Andrew L Wendelborn wrote:
>Interested in opinions.
>
>How does it compare (image quality wise) with
>
> i) 300/4.5 + 2XA
> ii) Zuiko 500mm mirror?
>
There is a summary of mirror lens tests from Modern Photography on Lee
Hawkins' site
<http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-cat-tests.txt>.
According to those tests, the Sigma 600/8 is the same or higher
resolution, but lower contrast than the Zuiko 500/8.
The build quality of the Sigma is first rate, much nicer than the Tamron
500 and 350. It also does filters differently and much more conveniently
than other third party lenses, using a holder for small filters (22.5mm)
that slides in from the side near the rear of the lens, rather than a
filter that screws in from the back with the lens dismounted. The Zuiko
only uses 72mm front mounted filters.
From my perspective, the Sigma is considerably higher resolution than
the Zuiko or any 500mm lens. My personal experience with such lenses is
that I can almost never either choose the exact distance from which I
shoot nor fill the frame with the subject. In that case, with a fixed
distance, lens tests that vary subject distance to make the resolution
target the same size on film/sensor regardless of lens fl, don't tell
the whole story.
Shooting the same subject from the same distance, a longer lens with the
same tested resolving power will resolve more detail in the subject than
a shorter lens simply because it enlarges the subject more. So the 50
and 40 lines resolutions of the Sigma are equivalent to 60 and 48 on a
500 mm lens for most of the kind of shots I take with a long tele.
I've used both the Sigma 600/8 and the 300/4.5 with 2xA, but never in a
way that would allow meaningful comparison. And I've never used a Zuiko
500/8. I need to try the 600 on the 300D some day - 960/8!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|