Tamron 200-500mm vs. Sigma 150-500mm
Tamron 200-500mm vs. Sigma 150-500mm
Jul 14, 2010
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the Tamron 200-500mm abd he Sigma 15-500mm zooms? They're both f/5.0-6.3. I would be using on a D300s for wildlife shots. Obviously these lenses aren't as fast as one ideally would want. But they also don't cost a fortune. Any experiences would be appreciated.
I had the Tammy. IQ was OK, but it was very lightweight, a real advantage. It required a tripod on long shots. Shooting surfers was OK, but in low contrast (fog, mist) it hunted. Some fringing.
I think the 150-500 has image stabilization doesn't it? That would help long. I have a Siggy 300 2.8 that I like; I think they're built better.
I have the Tammy 200-500 which I use for wildlife and air shows.
If you can spend the time for getting use to it, it will give good results,at least mine does to a point I don't do PP.
I had the Tamron, it is a decent performer and I actually regret selling it for the 300f4 and TC's in some ways.
I chose it over the Sigma after a fair ammount of research.
It required stopping down some for sharp, performed well up to 400mm fl but softened up a little at the long end.
Long + fast + sharp = $$
The Tamron 200-500 has good optics for the price but sold it for the Sigma 150-500 since the latter has stabilization and manual override in auto focus mode. Don't regret it and still use the Sigma in spite of having switched to Nikon big glass.
The Sigma is light and easy to use after a learning process and offers real flexibility in the field and lighter than the Nikon 200-400 with its superb optics.
I would go for the Sigma but make sure that you can return it as the IQ on some models is doubful, Peter
I have the Tamron 200-500mm. I really find it to be a decent performer even at 500mm. Of course it hunts a little bit in poor light and does not have VR. That means that you will always need a fast shutter speed in order to get good results if you are not using a tripod. Here is one with the Tamron
I have looked long at both lenses. I purchased the Sigma 150-500 os hsm because it has stabilization AND it has faster focus although it could be argued that the Tammy might have better IQ.
If you take a lookmat threads I started you will see a few conversations where a number of opinions and reviews are given.
Last note: Sigma issued a recall, maksen sure the lens you buy is not affected.
Go for Sigma.
I rented the Sigma 150-500 from Lens Pro to Go back in March of 2009. I want this lens. It's priced in the amateur budget ($999) and shoots very well on a tripod, and ok by hand. Of course the new upgraded 50-500 is out now....
Here are some sample .jpg's that have been post processed for color, saturation, and contrast. I don't believe I did any major PP that affected sharpness, bokeh, or even used any layers as I still had PS Elements at the time and did not yet know how to use layers. (total software novice!) Some have been cropped, obviously the moon shot!
p.s. I would love to see samples from the other lens too before I buy this one!
Nikon D60, Sigma 150-500, 500mm, f/6.3, 1/800sec, tripod
Nikon D60, Sigma 150-500, 350mm, f/6.3, 1/15sec, handheld
Nikon D60, Sigma 150-500, 450mm, f/6.3, 1/125sec, handheld
Nikon D60, Sigma 150-500, 500mm, f/11, 1/250sec, tripod
Nikon D60, Sigma 150-500, 500mm, f/6.3, 1/800sec, handheld
Nice shots, but with all due respect. I don't think anyone can tell the quality of the product of a lens by looking at even the slightest P/Ped images. In your case you admit to color, saturation and contrast whic would have an affect on the images.
Great shots, Mark, I took similar moon shots. The comments about post processing are correct, but who, these days, posts a photo without some pp. Very few come out just the way you want them, even if they are near perfect.
Yes, the PP does change the photo a bit, but I also take into consideration that if the lens is junk, even photoshop isn't going to pull a good image out of the blurry soup captured by a bad lens. Of course, I still rented it to see for myself what kind of images it could take. Even in my amateur hands, I was pleased with most of the shots I took with the lens. Now I just have to see the kind of shots that other lens can get!
ps, what settings should I use to get minimal "processing" if I open a RAW image in PS and convert it straightaway to a jpg for display here? The RAW conversion does add some PP during opening, so I'd like to know what settings to use to upload some "as close to unbiased" shots as I can in the future.