Tamron 150-600 vs Sigma 150-600 Sports

Discussion in 'Photography Forum' started by Airdale, Feb 28, 2015.

  1. Diver-Down

    Diver-Down Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,533
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Location:
    Bethlehem PA
    You make it sound like getting closer is just a matter of walking up closer to the critter. I know what you're sayin, get on you're belly and crawl, put out decoys and hide well, do you're homework on where the birds are, go to the corn hole LOL. I struggle with this all the time like everyone else and to often it's just plain impossible to get closer.

    I still own the 400 5.6 and it's an awesome lens but the 150-600 still has it's advantages over it and vise versa. To use a TC with the 400 first you need a body that does f/8, then stop down to f9 or 11 for max sharpness, then you have a lens that focuses slower then even the Tamron and still isn't quite as sharp but close. Also no IS and not able to zoom out for flock shots or big game like deer and elk. You can crop the 400 shots down to get pretty darn close to the 600 but when you're cropping down the 600 is when it pulls away. The 400 still gets used when I need to travel light like on long hikes and is still my main BIF lens when I can get relatively close.

    I guess it works so well for me because I'm able to have the 2 lenses for maximum versatility. Why don't you just get a 400 5.6..........Oh that's right you went to Nikon :D
     
  2. Dizzy Duck

    Dizzy Duck Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,338
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Location:
    Gettysburg, Pa and Southern MD
    Airdale, Who has been telling you that you have to stop down to f8? Perhaps with the old Sigma's but THIS IS NOT THE CASE ANYMORE.... This lens is as sharp wide-open as it is stopped down at 600mm.. The MTF's are better than the Canon 200-400L with a faster AF performance. And Who compared this to a prime? I shoot an EF 400 f2.8L and made no comparison to any Canon Prime. Read my post a little better.

    This lens is not going to make everybody happy.. Then I'm not going to drop 12 grand for a lens either just because it says Canon or Nikon on it..
     
  3. Airdale

    Airdale Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    I wouldn't be opposed to spending the money on the Tamron, but is the Sigma worth that much more?

    As far as stepping down, I just used that as an example. Some lenses need to be stopped down for the sweet spot in sharpness.

    I haven't seen an image from the Sigma that knocked my socks off...not $2000 socks anyway.
     
  4. Airdale

    Airdale Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    Steve, I know what you're saying and it's the never ending battle of trying to get more focal length, especially for wild birds. I am just looking at the value here. I spent a lot time belly down in the mud with the 400/5.6 to get closer. I was reluctant to let that lens out of my hands, but I got 90% of my money back two years later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  5. Diver-Down

    Diver-Down Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,533
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2002
    Location:
    Bethlehem PA
    I hear ya on Canon lens holding value. I sold my 100-400 for more than I paid for it (used) 6 years later, after EBay fees I about broke even. Glad I got rid of it when I did though as prices have dropped quite a bit since the new 100-400 came out, same with the 400 it can be had for a bargain price as well.

    One nice thing about Tamron and Sigma lenses is the extended warranty they give. Tamron's warranty is 6 years and I think Sigma gives 4 years, a far cry from the measly 1 year from Canon. I have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 that I have sent in twice to have the front element replaced on. This used to be my main waterfall lens and I managed to put minor nicks in the glass while shooting over 150 falls with it in some very unforgiving locations. So no actual defect here (was obviously my fault) how about a $28 bill for the parts !! and a 3 day turnaround. I could have bought a whole new lens for what Canon would have charged to do that twice, especially after the 1 year warranty was up.
     
  6. Dizzy Duck

    Dizzy Duck Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,338
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Location:
    Gettysburg, Pa and Southern MD
  7. Dizzy Duck

    Dizzy Duck Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,338
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
    Location:
    Gettysburg, Pa and Southern MD
    That is True. My old Canon 100-400L is that way, especially with the TC attached, but it was only a 1/4 to 1/3 stops depending on the focal length. But I didn't find that a problem with the Tamron or my new Sigma.

    But again Airdale, You are comparing images from a high-dollar prime to a zoom. We buy zooms for versatility and we trade off a bit of quality for this..There is no zoom on the market that will match the quality of a prime, even those of both Canon and Nikon, "L" or not. We rate the quality of various zooms but do not compare those to the various primes. So we compromise and make up the loss if any with our photographic skills and post work skills.

    The price of a lens or the quality of a lens does not make the photographer, but his or her skill set makes the grade. Some of us look for those forensic razor sharp images and some of us are more concerned with the content of our images versus the absolute quality. Either way the majority of our clients or friends or family could care less if every little feather pops out. We are our own worst critics...

    PS, Don't rate either lens based on the images from my 13 year old 8 megapixel Mark IIN which has a ISO quality max of around 320 at the best. I have been pushing it to the extremes..
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  8. Airdale

    Airdale Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    801
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Location:
    NJ
    At the moment I'm torn between the Nikon 300/4 (still have not purchased this lens, although I got to work with one for awhile) or the Tamron 150-600. Not willing to drop $2k on a lens just yet.

    I like what the 300/4 can do all around. IQ is superb, AF is fast and the color rendition and bokeh are amazing. There is a lot I can do with that lens and with the 1.4tc I can go shoot birds occasionally.

    On the other hand, the Tamron seems like a good value. 600mm would be awesome for the guys you can't get close too. Hmmmm
     

Share This Page