150-600 Tamron or Sigma?

[PaulWog]

Please provide me with these examples of how the Tamron is better than Sigma based on Flickr images?

 

[hamlet]

I've mostly made up my mind about these two lenses. Now what i did not foresee was the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E, going to be holding on to my wallet till i know more about this new lens.

 

[PaulWog]

I've mostly made up my mind about these two lenses. Now what i did not foresee was the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E, going to be holding on to my wallet till i know more about this new lens.

It's definitely a wildcard. I'm guessing it will be the better buy, but it will cost that much more. It's $1400 vs Sigma's $1090 & Tamron's $1070. I'm guessing performance (sharpness & focus speed) that is around 20-25% better overall, 500mm vs. 500mm. But that's just a shot in the dark guess.

 

[jaomul]

Please provide me with these examples of how the Tamron is better than Sigma based on Flickr images?

I'm providing nothing. I expressed an opinion. Look at Flickr and compare if you want, if not don't. If you do look and come to a different conclusion than I did, that's fine as well

EDIT- I just saw you have the Sigma in your gear list. Obviously you did your comparisons already. Seems you are happy with your purchase and that is great. Don't get my earlier post wrong here. You'll see from my gear list I haven't got a telephoto lens. I would be very happy with the Sigma you have or the Tamron. If I was spending money today though I would prefer the Tamron if it was completely based on images from each lens that i have seen. I would however though, likely buy the Sigma as the dock would ensure better fwd compatability, both these lenses are infinitely better than the telephoto I currently own

 

[PaulWog]

Please provide me with these examples of how the Tamron is better than Sigma based on Flickr images?

I'm providing nothing. I expressed an opinion. Look at Flickr and compare if you want, if not don't. If you do look and come to a different conclusion than I did, that's fine as well

EDIT- I just saw you have the Sigma in your gear list. Obviously you did your comparisons already. Seems you are happy with your purchase and that is great. Don't get my earlier post wrong here. You'll see from my gear list I haven't got a telephoto lens. I would be very happy with the Sigma you have or the Tamron. If I was spending money today though I would prefer the Tamron if it was completely based on images from each lens that i have seen. I would however though, likely buy the Sigma as the dock would ensure better fwd compatability, both these lenses are infinitely better than the telephoto I currently own

The reason I am so critical is because maybe 1% of the photos in the Sigma pool are actually any good on a technical level. Most are cropped poorly, edited poorly, hand-held poorly, focused incorrectly, or shot at a slow shutter speed.

Take, for example, a shot like this: Making waves Flickr - Photo Sharing

The focus is slightly off, the shutter speed is 1/640 (which should be fine if hand-holding technique were good), but clearly shake is introduced. If he shot at ISO 400, he'd have probably gotten a nice image.

Here's another poor example: Puffin Fratercula arctica Flickr - Photo Sharing
Although the exposure settings are fairly good, I bet the shooter wasn't using ideal continuous-servo autofocus settings.

And again: Persistence Flickr - Photo Sharing
Too slow of a shutter, shake is clearly introduced, and oversharpening is applied to compensate.

I'm going down the list from the Sigma 150-600 C group and picking some of the better images, too. A lot of weird stuff comes into the mix, and most of these images are taken without proper technical considerations. Heat distortion is another huge one.

The reason why I mention all of this is because I know for a fact that the Flickr pool is a *terrible* resource for judging the 150-600 lenses right now. I specifically would advise someone to *not* look to Flickr if they can't decide between the two lenses, just based on how bad the Sigma 150-600 pool is right now.

 

[jaomul]

^^ I'll keep an eye on your posts, I want a telephoto soon so hopefully you'll throw a few up from the siggy. Take care

 

[PaulWog]

^^ I'll keep an eye on your posts, I want a telephoto soon so hopefully you'll throw a few up from the siggy. Take care

I got the thing over a month ago now, and I still haven't gotten to really take it for a real test. I've done enough shots here and there to know the lens in and out, but I haven't gotten to get some nice photos with it content-wise. I keep doing other things on the weekend. Soon enough I'll have some great Eagle photos up though. Just have to call my neighbor. I have a few weekend trips planned with the lens as well.

The Nikon 200-500 looks like it might be very promising though, we'll see.

 

[dcbear78]

One of my contacts at another forum had the Tamron and sold it after buying the Sigma Sport. He said it was quite a lot better in every way.

I know that doesn't really help with a contemporary comparison. But makes me think there probably isn't much between them.

 

[Braineack]

One of my contacts at another forum had the Tamron and sold it after buying the Sigma Sport. He said it was quite a lot better in every way.

I know that doesn't really help with a contemporary comparison. But makes me think there probably isn't much between them.

no it doesn't. The Sport is a better lens--no question.

 

[jaomul]

I agree with a lot you say Braineack but I think you're being harsh here. Very few of us will own two very similar lenses to compare, so we try decipher the interwebz to get the best value we can.

Nearly every comparison between these two sigmas say optically they are so similar, your paying for build quality and features with the sport

 

[hamlet]

I've mostly made up my mind about these two lenses. Now what i did not foresee was the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E, going to be holding on to my wallet till i know more about this new lens.

It's definitely a wildcard. I'm guessing it will be the better buy, but it will cost that much more. It's $1400 vs Sigma's $1090 & Tamron's $1070. I'm guessing performance (sharpness & focus speed) that is around 20-25% better overall, 500mm vs. 500mm. But that's just a shot in the dark guess.

i suspect as much, but sigma & tamron have been pulling out trump card after trump card lately, so i'm fuzzy on the whole deal.

 

[Braineack]

I agree with a lot you say Braineack but I think you're being harsh here. Very few of us will own two very similar lenses to compare, so we try decipher the interwebz to get the best value we can.

Nearly every comparison between these two sigmas say optically they are so similar, your paying for build quality and features with the sport

They are not optically similar.

The S has 24 elements, 16 groups, with (2) FLD elements and and (3) SLD.
The C has 20 elements, 14 groups, with (1) FLD element and (3) SLD.

The S renders sharper (it might be close, but it's better), and the optics have better distortion control, CA control, and color rendering.

Just look at bench tests--

600mm for sharpness:
S:

vs C:

The C is similar in sharpness at f/8 as the S wide open at f/6.3.

and 600mm for CA:
S:

vs. C:

It can even be seen here: Sigma 150-600mm f 5-6.3 DG OS HSM C Lens Image Quality

and here: http://abload.de/img/600mmkoudk.jpg

The S also has a min focus of 8' 5", where the C is 9' 2".

So yeah, maybe in the real world you won't really see a difference in sharpness (the C is still pretty good, as well as the Tamron), but you're paying for better optics as well as the extra features like weather-sealing and push/pull zooming it adds.

Now some people will say they don't think the optics bonus + features justify the price, and they aren't necessarily wrong. But to say it's optically similar I think is wrong--at the end of the day the S should produce a slightly sharper, slighty cleaner, slighty better image.

 

[jaomul]

I agree they are built different. That site you quote shows a difference on charts. There are small difference in ops etc, but look around the web, for every review that says one is better, another says there similar. Some quote them as being sharper at different focal length etc.

The sports is better because it's built better, I'm not so sure about it being optically without question though. Extra glass might allow closer focus etc and weather sealing but it's an extra layer the light has to pass also

 

[JacaRanda]

I spoke to one birdographer that returned the Tamron for the Sigma Sport. He only mentioned better/faster autofocus as the reason for the switch.

 

[hamlet]

I spoke to one birdographer that returned the Tamron for the Sigma Sport. He only mentioned better/faster autofocus as the reason for the switch.

I've so far been hedging my bets on the sigma 'c', but perhaps faster focus speed with fast bird action could justify the extra grand itself. But as some mentioned before: the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E could be a game changer and a nice compromise between the sigma 'c' & 's' for a very attractive price of $1,400. And as some here dont know: third part lenses are not guaranteed to work with future cameras.