Good luck with the Tammy 28-300. I bought one and sold it less than a month later, I was having the same problems with it that you show with your test.
That 70-300 is a CA monster.
The Tokina and the "elitist" lens are far and away the best of the lot. The Tokina shows some CA but very good contrast. The "elitist" shows very good contrast with just a hint of CA.
If I were to choose one lens of this grouping in this test it would have to be the 135 f/1.8. The 18-250 actually is a surprise, it might actually be my second choice, close call between it and the Tokina zoom. I am looking strictly at IQ and not at range.
Same here ... the 10 foot, 135mm shot is where the TAMRON 18-250 maxes out. If you have more distance between you and your subject, the longer your focal length will get. I believe at 27 feet, the lens will top out at 250mm, but I have never done this particular test.
I may do a side by side shoot, tomorrow, between the 28-300 and the 18-250 ... same subjects, same conditions for the shots. I already suspect this will not be a fair fight, based on the superior results we've already witnessed. But, with the newly returned and spec'd 28-300mm as "tuned" as she is going to get ... as Sean is prone to say, "we shall see." :D
I dunno, I specifically asked them several times... maybe it has to do with the accidental warranty I bought? Not sure... But that sucks that you had to pay so much and went through quite a fiasco for that G lens. So I guess the G version wasn't as great as it's cracked up to be? Which G lenses are worthwhile? The 70-300 G SSM? I won't be going G or Z (zeiss) anytime soon, but it's always good to plan ahead (and start wishing....) :D
Originally Posted by DonSchap
Nah ... the G line is fine. I just got one with an issue. I know there were a few ... just like when Chrysler bought out American Motors ... and took the Jeep franchise, a few "gray" vehicles were built. Basicially, these vehicles were on the manufacturing line when the lights went out at AMC and came back on with the Chrysler logo. My 1988 brand new, custom-built Jeep Cherokee was one of those vehicles ... took eight weeks longer to get than normal. And yeah, it had a few issues in the QC Department. When Minolta shut its doors in 2005, several lens lines were basically stopped for re-badging to SONY. I honestly believe this was one of those lenses. The ones, now, are being tested with a standardized process and they are fine. So, I was just unfortunate ... and I'll live. Don't let my screwy experience stop you from purchasing any of these wonderful lenses.
Anyway, aside from all that ... I did a side-by-side, in the wild, today ... and have concluded that the 18-250 and the recenty "tuned" 28-300 shoot quite similarly. The quailty of the images seem pretty comparable, but if I had the choice, it'd would be the 18-250.
None of the images I took clearly point out one over the other. It was rather choppy .. and I had a lot more fun doing the "new" version 4 HDR shots. Sorry ... but, it seemed like the better test at the time.
Maybe some other time.
I still wanted to post a couple comparisons with something that folks might relate to ... a lens box
Shot with the A700 mounting the following four lenses:
SONY AF 50mm f/1.4
TAMRON SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 MACRO
TAMRON AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO
TAMRON AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)
SONY 50mm f/1.4
TAMRON 28-300 @ 50mm
TAMRON 18-250 @ 50mm
TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 Di
TAMRON 28-300 @ 90mm
TAMRON 18-250 @ 90mm
These are all pixels peep crops at 100% ... so you decide.
90 macro by a mile, maybe more like 10. 28-300 performing just like mine did, worse quality than my G9.
Impressive, ain't it? LOL
I'd like to shoot the TAMRON 90 against the CZ 85 f/1.4 ... just to see what you get for your extra $800 ... other than aperture.
That's one Tammy I'd consider buying. One sharp mofo. I just looked it up at Buydig and almost pulled the trigger, until I saw the rebate was expired.