![]() The Sport version is later described as having “dust and splashproof construction” while the Contemporary is only described as having a “dust and splashproof mount.”Įven more complex is the fact that this page on Sigma's site says the Contemporary has a water and oil resistant coating on the front element only, yet this page on Sigma's site says the coating is only on the rear element. Sigma advertises both version of this lens as being “dustproof and splashproof,” but if you read further into the technical specs of these lenses, some questions arise. The lens is just better built, and there's little room to argue with that. ![]() In terms of build quality, the Sigma 150-600mm Sport version takes the blue ribbon by a significant margin. These superzooms are performing really well.įor most wildlife photography, I PREFER these light superzooms to those heavy 600s.īut if you're shooting sports photography, then the faster aperture of a 600mm f/4 or a 400mm f/2.8 puts those lenses in a completely different class. I came back with a dozen or more publishable shots that I could never have got with the big heavy “professional” gear.Īnd the image quality? I wish I had a 600mm f/4 here with me right now to show you the difference. This year I went on the same trip with 40 readers of Improve Photography. It took so long to get out my gear and tripod and get set up that I kept getting only photos of footprints where the fox had stood. I missed countless shots that week when I'd pull over and see a fox in the snow that only gave me a few seconds to shoot it before it ran away. That lens has good optics, but is so heavy that it's impossible to shoot without a tripod and gimbal head. They have always been underwhelming until Sigma and Tamron came out with their 150-600mm lenses.įor superzoom lenses, these lenses all perform remarkably well.ģ years ago I went and shot Yellowstone in Winter and used a Nikon 600mm f/4 beast. I think the answer to this question is a resounding “yes!” I have tried many different inexpensive superzooms over the last 5 years that I have been reviewing lenses professionally here on. Some of the reviewers I found said they felt the Sport had an very slight edge in sharpness, and others felt, as I did, that the Contemporary was just barely sharper.Įach copy of a lens performs differently, so to see some slight variation is normal.Īre these lenses sharp enough for professional photography? I was so surprised by my results that even after testing and retesting, I read reviews from a few other reviewers who I respect and it looks like I'm not the only one who has found that these lenses have almost identical sharpness. What I learned from this test is that the price of the lens is NOT a good indicator of the performance of the lens–at least in this case. When I bought these lenses for this review, I was certain that the Sport version would be sharper than the Contemporary given the better build quality, additional FLD element in the lens, and the significantly higher price. ![]() If I had to pick a winner in the sharpness battle, it'd be the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, which had better contrast at several focal lengths and better resolution at one focal length. So when it comes right down to it, after hours of testing and reviewing many many many photos, the sharpness is almost identical between the two lenses. The reason I'm showing the tests at f/6.3 is that it's the most common focal length you'd shoot this lens at.īut if you stop down to f/7.1 or higher and do the testing, the difference between these lenses is even tighter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |