[normhead]

I have 6 ways to get to 200mm

Of the lenses I tested, five images taken, best of 5, the DA*s performed well, both in terms of best image and highest number of keepers. In number of keepers, the Sigma 18-250 didn't produce a very good image, and it's other 4 were much worse. That makes evaluation really easy, unlike the DA*s where more than one images could have been selected as the best . Nothing else was close.
I could do a lot more, like calibrate each lens, blah, blah, blah, but basically, I don't have time to calibrate a lens every time I take it out.

All images taken on a tripod with a 2 second delay.

The results on this one are pretty clear cut, no surprises. The only two lenses I thought performed reasonably well were the DA*s. And I'm pretty sure that was because the distance which was probably about 120 feet was long enough to obscure some of the detail. Which would mean all lenses were less than equal the task, if you wanted to read all the small print, making the differences between them stand out more. There is no additional PP after the Apple import presets for the K-3, not even the levels slider bars were adjusted.

Based on my lenses, shooting at ƒ5.6 I liked the DA*60-250 best, but the DA*200 was right there with it, close enough further testing could reverse the order.
Next was the Sigma 70-300 and F-70-210. In last place the Sigma 18-250, with an old Vivitar 135 with the 1.7 TC on it bringing up the rear.

I would have done this as a poll, but to me the results were too obvious to bother. The only real question being DA*60-250 or DA*200, and those ar close enough, there would need to be more testing.

The focus point was on the ladder, so the centre circle on the focus screen was touching both sides of the ladder, with the top of the ladder even with the top of the circle.

Group one, sharpest.
DA*60-250


DA* 200 Notice that the A*200 is clearly sharper on the lettering on the inside of the ladder. Interesting.


Group 2
F-70-210


Sigma 70-300


Group 3
Sigma 18-250



Viitar M135 ƒ2.8 with F 1.7 AF adapter.


Despite clear differences in the Pixel peepers, reduced to 1200x800 they are pretty close.

Pixel peeping.

Group one, guessed sharpest.
DA*60-250


Too close to call DA* 200



Group 2, not very close
F-70-210


Sigma 70-300


Group 3, do they actually call these lenses?
Sigma 18-250


Viitar M135 ƒ2.8 with F 1.7 AF adapter.


Pixel peeping on the edge
Group one, guessed sharpest.
DA*60-250


DA* 200_ oops, camera must have moved.



Group 2, not very close
F-70-210


Sigma 70-300


Group 3, do they actually call these lenses?
Sigma 18-250


Viitar M135 ƒ2.8 with F 1.7 AF adapter.


Nothing unexpected here, the worst modern zoom was the one with the highest zoom ratio, the DA*60-250 and DA* 200 were pretty close.

* it should be added after using them both in low light the DA*200 has a clear AF advantage.

** the Sigma 18-250 just got back from Sigma after an AF repair, and calibration, and a requested test for de-centering, which as per the invoice, wasn't done. Sigma may take your lens back under warranty. Whether or not they can make it a good lens is another question.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-10-2016 at 08:44 AM.

[Adam]

Cool Next time someone asks why they should consider getting a prime / premium zoom in addition to their superzoom, we should point them to this thread!

[originalwinger]

well done Norm, so often we have comments made and no examples, what you have provided is real life, lets all take note, if you are making a statement good or bad follow Norm's lead and back it up with pictures, it's something we all can understand

[hcc]

Well done. Thank you.

Next time someone asks why they should consider getting a prime / premium zoom in addition to their superzoom, we should point them to this thread!

+1 with Adam...

[mikeSF]

nicely done
thanks!

[UncleVanya]

I did a shoot out a while back but can't find the files. I shot the 80-320 (no longer owned), the 60-250, the 50-135 with 1.4x hd tc, and the 55-300 I later added the tc to the 60-250 also.

It takes a lot of work! Kudos!

[Sandy Hancock]

Well played Norm. Interestingly, at web size the lower contrast of the DA*60-250 gives the impression that it less sharp - only when the crops are viewed does the truth become obvious.

I'll have to pop over with my DFA*70-200 to add to the data. So far I'm *very* impressed.

I can feel a similar set of tests coming on @135 with it, my DA*50-135, HD55-300 and FA135....

[PeterL]

When looking at the full pictures I see a reddish tint all over the sigma 70-300 picture.
When looking at the top-left corner crops I see the same tint on the sigma 18-250.
On the centre crop it looks to be on the sigma 18-250 as well, but it's harder to see here.

Could their have been a mix-up?

[ffking]

very convincing test - resolves doubts much more effectively than lens charts - thanks!

[normhead]

When looking at the full pictures I see a reddish tint all over the sigma 70-300 picture.
When looking at the top-left corner crops I see the same tint on the sigma 18-250.
On the centre crop it looks to be on the sigma 18-250 as well, but it's harder to see here.

Could their have been a mix-up?

Unlike many of my challenges, I didn't remove the Exif, so you can check.

Moving on, cross post from another thread.
Having just done a test of my long lenses I have to say, in the right light, I find all the images from these lenses enjoyable, and if I'm shooting from 15 feet away or less, sharpness hardly makes a difference to the final image. The one factor that the lens charts seem to fail to deal with, is sharpness of a of a lens at various distances.

When I work from my blind 15 feet away or less, almost any lens will do.

DA* 60-250


Sigma 70-300


F 70-210


DA 18-135


Sigma 18-250


DA*200


I guess the point is, I have never wanted to blow a small bird up to 400x life size, so while I'm sure there is more detail with the better lenses, I find the images enjoyable no matter what lens I use. For this size image, it's just enjoyable to use different lenses.

If this was the only type image you ever took, you'd probably be pretty crazy to get anything better than an F 70-210.

That being said, boy does that DA*200 image ever pop.
( But so does the 70-210)

Those two images had the best light.

On the other hand I couldn't get closer to this mink than 100 feet. I ended up shooting with the 70-210 because I didn't feel like dealing with the weight of the 60-250 and the DA*200 came the next day.

I have no doubt this would be a much better image if I'd had the DA* 60-250 or DA*200, but because of the harshness of the light, it would never have been a great image.

[PeterL]

Unlike many of my challenges, I didn't remove the Exif, so you can check.

Well I could not see specific lens info in the exif, but based on the registered focal length (190 vs 210) and timestamp (12:43 vs 12:45) then yeah, the sigma crop's and the sigma full picture's don't match each other.

[normhead]

I've switched the F70-210 and Sigma 70-300 images, so they are good. I should have known this was too easy.