[Nass]

#2?

[yorik]

I saw the answers... but what I was going to answer: I like #1 the most (rendering and perhaps light transmission), but my guess for the prime was #5.

[vonBaloney]

What aperture? I chose #5 simply because I have the Sigma macro and it looked like it. #1 does seem to be lacking the razor sharpess I'm used to from the Sigma 70...

[mholford]

I actually guessed #2 based on the oof bokeh - 2 & 3 seemed to have the most pleasing bokeh so I was guessing faster lens, more aperture blades... lol... guessed wrong...

on the other hand it points out (like has been pointed out on the forum before) you can take very nice photographs using practically any lens with good technique and knowledge of how to make the lens perform at it's best.
And I guess if you used the same aperture on all shots then the prime would be stopped down (which might explain bigger dof and less beautiful bokeh)

[panoguy]

I actually guessed #2 based on the oof bokeh

Which is strange because I immediately dismissed #2 due to the bokeh...

Very hard to judge this one, and yes Norm, you may need to see if your Sigma macro is up-to-snuff.

[stevebrot]

Based on the reputation and other examples I have seen posted, I would normally have picked #5 as the Sigma macro.

Out of curiosity, what was the intended point of focus and how was it attained?


Steve

[normhead]

There's always a smart ass.

[jkomp316]

now do them all wide open and hand held.

[normhead]

now do them all wide open and hand held.

Honest, you don't want to see that. I had a chance to apprentice with one of the world's best wood carvers (furniture). My hands were so unsteady, I couldn't even do his rough work of him.

---------- Post added 08-09-15 at 05:05 PM ----------

Which is strange because I immediately dismissed #2 due to the bokeh...

Very hard to judge this one, and yes Norm, you may need to see if your Sigma macro is up-to-snuff.

I might have to do more than one images of each,,, I got better out on my walk today...

Check this one out, hand held in a wind.

Based on the reputation and other examples I have seen posted, I would normally have picked #5 as the Sigma macro.

Out of curiosity, what was the intended point of focus and how was it attained?


Steve

I let the camera focus, all lenses were aimed and confirmed at the focus confirmation point. I know everyone would prefer I manually focussed, but I don't do that in the field. I'm interested in finding out how things work, every day. The focus point was the front edge of the post cap.

I tried getting used to the AF button, but boy did I miss a lot of shots.

[Nicolas06]

Honestly, I can't remember how to do a poll. These are jpegs from raw, and all done with the same processing. I don't think you can even display raw on the forum. Which reminds me, I forgot m 35-80. Darn. And the light is different now.

---------- Post added 08-09-15 at 02:08 PM ----------

SO no 3s or 4s? The #3 is F 70-210...
#4 is the DA 18-135
#2 is the Sigma 70-300 look at the CA around the out of focus petal in the middle of the frame, it screams "this is the cheapest lens of the lot.
#1 is the Sigma 70 macro, although, I've seen better from this lens.
The popular #5 is the DA* 60-250.

If I get a chance I'll shoot in softer light, and include the FA 35-80 and the FA 50-1.7 with the 1.4 converter.

And I'll try and read up on how to do a poll.

Honestly this is interresting... I suppose apperture where the same. Anyway I don't know how constant what the lighting but really the lighting and colors and exposure are different between the lenses.

For me the 2 best are the 3 and 4... The 4 by far has the best colors but it is because it is underexposed and maybe because the lighting was better. Underexposed shoot always get more saturation, more likable colors. (at least to me). I wonder if you could keep that and put the exposure to that of the #3. So let say without proof it would look good correctly exposed, I'd say #3 is best.

By far the worst is #5, the colors are terrible with a blue cast. For me the camera missed the white balance, I can't trust the 60-250 would do such colors. And of course I suppose some kind of cloud was there.

Between #1 and #2, I prefer #2, so I'd say to me the prime performance as second worst...

Sharpness wise I'd say the 70-210 did best but that may be because the focus was on a different thing. Anyway all look sharp.

In term of bokeh, I'd say 2 and 5 are better but that may be due to the lighting. 4 is the worst with the outlining too present even if the colors make the photo better overall.

I wonder how all of this is not more related to the lighting than anything else... Normhead... Was the lighting changing with clouds etc or was it constant in the field?

[normhead]

You right Nicholas and the one adjustment I did in Aperture that wasn't common to all was to adjust the exposure. The prime definitely gets you the most light for your ƒ5.6. The light as far as I can remember was constant. Shutter speeds are consistent between 1/100 and 1/320 at -1.7 EV.

[pathdoc]

THEY'RE ALL ZOOMS

When I was sitting my final pathology exams, the examiners told us that the cruellest thing they could do to us was give us all fifteen slides with NO DISEASE WHATSOEVER, because we'd be spending the whole exam frantically chasing the minutiae we'd spent five years cramming our heads full of.

Back to the topic of contention: in guessing #5, I noted sharpness in the near foreground across the frame being better than for the other lenses, reckoning that only a macro would deliver that. It was interesting to know that the macro itself was by Norm's own admission not delivering the goods as per usual!! Perhaps if it had been, I would have picked it right!!!

[normhead]

When I was sitting my final pathology exams, the examiners told us that the cruellest thing they could do to us was give us all fifteen slides with NO DISEASE WHATSOEVER, because we'd be spending the whole exam frantically chasing the minutiae we'd spent five years cramming our heads full of.

Back to the topic of contention: in guessing #5, I noted sharpness in the near foreground across the frame being better than for the other lenses, reckoning that only a macro would deliver that. It was interesting to know that the macro itself was by Norm's own admission not delivering the goods as per usual!! Perhaps if it had been, I would have picked it right!!!

That's why I'm going to try and give everyone a second chance. For this test every images was a one off. Next one, I'll do best of five, which is probably closer to how I really shoot in any case.

[grog85361]

So, what do I win?

[normhead]

So, what do I win?

Bragging rights....