Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mikew_RIP" data-source="post: 484108" data-attributes="member: 14174">Saying this could be like insulting some one about there wife <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> ime not convinced the Sigma is as sharp or has&nbsp; as good contrast as the Tamron,the nikon 300 and 1.4 would have to be the pre PF version so no VR ,i need to run some tests with the 70-300 and VR switched off.i can go higher with shutter speeds now,the Nikon 200-500 is heavier and more expensive.The Sigma does have the definite advantage of being able to fine tune the lens itself at different focal lengths,the Nikon duo has the IQ advantage but would need more cropping,the ex girlfriend well i remember the bad times but loads of us will have nipped back on occasion for the good times <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> but i guess we never stayed there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mikew_RIP, post: 484108, member: 14174"] Saying this could be like insulting some one about there wife :D ime not convinced the Sigma is as sharp or has as good contrast as the Tamron,the nikon 300 and 1.4 would have to be the pre PF version so no VR ,i need to run some tests with the 70-300 and VR switched off.i can go higher with shutter speeds now,the Nikon 200-500 is heavier and more expensive. The Sigma does have the definite advantage of being able to fine tune the lens itself at different focal lengths,the Nikon duo has the IQ advantage but would need more cropping,the ex girlfriend well i remember the bad times but loads of us will have nipped back on occasion for the good times :D but i guess we never stayed there. [/QUOTE]

Verification