Sigma 150-500 photos

Started Aug 15, 2009 | Discussions thread
rockjano
Senior MemberPosts: 2,359
Like?
Re: do you need tripot ?
In reply to Mike Neary, Aug 19, 2009

Sure you can disagree, but I'm not quite sure what you are disagreeing with

OK

I responded to your claim that the Sigma was the cheapest and lightest 500mm lens by stating that the Tamron is cheaper and lighter - which is obviously true, so how can you be disagreeing???

I don't

And I added that the Nikon 300mm + 1.7 combo is also lighter - but not cheaper.

Again, you can't be disagreeing with that?

I also don't

Now, on the optical merits:

The Tamron is a very old lens. Screw-driven, loud and slow to focus. and no VR-OS.

Correct.

The Sigma can be used handheld, the Tamron...I don't really think so (ok maybe in very strong light but I even doubt that).

As long as your shutter speed is 1/1000 or faster, you should be able to handhold any 500mm lens. And since the Tamron is lighter than the Sigma you won't get tired so fast.

But yes, the situations in which the Tamron can be handheld are more limted than the Sigma, I agree.

Well yeah 1/1000 at f8-f11 is not very probable.

I did not see anything that would proof that the Tamron has better IQ.

I have seen lots of pictures from the Tamron and the Sigma, including the ones posted by the OP. To me, the Tamron looks a bit crisper, and there is more variation in the Sigma results. But I haven't seen a side by side comparison either, so we don't know for sure. Note that in my post I said the Tamron probably has better IQ!

None of them is a 200-400 of course.

Nope, and not a 300 f/4 either which is about on par with the 200-400 for IQ at its native 300mm.

The Nikkor 300f4 + TC 17 I am sure is better but cost almost 3X as much, and no VR and no ZOOM. Zoom can be very handy sometimes. And that lens is also quite old, will be updated sooner or later.

3x as much??? Now it's time to really disagree! The Nikkor costs about 30% more than the Sigma, last I checked. Add a TC to that and you are at about 70% more, nowhere near 3x. And the Nikkor is readily available used - I purchased mine for $900 last year after some cashbacks on eBay, and it came with a Kirk mount, too. The TC can be found used, too - so the final price maybe about 20-30% higher than the Sigma. I would think that someone with a $1000 budget can stretch to the Nikon if they save a bit more...

It might be in your country, but in mine (Hungary) the price difference between the Nikkors and the Sigmas are higher, sorrily a lot higher.

Here the Nikkor 300/f4 and the Nikkor TC is REALLY cost almost 3X (OK 2.5X) more than the Sigma, and you cannot buy almost anything usable used. Not everyone lives in the US

About the zoom thing - most of the time, if you are shooting birds you are too far away, not too close. So optimizing IQ at your most used focal length - 500mm - makes a lot of sense since it leaves some room for cropping. That's more important to me than being able to zoom back, which I hardly ever feel the need for in wildlife shooting.

It might be true if you a wildlife shooter, but I am not and for sport and for many other thing the ability of zooming IS very-very important

Add a cheap Nikon 70-300 VR to the 300 f/4 to cover the shorter focal lengths and you have a killer setup.

Yes I have one and I like it, but that means lens change and you don't always have time for that

This is the best deal in budget telephoto right now, it might change in the future. (Like Nikon will update the 80-400 in our lifetime or something)

That's something we can disagree on - I think the 300 f/4 + TC is the best budget tele deal, with the 80-400 VR right behind.

300 f/4 and TC is not budget (at least not in my country) sorry. Here the professionals buy that and they never sell it. Again not everybody lives in the US, never forget that

Cheers
jano

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow