Sigma 150-500OS or Tamron 200-500

[rmdavis]

I am looking at getting one of these lenses to go with my Canon 50D. It will be used for wildlife and birds mostly. Anyone have either of these lenses and willing to give opinions as well as perhaps some sample shots?

Thanks

 

[zackiedawg]

I have had the Tamron 200-500mm lens for a long time, and it's been a very good and reliable lens for birds and wildlife. The only caveat I would throw out there would be that it isn't stabilized - I'm not sure if that will be an issue for you depending on the shutter speeds you'll be shooting with and the light you have where you shoot (not a problem for me as I've got stabilization in-body on my DSLR)...if the two lenses were close in performance and one is stabilized, I might consider that one more strongly if I didn't have in-body stabilization.

Some samples from the Tamron 200-500:

 

[mom2rtk]

^^^^^ Amazing shots as always.

 

[rmdavis]

Excellent photos Justin. And thanks for the advice and samples. To be honest the stabilization is the only reason I am considering the sigma.

 

[bob100]

I am looking at getting one of these lenses to go with my Canon 50D. It will be used for wildlife and birds mostly. Anyone have either of these lenses and willing to give opinions as well as perhaps some sample shots?

Thanks

I don't have either of those but if you ask in a nature forum like
http://www.birdforum.net or Juza, etc. you will get the recommendation to buy primes like the Canon 400mm or the 100-400 both of which are considerably sharper than those lens.

 

[zackiedawg]

While generally true, Bob, that long dedicated primes especially in the high grade arena may be sharper than these types of lenses, it is much dependent on the light conditions, the aperture & focal length being used, and of couse price must come into consideration (those nice high end primes are 4-figure lenses - sometimes 5-figure lenses...the Tamron and Sigma can be had for under $800 at times).

Note that I have been shooting birds and wildlife for a long time, and also shoot with a very high end 300mm F4 APO prime, with a matched 1.4x APO teleconverter - so I do have experience with the higher-end optics. And though it is indeed sharper overall, the Tamron can match it when the light is good and I shoot within the 200-400mm range. The only times the Tamron will lose out to those high-end primes is when you are pushing it to 500mm and keeping the aperture wide-open, and the light is low or poor. Light, and technique, make the biggest impact on the quality of the photos. For someone with an unlimited budget asking 'what's the flat-out best lens I can get for wildlife' - I'd definitely guide them to some nice high-end primes in the brand of their choice. But for someone looking for a very good lens within a reasonable budget, the Tamron is an excellent choice, with the added benefit of extreme flexibility in focal range (primes can be a bit restrictive for someone dabbling in wildlife or bird shooting, and even experts occasionally run into situations where you have to give up the shot because the bird or animal is too close to frame with the huge prime you brought along...I even shoot with two camera bodies mounted with different focal lengths just for that situation when I've got my 300mm with me!).

 

[bob100]

While generally true, Bob, that long dedicated primes especially in the high grade arena may be sharper than these types of lenses, it is much dependent on the light conditions, the aperture & focal length being used, and of couse price must come into consideration (those nice high end primes are 4-figure lenses - sometimes 5-figure lenses...the Tamron and Sigma can be had for under $800 at times).

Note that I have been shooting birds and wildlife for a long time, and also shoot with a very high end 300mm F4 APO prime, with a matched 1.4x APO teleconverter - so I do have experience with the higher-end optics. And though it is indeed sharper overall, the Tamron can match it when the light is good and I shoot within the 200-400mm range. The only times the Tamron will lose out to those high-end primes is when you are pushing it to 500mm and keeping the aperture wide-open, and the light is low or poor. Light, and technique, make the biggest impact on the quality of the photos. For someone with an unlimited budget asking 'what's the flat-out best lens I can get for wildlife' - I'd definitely guide them to some nice high-end primes in the brand of their choice. But for someone looking for a very good lens within a reasonable budget, the Tamron is an excellent choice, with the added benefit of extreme flexibility in focal range (primes can be a bit restrictive for someone dabbling in wildlife or bird shooting, and even experts occasionally run into situations where you have to give up the shot because the bird or animal is too close to frame with the huge prime you brought along...I even shoot with two camera bodies mounted with different focal lengths just for that situation when I've got my 300mm with me!).

all I can say is: OP, get a third opinion !
Ask in a nature forum or a Canon forum like
http://photography-on-the.net/forum
there are better alternatives than those lens (although the Sigma 150-500 OS is pretty decent for the money)

I've even known some people that like a cheap $100 telephoto lens for wildlife !

Canon XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS
(cropped)

 

[zackiedawg]

all I can say is: OP, get a third opinion !
Ask in a nature forum or a Canon forum like
http://photography-on-the.net/forum
there are better alternatives than those lens (although the Sigma 150-500 OS is pretty decent for the money)

I've even known some people that like a cheap $100 telephoto lens for wildlife !

I'll drop the cause after this post, because I'm not sure what's got you so adamantly against my recommendation...to be honest, the OP simply asked if anyone had any opinion or experience with the two lenses he listed, I did, so I replied. You told him to look at something else entirely...which is fine too, but doesn't really answer the question he asked...I just pointed out that the price difference between high end dedicated primes and these two telezooms is a bit steep. No reason for a 'third opinion'. I shoot with dedicated primes too - given an unlimited budget and a serious intent to get into wildlife shooting, I'd agree one of those might be the way to go.

If it's just a person who might occasionally shoot wildlife, practically any camera and lens can do in a pinch. A heron sitting on a rail 10 feet away doesn't require special lenses, but it sounded like the OP was actually looking to get into bird and wildlife photography a bit more, and longer reach is always a good thing, with variable reach being good for beginners to bird photography, until you get to know the behavior of the birds in your area and how much reach you need and how much light you have.

And yes...some can get by just fine with a cheap $100 telephoto lens - in fact, I can get by with a compact system camera and a $10, 35-year-old manual focus lens:

But that still doesn't help the OP decide between the two lenses he listed. By all means, get as many opinions as possible - I believe that was why he posted the thread in the first place - to get a lot of opinions. Mine's one of them. But I can definitely affirm that I have been birding a long time, and the Tamron 200-500mm as well as the Sigma 50-500mm have both been well respected and are well represented among both amateur and established wildlife photographers for years...even when we also shoot with some very expensive, very heavy, fast, white metal primes. There are lenses that are sharper, and there are lenses that are not. There are better alternatives, but there are also worse ones - having a very good telephoto focal range with a decently sharp lens and a long reach for under $900, there are very few options as versatile and good as the Tamron and Sigma long zooms mentioned here.

 

[bob100]

I'll drop the cause after this post, because I'm not sure what's got you so adamantly against my recommendation...to be honest, the OP simply asked if anyone had any opinion or experience with the two lenses he listed, I did, so I replied. You told him to look at something else entirely...which is fine too, but doesn't really answer the question he asked...I just pointed out that the price difference between high end dedicated primes and these two telezooms is a bit steep. No reason for a 'third opinion'. I shoot with dedicated primes too - given an unlimited budget and a serious intent to get into wildlife shooting, I'd agree one of those might be the way to go.

If it's just a person who might occasionally shoot wildlife, practically any camera and lens can do in a pinch. A heron sitting on a rail 10 feet away doesn't require special lenses, but it sounded like the OP was actually looking to get into bird and wildlife photography a bit more, and longer reach is always a good thing, with variable reach being good for beginners to bird photography, until you get to know the behavior of the birds in your area and how much reach you need and how much light you have.

And yes...some can get by just fine with a cheap $100 telephoto lens - in fact, I can get by with a compact system camera and a $10, 35-year-old manual focus lens:

But that still doesn't help the OP decide between the two lenses he listed. By all means, get as many opinions as possible - I believe that was why he posted the thread in the first place - to get a lot of opinions. Mine's one of them. But I can definitely affirm that I have been birding a long time, and the Tamron 200-500mm as well as the Sigma 50-500mm have both been well respected and are well represented among both amateur and established wildlife photographers for years...even when we also shoot with some very expensive, very heavy, fast, white metal primes. There are lenses that are sharper, and there are lenses that are not. There are better alternatives, but there are also worse ones - having a very good telephoto focal range with a decently sharp lens and a long reach for under $900, there are very few options as versatile and good as the Tamron and Sigma long zooms mentioned here.

All I'm saying is for $1,000 or whatever the OP is spending there could be better telephoto alternatives - 300 f/4IS, 400mm, 100-400, 100-300 etc. for around $900- $1300 (new and used). There are non-Canon telephotos like the 150-500, 120-300, 50-500, 100-300IS etc. Again (maybe for the last time!) the OP can get comparison sample pics with these lens taken with his specific camera model (50D) and see all the lens reviews and various prices, new and used for these lens at
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/