Tamron 150-500 vs Sigma 100-400 on A7C

[UBrot]

Hi,

the last few months I started to get a bit more into wildlife photography (Zoo and our local german woods and countryside). I currently use a Tamron 28-200 which is better than nothing, but not really suited to this task.

So I wanted to step up the game and I kind of came to two lenses - the Tamron 150-500 which seems to be an excellent lens for this task and the Sigma 100-400.

Perhaps some of you do have some experience with these lenses.

Is the handling of the Tamron OK on an A7c? Is it feasible to walk around the zoo a whole day with it on my camera (without a tripod)? Is 150mm perhaps already too long for the zoo (would I end up changing half the time to my 28-200)? Is the Sigma fast enough to catch the occasional bird in flight? Or is the Tamron just the no-contest-hands-down better choice?

Price-wise the Sigma is a little under 1000 EUR - which is only a bit cheaper than a used Tamron 150-500. So they're not THAT far away.

I'm a bit concerned, that the Tamron might be too heavy in use. I'm not the brawny type, only a software engineer of 1m65... :-D

 

[Puppy2007]

I use the Tamron 150-500 with A7C and it is ok as long as you use the camera strap attached to the lens collar. The 400mm isn't long enough for wildlife, I'd rather consider the Sigma 150-600 that is the same price as the Tamron. I'd prefer it today, but I got the Tamron when the Sigma wasn't available yet.

The issue with 24 MP "only" camera is that you can't crop so much to compensate the lack of teleconverter for non-Sony lenses (due to the Sony licensing).

 

[RB37]

Hi,

the last few months I started to get a bit more into wildlife photography (Zoo and our local german woods and countryside). I currently use a Tamron 28-200 which is better than nothing, but not really suited to this task.

So I wanted to step up the game and I kind of came to two lenses - the Tamron 150-500 which seems to be an excellent lens for this task and the Sigma 100-400.

Perhaps some of you do have some experience with these lenses.

Is the handling of the Tamron OK on an A7c? Is it feasible to walk around the zoo a whole day with it on my camera (without a tripod)? Is 150mm perhaps already too long for the zoo (would I end up changing half the time to my 28-200)? Is the Sigma fast enough to catch the occasional bird in flight? Or is the Tamron just the no-contest-hands-down better choice?

Price-wise the Sigma is a little under 1000 EUR - which is only a bit cheaper than a used Tamron 150-500. So they're not THAT far away.

I'm a bit concerned, that the Tamron might be too heavy in use. I'm not the brawny type, only a software engineer of 1m65... :-D

I recommend the Tamron 150-500. It's a great lens, easy to handhold, and can be easily packed away in a decent-sized bag.

The 150-500 isn't heavy at all and, given the focal length; if you have owned a Sigma 120-400 A-Mount (which is a beast), the Tamron is positively svelte by comparison. It is slightly heavier than the Sigma, but only 10mm longer (209mm versus 199 for the Sigma). I find the Tamron to shoot handheld and thanks to vibration compensation, can compensate for any shakes you may have (though I handhold it just fine).

One major question you may need to ask is about color output, because both the Tamron and Sigma will carry just fine and do a great job with shooting. Tamron's colors are warmer to my eye than Sigma's (which is more like Zeiss and Sony). The other question is how dedicated you are to wildlife photography. Many folks use the Tamron 70-300 as a lightweight alternative to the various 100-400-to-200-600 lenses; on a crop sensor or in crop mode on a A7RIV, you can achieve almost equivalent reach.

 

[lescrane]

the Tamron is a great lens but to me, impossible to carry around. 4lbs. A brick. I only use it on a monopod.

I'm in decent health fyi, it's subjective. I know people who can handhold 600 f 4 lenses too.

 

[RB37]

the Tamron is a great lens but to me, impossible to carry around. 4lbs. A brick. I only use it on a monopod.

I'm in decent health fyi, it's subjective. I know people who can handhold 600 f 4 lenses too.

Keep in mind that much of the weight is due to the tripod collar. Take it off and it becomes slightly lighter. Also, the Tamron, with tripod collar, is still lighter than the Sony 200-600, the primary competitor for the lens.

That said, the 150-500 isn't going to be appealing to some folks because of the weight (though it will also be appealing to others because of the reach and the compactness). It all depends on all the factors you want to deal with.

 

[Karl Scharf]

The Sigma 100-400 is only 2.5 lbs, therefore considerably lighter than the Tamron 150-500, making it much easier to carry around.

There is not that much of a difference in reach between 400 and 500mm, hence, the Sigma may be the better option.

Also, the Sigma has the same filter diameter as the Tamron 28-200mm you already own and has in-lens image stabilization.

 

[FrenchKiss78]

100-400 is "in between" for wildlife. Never a good thing...

More reach is always better. 500mm is not much more than 400 and limited on a 24mpx.

You d better get the 200-600 and use a 70-300 in crop for light weight hiking. That s what I do.

Now, with a 42Mpx or A1 A7R4 your 28-200 in crop mode becomes a 300 zoom. Small and great in many situations like zoo or park. Sounds like a good compact combo for close encounters and criters.

 

[Morph1909]

I have just made a similar choice although i use the a7riii so have the extra mega pixels to crop but went for the Sigma. I looked at a few focal length comparison tools and felt the difference between 400 & 500 wasnt to significant so instead preferred the lighter slightly more compact sigma. I have the 28-70 sigma as well so am hoping the two will pair nicely. My main photography subject is seascape so i think the 400 will be good for wave photography as well. As someone mentioned it also has a 67mm filter thread so i can still use my magnetic filters. I think the 400mm will be long enough to get some decent wildlife shots My lens arrives today so am going to a local bird hide at the weekend to try it Out.

 

[clarnibass]

It's mostly a matter of priorities. I have no problem holding the heavier Tamron but I still prefer very light lenses and it's the main reason I got the Sigma. It's a very significant difference. 400mm vs. 500mm wasn't a huge difference for me in comparison. The lower price was an advantage. If you're considering the Tamron used I guess you can get the Sigma used too for even less. I didn't do a thorough comparison of quality and speed, both seemed fine and since I preferred the lighter weight I went with it (I use it hand held 90% of the time).

 

[UBrot]

Thanks for your input!

The 200-600 or a new camera body are both completely out of the question (and out of my budget, too ).

Funny thing is, the Sigma costs used about 800 EUR (potentially plus the tripod collar), so the price difference isn't as big and the Tamron seems to be the better lens overall.

But I think I'm currently favoring the Sigma nonetheless, because of the reduced weight.

 

[Puppy2007]

The Sigma is 1.2 kg (including lens hood) vs Tamron 1.76 kg (including ~250g lens hood and tripod collar). The Sigma doesn't have the tripod collar included so the 1.2 kg weight will be held on the camera mount. Not a good idea imho.

I don't agree that the 400mm vs 500mm focal length difference is insignificant, especially if you plan to use the Sigma almost always on the long end (zoo, wildlife).

 

[RB37]

I don't agree that the 400mm vs 500mm focal length difference is insignificant, especially if you plan to use the Sigma almost always on the long end (zoo, wildlife).

Agreed. An extra 100mm makes a huge difference, especially with smaller birds in the wild as well as with those animals that can best be shot farther away. Additionally, the weight differences are quite negligible in practice; the lack of tripod mount on the Sigma means a lot of wear-and-tear on the camera itself.

Since I also use the 150-500 for sports, the extra reach means even more to me (and the weight, again, is negligible because I'm always carrying another body with a 70-180 or 70-200). So I chose the Tamron, which, in my opinion, is also the better lens optically as well as the preferred when it comes to color output.

That said, all lens choices are tradeoffs. For me, the extra reach and compactness of the Tamron design is worth the additional weight to me. For others, the extra reach isn't important and thus, weight becomes a negative.

The issue for the latter is that folks who opt for the 100-400 (and aren't buying a Sony GM with teleconverter) are likely to end up wanting that extra reach and that Sigma will end up being traded in or sold for either the Tamron or the G Master. Unless the cost of the initial buy is significantly lower (say, around $400 for an A-Mount Sigma), that's $2,000 or more spent twice (or thrice). Better to spend once and be done

So whatever you choose, the hope is that it serves you well.

 

[Puppy2007]

Better to spend once and be done

That is my point as well. The 1.8 kg weight (with camera strap attached to the tripod collar) isn't that bad. I took many pictures in local zoo hand held only for five hours. The Tamron is still much more weight/size friendly than Sony 200-600, the only issue is the Sony licensing and teleconverters. Making it 700mm by a 1.4x teleconverter would be amazing, That's why I was also pointing out the new Sigma 150-600 is for the same price as the Tamron.

As for the output/colors of Tamron vs Sigma, I have three Tamrons (24, 28-200, 150-500) and Sigma 35/F1.4 DG DN and I actually prefer the Sigma.

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

I can't compare the Sigma 100-400 to the Tamron, though I can to the larger & heavier Sony 200-600.

The Sigma 100-400 is unusually light for a lens of its range. I wouldn't call it a "take always" lens, but it is a "take often" one, almost painless to toss into the backpack if I think it could be useful.

The extra size & weight of the Tamron wouldn't be worth it for me for the slight increase in FL.

A 200-600 is a useful FL gain, but also a lens I'll only carry if wildlife, etc. is my main goal.

 

[Jb502]

the Tamron is a great lens but to me, impossible to carry around. 4lbs. A brick. I only use it on a monopod.

I'm in decent health fyi, it's subjective. I know people who can handhold 600 f 4 lenses too.

Keep in mind that much of the weight is due to the tripod collar.

I would say a small fraction of the weight it due tho the tripod color.

 

[Jb502]

I had the tamron. Returned it and bought the 200-600. Much happier now

 

[Puppy2007]

The Sony 200-600 has the internal zooming unlike the other options, that is what makes it very large and bulky for transport. Let's compare the options. Source https://sonyalpha.blog/ :

• Sigma 100-400 F6.3, 1.2 kg, transport length 197mm
• Tamron 150-500 F6.7, 1.76 kg including 250g tripod collar, transport length 209mm
• Sigma 150-600 F6.3, 2.28 kg including tripod collar, transport length 266mm
• Sony 200-600 F6.3, 2.3 kg including 200g tripod collar, transport length 318mm

It think the Tamron is the sweet spot of focal length, aperture, weight and size.

 

[yysc]

For wildlife consider also that the Tamron has the advantage of the linear motors (like Sony lenses) Vs stepping motors in the Sigma.

The camera will be able to track better subjects in motion with a lens equipped with faster linear motors.

 

[AngelusHD]

I’ve had the Tamron 150-500 and own an 100-400GM. The Tamron is a great lens with great AF an Really good VC. Reach of 500 is great, 600 is better but comes with alot more bulk to carry around.

The starting point of the 100 on the GM is much more preferred then 150, which is somehow a huge difference. The GM is like the Sigma, this is 400 at his long end which can be a little short for wildlife purposes, but as a landscape and wildlife lens it’s nice to carry because of its weight.

The Tamron was sharp, sharper then the Sigma 100-400 and on par with the 100-400GM. I found the 100-400GM Weight + AF + OSS and starting point of 100 better suited for my use, this is with the Sony A7III which is in my opinion a great combo.

If i did not had the budget for the GM, i would buy the Sigma 100-400 and the Tamron 150-500 and compare them side by side. Just pick the one that feels right, both are great but the Tamron will be a little bit sharper, better VC and better AF overall but is heavier.

 

[maltmoose]

I bought the sigma 100 400, size, weight, cost all great, optically it was ok but the deal breaker for me was the AF was inconsistent, not sure if it was my copy or what but i thought id try the tamron 70-300 and whilst it has anoying zoom creep its optically ok but with much more consistent AF and super light and cheap..i'm now also considering the tamron 150-500 and trying to decide if i will be able to use it hiking. The sigma 100-400 was fine for that.