm not too sure if the outcome will be that much different?

I'm still a fan of the Tamron, at least on FF, on APS-c it's fine up to 450mm, yeah you can get get sharp (ish) results with a little PP boosting here and there at 600mm. However,the difference is clearly shown when using the Nikor 500mm F4, on FF it's just sharp, on APSc it's sharp (750mm) and even when using the D7100's crop mode (1.3X=975mm) it still stays sharp, even at F4!

So now if I'm muscularly geared up for carrying the weight, I change from FF to APS-c for FL changes you can't really do that with the Tamron!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/