SanDisk Compact Flash cards and Firewire reader test

It's been an ancient mystery, a question in the history books, a dilemma of all mankind,.. and we're here to answer it.. well, at least in my case and on my machine. Memory cards..
We all have them, we all need them, we all want them more. The biggest (well, not really), the fastest (true, true..), the best (that goes without saying).
I've been a long time buyer of SanDisk. I had their 128MB cards, 256 cards, to the newest 1GB and 4GB cards. I mainly use 4GB cards since I get around 250-300 shoots on one and that for me is the "right" number. If card fails, gets stolen, or something else, I won't die, I'll have stuff on other cards. If that happens to your brand new 16 or ever 32GB card, well, you were warned many times. It really takes seconds to replace a card, why risk it.
Anyhow, I used to use SanDisk USB2 reader and for 1GB card it was ok. When I switched to 4GB I started to notice how long it really takes to transfer pics to PC. TOO LONG. So I switched to SanDisk firewire. Man, it's a joy to watch how pictures just fly into PC. I never really tested how long it actually takes, I know it's long enough for me to get a cup of coffee and that's fine by me. But I've still been curious. So today, after I was testing my new 1TG external drive, I gave my compact flash cards a drive as well.

I used HD Tach and here are the results:

SanDisk CF 4GB Extreme III 30MB version


SanDisk CF 4GB Extreme III 20MB version


SanDisk CF 1GB Extreme III 20MB version


SanDisk CF 1GB Ultra II


You noticed something interesting? I sure did! Ultra II and Extreme III 20MB version are practically identical! That's kinda strange, but I did test it a couple of times.. Extreme III 30MB version really outperforms others, so it's the one I'll stick too for the future.
Hope you learned something as I did ;)

Tamron 10-24 compared to Sigma 10-20

I did some quick test shots yesterday, indoors as weather sucked. Before I say anything, I have to say, I know I got a good copy of Sigma. Probably the best one there is in stock. I got it straight from the distributer here in Slovenia and he told me himself he checked it.
As for the Tamron, I got the only copy available in the country.
We all know that quality control is not that great with "3rd party lenses" as we like to call them, so margin for error in this kind of comparison test is wide. I'd probably have to compare 3 or more same lenses to get some accurate/average results.
But anyhow, first comparison done, to put it in one sentence: Sigma wins in sharpness hands down.
Sun is out, I'm packing my gear, so check back in few hours for comparison shots and final words.

Update #1:

Ok, I did manage to get some shots, despite the fact the weather is against me and it started to rain again.
All shots done on D300, aperiture mode & matrix metering. Shot in NEF, imported into Lightroom, comparison view for same show of both lenses, screenshot, saved in Photoshop CS3, quality level 10. It's for show, not trying to get the best out of the images. Same process for all of them, so post process in not a factor.

10mm, Tamron f3.5 vs Sigma f4, border


10mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, border


10mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, border


10mm, Tamron f11 vs Sigma f11, border


I guess no comment needed, right?

10mm, Tamron f3.5 vs Sigma f4, center


10mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, center


10mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, center


10mm, Tamron f11 vs Sigma f11, center


20mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, border


20mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, border


20mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, center


20mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, center


I noticed that on almost all the shots Tamron appears to be one stop brighter. Just did a quick controlled test in a closed environment and this is not the case at it appears. Both lenses produced virtually the same exposure data on all apertures and focal lenghts. So it must have been the weather again..


Close up shots..
Tried some shots from the minimum focusing distance.

10mm, Tamron f4 vs Sigma f4, border


10mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, border


10mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, border


10mm, Tamron f4 vs Sigma f4, center


10mm, Tamron f5.6 vs Sigma f5.6, center


10mm, Tamron f8 vs Sigma f8, center



Some CA tests. All 1:1 crops from the edge of the images.

Tamron f5.6 CA sample:


Sigma f5.6 CA sample:


Tamron f8 CA sample:


Sigma f8 CA sample:



Update #2:

Vignette test shots:


Another handling observation: Sigma has about 1.5cm space between the rings (plus some extruded lines on both sides), so it's easy to get a good grip when you're replacing lenses. Tamron has only around 0.5cm and it's a lot harder to hold it and replace it. Especially if you're in a hurry.


Conclusion:
Judging by my two copies, Sigma is a clear winner. It's overall sharpness is better then Tamrons, far better on corners and better in the center. CA appears to be similar, but Sigma is still ahead slightly. Tamron is brighter, has less vignette and has easier distortion to fix. Tamron has a bit longer range, is a bit brighter, costs less, weights less, but I'm not sure those factors overpower the clear image quality advantage Sigma showed? Not for me anyhow.. If you're thinking about buying one of these wide lenses, or any lens for that matter, try to test and compare your copies yourself if you can. One copy can really be totally different then another.

UPDATE (03.12.2008):
I've received some images from a friend overseas, who has tested his copy of the Tamron lens. His results were A LOT better. I talked with our distributer and we have concluded the copy they got is a really bad one. So, I'm awaiting a new copy and as soon as it arrives I'll do another test and comparison with Sigma. Stay tuned.

Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5, day 2..

Got some more shots done today, all posted in original size, shoot on D300 NEF, exported from Lightroom to tiff and saved as JPG in Photoshop CS3, quality setting 10. Size are from 2.5 - 5.5MB, so bare that in mind while downloading.

I'm not a fan of those "lab test" shots, so I didn't make them. You're not going to use the lens in a lab, are?!? Yes, ok, ok, 0.00000000001% of you probably are, for the rest of us, it's the real life shots that count.

Overall I'm still happy with this lens. There appears to be less CA then with Sigma 10-20, which was my main concern. Even that can be mostly fixed in post process. Same with all the distortions, Photoshop makes that an easy fix. Compared to Nikons.. well, let's not go there.
My widest lens that I used on a day-to-day basis was 14mm, so this 10mm is a BIG difference. It's a lot "harder" to frame a shot and does take some time to get used to. Corner sharpness is not that great wide open, but what did you expect at 10mm?

10mm @ f3,5


10mm @ f4,5


10mm @ f5,6


10mm @ f8


10mm @ f11


Set 2

10mm @ f4,5


10mm @ f5,6


10mm @ f8


10mm @ f11


10mm @ f16



Some closeup shots and bokeh preview.. kinda..
All shot from around 30cm (1 feet) distance, central focus point.

10mm @ f3,5


10mm @ f4,5


10mm @ f5,6


10mm @ f8


24mm @ f4,5


24mm @ f5,6


24mm @ f8


24mm @ f11



I have lots more shots, might upload a few more during the day. If not, tomorrow's another day.


Update #1
Some random shots:

14mm, f7.1, 1/640, ISO200


21mm, f8, 1/320, ISO200


10mm, f3,5, 1/40, ISO800



Update #2:

Some 1200px images.

10mm, f4,5, 1/200, ISO200


10mm, f4, 1/50, ISO500


10mm, f4,5, 1/160, ISO200


10mm, f5,6, 1/320, ISO200