Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)  (Read 13335 times)

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2015, 10:04:13 pm »

For example, according to the DxO Mark, in evaluating the DSLR cameras themselves, the Nikon 810 has the #2 camera sensor, with the new Sony A7 RII being #1, while the Nikon D4s occupies a lowly #17 spot. This doesn't seem to make any sense to me, as the D4s is so much more expensive than the D810. (And, surely, Nikon knows the value of its own cameras.)


You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality.  There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer.  Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.

The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better.  However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match.  (DO YOU HEAR US NIKON!)
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2015, 11:39:35 pm »

You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality.

That is a fantasy of your own invention.

What I am preoccupied with is trying to get the most features for the money spent (which should be everyone's goal, really).



There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer.  Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.

I realize this.



The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better.  However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match. 

That is a valid comparison, yes.

For this exact same reasoning, I stated the Sigma 150-600 was the best overall lens in its class.

It simply offers many other features others in its price range simply can't match (from the best build quality of the bunch, to the best range of the bunch, to an OS system that matches the best, to comparable image quality with any of them).

Look at your own arguments in this post here, and see how your previous arguments regarding the 200-500 don't follow the same reasoning you just now applied.

Jack
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2015, 01:42:18 am »

Hi,

Good point, except you can buy a real hammer for 10-20$ that is much better suited to the job.

Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.

But realistically, I think that sites like DxO give some help in choosing lenses as you can check out those lenses at different parts of the image and at different apertures. For me a single figure of merit is pretty worthless. Just to give a small example:

I am mostly shooting landscapes and very seldom use large apertures. Normally I would use f/8 and adjust when needed. Now, f/8 is probably not the best aperture on many lenses, but I feel that diffraction is not really taking it's toll before f/11 and f/8 gives some leeway for non-optimal focus. So, I care very little about performance at f/2.8, or f/1.4. But, there is an exception.

I really want a short telephoto lens that can be used for those ultra thin DoF shots. I may not need f/1.4, f/2.8 is actually quite OK, but I want a lens that is usable at that full aperture without magenta/green fringing.

LenScore includes this into their figure of merit, but they also include it as a parameter. The Zeiss Otuses are on top of that list. Of the affordable lenses, the following lenses are on top:

Sony Planar T* 85 f/1.4 ZA     -> 1096
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM             -> 1074
Canon EF 85/1.2 LII                -> 1069

But on the overall rating I would choose:

Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/85 Batis     -> 1003
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85/14G         -> 1000
Sigma 85 f/1.4 EX                     -> 986
Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G                 ->  953
Canon 85/12LII                        ->  940

Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik


You seem preoccupied with price as the predominant indicator of quality.  There are a ton of reasons that the D4s is more expensive than the D810, not least of which is that you can use it as a hammer.  Most of these factors have nothing to do with the actual quality of the output of the sensor.

The 7DmkII is priced about $600 more than the D7200, and the D7200 sensor output is demonstrably better.  However, the 7DmKII sells because of a lot of other functionality that the D7200 can't match.  (DO YOU HEAR US NIKON!)
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2015, 09:26:14 am »

Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.

The Canon 7D II is a fine camera, in a number of important ways, but it just ranked too low in practically every category (sensor-wise) for me to get excited enough to spend money on.



But realistically, I think that sites like DxO give some help in choosing lenses as you can check out those lenses at different parts of the image and at different apertures. For me a single figure of merit is pretty worthless. Just to give a small example:

That is a good point. The aperture you're most comfortable with (or where the lens excels at) is a good figure to know.

However, the truth is, if a particular lens is up to (or close to) the 1000 range in whatever it's being rated at, you can be assured it is pretty much above average to excellent in all areas in that category.

But what about Bokeh?

Bokeh is integral to both macro and bird photography, and the DxO mark doesn't even rate this, whereas LenScore gives it the consideration it deserves.



I am mostly shooting landscapes and very seldom use large apertures. Normally I would use f/8 and adjust when needed. Now, f/8 is probably not the best aperture on many lenses, but I feel that diffraction is not really taking it's toll before f/11 and f/8 gives some leeway for non-optimal focus. So, I care very little about performance at f/2.8, or f/1.4. But, there is an exception.

I really want a short telephoto lens that can be used for those ultra thin DoF shots. I may not need f/1.4, f/2.8 is actually quite OK, but I want a lens that is usable at that full aperture without magenta/green fringing.

LenScore includes this into their figure of merit, but they also include it as a parameter. The Zeiss Otuses are on top of that list. Of the affordable lenses, the following lenses are on top:

Sony Planar T* 85 f/1.4 ZA     -> 1096
Canon EF 85/1.8 USM             -> 1074
Canon EF 85/1.2 LII                -> 1069

But on the overall rating I would choose:

Zeiss Sonnar T* 1.8/85 Batis     -> 1003
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85/14G         -> 1000
Sigma 85 f/1.4 EX                     -> 986
Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G                 ->  953
Canon 85/12LII                        ->  940

Best regards
Erik

IMO, there is a point to where you're splitting hairs and arguing minutia.

For example, if one lens scores 986 in regards to (say) resolution, while another scores 1069, the real-world difference is going to be negligible.

However, if (say) one lens scores 1250 in resolution, while another scores 785, then you are talking about a vast difference in quality.

LenScore says its "defacto standard" for excellence is the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a score of 1000 in each category.

Therefore, it is probably a safe assumption that, if your lens is at (or close) to 1000 in a particular category, you have "a good thing in your hands."

If what you have is 1100-1200+, then you probably have something exemplary and beyond (as you go up);
By contrast, if what you have is rated at only 800-700-, then you probably have something average to poor (as you go down), etc.

With that said, making gear-changing decisions between 986 and 1000 would be, at best, unproductive.

But making decisions between 750 and 1050 might be something to consider.

Jack
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2015, 11:35:57 am »

Hi,

Good point, except you can buy a real hammer for 10-20$ that is much better suited to the job.

Regarding the cameras in question, it is my impression that the Canon 7DII is intended to be a professional camera in the APS-C format.

My point about the hammer is reliability and durability.   A significant amount of the price of a D4s and 1Dx have nothing to do with the image quality.  And I would go Semi-Pro for the 7DmkII, but the real feature that sells that camera is 10fps and the processing and data paths to support it.

For this exact same reasoning, I stated the Sigma 150-600 was the best overall lens in its class.  It simply offers many other features others in its price range simply can't match (from the best build quality of the bunch, to the best range of the bunch, to an OS system that matches the best, to comparable image quality with any of them).

Look at your own arguments in this post here, and see how your previous arguments regarding the 200-500 don't follow the same reasoning you just now applied.

My arguments are entirely consistent.  DXOmark sensor ratings only rate the performance of the SENSOR, not the CAMERA.  The D810 sensor clearly outperforms that of the D4s.  But that is not the only characteristic upon which people rely for choosing a camera.

With respect to the Sigma Sport and Nikkor 200-500mm, you have 2 lenses with comparable optical quality.  One has a wider focal length range, but the cost is an additional $600 and 2lbs more weight to carry. 

The larger point is that one must understand what is being tested and rated.  Figure out if that matters to you at all.  And then figure out how that factor weighs in comparison to all other factors among the valid alternatives.  The only reason I'm considering the Nikon 200-500mm at all is that the Nikkor 80-400mm is $1000 more!  For my application, I'm weighing a single body with the 80-400mm versus 2 bodies with the 70-200mm and 200-500mm!


Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2015, 12:25:35 pm »

My arguments are entirely consistent.  DXOmark sensor ratings only rate the performance of the SENSOR, not the CAMERA.  The D810 sensor clearly outperforms that of the D4s.  But that is not the only characteristic upon which people rely for choosing a camera.

No so.

The D810 sensor only outperforms the D4s in resolution.

In every other category, it fails to perform as well, and I quote:

  • The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions.
    However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly (in the D810) with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well.




With respect to the Sigma Sport and Nikkor 200-500mm, you have 2 lenses with comparable optical quality.  One has a wider focal length range, but the cost is an additional $600 and 2lbs more weight to carry.

True.

However, it all depends on what you consider important (or how you want to word it ;)).

You can say the Sigma has "2 lb more weight," or you can say the Sigma has "Vastly superior build quality."

You can say the Sigma has "Wider focal length," or you can say it has "100mm more reach, with 50 mm more width."

You can also say the Sigma "Costs an additional 600" ...

Meanwhile I will say, "The Nikon offers (in more reviews than not) somewhat inferior image quality, has a 150 mm less reach, and has nowhere near the build quality of the Sigma, but it comes at a somewhat cheaper price (with those considerations is mind)."

So, again, it's all in what you find important, or how you want to word it.



The larger point is that one must understand what is being tested and rated.  Figure out if that matters to you at all.  And then figure out how that factor weighs in comparison to all other factors among the valid alternatives.  The only reason I'm considering the Nikon 200-500mm at all is that the Nikkor 80-400mm is $1000 more!  For my application, I'm weighing a single body with the 80-400mm versus 2 bodies with the 70-200mm and 200-500mm!

I would definitely go for the newer 200-500 Nikon, over the elder 80-400, given your Nikon-limited parameters.

I completely agree there, as the Nikon 200-500 has better image quality, and longer reach, for a cheaper price, than its elder Nikon predecessor.

These arguments cannot be made, however, when the Nikon 200-500 is faced-off with the Sigma 150-600 ... here, the cheaper price of the lens is only because it offers less.

The Sigma is a few hundred more expensive, and gives plenty of reasons why it's worth the extra $$.

Jack
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 12:33:28 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2015, 03:18:45 pm »

The D810 sensor only outperforms the D4s in resolution.

In every other category, it fails to perform as well, and I quote:

  • The D810 offers far superior resolving power and is able to provide much better image quality than the D4s under favorable conditions.
    However, dynamic range, tonal range and color range drop off significantly (in the D810) with higher ISO settings while the D4s holds up astonishingly well.


You made an statement and then disproved it.  The D810 outperforms the D4s in almost any aspect until you start raising the ISO.  The only thing the D4 sensor does better is handle higher ISOs and that is a function of the much larger pixel size.  It does better with less light.  The D4s is what like 16MP.  Same reason the D5 will be only 20MP.  The users are unwilling to trade the higher ISO performance for more pixels since they generally don't need the pixels anyway.  A landscape guy, on the other hand, will almost always make this trade because they are going to shoot at lower ISOs and want more pixels, DR and color depth instead.

Which brings us back to the same point I can explain to you, but not understand for you.  There is no best because our choice is not between something and nothing.  It is not an absolute.  It is based on personal preference.  We make these choices base on MARGINAL VALUE. 

For example, I might prefer steak to chicken.  But, after having steak 30 nights in a row, I might opt for chicken.  That is because my choice not between all the steak in the world and all the chicken, but between a 31st night in a row of steak or my 1st night of chicken.

I think we can all agree that having a wider 150-600mm focal length range is better than a 200-500mm focal length range, if all else were equal.  The absolute value of that is not in question.  What is in question is the MARGINAL value of the additional range over 200-500mm when compared to the increase in costs in dollars, size and weight. There is no right or wrong answer, it is personal preference.  You might be surprised to learn there are people unwilling to carry the Nikon 200-500mm because it weighs 4.2lbs even though they would love to have this focal range.  Even more people unwilling to carry the 6.2lbs of the Sigma Sport. For them, the smaller, lighter 100-400mm lenses might be the best inexpensive super tele zoom.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 09:17:46 pm by dwswager »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11310
    • Echophoto
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2015, 03:38:39 pm »

Hi,

My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.

On the other hand, I used to have an 80-200/2.8 or a 70-300/4.5-5.6 and a 400/4.5 APO. After that I got myself an 70-400/4-5.6 lens. So far, I have not proven to me that the 400/4.5 APO is superior to the 70-400/4-5.6, so I carry one lens instead of two. If you do air travel and care about carry on limits, things like that matter a lot.

Just to say, that 200-400 from Canon that has swallowed an 1.4X extender is quite tempting, except the price tag…

Best regards
Erik


You made an statement and then disproved it.  The D810 outperforms the D4s in almost any aspect until you start raising the ISO.  The only thing the D4 sensor does better is handle higher ISOs and that is a function of the much larger pixel size.  It does better with less light.  The D4s is what like 16MP.  Same reason the D5 will be only 20MP.  The users are unwilling to trade the higher ISO performance for more pixels since they generally don't need the pixels anyway.  A landscape guy, on the other hand, will almost always make this trade because they are going to shoot at lower ISOs and want more pixels, DR and color depth instead.

Which brings us back to the same point I can explain to you, but not understand for you.  There is no best because our choice is not between something and nothing.  It is not an absolute.  It is based on personal preference.  We make these choices base on MARGINAL VALUE. 

For example, I might prefer steak to chicken.  But, after having steak 30 nights in a row, I might opt for chicken.  That is because my choice not between all the steak in the world and all the chicken, but between a 31st night in a row of steak or my 1st night of chicken.

I think we can all agree that having a wider 150-600mm focal length range is better than a 200-500mm focal length range, if all else were equal.  The absolute value of that is not in question.  What is in question is the MARGINAL value of the additional range over 200-500mm when compared to the increase in costs in dollars, size and weight. There is no right or wrong answer, it is personal preference.  You might be surprised to learn there are people unwilling to carry the Nikon 200-500mm because it weighs 4.2lbs even though they would love to have this focal range.  Even more people unwilling to carry the 6.2lbs of the Sigma Sport. For them, the smaller, lighter 100-400mm lenses might be the best inexpensive super tele zoom.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2015, 09:16:13 pm »

Hi,

My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.


That is actually what makes the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E interesting other than the $1399 price tag.  It is reportedly very good at 500mm, is good wide open and exhibits very little vignetting.

I actually have the 200-500mm sitting in my Amazon Cart with the Amazon Coupon for $200 credit applied and haven't pulled the trigger over size and weight.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 09:20:40 pm by dwswager »
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3876
    • Pieter Kers
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2015, 05:42:18 am »

That is actually what makes the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E interesting other than the $1399 price tag.  It is reportedly very good at 500mm, is good wide open and exhibits very little vignetting.

I actually have the 200-500mm sitting in my Amazon Cart with the Amazon Coupon for $200 credit applied and haven't pulled the trigger over size and weight.
I have tested the 300pf and it is a very nice lens that is at its best @ f5.6 ( 6.3 according to lenscore - this time they shared some more information)
What makes it special is that i could make sharp photo's handheld @ 1/30 sec ( 1 out of 3 about - that depends on you skills)
and that it worked very good with the 2x converter, making it a F8 600mm of about 1 KG. ( worked best @F11)
I do not have the other converters, but optically it could handle the 600mm very well on a d810. With 1,4 it would be a 5.6 420mm.
just to make your choice more easy :)
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2015, 08:32:24 am »

I have tested the 300pf and it is a very nice lens that is at its best @ f5.6 ( 6.3 according to lenscore - this time they shared some more information)
What makes it special is that i could make sharp photo's handheld @ 1/30 sec ( 1 out of 3 about - that depends on you skills)
and that it worked very good with the 2x converter, making it a F8 600mm of about 1 KG. ( worked best @F11)
I do not have the other converters, but optically it could handle the 600mm very well on a d810. With 1,4 it would be a 5.6 420mm.
just to make your choice more easy :)

Thanks.  While I can see over the years, various uses for this lens, my original purpose is going to have me shooting it wide open most of the time at shutter speeds from 1/500th and up.  I usually shoot sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8 w/ and w/o the TC-14E II.  Just not enough focal length.  The graphic bellows shows my comparisons for options.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3876
    • Pieter Kers
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2015, 09:15:42 am »

Thanks.  While I can see over the years, various uses for this lens, my original purpose is going to have me shooting it wide open most of the time at shutter speeds from 1/500th and up.  I usually shoot sports with the 70-200mm f/2.8 w/ and w/o the TC-14E II.  Just not enough focal length.  The graphic bellows shows my comparisons for options.

At some point 16 MP of information is all you can get with action photography due to the action and the small DOF; so even DX of the d810 is good enough...
The 300mm pf is a lens that you can ' just take with you' without a second thought everywhere - that i find is a great quality.
BTW A Nikon spokesmen told me that (extreme) telelenses are usually made to be best till about 50-100m or so, because beyond that point atmospheric problems are usually more of a degrading the image than lens quality.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2015, 10:18:56 pm »

Hi,
My impression is that most long zooms are rather weak at the long end. If I buy a 150-600 lens I would probably buy it for the long end. That makes me a bit skeptical about the long zooms.

Wouldn't that same logic hold on the Nikon 200-500 too?

If max of 500 is thereby the weakest point on the Nikon, it is a strong point on the Sigma because it still has 100 mm to go.

There are many reports saying that the Sigma peforms acceptably on the long-end. (Not at the level of a dedicated 600 supertelephoto, but better than the Tamron 150-600 by far.)

The Sigma also performs better than any of them at 600 (seeing as none of the others go there).

And, even with an extender on the Canon 100-400 II (or Nikon 200-500) the Sigma 150-600 performs better at the 600 mm range "as-is" than either with an extender.



On the other hand, I used to have an 80-200/2.8 or a 70-300/4.5-5.6 and a 400/4.5 APO. After that I got myself an 70-400/4-5.6 lens. So far, I have not proven to me that the 400/4.5 APO is superior to the 70-400/4-5.6, so I carry one lens instead of two. If you do air travel and care about carry on limits, things like that matter a lot.

Exactly, and the 150-600 covers the most ground in one purchase ...



Just to say, that 200-400 from Canon that has swallowed an 1.4X extender is quite tempting, except the price tag…

Best regards
Erik

Optically, this is the best tele-zoom, by far, but it's also $11,000 compared to $1,900.

Jack
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2015, 12:31:03 pm »

Wouldn't that same logic hold on the Nikon 200-500 too?  If max of 500 is thereby the weakest point on the Nikon, it is a strong point on the Sigma because it still has 100 mm to go. There are many reports saying that the Sigma peforms acceptably on the long-end. (Not at the level of a dedicated 600 supertelephoto, but better than the Tamron 150-600 by far.)

It would if it did.  The knock on the 80-400mm Nikkor is that it's performance deteriorates as it goes to 400mm.  Still better than the 70-200mm with TCs to 400 though.  The 200-500mm does not undergo that kind of deterioration out at 500mm  Based on tests and reviews, it also appears the Sigma Sport also holds up well to the long end.  At 500 and 600mm atmospherics and technique are gonna be strong factors.

One always needs to rethink past assumptions based on the advancement of technology and manufacturing capability. 

BTW, just pulled the trigger on the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E.  Amazon giving me $200 photo credit to use later so the price of $1196 for the lens seems worthwhile.  Even if I find it not my cup of tea (too big and heavy for my anticipated use) and I end up getting the 300mm f/4 PF, I can still find uses for it and sell it later used for almost what I have in it.  Win/Win!
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2015, 09:37:46 pm »

It would if it did.  The knock on the 80-400mm Nikkor is that it's performance deteriorates as it goes to 400mm.  Still better than the 70-200mm with TCs to 400 though.  The 200-500mm does not undergo that kind of deterioration out at 500mm  Based on tests and reviews, it also appears the Sigma Sport also holds up well to the long end.  At 500 and 600mm atmospherics and technique are gonna be strong factors.

One always needs to rethink past assumptions based on the advancement of technology and manufacturing capability. 

BTW, just pulled the trigger on the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E.  Amazon giving me $200 photo credit to use later so the price of $1196 for the lens seems worthwhile.  Even if I find it not my cup of tea (too big and heavy for my anticipated use) and I end up getting the 300mm f/4 PF, I can still find uses for it and sell it later used for almost what I have in it.  Win/Win!

Congratulations ... hope it exceeds your expectations.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2015, 09:46:08 am »

FYI, the Sigma 150-600 also has a $200 rebate going right now, all the more sweetened by offering their $59 Sigma Dock free as well, for essentially a $259 rebate.
(The Sigma Dock allows you to connect your Sigma Global Vision lenses to your computer in order to update firmware and adjust focus setting parameters, fine-tuning the AF to custom-fit your unique camera, which is a really cool feature.)

In looking at the Nikon-equivalent, I found the reviews in the Nikon mount interesting, as the reviews were across-the-board favorable for Canon-fitted Sigma, but there were a few long faces (3-Star reviews) for the Nikon users. After reading the 3-star reviews, it was clear these were either from user-ignorance or user-idiosyncrasy (two users failed to calibrate their lenses with the Sigma Dock, thus their "inconsistent focus" was a result of nothing but their own errors/omissions, while another faulted the lens because the collar/foot couldn't be removed ... apparently the reality that this lens is made for tripod use didn't dawn on him).

In all instances, the users who were competent (and thorough in their testing) raved about the lens, one saying it equaled the 200-400 II in build quality, as well as (optically) at 400 mm ... while providing 200mm additional reach. Two others tested the lens against against the 80-400 as well as the 300 f/2.8 prime with converter. All testers who used a tripod favored the Sigma.

What's interesting is that, according to LenScore, the Sigma 150-600 is on the Top 10 of all Zooms made in any category.
What's even more interesting is 4 of those lenses are in the $3000-$11,000 price range, and every lens that rates higher is more expensive.
Yet none of the other Top 10 lenses can touch the Sigma in its optical range (150-600mm), yet the Sigma is equal (or nearly equal) to any lens under $3000.

Check-out the most important stats for the long-tele zoom lenses under $3,000:

  • Resolving Power:
    1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 992
    2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 933
    3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 891
    4. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 884

    The Sigma is only slightly behind, yet it triples the reach of the Canon/Nikon 70-200mms, and has 200mm more reach than the Canon 100-400 (meanwhile the Nikon 80-400 didn't make it to the Top 4).

  • Bokeh:
    1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 877
    2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 872
    3. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM C - 865
    4. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 830

    The Sigma Sport is #1 here, and now BOTH Sigmas are in the Top 4, again tripling the reach of the Canon/Nikon 70-200mms, while offering top tier bokeh quality (meanwhile no Nikon/Canon 80/100-400 is even in the Top 4).

  • Contrast:
    1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 935
    2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 866
    3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR - 859
    4. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 852

    The Canon 100-400 II is #1 here, and basically you're splitting hairs with the other 3. And, once again, the Sigma 150-600 offers 200mm more reach then the 100-400 Canon, and triples the reach of the CanNikon's 70-200s, while offering comparable stats.

  • Color:
    1. Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM - 947
    2. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - 941
    3. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II - 939
    4. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM - 890

    This was the Sigma's weakest point, with a score of only 798, which is only an average to slightly-above-average score.
    But, here again, it offers 200mm more than the Canon 100-400, and triples the reach of the rest
    .

And when one keeps in mind that ALL of these lenses fail to match the Sigma, in any category, with a 1.4 TC attached, the Sigma's overall value becomes even clearer.

Especially when one adds-in the fact the Sigma Sport has a better build quality than any of them, to boot, rivaling the build quality of $6000 lenses.

Jack
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2015, 10:53:24 pm »

It looks like the SenScore test for the Nikon 200-500 just came out and it is very good indeed. Here is how the two stack up:

  • Resolving Power:
    1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 884
    2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 835

    The Sigma is a tad better in resolving power, but the results are fairly comparable.
  • Bokeh:
    1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 877
    2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 786

    The Sigma Sport is #1 here (and was #1 against every zoom under $3,000), and quite a bit over the new 200-500.
  • Contrast:
    1. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 852
    2. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 818

    Again, the Sigma is ahead, but again the results are fairly comparable.
  • Color:
    1. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - 840
    2. Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S - 798

    This was the Sigma's weakest point (against everybody), but although the new 200-500 edges the Sigma in this category it wouldn't have made the Top 4, above, either.

All-in-all, it looks like the new Nikon 200-500 got a respectable overall score (811), but it actually wasn't in the Top 4 in any category :o

Even with its marginal shortcomings (apparently across the board) in scores, it is still a more exciting zoom range (200-500) over the standard 70-200, and even over the 200-400s.

IMO, it trumps any zoom lens Canon currently has (under $3000), including the 100-400 II (in terms of useful wildlife range), with only a slight compromise in optic quality.

Still, when you expand your vision beyond "Canon or Nikon," it is hard to reconcile the fact that (for an extra $600) you can get even better (150-600) reach with the Sigma, and get better optics in virtually every important category, and vastly-better build quality.

Check out the new score for anyone who's interested: http://www.lenscore.org

Jack
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13880
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2015, 07:39:23 pm »

The Sigma is overall a bit better optically. It would be interesting to get detailed results on the long end of the zoom range where these lenses will be used most often.

Practically speaking though, the real world image quality delivered on moving subjects will be impacted by the body+lens AF performance. That will have several times more impact than small optical differences.

Cheers,
Bernard

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2016, 10:06:31 am »

For those interested in this topic, SenScore just came out with the ratings of the Sony A7R II and A7S II.
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: LenScore / SenScore (Lens and Sensor Reviews)
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2016, 10:49:06 am »

Jack, out of curiosity, are you considering APS-C still?
I have nothing to add to the conversation on long zooms, as I use the fossilized 7 element Canon 400 f/5.6L currently - very amenable to hand held bird-in-flight shots, image quality fine on APS-C-sized pixels for an 11 x 17 image, given impeccable hand-held technique (practice, practice!). But I am pumping iron (weight-lifting), so maybe I will graduate to a modern lens with image stabilization someday... ;)  I am guessing that my major deficit is not in equipment but in fieldcraft.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up