I am going to get either the sigma 50-500mm or the tamron 200-500.. anyone use either of these makes? I am leaning towards the tamron as it is 150 cheaper and half the weight and from what web samples I have seen it seems to be fairly sharp but web samples are not the best barometer of quality of course
i have been a long time user of both brands, in the past had several sigma lenses, gradually replaced as i could afford to with canon primes and L glass, only because as sensors got better the consumer lens faults started becoming more visible, both brands seem to have committed to keeping up though tamron 28-75 xr di, still one of the best buys out there, replaced by my canon 17-55 f2.8 IS as my walk about lens, only because of the advantages of 3rd gen IS, i still used this lens all last weekend on my 20d at the horse expo, becasuse rebel and lenses are all packed for cruise, photos at k-gphotos.phanfare.com , all inside expo shots with tamron i used to have a sigma 15-30, good lens but not wide enough for me, eventually replaced by the canon 10-22 when that came out and image quality turned out to be superb, i was very impressed with the sigma 30mm f1.4 i rented and used at last dec mousefest, almost bought one, but got seduced by 17-55, sigma has had reports of quality control issues, but test right away, and if not acceptable insist on returnreplacement or free calibration by sigma
I have the Tamron 28-75. I'm starting to be a wee bit suspicious of it, I've gone back and pixel peeped my shots and it looks like it may not be quite as sharp as my Canon 70-200F4L (a very highly regarded lens). However the equivalent Canon L lens for that range is nearly $1000, while the Tamron cost considerably less. And truth be told I use that range less, so perhaps it makes sense to pay less for a lens that covers it. Still it's a good lens, no regrets. I have done a bit of research into both of the lenses you're considering.. a lens in that range is probably going to be my next lens purchase. Although I'm considering a 400mm prime as well. From my reading of the forums on dpreview.com I can say that the Bigma has a wide fan base and a reasonably good reputation, debated mostly only by Canon L lens loyalists. It's acknowledged that it's not sharp wide open, and at 500mm its widest still isn't that wide. So you need a lot of light, or a tripod or monopod, or excellent hand holding technique. I still find it interesting that Sigma has an 80-400 with an image stabilizer on offer for the same price as their 50-500 which at least has the advantage of having their HSM autofocus mechanism. For myself I want all the reach I can get, but boy.. an optical stabilizer would be hugely attractive, especially since so far I've been almost exclusively a hand holder. I've seen comparisons of full crop (1:1, no resizing) shots taken with.. actually I'm not sure if it was the Bigma or the 80-400, but it was compared to Canon's 100-400 lens, an L lens with optical stabilization that costs $1600.. no wait, I just looked it up, it's down to $1400, or $1300 with their current rebate offer. Anyway, I know you're a Nikon user but I'm not, I've been eying those lenses in comparison to what I have available as a Canon user. And whichever it was, the Bigma or the 80-400, compared quite favorably to the considerably more expensive (at the time) Canon 100-400. I'm sorry I can't be more specific but it was a while ago and I was watching both lenses. I've seen people discussing the Tamron 200-500, but I don't think I encountered many if any owners. Some reviews suggest it's potentially a good lens, photozone.de certainly had positive things to say about it, but.. well let's just say that I'm glad to have found that the Canon 100-400 came down in price, that might swing my decision back to Canon L glass and save me from having to decide between the Tamron and the Sigma. Even if I lose 100mm in the process. In any case I look forward to seeing what you pick and what kind of results you get. I hope this means you'll be bringing back some nice wildlife shots for the non Disney category.
the main reason I considered the tamron is it is 150 cheaper then the sigma and also half the weight. I read about it some here http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php and some samples here http://www.pbase.com:80/wtracyparnell/image/61187107 thanx for your response and hopefully I will get some good results with it at the local sanctuary as it is the main reason I want long reach as I frequent that place alot and a friend of mine shoots with a 20d and the awesome 400mm f 2.8 L lens which price wise is way out of my reach. he puts a tele converter on it a gets unreal reach
400x1.6x1.4=896mm f/4 400x1.6x2.0=1280mm f/5.6 What does he need that for? Count the hairs on the back of a fly??? Used for $4800, new model with the IS, 8 speaker Bose stereo system, iPod integration unit, alloy rims, touring package is $6,500. At first I was going to say your friend is like putting top of the line tires and stereo system in a Buick, when he should be using it on a Lexus/Jaguar/Rolls/Bentley etc etc But then the 20D/20DMkII (30D) is Canon's best 1.6 crop camera out there right now, and if you need to count the hairs on the back of a fly, that would be the way to go.
when you take pics of lions in the wild in Africa and 5 ton elephants you need all the reach you can get. Same for Grizzlies in Alaska. I have seen a few people at the sanctuary shooting with canon 500m f4 and also 600mm f4. These birds don't like to be near humans and require alot of reach especially ospries and herons PS I dont consider a 20d a buick and bose is not top of the line
I've used a Sigma lens, but not a Tamron. The Sigma was OK, but not up the quality of a similar lens from the camera maker (in this case, Canon). Bottom line, though, is don't buy a lens because its cheaper than another. You'll end up sorry in the long run.
price was just one factor. Weight was another and I have read about both at numerous sites and some think the tamron is sharper then the sigma. I am hoping local stores have them in stock so I can try them out and form my own opinion on them. I do agree that 95% of the time you get what you pay for and if the sigma was or is better then the tamron then I will go for it ps thanx for your input.
Dan - my experience is very similar to yours. The 70-200 f/4 L was the first lens I bought for my rebel, followed shortly thereafter (by recommendations) with the Tamron 28-75. While the Tamron is certainly serviceable, the sharpness pales in comparison to the 70-200, and now a year later, I find myself willing to invest the extra money to replace the 28-75 as my "walkabout" lens with something better. Still haven't decided between the 2 Canon L series in that range (28-105 or 24-70) ... but one of them will be in my kit soon. The Tamron is certainly serviceable, but for a lens in that "everyday" range, I wish I had just bit the bullet and bought "the best" up front.
i have both of the lenses you are considering and i bought the 24-105 IS first. i would do it again and again because you get an extra 35 on the long end and stabilization. the only thing you DON'T get is f/2.8.
just got the Tamron 200-500mm. Man this thing is big. Going out in a few and try it out.Will post if I get any keepers
