Reading mode: Light Dark

Tamron 200-500mm or Sigma 170-500mm or Canon Prime???

Go to last post
I have used both Sigma's and now own the Tamron 200-500. The Tamron wins in weight,focusing speed,lack of focus hunting, and sharper at the long end than the Bigma. Steve P
 
tk said:
THank you all for your contributions. That said, the bird pictures
look amazing, but the building in Brest (from Powerdoc) at 500mm
looks not that sharp. It didn't look like it was a clear day though
...
Click to expand...
Thanks, the bird one is post processed.

the sharp one is the 200 mm one. The other one(500)was handheld and taken in january (poor light). I did not have the habit to handle my lens at this time (it was the first shots I made with this lens).

I have to buy a good tripod like a Carbon gitzo.

--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
Hi Pedro, I should not have said "don't waist your money" Sorry :) I guess the point I would like to get across is, the Sigma has a few things over the Tamron lens;
  • it is metal
  • it has HSM
  • it is ballanced perfectly
  • IMO the image quality
For nature photography, what most people would want a 500mm lens for, you want to be as stelth as possible, the HSM motor is vertualy silent, and quick to respond, this will enable you to get photos otherwised missed with a noisy AF motor. Also, the sigma may be a bit hevier than the tamron lens, this my not be such a negative, I found it easier to keep the sigma steady with it's added wait.

Paul.
Pedro Claro said:
See here some pics made with the Tamron:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12584961

IMHO, it's not a waist of money!

Best regards.

--
...oooOOO{X}OOOooo...

Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal
Click to expand...
--
check out my pics...
http://www.pbase.com/pnorth
http://www.pnorth.smugmug.com
 
Paul North said:
Hi Pedro, I should not have said "don't waist your money" Sorry
:) I guess the point I would like to get across is, the Sigma has
a few things over the Tamron lens;
  • it is metal
  • it has HSM
  • it is ballanced perfectly
  • IMO the image quality
For nature photography, what most people would want a 500mm lens
for, you want to be as stelth as possible, the HSM motor is
vertualy silent, and quick to respond, this will enable you to get
photos otherwised missed with a noisy AF motor. Also, the sigma
may be a bit hevier than the tamron lens, this my not be such a
negative, I found it easier to keep the sigma steady with it's
added wait.
Click to expand...
[zip]

Hi Paul.

Yes, I think the term was too strong, as the Tamron, in spite of eventual personal preferences, seems a very good lens. I agree on your general considerations about nature photography, but:
  • carrying an heavy lens all day is very demanding and some less weight could be an advantage to some people (like me, as I'm small and not very strong)
  • AF on the Tamron is reported as being fast (not as fast as USM or HSM, but is not sloooow); no info about noise, though
  • people who use it don't seem to have any problem about balance
  • image quality, IMO, is very alilke
So, you're paying something more for also having 50-200 range but you get some more weight and a large filter size, which will add considerably to the cost if you need UV or Circular polarizer.

I think they are both very good lenses and offer a lot for the money; the choice between the two may depend on several factors:
  • weight
  • price
  • range (those who have a -200 or -300 may not need the 50-200 range of the Sigma)
  • brand fidelity or previous good/bad experiences
IMHO, image quality is not a deciding factor, as both lenses seem very capable.

Best regards.

--
...oooOOO{X}OOOooo...

Pedro Claro
Marinha Grande - Portugal
 
Paul North said:
Hi Pedro, I should not have said "don't waist your money" Sorry
:) I guess the point I would like to get across is, the Sigma has
a few things over the Tamron lens;
  • it is metal
Click to expand...
The Tamron is well build and has a magnesium alloy collar : this is not a cheapo lens. Metal is not always better than plastic, it depends on the plastic and the metal.
Paul North said:
  • it has HSM
Click to expand...
Yes, it's better, but the Tamron AF is good for a non USM one
Paul North said:
  • it is ballanced perfectly
Click to expand...
I believe you on words, but I will say the samething for the Tamron. And the tamron is 50 % less weight
Paul North said:
  • IMO the image quality
Click to expand...
I never see a direct comparison between the two lenses. BTW speaking of image quality, optical engineers will told you that it's more simple to do a 2,5 time zoom than a 10 time one. It the tamron engineers with the same budget than the Sigma, are not able to match the quality of the Bigma, they are hopeless. That's said, I am very confident in Tamron, all the SP DI lenses are impressive and real keeper, and my first impressions and pics taken by others people, tell me that this lens is a keeper.

--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
Here is another pic taken with a Canon 20D and the Tamron 200-500 Di a 500mm. Only auto levels applied in PS. The first pic has been resized just to show the area that has been cropped for the second pic.Steve P

Original resized and auto-levels



Crop with auto levels only

 
Steve Paradise said:
I have used both Sigma's and now own the Tamron 200-500. The Tamron
wins in weight,focusing speed,lack of focus hunting, and sharper at
the long end than the Bigma. Steve P
Click to expand...
I fear that some people here will hate your for that comment. BTW I think that you are right. You owned both, are a skilled photographer, and the logic back up your judgement. I mean it's logical that a DI lens made in 2004 with a 2,5 zoom range is sharper, than an older one, with an amazing 10 zoom range. I am still amazed that the Sigma engineer succeed to design such a nice lens, with such an importatnt range.

--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
I have both the 170 to 500 Sigma and the Canon 400 prime. Since I got the prime I have not used the Sigma--the prime is worth the difference in cost!
 
tk said:
I just recently purchased the Canon 350D. So far, I have been doing
Bird photography with my Canon Pro1 + teleconverter, but I haven't
been happy with the insufficient focal length, slow focussing etc.
I am considering buying either a 400mm or 500mm lens. I was
wondering if anyone would recommend the new Tamron 200-500mm Di
lens over the Sigma 170-500mm or vice versas.
Click to expand...
the 170-500mm is slow focusing. probably the Tamron which is a new lens will focus faster.
tk59790 said:
Which one is sharper, gives faster focus response etc.
For a little more money, I could buy the Canon 400mm prime lens,
which is certainly sharper, but is it worth it the tradeoff of a
zoom lens?
Click to expand...
it depend..do you want to shoot wide open all the time and not worry about sharpness? even with a 1.4x teleconverter? then the prime is really worth it yes. that's my reasons for getting it. If you really need the convenience of a zoom then it's up to you.

this is what I do when I cannot zoom out :) I made 2 panomarama mosaic with 9 photos of a lion..ended up with a 37mp and a 25mp photo..so detailed and sharp done with teh 400mm.

here are the photos resized by 50% and sharpened..that give a super sharp and detailed 8mp file:

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40656236

http://www.pbase.com/zylen/image/40660897

I know for birds you don't need to zoom a lot, you'll
tk59790 said:
mostly use it at the max. zoom anyway, but for other objects that
might come along, it might be a good idea.
Click to expand...
for birds and wildlife in general even 400mm is short. I use the 1.4x tc most of the time.
tk59790 said:
ALso, with the Canon 400mm prime a 1.4x teleextender, the f-stop
would be 8. Is auto focus still possible? I don't think so, unless
one increases the sensitivty a lot.
Click to expand...
yes if you use a Tamron standard TC it AF with both the 300d and the 20d.

with the Canon 1.4x tc you have to tape the pins to get AF.
tk59790 said:
Any comments, comparisons, experiences with the Tamron vs. Sigma
vs. the Canon prime lenses?
Click to expand...
you can check out this TC comparison between the cheap Tamron 1.4x and the more expensive Canon 1.4x:

http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/2tcs/
tk59790 said:
Your comments are greatly appreciated!!!

Thomas
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
it's pretty good for a lens of that price and a zoom. It beat the bigma photos that I have seen wide open at 500mm and the 170-500mm is surely no contest there.
Powerdoc said:
tk said:
I just recently purchased the Canon 350D. So far, I have been doing
Bird photography with my Canon Pro1 + teleconverter, but I haven't
been happy with the insufficient focal length, slow focussing etc.
I am considering buying either a 400mm or 500mm lens. I was
wondering if anyone would recommend the new Tamron 200-500mm Di
lens over the Sigma 170-500mm or vice versas.
Which one is sharper, gives faster focus response etc.
For a little more money, I could buy the Canon 400mm prime lens,
which is certainly sharper, but is it worth it the tradeoff of a
zoom lens? I know for birds you don't need to zoom a lot, you'll
mostly use it at the max. zoom anyway, but for other objects that
might come along, it might be a good idea.
ALso, with the Canon 400mm prime a 1.4x teleextender, the f-stop
would be 8. Is auto focus still possible? I don't think so, unless
one increases the sensitivty a lot.

Any comments, comparisons, experiences with the Tamron vs. Sigma
vs. the Canon prime lenses?

Your comments are greatly appreciated!!!

Thomas
Click to expand...
I am very happy with this lens. It's sharp and easy to handle
(easier than my sigma 100-300 EX)
Look at this pic : you see the mercedes in the bottom, you can read
the plate at 100 % crop



http://www.pbase.com/powerdoc/image/39115760/original

and here my test gallery (all unsharpened pics except the moon
(taken wiht a 1,4 TC)
For birding self made man and others posted amazing pics
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
Click to expand...
--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top