There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 179000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.