Jump to content

Donald Mackie

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Donald Mackie last won the day on December 27 2019

Donald Mackie had the most liked content!

About Donald Mackie

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A follow up just because I purchased both the Tamron and the Sigma with the intent to test both side by side, then returning the loser. In the end however it just wasn’t that easy. Two outstanding lenses. Outstanding. There is no loser. I’m not, by nature, a pixel peeper except when I’m testing stuff for purchase and I did some here but more just looking at photos in Lightroom with little or no adjustments. Kinda of just how the photos felt (if that makes sense) I’ve never been too terribly concerned with weight (within reason) but I must admit the Tamron’s feather weight was more enticing than I would have thought. Especially having both out and about in the field for a real world comparative test. It’s just a treat to have that good of a lens that really feels like it’s not even on the camera. Without diving too deep into peeping, if I had to review my results comparing the two lenses between 17-24 (focal points both cameras share) I’d say the only difference I noticed was of a color profile. Despite The conclusions of a couple of comparative reviews on YouTube in which the results were, the Sigma was warmer, I disagree. I love the look of the Tamron. The Tamron focused a touch quicker but the differences were so small as to simply not be an issue. I’m an occasional “Manual focus” guy so the Tamron lost points there against ease of a MF/AF button on the Sigma. The Tamron scores big, big points (at least for me) for its filter threading capabilities. It lets me use my existing filters and also affords me tons of expansion filter choices. That and it’s such a light, small lens the difference between a screw on filter on a light lens against a heavier lens with an even bulkier filter kit is pretty considerable. In the end however (at least for me) it really only comes down to focal length. Both lenses IQ are simply amazing. Amazing. The difference however between 14mm and 17mm for my style of photography was just too much to ignore. It’s kinda massive. If you don’t need 14mm the Tamron wins and considering the price vs IQ, pretty handily. If you need that IQ quality down to 14mm the Sigma is equally as stunning but at a much higher cost of entry and a more difficult filter scheme. I bought the Sigma.
  2. I can testify from experience (albeit not for Astro) the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 is truly a remarkable lens. You will absolutely not be disappointed!
  3. Well....if speed an optics are the more singular priorities I believe several well known vendors have the Laowa 15mm f/2.0 on sale right now. It’s substantially below $1000.00. If you’re ok with a manual focus lens there’s not too much that competes at that price. There’s also a Sigma Art 14mm f/2.8 prime available. I rented it before I invested in my Laowa and like all Art series was really impressive (at least for my landscapes). The catch is it’s double the price of the Laowa and even more problematic for me was it weighs a ton. You could bite the bullet (cost-wise) and pick up the 16-35 GMaster (the most impressive lens I’ve ever had on my camera) but a fair amount of reviews are comparing the Tamron 17-24mm f/2.8 to the GMaster in a very favorable light, and of course, at a much lower cost of entry. Lots and lots of folks rave about the ZEISS Batis 18mm f/2.8 but I’ve never had my hands on it. It’s also pretty darn expensive.
  4. My Laowa 15mm f/2.0 works well for me but I must admit I've only dabble in astro stuff. I can attest to it being a really great lens in almost every situation I've used it in. Very sharp, great color rendition and manageable vignetting even wide open. I also recently rented the new-ish Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 of which I was really very surprised at it's outstanding overall performance. It's as sharp as any lens I own and focuses quickly. I will admit I'm in a bit of a love/don't love relationship with it's color rendering. Some days I love it, some days it's ever so slightly clinical for me. Easy enough to warm it up in post though. I'd suspect it would also do well for astrophotography but didn't get the opportunity to test any astro. I have a friend and fellow Sony shooter that's been very vocally positive about how much he likes his Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 but have yet to try it. The Tamron is especially appealing at it's price vs performance ratio and weight and my friend claims it rivals his GMaster in IQ.
  5. Good thought. I primarily used center focus/AF-C but Wide might well have been a better choice. That said when that combo worked it worked extremely well save for the view finder being really difficult to see. I had LiveView on all day. Do you suppose I'd of been better off with it switched off?
  6. So this past Saturday I had the first genuinely challenging situation for my Sony A7 iii. It was at the “Great Pacific Airshow” in Huntington Beach California. I shot wide open with a minimum ss at 1/400, auto iso and spot focus. The good news is I came away with some really good pics. The bad news is, given the endless blue sky and blue ocean, I was guessing almost constantly as I couldn’t see a thing through the view finder. It simply was washed out. Too often by the time I could actually focus (and actually see) the jets were in another county. Like I said I managed to make some pretty good guesses and got some great shots but I was guessin’ more than I care to. I think I understand the difference between the real time view of the Sony vs a Cannon or Nikon but switching cameras with a friend of mines Cannon showed that the ability to see and focus was majorly an easier proposition. Thoughts and or suggestions?
  7. Great shot Yes the lens probably should not have been released by the rental company. It was so beat up that upon opening the box I took detailed photos and sent them off immediately to the rental agency just to protect myself. I’d guess that was at least in part some of the problem. By and large I have complete confidence in Sony native stuff with the possible exception of the almost unusable 50 prime. Still my Sigma Art 20mm and 35mm are the sharpest lenses I own and I’m a pretty big fan of what Sigma’s been doing these days so it’s not a particularly big stretch for me to go that way.
  8. Yea, I’m pretty darn critical when it comes to focus performance. When I say “pretty darn” I mean as picky as one could possibly get :). Sigma has had some significant updates for the MC-11 and I can say with full confidence the Sigma 100-400 performs every bit as well as the native Sony 70-300 when it come to focus abilities at least in good light scenarios. As I mentioned earlier maybe even better. I have the Sigma 20mm and 35mm Art series for Sony (native mount without the MC-11) and I can tell you the 3 lenses are almost identical in reaction/focus times. As far as the 70-300 I really wanted that lens to win the weekend shootout. After all one of my absolute very favorite lenses I own is the Sony 24-105 G series. It’s (70-100) also a substantially lighter and smaller lens. Both big considerations for me. I did love mostly how it performed (again a big variable might have been it’s used status) but after reviewing all of the weekend shots there was little doubt the Sigma was consistently sharper and almost across the board. As far as peanuts for monkeys I can tell you, within reason, this decision was not about purchasing a cheap alternative. I’d never in a million years put myself through the misery and second guessing game of spending less and later wishing I’d spent more. I spent the weekend critically comparing the two and there was zero doubt which was better (at least for me). I would have gladly paid for either which of the two performed better. I wasn’t looking for a bargain. I think the Sigma entered the market at the $900.00 point. With the rebate from Sigma and Samy’s my out the door price was $608.00. It really did make the decision one of the easiest in recent years but even still I would have gone for the Sony had I thought it was better. In this case it wasn't. Horses for courses I suppose but I look at this lens performance as anything but peanuts
  9. So for those that may be interested in this kinda thing and specific to my original post. I rented the Sony 70-300 4.5 this week. I also borrowed a Sigma 100-400 from a friend yesterday morning. I’m coming from the perspective of either lens would be used in virtually good/great light. I don’t need these things for low light tasks. Also for the record I already own an MC-11 adaptor with the latest firmware updates. The Sony is relatively light and not much bigger than the 24-105. It focuses lightning fast. It’s color profile (Lightroom Adobe Profile) reminds me very much of the 24-105, which is really pleasing. The zoom ring and the manual focus ring was noticeably sticky. Understanding this was a rental which showed obvious signs of use (maybe even mis-use) my biggest concern past that was it’s focus ability past 200mm. It very well could have been me but not much was sharp above 200. Perhaps to some extent “acceptably” sharp up to 250mm but disappointing at 300mm. Again for reference it was a well used lens and the conditions being what they were it may well have been bad decisions on my part. The Sigma 100-400 is on the big side. Manageable but much bigger (and I’d assume heavier) than the Sony. The new MC-11 firmware puts focus attributes on par with the 70-300. Maybe better?! From there the Sigma leaves the Sony pretty far behind in almost every category. It’s sharp almost all the way through. I’ve had limited time with this lens but it appears to be tack sharp all the way out. The color is a bit more neutral to the Sony but I shoot Raw and honestly that neutral may well be more advantageous. In the end and for what I’d use it for the Sigma is a bit of a no-brainer. I checked on pricing and right now there’s a $200.00 instant rebate on the lens. I’ll sleep on it tonight but $600 for this lens? That’s gonna be tough to beat!
  10. Well.... from my perspective I own and still on occasion use the 28-70 kit lens and the 24-105 f4. Ironically I rented the 70-300 just this week thanks to a suggestion here on the forum. Unfortunately I have no experience whatsoever with the 70-200. I should mention that I’m not a diehard pixel peeper although tack sharp is always my primary goal after, content of course (I’d guess however that’s probably all of us). Here is my take. The 28-70 is a much better lens than any kit lens I’ve ever experienced. In virtually ever situation, except perhaps challenging low light scenarios, it consistently produces wonderful shots. Because it’s light it’s actually replaced my Sony 50mm 1.8 (which has turned out to be a bit of a dud) for my quick and easy walk around lens. Great color, very light, very little distortion and what little anomalies there are Lightroom fixes it immediately. Very sharp. The focus is fast, accurate and effortless. For me the 28-70 is a real bargain. It suffers from the “kit lens” perceptions but I do think it’s much better than many would imagine. All of that aside I’d submit my 24-105 is a titanic leap ahead of the kit. Unless I’m in a lens specific situation (ultra wide or extreme low light) it’s on my camera 90% of the time. I love the colors of this lens, it focuses flawlessly, consistently tack sharp and works equally as well in casual and critical scenarios. I can’t say enough about the IQ this lens produces especially considering the focal range. I did a comparison at 35mm between the 24-105 and my Sigma Art 35 prime and although the Sigma was sharper the difference was surprisingly narrow with the only first glance difference being the 24-105 had some noticeable pin cushioning. Again easily correctable in Lightroom. This is on almost every level a fantastic lens. I’ve only had the 70-300 for a week so my experience is limited but my initial impressions are that it’s very, very similar to the 24-105. I’ll know more this weekend but the colors appear to be very similar, I actually think the focus may be a tad quicker and what little backyard/neighborhood shots I’ve taken are equally as tack sharp even out at the far end of its reach. This is only my take on things and for my particular needs but if it were me I’d probably build my lens collection around the 24-105, I have absolutely no hesitation. From there if you were looking to go telephoto long and still keep a sane budget I’d look towards the Sigma 100-400 with a MC-11 adaptor. I saw that lens on sale at Best Buy for $600.00. Sigma has been updating the MC-11 and as of the last firmware release it brings the performance of non-native lenses right up close to the Sony stuff. I use the MC-11 on an old Sigma 18-300 and focusing is absolutely great. I can’t say for sure just yet (this weekend will tell) but my gut reaction is if the budget allowed I’d still opt for the Sony 70-300 over the Sigma 100-400 but admittedly some of those tendencies have to do with my suspicions that the 70-300 is very, very similar to the 24-105. That’s more than enough for me to tip the scales. The 24-105 and 70-300 would give you great reach and versatility, great IQ, focus and color. I guess the singular knock would be the f4 limit but honestly low light (particularly with how good higher iso levels look) has never proven to be much of a problem. My 2 cents
  11. Yes the 18-300 was really a “left-over” from my Cannon APS-C days and I didn’t really intent to use for anything much with the A7iii. I’ll always note in Lightroom what the equivalent mm would be if the Sigma wasn’t forcing APS-C mode. That so I can get a feel for just how much reach I really need in the full frame world. A couple of day shoots in some really crowded, active areas of L.A. yielded some pretty great compositional photos and maybe started a flame for another direction for me, therefore the new search. In the end sharpness, or even critical sharpness is really important to me. The Sony 70-200 f4 has always been on my radar but I wasn’t aware of the 70-300. Good call. The 70-300 as you mentioned would certainly be less conspicuous than the 70-200 as well as providing more reach. As much as I loath renting for trial purposes this scenario may come down to just that.
  12. I’m not entirely sure when I made my migration from Cannon to my Sony A7iii. Over a year now but I don’t actually recall. That said I concentrated at first and purchase wise (lens) on an everyday, all purpose lens. I settled on the 24-105. Impossible for me to be more pleased with that lens. Impossible.Then on to my wide and ultra wide’s as that’s still where I enjoy being most often particularly when I have the time and patience to do things slowly and with calculations. I have three. A Laowa 15, a Sigma Art 20, and a Sigma Art 35. That said a left over lens from my Cannon day’s was a Sigma 18-300mm 3.5/6.3. I’ve been using it with an mc-11 adaptor on the A7iii lately mainly for taking pictures of crowds (people/street) here in L.A. I like the reach as I’m still totally not good with intrusive “camera in their face” techniques. Besides that could get you killed here and in a hurry. The Sigma does wonderful for that great reach but merely an “ok” job with IQ. It’s certainly not sharp on any level and it’s inevitably noisy. It looks poor compared to the rest of my kit. I managed some really good “content” but when I compare IQ to my other lens’s it kinda makes me uncomfortable with the results. I’m starting a push for a new Sony lens that’s similar (I don’t need a reach of 300, I don’t think) but it must have a decent reach to keep me unobtrusive and the IQ must be substantial better than my good ole Sigma. I don’t see myself ever doing dedicated and intense wildlife photography. So far it’s just not my thing. I do however hike the Los Angeles Canyons a lot but not purposely to seek wildlife. If it comes cool, if not cool. So in short it’d be more for inconspicuous street photos of which we have a universe of possibilities here and occasional hikes through the beautiful canyons and oceans here in SoCal. All thoughts and suggestions welcome
  13. I've used both lensrentals and borrowed lens to good success. I did have a scare last time I rented in that I got a call a few days after the return saying the lens was pretty badly damaged and to fix would be $300.00 I knew beyond any shadow of any doubt the lens wasn't damaged by me, not to mention I didn't take the UV protective filter off the entire time I had the lens. They were pretty cool about the whole thing and I wasn't forced to pony up any damage dollars but man........I haven't rented since for fear of that kinda thing happening again.
  14. The 16-35 2.8 GM is truly a fantastic lens. I don't think it has a weakness except perhaps some vignetting wide open especially with filters. Still a wonderful lens that always produces great shots. Tack sharp, great color, fast and focusing is seamless. However as soon as you introduce "street photography" to the equation I know (at least for me) it's a lens you'd have work hard(er) for shots. 35mm is a fascinating albeit a persoanlly difficult focal length which I’ll admit when I get it right 35mm makes for great, great shots but i gotta slow down and I gotta think, which is not always great for street. Still...what a lens.I don't own the 24-70 but I have rented it several times. As with the 16-35 GM it's truly a fantastic lens and all the accolades I mentioned above apply. 24 is not wide enough for me with landscapes or architecture it would however be stellar for a street lens, as long as you don't need to snipe. It's also a great everyday lens. There’s some argument that the Tamron 28-70 is a worthy competitor at substantially less cost but I’ve not had a chance to try.As someone here has already mentioned as long as a constant f/4 is doable the 24-105 G is by far my favorite, favorite all around, cover all, lens. I'm constantly impressed with this lens. I’d argue that it’s comparable to the 24-70 in sharpness but just not able to open up as well. That and comparing the cost of the 24-70 GM you're considering you're awfully close to the price of entry on the 24-105 and maybe a dedicated UWA for landscape and architecture. Say the 20 mm Sigma ART f/1.4. Yes you'd have to occasionally switch lens's but you have a killer UWA and the practicality of the tack sharp 24-105.
  15. This^ I absolutely love my Laowa 15mm. I have the Sigma Art 20mm as well. They’re both unbelievable lens’s but if I had to choose between the two it’d definitely be the Laowa. There’s just an intangible in the 15 vs the 20 (apart from the focal difference) that makes for a really stellar landscape lens. I will say it tends to tighten up significantly at f8 and above where the Sigma performs better at wider apertures. The Laowa also excepts a wider range of filter systems where the Sigma 20 requires some external filter framing which initially can be a fairly costly point of entry. Also as someone mentioned the 15mm is compact and light especially compared to the 20mm. I dunno what the minimum focus difference is between the two but the Laowa is uncanny in its ability to get uber close. I certainly have managed some “almost” macro shots with the 15. Can’t do that with the Sigma. Overall I think the Sigma is a tad sharper (as I find all the Art series seem to be, my 35mm Sigma is crazy sharp) and obviously you have more focus options. Still.......for landscape.....Laowa
  • Create New...