[noelpolar]

Thank god the Sigma and Tamron 150-600's are not available for Pentax..... just imagine how long this thread would become if they were!

[Venom3300]

Thank god the Sigma and Tamron 150-600's are not available for Pentax..... just imagine how long this thread would become if they were!

Shorter actually. Because people wouldn't be justifying the need or lack there of for it existing in K mount.

[noelpolar]

Maybe best to share your experience with that gear in the "Non Pentax camera" forum.

---------- Post added 01-10-16 at 11:08 AM ----------

Shorter actually. Because people wouldn't be justifying the need or lack there of for it existing in K mount.

Your dreaming.....

[Venom3300]

Maybe best to share your experience with that gear in the "Non Pentax camera" forum.[COLOR="Silver"]

Or in the thread about the lens I'm talking about. Or maybe move this thread to the non pentax camera forum since the lens its about can't be had in k mount

[normhead]

At least there would be direct comparisons were it available in K-mount.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

So instead of relying on the opinions of the few that have never touched the lenses in question let’s review some newly realised data on the 150-600 tamron/ sigma
Even when used on a FF camera with a 51mp camera we still see improvement over a 24 mp camera even when you use some of the best primes on FF24mp

Here is the tamron _____________________________________________ sigma Sport


First let’s look at the Nikon 200 F2 on FF 24mp a very sharp lens topping out at 4076 lw/ph compared to the tamron at 4500 and sigma 4500 lw/ph not bad for zooms, as there are not that many complaints about the 200 F2 on FF 24mp camera many should be happy with the T/S on 50mp



Now for the people that are happy with the output of the Zeiss Makro Planar 50mm F2 and 100 F2 on FF 24mp cameras the good news is that the mega zooms offered by T/S give you the same center or better center resolution across the zoom range when mounted on a 50mp FF camera.



From the lack of complaints we see from some from the 200 F2 , 100 F2 and 50 F2 I would think many would be happy with the output from T/S on a FF 50mp camera body contrary to the opinions expressed here by the few

We know that the T/S cannot compete with primes compared at the same FL but they sure don’t lag too far behind, and to the mix if you have to crop that prime or use a TC to match the FOV the T/S are very close to the primes. Even when used on 50 mp camera we do see an improvement and can even match some of very good primes on a FF 24mp bodies

[rawr]

the AF leaves the DA*300 in the dust.

Let's not overstate it. The DA*300 and K-3/K-1 AF can perform very well together, and I would say under normal circumstances not that much differently than the Tammy 150-600 on a D610.

It's somewhat dependent on the scene [bird-in-flight or motor sports or surfing or wildlife etc], your f-stop, the focal length, your AF settings, and the light etc, of course. But if you are shooting the D610, especially if the light level drops, DA*300 and K-1 win decisively.

---------- Post added 2016-10-01 at 07:34 PM ----------

So instead of relying on the opinions of the few that have never touched the lenses in question let’s review some newly realised data on the 150-600 tamron/ sigma

Or study Lenstip, who long before Photozone looked into these lenses, examined the original Tamron 150-600, and have also made a number of direct comparisons of it compared to the two Sigma's:

- Tamron 150-600
- Sigma C 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com
- Sigma S 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Introduction - LensTip.com

tl;dr all are good performers, but Sigma S beats Tamron, which beats Sigma C, mainly at the long end.

---

Last edited by rawr; 10-01-2016 at 02:34 AM.

[Nicolas06]

Does Tamron have better AF?

Maybe I was not clear, I was thinking DFA and sigma sport to have the best AF, both and the old tamron at least not being at same level. (That doesn't mean tamron don't bit old SDM design...).

Maybe I got it wrong?

[Nicolas06]

[...]

Your argumentation remind me of normhead speaking of 18-135, that it was the best lens out there at 24mm and that it was not far from the far more expensive lenses and it was stupid to not view the great benefits of a lens like 18-135. Maybe not perfectly but already quite good and oriented toward practical results than just merely winning to have the best corner results wide open.

Of course back then, normhead had a good point. (I say that honestly, my father has a 18-135 and very satisfied with it). The lens small/light, WR, good AF, and while you could criticize the border performance at 135mm, it still beat not covering the focal length at all. Even recently at the safari, my father also had the 55-300 but he was impressed how well the 18-135 fared at 135 when you just wanted to crop the center... And how a few shoot were he didn't have time to switch lenses turned out much better than expected...

There was also the argumentation that stated that basically, if you upgrade to a camera with more pixels, even the average zoom get more resolution and can then beat the best primes on the less pixelized sensor. I remember many speaking of their K3 vs K5 at time. People were quite happy. This is something that almost all that upgraded at time experienced.

So what you show us is the obvious and consistant with similar experiences. And mean that yes, not having their 150-600 lenses in K-mount is far from being good news. After the border performance of theses lenses on a 50MP FF sensor is still better in most setting than the best prime in the center on a K5. I didn't hear many complaining of their FA31 or DA70 back then...

But people often don't accept very well bad news. Often they'll want to toss the messenger too. The biggest argument being: This is not Pentax, we should not speak of it or non Pentax lenses are crap. And being quite convinced themselve, a bit after they buy a tamron lens... Do what I say, not what I do.

And when Pentax will have the lenses or sigma/tamron will decide to make one available, all the people that said it was completely unecessary, garbage etc would jump over it instantly. I have seen it many time. K1 was a superb example of many people that before announcement sweared that APSC was completely useless etc than now brought it swear K1 is the best thing that happened to them in the recent years.

People rationnalize to feel better. We all do to some extent.

[Venom3300]

Let's not overstate it. The DA*300 and K-3/K-1 AF can perform very well together, and I would say under normal circumstances not that much differently than the Tammy 150-600 on a D610.

It's somewhat dependent on the scene [bird-in-flight or motor sports or surfing or wildlife etc], your f-stop, the focal length, your AF settings, and the light etc, of course. But if you are shooting the D610, especially if the light level drops, DA*300 and K-1 win decisively.[COLOR="Silver"]

I'm talking about initial focus l lock. There is really no contest. The ild sdm jist doesnt keep up- at any focal length. Especially with the use of a focus limiter. Most of the other stuff is body dependant and im talking about lenses.

Im not saying the DA* 300 is bad or unusable for fast subjects- I photos to show it can be. But initial focus lock is slower.

---------- Post added 10-01-16 at 08:30 AM ----------

Maybe I was not clear, I was thinking DFA and sigma sport to have the best AF, both and the old tamron at least not being at same level. (That doesn't mean tamron don't bit old SDM design...).

Maybe I got it wrong?

I would think this is right.

[biz-engineer]

You crop the DFA150450 @450 by 1.3x and you get 20.25Mpixels at 600mm ( 36/(600/450)^2 = 20.25). No sure it makes any difference with 600mm f6.3 on a FF sensor having an optical anti-alias filter.

[Nicolas06]

You crop the DFA150450 @450 by 1.3x and you get 20.25Mpixels at 600mm ( 36/(600/450)^2 = 20.25). No sure it makes any difference with 600mm f6.3 on a FF sensor having an optical anti-alias filter.

IT make a tiny bit difference for effective apperture and so light gathering: f/(5.6*1.33) = f/7.5.. That's about half a stop difference with f/6.3...

And most sensor are now 30, 36, 42 or 50MP. There still a few 24MP, but even with that low pass filter affair using the full sensor is much easier on the lens.

I don't say the 150-450 would be necessarilly worse, maybe it is better. But I don't see how it could be noticably better for that setting.

[biz-engineer]

IT make a tiny bit difference for effective apperture and so light gathering: f/(5.6*1.33) = f/7.5.. That's about half a stop difference with f/6.3... And most sensor are now 30, 36, 42 or 50MP. There still a few 24MP, but even with that low pass filter affair using the full sensor is much easier on the lens. I don't say the 150-450 would be necessarilly worse, maybe it is better. But I don't see how it could be noticably better for that setting.

When not taking any photo , it doesn't matter.