|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on November 28, 2020 Pros: weight, sharpness, stabilizer Cons: dark; diaphragms have problems on old bodies Opinion: I bought it used at a very low price. I chose it for mountain expeditions, where weight really matters. Having a canvas of less than 1kg allows you to take otherwise impossible photos. Excellent sharpness, excellent stabilizer yield, which allows you to shoot smoothly even at 400mm. Very fast and precise autofocus. A little weak in the blurry, which are not soft enough. I also used it on an old body (D90). In theory, it's not compatible. It actually snaps without any particular problems, apart from the fact that the diaphragms always remain open to maximum openness. Consading that the lens is rather dark, the problem is not dramatic... |
user47513   | sent on April 07, 2020 Pros: Weight, price, sharpness Cons: a little dark Opinion: Given the rather low cost, it costs a third of the canon, you can't expect it to have a professional and battle-proof construction, it's a bit plastic but done well, the focus ring is a bit hard and not very fluid, pump zoom not really fluid, it's much better using the dial, the stabilizer does its duty, it gets almost to 1/10 freehand. obviously being an F 6.3 when the light goes down the game gets tough. The sharpness is great, at the level of the Canon II even a better thread. It holds the tc 1401 very well, becomes a 560mm and comes very close to the yield of a 150-600 to 600mm, while for all the other focals it is sharper than 150-600, both in the center, and especially at the edges. Almost non-existent aberrations. The autofocus is not very fast, but it is quiet and also scores almost in the dark (on the d500), with tc 1401 still works but slows down a bit. |
 | sent on October 08, 2019 Pros: light, performing, great value for money Cons: maybe a little dark Opinion: Canon 6D, and now on RP. Good yield at the detail level, light zoom great for wandering hunting, well balanced. a little dark, but the stabilizer makes up for it properly. personal opinion, solves the RP sensor much better, returning very detailed and "crunchy" images. The zoom can also be used with the paralight mounted in reverse, just hold the lampshade and pull it out, as if it were a pump lens |
 | sent on April 09, 2019 Pros: Yield, weights, dimensions, lock zoom for transport, price-quality ratio Cons: Af a little slow, construction a little plasticose Opinion: A lens with a truly surprising yield from the very beginning, very uniform at all focal and in the surface of the frame, both on APS and on full frame (even on 30mpx 5d4), all weighing and clutching the right. Very high value for the focal lengths it covers. Its flaws are an AF not too good (as suitable for many situations), especially on old machines (I used it on a 7D and was slow, but precise enough) and perhaps a construction a little ' plasticose, but very well taken care of, even if the fact of not Being able to zoom with the hood mounted on the reverse is a menata. I find the perfect lens for the trip and the landscape, I do not feel the lack of the much coveted tripod ring, in this type of lens (dark and with little AF performance) take it off it was just that a pro, other weight and less clutter. |
 | sent on April 04, 2019 Pros: Amazing Price/Quality ratio Cons: Absence of a collar (but I have not warned so far the lack) Opinion: Wanting to change the Sigma 150-500 I was undecided among the Sigma 150-600 with a prevailing option for the Sport model. Then I read the review of Ferorake who analyzed very carefully and competently the lens and I decided for the 100-400. Sharing in toto the previous comment I have to add an incredible sharpness already open. Also for the lightness and portability is advisable for wandering hunting. Considering so many merits and cost interesting I think it can be quietly recommended. |
 | sent on October 12, 2018 Pros: Stratospheric lens for cost and use Cons: Nothing Opinion: As usual the reviews on Juza are misleading. We are talking about a lens capable of solving almost completely a Sony A7R2 TA (which in this case is 6.3, but acceptable to have maximum sharpness to a focal of 400mm ), and I read of people who consider the 150-600 sport better. Where is it better? I prefer serenely cropping the image a bit, than having a native 600mm with a mediocre sharpness (as indeed all 150-600 to 600mm ). Another thing I read about the 100-400 Canon considered "uncomparable", when the tests can calmly demonstrate how the Canon is massacred in terms of optical quality at every focal and every diaphragm. I'm not saying that, just look online for accurate tests performed by famous warheads. I paid this lens the ridiculous figure of 600 euros as new from RCE, although new costs a little more. For this figure we have the perfect lens to make naturalistic. It weighs practically nothing, it has a valuable construction, you can use human filters of 67mm, they say it is not tropicalized but it seems to be (it has rubber on the bayonet ), it is perfect left to TA and we have no need to think about regulating the diaphragm. How can you then consider the lack of the collar a problem? It weighs like an 85 art, but I don't think people bother to use it and wrote in the reviews "lack the collar". The heave of the heave of the 100-400 series 1 L Canon better than this... when in fact the sharpness is exactly THE META' ad f11, of this at TA. As usual then, take a good look at the mtf charts before jumping to hasty conclusions. But then let's think exactly what a lens like is for. It allows us to carry it along the trek, to handle it with serenity. This year I found a marmot while climbing, I had to lie on the ground with 150-600 g2 tamron because I could not brandish it at 600mm freehand (tiredness also affected a lot ), and I practically had to do the marine lying on the ground... To summarize if you're looking for a definitive lens for naturalistic before jumping to the colossal 500 f4, 600 f4 and 400 2.8, consider this. PS: It is critical to update the lens via dock at the time of purchase. In fact with firmware 1.00 will be really mediocre in terms of AF speed. Once updated it will be fast enough for 99% of uses. |
 | sent on March 14, 2018 Pros: Great value, easy handling, sharpness in daylight Cons: Dark (in fact a 6.3 already at 130 mm), lack of collar Opinion: Lens bought for a safari trip in Africa did not disappoint, obviously a Sigma 150-600 is best place too, (in order to remain on lenses from the same manufacturer), but for the cost that this is a lens that allows you to practice photography with long focal lengths at an affordable price-performance that dignity. Used on Nikon D800 AF it lived up to the needs. The major flaw is the little light that falls to just 100 mm focal stretches 6.3 initials. Better use it with good light filled to avoid having to raise too the ISO or having trouble focusing on moving subjects. On the other hand, it is lighter than a 70-200 f 2.8 and has the same size, some compromises you have to accept it. The direct competitor is the recent Tamron di the same focal length. |
  | sent on March 14, 2018 Pros: Price, lightness of the set, rotating zoom, discrete sharpness at more closed apertures. Cons: Decent stabilizer but not too much to the height, realization "plasticosa" of the body with visible welds and unperceivable solidity, sufficient AF, low brightness that influences the AF, lens hood that mounted on the contrary does not access the zoom (AW...) . Opinion: Initial vote, 7. Final Vote: 8 required premise: Consider that it is a very first impression after purchase and initial shots on the 7d MK II. I come from the Canon 100-400 L 1a series and I have, always Sigma, the 150-600 Sport plus other series ART lenses; are goals qualitatively im-pa-ra-Go-na-bi-li at this. Canon won with low hands on AF, sharpness, stabilization and sturdiness paying for weight, long lenses and dust infiltrations, but it was exceptional. At Canon price, then expensive and prohibitive now, but to each and his own pockets. Sigma 150-600 amazing and heavy but very satisfying. So... This Sigma, after other shots, I can well recommend it for the pro above. Purchased from the excellent RCE PD at an absolutely competitive price; It is a good lens that anyone can afford to be able to dare over 300 mm without svenarsi and at 400 mm is very sharp. But without expecting the rendition of the real Sigmas. The lack of the collar would see it more as an advantage in terms of portability and less weight, IMHO. |
 | sent on March 05, 2018 Pros: focus, colors, focus Cons: lack of collar Opinion: Excellent lens in all respects. Tested with Canon 6d MarkII has produced excellent results at almost all focal lengths. However, at 400 mm it loses slightly resolution. It is inconceivable that it has not been designed with the collar, since at 400 mm it is very important to have a secure support. Maybe Sigma thought that the stabilizer was sufficient to avoid the blur? |
 | sent on October 01, 2017 Pros: Even sharp opening, efficient stabilization, very natural colors with the right contrast, very precise focus, small size, good blur, price.rn Cons: The lack of collar for tripods Opinion: Taken for only 3 days, I'm impressed with her performance. Upon arriving, tried home to see the precision of focus (my fear was a pronounced front-back focus) I also took to a backlight curtain of 310 mm to 1/20 second without stirring. So I tried it on a soccer ball (curved surface) always with the viewfinder, always with free hand, but with flash for maximum contrast and the focus was with a pleasing and progressive out-of-fire in nearby areas as well as saturated, but loyal colors. The following afternoon test in the garden with stray cat: confirms the first impressions and great performances even to infinity. You can also test the magnification ratio (light macro for floral or still-life subjects) and I get detailed shots with a very blurry. I did the queen test instead in the open, in a hilly area where it has been shown to have a precise, sensitive focus and fast without ever being fooled by the sequence of plans or the homogeneity of the plowed land, with onemade from the high contrast and high contrast. The weight feels, but with my Nikon D7100 with PB the set did not seem unbalanced. The optic seems to weigh a lot more since, despite the remarkable focal length, everything it is enclosed in a compact body, well finished and I hope it is robust .... At the price of just over 700 euros with the guarantee of the Italian importer, I do not regret my good Tamron 70-200 f / 2.8 which I put immediately available for sale. This is the goal, if you beat it with even more sophisticated and much more expensive optics for semi-professional use. |
 | sent on July 24, 2017 Pros: Sharp, Incisive, Lightweight, Discrete Cons: Nobody Opinion: I used it on a 5d mark III, which I had for a very short time since I'm a convinced nikonist. It was the only goal that convinced me of that car. It is not a mistake and for the focal that it has, it's really a discreet and lightweight target I used for the street photo too. I sold it to the canon and tried it with nikon attack on both the D750 and the D810. I will buy it as soon as possible, I find it even better than the tamron 70-200 2.8 stabilized.rnUna sinner is the price, in my opinion a little elevatornConsigliato |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
