Sigma 150-500, Sigma 50-500 or Tamron 200-500 ?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Brian Griffin, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. Hi,

    I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 150-500, the Sigma 50-500 (Bigma) and
    Tamron 200-500. Any ideas about which I should go for. I have a Nikon D300,
    a Sigma 10-20, Nikon 18-200 and Sigma 600 Mirror/Reflex already.

    Cheers,
    Brian
     
    Brian Griffin, Aug 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    I don't have the other two to give more detail, but I have the 50-500mm
    and it's pretty good for the price and range. I am not Nikon user to know
    how well it works with Nikon but it works well with my Canon.

    You can read end users' feedback at www.fredmiranda.com (I hope I get the
    name right) or you may find some at www.dpreview.com . You may need to use
    the SEARCH command to find the old messages.
     
    Joel, Aug 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thanks Joel,

    Some of the reviews I have read seem to suggest leaving the purchase of a
    150-500 until the "problems" e.g. the supposed softness at F6.3 at 500mm,
    are ironed out. But some of the pictures I have seen at F6.3 500mm seem
    stunning. I wonder if this is down to the supposed variation between
    individual Sigma lenses?

    Cheers,
    Brian
     
    Brian Griffin, Aug 29, 2008
    #3
  4. Thanks Joel,

    Some of the reviews I have read seem to suggest leaving the purchase of a
    150-500 until the "problems" e.g. the supposed softness at F6.3 at 500mm,
    are ironed out. But some of the pictures I have seen at F6.3 500mm seem
    stunning. I wonder if this is down to the supposed variation between
    individual Sigma lenses?

    Cheers,
    Brian
     
    Brian Griffin, Aug 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    You may not want to read the review *but* you want to read the feedbacks
    of actual owners. Me? I don't read or depend on the review, or I trust the
    feedback of end user more than commercial review.

    Sigma 50-500mm isn't my main lens, and I only use for some big 2-3 days
    out of state events, and I have taken several thousand shots and they were
    fine. I never compared the sharpness with my regular portrait so I can't
    give all small detail, but they were great.

    It's pretty heavy and I have to carry on my shoulder (I am 71 years old),
    and use with monopod. I used to handhold 800mm with no problem, but few
    years ago I can feel some shaking so started using monopod. And the
    50-500mm is a very nice zoom range, which I use little more than Canon
    70-200L f2.8 (except church events then I use 20-700L f2.8 with other lens
    like 17-50mm or 35-75mm etc.. and I always have 2 cameras).
     
    Joel, Aug 30, 2008
    #5
  6. Brian Griffin

    Peter Guest


    What are you going to use the lens for and what is your budget. If for
    landscapes, maybe and you will save yourself some money. Do a Google search
    on the lenses and read the comments. Keep in mind that super good comments
    may have been planted. For the sigma they are all over the place. I own the
    Nikon 80-400 and find it crisp and sharp, but its slow focus makes it just
    about useless for wildlife or sports. If I had the need and the bucks, I
    would get the Nikon 200-400. ($5,000.)
     
    Peter, Aug 30, 2008
    #6
  7. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    Well, in this case you may wanna switch the whole Nikon system to Canon to
    get a top-notch 100-400L with a juicy body for less than $5,000
     
    Joel, Aug 30, 2008
    #7
  8. Brian Griffin

    Peter Guest


    I am certainly NOT going to get into a Nikon v Canon war with you, or anyone
    else.

    The two lenses are not in the same class and cannot be fairly compared.
     
    Peter, Aug 30, 2008
    #8
  9. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    I am talking about the PRICE and option.
     
    Joel, Aug 30, 2008
    #9
  10. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    To be a little clearer, Canon 100-400L is one of the top_of_the_line lens
    of Canon which designed specific for wifelife and sport. It's fast and
    sharp, it's much much lower than $5,000, or you can get the 100-400L and a
    nice body for lot lesser than $5,000 which you can enjoy the sharp/fast
    imaga for sport and wifelife while you continue to use Nikon or other for
    whatever you like.
     
    Joel, Aug 31, 2008
    #10
  11. Hi Peter,
    I think everybody would probably opt for the Nikon if they had the choice
    but as my budget will only stretch to the sigmas or the tamron, I'll have to
    choose between one of them. I intend to use it for the full range of stuff
    apart from portraits.
    Cheers,
    Brian
     
    Brian Griffin, Aug 31, 2008
    #11
  12. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    Me? Nikon has never been my choice for some very simple reasons.

    - Nikon had never been good for low light (and high ISO) until the last 3
    newest models.

    - Nikon market is lot smaller than Canon so they have to charge more (both
    lens and body)

    So for good lighting then both Canon and Nikon are fine gears, but for low
    light (as wedding photographer I often have to deal with low light situation
    and quite often no flash allow), and Nikon often carry a high price tag. I
    just checked for the price and it seems like they have lowered the price of
    some older models a little now. I don't know how much lower since I only
    looked at few when they were just released, and now Nikon D3 is the newest.
     
    Joel, Sep 1, 2008
    #12
  13. Brian Griffin

    Peter Guest


    If that lens works for you, great.
     
    Peter, Sep 1, 2008
    #13
  14. Brian Griffin

    Peter Guest


    I notice you agree that the new Nikon models are good in low light. I
    borrowed a friends D700 and tried it at ISO 3,200. Yep there was some noise
    noticeable in the single color areas, but that is being really picky. Joel,
    of course you should use whatever makes you happy and fits your needs.
    However, it is only fair to post different opinions in response to a
    question. that way the reader has some basis to evaluate a potential
    purchase. If you live in the NY area go the the show at the Javits in
    October. They may even let you take test shots with the different boxes.
     
    Peter, Sep 1, 2008
    #14
  15. Brian Griffin

    Joel Guest

    Thanks, and just to remind you that it has been working for tens of
    thousands of others too.
     
    Joel, Sep 1, 2008
    #15
  16. Brian Griffin

    Paul Furman Guest

    I would suggest looking into a 300mm f/2.8 manual focus. The speed is
    useful and it'll take teleconverters. Very manageable size hand held.
    You can get the oldest Nikkor for around $800. AF will cost more like
    $2,000 used. I have a Tokina, thinking about upgrading that.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 7, 2008
    #16
  17. I raely need lenses beyond 200mm in focal length, but I decided to take a
    look at the Signa 150-500mm zoom when I wanted to photograph some boat
    races. Its specification and price fitted the bill for an occasional use
    lens.

    I have to say the Sigma produced crisp, contrasty images on virtually every
    shot, some of which have sold for use on calendars and in other illustrative
    media. At less than £600 in the UK, the Sigma certainly paid for itself in
    just a few shots.

    If I have any criticicm of this lens, it would have to be the 'zoom creep',
    if you have the lens pointing down it soon extends out to the 500mm setting
    due to the weight of its front elements - a locking zoom ring would be a
    great advantage.
     
    NigelCummings, Sep 16, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.