LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[Bill De Jager]

Personally, I do look at numerical scores for lenses from time to time.  They can be be useful up to a point in considering lens purchase decisions.  But they can't tell you alone whether a given lens will serve you best for a particular photographic use or is a good acquisition for you personally.

One issue is that the level of abstraction of these numbers needs to be considered.  Raw numbers for things like resolution at the center vs. the edges at different stops should be evaluated in consideration of how one is likely to use the lens.  For instance, if a lens intended for portrait use is sharp at wide apertures primarily in the middle 2/3 while the edges are a bit on the soft side, that may be quite acceptable.  Conversely, when considering a lens for landscape use you may want more consistent resolution performance across the image, perhaps even at the expense of maximizing center resolution.  Alternately, you may be willing to work with issues that affect measured resolution (such as field curvature) if the lens has other advantages.  The same is true for other measures of optical performance.  Particular 'shortcomings' may or may not be important for your intended use of a particular lens.

There is no way to reduce all these considerations to a single number for resolution (or any other lens attribute) that works for everyone, or even for one person doing different things photographically at different times.  That's why I'd rather see the raw numbers for performance at different lens settings and for different photographic conditions.  To reduce each measured lens attribute to a single score is a shortcut that doesn't tell you how the lens will perform on that attribute when you actually use it in a particular way. 

To further abstract optical performance to a single overall score for lens performance reduces the value of the resulting number to only a very rough aid to consider among other advice.  Take, for instance, the issue of coma.  This is an aberration that can harm peripheral resolution and contrast but is of special concern for astrophotography due to its particularly harmful effects there.  Thus the weight you put on this measure of performance will depend considerably on how you intend to use the lens.  Yes, you can do a spreadsheet and weight the performance numbers to your heart's content, but I keep seeing the single overall performance score touted  by some here as being highly significant in evaluating the photographic value of lenses.  That approach doesn't consider the vastly differing optical needs of different kinds of photography.

Personally, aside from looking at test scores I also read up on the impressions of photographers I consider to be knowledgeable regarding lens behavior to get a sense of those lens attributes that are not measurable in the lab.  I then consider both sets of information, along with size, weight, etc. in light of my expectations for the range of uses I will likely put that lens to.  Of course, cost also enters into the decision.

So I just can't get too excited about these numbers at LenScore.  I want to be able to evaluate the data in a way relevant to what I'm doing rather than getting a mathematically digested and synthesized score that's been homogenized for 'average' photographic use.  I also want to have people more knowledgeable and experienced than I am add their subjective evaluations before I make a purchase decision.

[Peter Forsell]

Scores and test results don't interest me at all. I want a certain kind of look in my images and that requirement changes day from day and subject from subject. That's why I have several almost similar lenses for different occasions.

Don't get me wrong, I have some wicked sharp lenses like 300VR, 400VR and 200VR2, but I never bought those for sharpness or some score. I also have some that have mediocre scores but deliver images that 'talk' to me, like AIS 35/1.4 and AF 28/1.4D.

I rather listen to fellow photographers and look at their work and try to distill the essence of the lens rendering out of that. Then I try to think whether that rendering fancies me. Scores? Meaningless to me, because they don't test the things I consider important, and because I never trust a commercial operators integrity and/or ulterior motives.

[ArendV]

I think optically the new generation of Sigma lenses are superb. Single score numbers are one dimensional but are at least a starting point to confirm good results in practice.
Their Achilles heel is still the backward engineering they have to do for the autofocus protocols.
I used to own the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and was very happy with its optical performance. Unfortunately the autofocus on the outer points was off, even after calibration. For a lens I can and want to use wide open that is leading to a lot of frustration. So I sold it and now use the Nikkor 20/1.8. Not as sharp wide open, but reliable in autofocus on all points, so a more satisfying tool for me.
I know one photographer who send back his Sigma Art 85/1.4 for the same reason, autofocus off on the outer points to the right.

[BW]

Scores and test results don't interest me at all. I want a certain kind of look in my images and that requirement changes day from day and subject from subject. That's why I have several almost similar lenses for different occasions.

Don't get me wrong, I have some wicked sharp lenses like 300VR, 400VR and 200VR2, but I never bought those for sharpness or some score. I also have some that have mediocre scores but deliver images that 'talk' to me, like AIS 35/1.4 and AF 28/1.4D.

I rather listen to fellow photographers and look at their work and try to distill the essence of the lens rendering out of that. Then I try to think whether that rendering fancies me. Scores? Meaningless to me, because they don't test the things I consider important, and because I never trust a commercial operators integrity and/or ulterior motives.

I agree with you, Peter! I use lots of shitty optics, lenses that some people wouldnt touch with a fire poker, but they give satisfaction, and do what I want them to do. Nothing more or nothing less. Pictures speak to me, not numbers or brands

[Bjørn Rørslett]

To wit, one of my most successful images was taken with the poorly regarded 35-105 Nikkor zoom ...

[Macro_Cosmos]

Hmmm, no micro-nikkor is able to compare to the Sigma 180mm/2.8 macro?

How does the micro-nikkor 200mm f/4D compare to the 180mm f/2.8 sigma macro? I'm currently in a dilemma between the two. Both are pretty expensive in my opinion! I should search a bit online.

[John Koerner]

Hmmm, no micro-nikkor is able to compare to the Sigma 180mm/2.8 macro?

How does the micro-nikkor 200mm f/4D compare to the 180mm f/2.8 sigma macro? I'm currently in a dilemma between the two. Both are pretty expensive in my opinion! I should search a bit online.

If you look under the FAQ of LenScore, the Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro is in the bull-pen waiting to be examined and placed in their prime categories.

That said, I owned the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM, for about a year, and it blew my Canon 180mm out of the water. (Also owned the Canon 100, 100L, and MP-E65mm.

Have not seen the Sigma directly compared to the ancient Nikkor 200.

The elder Nikon does not have  as fast AF, does not have VR, and only goes to f/4 (where the Sigma gets as wide as f/2.8 ).

I expect the Nikkor 200 f/4 to equal or, possibly, surpass the Sigma in sharpness, but the Sigma ranks strong across the board (for a macro). We'll see.

From personal experience, the Sigma 180 f/2.8 is a great lens, and surpasses every other commercial macro there is, including prior Sigmas (105mm, 150mm, 180 f/3.5, etc.) are all inferior to the newer 180 f/2.8.

Only the Zeiss and Schneider lenses edge it out ... and they are NOT true 1:1 lenses, but 1:2 and 1:4, respectively. Also, the Zeiss and Schneider don't have AF, VR, or the working distance the Sigma provides.

That said, I too will be very interested in seeing LenScore's results of the Nikkor 200 f/4 compared to the Sigma. Most "reviews" I have seen of the Micro-Nikor 200 have not come from actual Macro shooters, but were simply "opinions" from non-macro shooters, and most have not come with any formal testing results either.

I would like to see LenScore's actual testing results so I can provide my own opinions as to whether or not to get it.

[Roland Vink]

It is worth noting the Sigma 180/2.8 macro is a huge lens:
- 86mm filter size
- 1.63 kg
- 204mm long
In other words it is bigger and heavier than 70-200/2.8 zooms.

The Nikon AF 200/4 micro by comparison:
- 62mm filter
- 1.19 kg
- 193mm long
Not exactly a small lens and quite dense (partly due to solid tripod mount), but much more manageable than the Sigma, and a more practical filter size. Even if the Sigma is sharper, it's not much use if it's too big to be carried into the field. I also question the benefit of VR in a macro lens of this focal length, it really needs a tripod for accurate framing, which is very important for macro - just a few mm off could throw the composition out.

Bjørn's review notes the AF 200/4 micro has excellent sharpness in the macro range, not so good at distance, although I heard from one photographer who felt his was sharper at distance than his AFS 300/4.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I used the 200/4 AFD for my stay in New Zealand many years ago, but only used it at f/11 for landscapes. Previous testing had indicated this was the optimum for remote subjects.

Not repeated the procedure for digital cameras so not certain whether the rule-of-thumb is still valid in the digital era.

[OCD]

Our culture seems to want to rank everything.  There are statistical rankings for just about everything under the moon, sports is a good example.  For consumers there are Top Ten lists for every product imaginable, even nose hair trimmers:  http://groomandstyle.com/art-of-shaving/top-5-best-ear-and-nose-hair-trimmer-list-for-men/ (although sadly this is only a top 5 list).  And so here it is with lenses as well.  Now it is part of the process to check all these rankings and articles prior to any purchase decision, as if to provide some kind of reassurance that the product is good, or perhaps even more so: It's Number 1 on the ranking list!

I won't lie, I read the rankings like everyone else, but like the majority of comments in this thread I take them with a grain of salt because I have my own criteria for lenses (i.e. I prefer lightweight primes).  And then there is this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/   

And well, we should not forget the desire that has evolved in our culture for perfection and the best in products, which leads to having these ranking lists in the first place.  What a world of worry and anxiety is generated.     

I find that when I stumble down this path that if I put on an old manual focus lens on my camera and go out and shoot a few photos that it's all disarmed and I remember: I just want to have fun and I forget the idea of perfection and the angst it generates.  Anyhow, aren't most all modern lenses pretty darn good?  At the end of the day we should choose lenses based on what we do, or what we want to do.  And have fun doing it!   

Ah well, life is good with all these amazing lenses. 

[John Koerner]

It is worth noting the Sigma 180/2.8 macro is a huge lens:
- 86mm filter size
- 1.63 kg
- 204mm long
In other words it is bigger and heavier than 70-200/2.8 zooms.

The Nikon AF 200/4 micro by comparison:
- 62mm filter
- 1.19 kg
- 193mm long
Not exactly a small lens and quite dense (partly due to solid tripod mount), but much more manageable than the Sigma, and a more practical filter size. Even if the Sigma is sharper, it's not much use if it's too big to be carried into the field. I also question the benefit of VR in a macro lens of this focal length, it really needs a tripod for accurate framing, which is very important for macro - just a few mm off could throw the composition out.

Roland, it sounds to me like you're "imagining" rather than speaking from actual field use. A difference of .44kg (less than 1 lb) isn't much for most folks.

I replaced my 180mm Sigma with a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II, which (with a simple extension tube ring) close-focuses wonderfully. And, because the optics are uber-quality, the images from a 300 f/2.8 with an extension (or even straight crops) are still equal or superior to any macro lens.

At 2.9kg however, the 300 f/2.8 makes the 180mm Sigma feel like a vacation

There are birders who shoot 600/800mm lenses who swear my 300mm is a "toy" ... so it's all relative, I suppose

My point is, while the Sigma is heavy compared to a 100mm macro, and it is the heaviest of the 180/200mm macros, it is pretty light compared to Super-Tele lenses.

Having actually used the Sigma in the field, for more than a year, as well as the Canon 180mm (for many years), I can absolutely refute your statement the Sigma "is too big to be used" in the field. My take, from actual field use and an obsession for macro in general, is the Sigma is much more "professional" than the Canon 180mm, with multiple adjustment switches on the side (like top-notch bird glass) that made the Canon 180 macro feel primitive and outdated by comparison.

The VR on the Sigma comes into play nicely, when hand-holding. On a tripod, it's moot of course.

The AF is also much faster than the Canon (and, I suspect, the Nikkor). The AF comes into play trying to follow butterflies, for instance, which land, then take-off, land, then take-off, etc.

My Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 has taken the place of the Sigma 180, for "long distance macro," and merely upped the professionalism and the quality to a degree no macro offers, but at 3x the price it ought to.

As far as pure long-range macro lens class goes, the Sigma is a terrific tool and numero uno by every single direct comparison you will find.

Bjørn's review notes the AF 200/4 micro has excellent sharpness in the macro range, not so good at distance, although I heard from one photographer who felt his was sharper at distance than his AFS 300/4.

I am not sure about the 300 f/4, but the 300 VR II f/2.8 takes better images than the Sigma (or any other macro), even with an extension tube on.

I am right now comparing the 300 VR II, with an extension, to the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar, and will post the results one of these days.

Jack

[Roland Vink]

You're right about "imagining"   I haven't used either lens. But I strongly prefer more compact lenses, and based on the specs alone I would rule out the Sigma.

[John Koerner]

You're right about "imagining"   I haven't used either lens. But I strongly prefer more compact lenses, and based on the specs alone I would rule out the Sigma.

It really depends on your goals.

And, I agree, specs tell us all we need to know, to apply the data and determine if they fit our goals.

For very close macro, the specs for smaller lenses (or reverse lenses) are better than the Sigma ... as they allow for close approach and to enjoy the full-effects of diffused flash use.

However, for long-range macro, especially of "easily-spooked" subjects (butterflies, lizards, and such), the specs of the Sigma 180 f/2.8 say it is a great tool, and my own usage confirmed this.

[Erik Lund]

Using long extension tubes on lenses that has IF and/or CRC always leads to disappointment,,, much better to use a good TC,,,

[John Koerner]

Using long extension tubes on lenses that has IF and/or CRC always leads to disappointment,,, much better to use a good TC,,,

I use a good TC for birds.

The full set of extension tubes, for long range macro, is too flimsy to take the massive lens.
However, just a tiny extension tube changed my minimal focus distance on the 300 VR II from 7.2 feet away (too far) to about 2-3' away.
This is perfect for flowers, and butterflies on flowers, while the image quality remains superb.

Since a picture's worth a thousand words, I will post the images when I get around to doing an actual comparison.