# Still shocked about the Sigma 150-500 and the D7100



## coastalconn

We hear it so many times that the 150-500 isn't that sharp at 500.  At F8 this lens is brilliant.  I can get 4 stops of OS and even more if my subjects don't move...  The D7100 continues to impress me, especially the higher ISO performance, although I changed my shooting habits quite a bit from the D300.  I actually have been shooting in AF-A, Single point with both AF-S and AF-C set to "focus".  I have been using spot metering almost exclusively lately.  I've found shooting in manual mode with auto ISO maxed at 3200 is pretty good with a touch of + EC..  Anyways, it still didn't stop me from pre-ordering the Tamron 150-600!!!.. comments welcome..

1 ISO 1600 in the rain..



Rainy Day House Sparrow 1 by krisinct, on Flickr

2 ISO 2200 in the rain



Rainy Day House Sparrow 2 by krisinct, on Flickr

3 boring but 1/60th HH



Rainy Day Mourning Dove 1/60th by krisinct, on Flickr

4 and in good light...



Female Cardinal in the shadows by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel

But,but,but,but...we have a member here who continually says in-lens image stabilization is of "limited use"...


----------



## sm4him

<sigh>  I don't think I like you any more, Kris... :lmao:

Because you are seriously making me feel like a completely incompetent monkey with a camera, using the same lens I have and getting results that are 163 times better.


----------



## astroNikon

sm4him said:


> <sigh>  I don't think I like you any more, Kris... :lmao:
> 
> Because you are seriously making me feel like a completely incompetent monkey with a camera, using the same lens I have and getting results that are 163 times better.


Don't worry.

Even though he makes wonderfully awesome photos,

he cheats  :lmao:


----------



## tirediron

That's sharp enough to shave with!


----------



## robbins.photo

Beautiful captures - if there is any sort of sharpness problem here I'm certainly not seeing it.


----------



## coastalconn

Derrel said:


> But,but,but,but...we have a member here who continually says in-lens image stabilization is of "limited use"...


Here was the other successful shots from my testing...  Guess this is "limited use"
1/20th - just a little softness



Testing OS Sigma 150-500 1/20th by krisinct, on Flickr
1/40th - use-able



Testing OS Sigma 150-500 1/40th by krisinct, on Flickr


----------



## SCraig

Beautiful shots, Kris.  That combination is working well for you.

I think the biggest problem with the 150-500 is the hit-or-miss quality control.  I've had mine for a couple of years and have never had any complaints about its sharpness.  It even does a very good job wide open, just a lot better stopped down to around f/8.  I played around with the focus fine tune with it on my D7000 and always came back to zero as being the best.


----------



## coastalconn

sm4him said:


> <sigh>  I don't think I like you any more, Kris... :lmao:
> Because you are seriously making me feel like a completely incompetent monkey with a camera, using the same lens I have and getting results that are 163 times better.


Do you have proof it's a 163 times better  



astroNikon said:


> Don't worry.
> Even though he makes wonderfully awesome photos,
> he cheats  :lmao:


Not true, the sparrows do not like my fish costume I wear for my Ospreys 



robbins.photo said:


> Beautiful captures - if there is any sort of sharpness problem here I'm certainly not seeing it.


Nope, my point is most people online say this lens is soft at 500mm, and I have found just the opposite...


----------



## coastalconn

SCraig said:


> Beautiful shots, Kris.  That combination is working well for you.
> 
> I think the biggest problem with the 150-500 is the hit-or-miss quality control.  I've had mine for a couple of years and have never had any complaints about its sharpness.  It even does a very good job wide open, just a lot better stopped down to around f/8.  I played around with the focus fine tune with it on my D7000 and always came back to zero as being the best.



I know you shoot single point, try setting AF-C to "Focus"  you might miss an occasional flight shot, but I have found much more consistency when AF s/c are both set to focus...  I mentioned earlier, I've found the AF-A mode very good and the camera switches instantly when it detects motion.  Back in the day with the D90 it would take several seconds before the mode would switch.  I was hesitant to try it but found it worked quite well..  In another post you mentioned the camera doesn't stay locked on in complicated scenes.  What is you A3 setting (3)normal?


----------



## SCraig

AF-C is set to "Focus".  I'm not sure about AF-S.  I'll have to check that.  To be honest, now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever tried AF-A on my D7000 or D7100.  I did try it a few times on my D90 and found, as you mentioned, that it was somewhat slow to change modes.  I'm heading out for a while in the morning and will have to give that a try.

A3 is set to "Off".  I don't have problems maintaining focus on the subject when the background is complicated, the problem I have is trying to use one of the dynamic autofocus modes when the camera can try to decide what the subject is.  When shooting a flock of gulls in flight using dynamic autofocus, for example, I'll have one in good, clean focus and the next thing I know the camera has decided to try and follow a different bird.  Or when shooting against a busy background I'll have one gull in focus and the camera takes off and tries to follow a tree in the background.  I'm sure it works for some but it just plain doesn't work for me.



coastalconn said:


> I know you shoot single point, try setting AF-C to "Focus"  you might miss an occasional flight shot, but I have found much more consistency when AF s/c are both set to focus...  I mentioned earlier, I've found the AF-A mode very good and the camera switches instantly when it detects motion.  Back in the day with the D90 it would take several seconds before the mode would switch.  I was hesitant to try it but found it worked quite well..  In another post you mentioned the camera doesn't stay locked on in complicated scenes.  What is you A3 setting (3)normal?


----------



## coastalconn

SCraig said:


> AF-C is set to "Focus".  I'm not sure about AF-S.  I'll have to check that.  To be honest, now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever tried AF-A on my D7000 or D7100.  I did try it a few times on my D90 and found, as you mentioned, that it was somewhat slow to change modes.  I'm heading out for a while in the morning and will have to give that a try.
> 
> A3 is set to "Off".  I don't have problems maintaining focus on the subject when the background is complicated, the problem I have is trying to use one of the dynamic autofocus modes when the camera can try to decide what the subject is.  When shooting a flock of gulls in flight using dynamic autofocus, for example, I'll have one in good, clean focus and the next thing I know the camera has decided to try and follow a different bird.  Or when shooting against a busy background I'll have one gull in focus and the camera takes off and tries to follow a tree in the background.  I'm sure it works for some but it just plain doesn't work for me.



Try turning A3 to medium, you might be surprised.  I've tracked owls through the woods behind trees and it stays locked on.  With it set to off, if the subject distance changes at all the camera will instantly try to find a new target.  A3 will keep it locked on much better....


----------



## trojancast

Derrel said:


> But,but,but,but...we have a member here who continually says in-lens image stabilization is of "limited use"...





Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner


----------



## SCraig

coastalconn said:


> Try turning A3 to medium, you might be surprised.  I've tracked owls through the woods behind trees and it stays locked on.  With it set to off, if the subject distance changes at all the camera will instantly try to find a new target.  A3 will keep it locked on much better....



I'll give it a try.  Nothing to lose and everything to gain   Thanks for the tip.


----------



## sm4him

coastalconn said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> 
> <sigh>  I don't think I like you any more, Kris... :lmao:
> Because you are seriously making me feel like a completely incompetent monkey with a camera, using the same lens I have and getting results that are 163 times better.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have proof it's a 163 times better
Click to expand...


Yes, that was a VERY scientific study that I did, comparing all sorts of extremely complicated, science-y things and using algorithms or something else very official and difficult-sounding to arrive at my ironclad conclusion. :lmao:
It was *actually* 163.4449 percent better, but I cut myself a break.


----------



## Braineack

When you can make a common sparrow look that good...


----------



## bc_steve

lookin good.  I found the same thing with the 70-300 VR when I had it.  A bit soft wide open, but stopped down to f/8 it was great.


----------



## Photo Lady

just beautiful in every way in every shot


----------



## grafxman

I used the Sigma 150-500mm for quite a while. As you have discovered it's an excellent lens. However every so often I would miss a shot due to the lens's limitations. The two limitations I encountered were that it doesn't focus close enough and 150mm is not wide enough. The straw that broke the camel's was when I wasn't able to get a photograph or video of a gator that stalked, attacked and killed a coot from less than 20 feet away. The lens focuses OK at that distance but it just isn't wide enough. When I couldn't get the gator/coot shot I went home, bit the bullet and bought Sigma's 50-500mm. It's a newer lens, focuses much much closer and is a lot wider. I doubt I'll ever replace it. Going out to photograph wildlife without that lens on a camera would be like walking outside without my glasses, in other words a serious mistake. BTW, it's nice to see someone here appreciates a Sigma super zoom besides me. Those are terrific photos.


----------



## matthewo

Sharpness isn't everything tho.

You need the background to be a good deal farther away to get the nice smooth bookah

Even at the same aperture a 500f4 looks totally different,  that and the colors, contrast and strangely even how it deals with highlights and shadows is noticeably different.  I guess its to be expected with a lens costing 1/8 the price.

Then the autofocus is just much better on the higher end glass.

Regardless the lens is still nice for the price, but im looking forward to seeing how that tamron 150-600,  IMO it could be the new budget super telephoto zoom


----------



## coastalconn

matthewo said:


> Sharpness isn't everything tho.
> 
> You need the background to be a good deal farther away to get the nice smooth bookah
> 
> Even at the same aperture a 500f4 looks totally different,  that and the colors, contrast and strangely even how it deals with highlights and shadows is noticeably different.  I guess its to be expected with a lens costing 1/8 the price.
> 
> Then the autofocus is just much better on the higher end glass.
> 
> Regardless the lens is still nice for the price, but im looking forward to seeing how that tamron 150-600,  IMO it could be the new budget super telephoto zoom



Agree with everything you said...  I pre-odered the Tamron yesterday.  I can't wait to give it a test run...  I'm super excited actually!


----------



## 18.percent.gary

I'll definitelty be following your posts CoastalConn regarding the 150-600. I'm tempted to just roll the dice and pre-order myself. I'm gonna wait until the Xmas aftermath is over and evaluate my financial standing LOL.


----------



## sgbotsford

Oh good.  It's only 163% better (rounding) instead of 163 TIMES better..

Those bird feathers were crisp enough that I figured I'd bleed if I touched one.  Awesome.


----------



## robbins.photo

18.percent.gary said:


> I'll definitelty be following your posts CoastalConn regarding the 150-600. I'm tempted to just roll the dice and pre-order myself. I'm gonna wait until the Xmas aftermath is over and evaluate my financial standing LOL.



Well my next lens purchase will most likely either be a 150-500mm Sigma or the Tamron 150-600.  Fortunately I have some time before I have to decided which is going to be the better option (probably 6 months at least) so like you I'll be following CostalConn's commentary on the newer Tamron closely.

So far the new Sigma lens I did get myself for christmas, the 70-200 mm F 2.8 is impressing me greatly, so I wouldn't have much of a problem pulling the trigger on another sigma lens.   But I'll be very interested in seeing some commentary/review on the Tamron.


----------



## 18.percent.gary

Exactly, the sigma looks good to me as well... and the Tamron is just (at this point) an unknown. Coastalconn already has my respect from the work he produces and his willingness to share his experience and expertise so I'll be interested to see what his first-hand accounts are.

I have to say... I have the "new" Tamron 70-300 VC and it's a freakin awesome lens all around. I think both Sigma and Tamron are really stepping up to the plate with their latest offerings.


----------



## robbins.photo

18.percent.gary said:


> Exactly, the sigma looks good to me as well... and the Tamron is just (at this point) an unknown. Coastalconn already has my respect from the work he produces and his willingness to share his experience and expertise so I'll be interested to see what his first-hand accounts are.
> 
> I have to say... I have the "new" Tamron 70-300 VC and it's a freakin awesome lens all around. I think both Sigma and Tamron are really stepping up to the plate with their latest offerings.



I was very nervous myself pulling the trigger on the Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS, but I ran across a deal on Ebay that I just could not pass up and I had to give it a try.  Got it in today and holy smoke it is an impressive lens.  I was not expecting the IQ to be anywhere near that good.  If I had a "complaint" it would be that the focus ring is very close to the zoom ring and it's going to take some getting used to with my big bear paws.

But other than that the quality is a lot more than I expected, and the darn thing focuses like greased lightning even in really, really crappy lighting.. lol.  So I won't have a problem pulling the trigger on another Sigma, that's for certain.   I'm also looking at replacing my 18-55 Kit lens and one of the possible replacements on my list is the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC.


----------



## grafxman

Many folks here seem to be gaga over this Tamron 150-600mm lens. I just checked the specs on that thing and it will not focus any closer than 8.86 feet. The Sigma 50-500mm, which I'm gaga over, focuses to 1.64 feet. If you're going to be a wildlife photographer I believe that should include ALL wildlife including insects and other critters up close. You won't be getting many good close ups of butterflies and other small wildlife from nearly nine feet away. After you've photographed your first 2,000 to 3,000 birds you will likely get somewhat bored and start looking around for other pretty things to photograph, at least I did. You will have very limited success with a lens that doesn't focus close unless you like to take distant shots then do a lot of cropping and editing. Having 500mm available that focuses to under 2 feet is about like carrying a super zoom and a macro lens at the same time. Part of the reason my Sigma 150-500mm got replaced was because it doesn't focus any closer than 7.22 feet. Hopefully that new Tamron focuses better in dim light than the Tamron I own. It refuses to focus anywhere except bright light. That's another issue I never have with Sigma lenses.


----------



## robbins.photo

grafxman said:


> Many folks here seem to be gaga over this Tamron 150-600mm lens. I just checked the specs on that thing and it will not focus any closer than 8.86 feet. The Sigma 50-500mm, which I'm gaga over, focuses to 1.64 feet. If you're going to be a wildlife photographer I believe that should include ALL wildlife including insects and other critters up close. You won't be getting many good close ups of butterflies and other small wildlife from nearly nine feet away. After you've photographed your first 2,000 to 3,000 birds you will likely get somewhat bored and start looking around for other pretty things to photograph, at least I did. You will have very limited success with a lens that doesn't focus close unless you like to take distant shots then do a lot of cropping and editing. Having 500mm available that focuses to under 2 feet is about like carrying a super zoom and a macro lens at the same time. Part of the reason my Sigma 150-500mm got replaced was because it doesn't focus any closer than 7.22 feet. Hopefully that new Tamron focuses better in dim light than the Tamron I own. It refuses to focus anywhere except bright light. That's another issue I never have with Sigma lenses.




Well if the Sigma 50-500 is working for you great!  To be honest I don't really like taking pictures of insects.  Just really not my cup of tea, and while I'd like to be able to take up close critter pictures on occasion there are other lenses in my bag for that.   Not that you don't make some valid points here, you do - but not everyone has the same requirements or uses lenses in quite the same way.  I've got plenty of time before I buy my next lens, I'll almost certainly be upgrading my camera body first so most likely at least several months down the road before I start looking for something in the 500 mm plus range, so for me I'm just waiting on more information and hands on reviews before I decide which direction will work best for me personally.


----------



## matthewo

The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters   At 500mm

It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol

Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great.  Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great,  for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice


----------



## coastalconn

matthewo said:


> The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters   At 500mm
> 
> It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol
> 
> Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great.  Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great,  for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice



I was thinking along the same lines.  The Tamron at 600mm reproduces 1:5 which means on a crop sensor the entire image is 5" wide which is good enough for me.  I don't do the bug thing much anymore either.  I bet at 600mm and 9 feet mfd, the DOF will be quite thin...  Probably will be quite nice for wildflowers and stuff


----------



## grafxman

matthewo said:


> The sigma 50-500 has a variable mfd starting at 1meter (3.3 feet) at 50mm and ending at 3 meters   At 500mm
> 
> It would be one hell of a macro lens if it focused to 1.63 feet at 500mm lol
> 
> Anyways there is no lenses out there at any price range that will do all great.  Low min focusing distance and super telephotos dont go together great,  for top quality wildlife or bug macro work a sigma 150 or tamron 180 is nice



You seem to be saying that there is no way the Sigma 50-500mm will focus any closer than 3 meters. I took the attached photo with the front of the lens at the zero inch mark on the tape measure. As you can see it focuses to under 48 inches at 500mm. If you are saying that the Sigma 50-500mm won't focus any closer than 3 meters at 500mm then obviously you don't own one and therefore don't know what you're talking about. Apologizes if I misunderstood your post.


----------



## matthewo

Ok we'll it does better then advertised.  I did a quick search and found the wrong specs i guess.

Still a far cry from 1.5 feet.  Also Mfd is measured from the cameras focal plane mark not the end of the lens, so add another foot or so.

I guess my main point was to say no way it focuses to 1.6 feet because the $1700 sigma 180mm macro produces 1:1 at 1.6 feet.  5 feet is believable 1.6 would put it well under 1:1


----------



## grafxman

I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:


----------



## coastalconn

grafxman said:


> I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:



Lol, i would only be in a state of delirium if someone handed me a 500 or 600 F4 and said "Merry Christmas".. I wouldn't get too worried about what others think, I certainly don't. .   I'm curious, at 500mm and closest focusing distance how many inches accross is the image on your crop body?  
Other than shooting a Canon 500 f4 m1, I have never shot any of exotics..  I have been lucky enough to shoot just about everything else that could be considered a "wildlife" lens....  I can't wait to see how the new Tamron compares...


----------



## robbins.photo

grafxman said:


> I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:



I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck".  I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses.  The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.

I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.  

I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end.  If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.


----------



## grafxman

coastalconn said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, i would only be in a state of delirium if someone handed me a 500 or 600 F4 and said "Merry Christmas".. I wouldn't get too worried about what others think, I certainly don't. .   I'm curious, at 500mm and closest focusing distance how many inches accross is the image on your crop body?
> Other than shooting a Canon 500 f4 m1, I have never shot any of exotics..  I have been lucky enough to shoot just about everything else that could be considered a "wildlife" lens....  I can't wait to see how the new Tamron compares...
Click to expand...


It's 4 inches with the 7D and 6.5 inches with the 6D. FWIW a Luna Moth, the Tiger Swallowtail butterfly and many others have a wingspans greater than 4 inches.


----------



## grafxman

robbins.photo said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck".  I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses.  The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.
> 
> I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.
> 
> I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end.  If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.
Click to expand...


Be aware that Sigma once made a 50-500mm lens that was unstabilized so be careful you don't get that one.


----------



## robbins.photo

grafxman said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I had some way of setting the lens to 180mm but there are no markings on the barrel of the lens that specify mm. However I would not be the least bit surprised to discover that it focuses to 2 feet at 180mm. I guess I just get annoyed and frustrated when I keep singing the praises of the finest general purpose wildlife lens I ever come across after years of wildlife photography then other folks start going all gaga over lenses that, to me at least, are obviously inferior. coastalconn, an excellent wildlife photographer BTW, is shocked by the performance of a Sigma super zoom while I'm sitting here wishing he'd bought the 50-500mm so he would be stunned into semi delirium. :smileys:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get where your coming from - for me it's all about "bang for your buck".  I do plan on purchasing something in that range a little further on down the road, in say 4-6 months perhaps, and I will be looking at a variety of lenses.  The Sigma 50-150 mm, The sigma 150-500 mm, the Tamron 500 mm and their new 600 mm offerings, etc.
> 
> I'll end up making my final decision much like I do with all my camera equipment, I'll look at what all is available both new and used, compare the features they offer against the prices I can get them for, and then end up buying whatever gives me the most value based on my budget and my planned uses for the lens.
> 
> I already have lenses that will cover a shorter focal length and really my interest in a big telephoto is more on the long end than on the short end.  If I can get a 50-150 mm for a decent price that will probably have more influence on my decision than anything else, my own thought process is I'll take a look at the prices differences at that time and decide if the extra money is worth having the 50 -500 as opposed to 150-500.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be aware that Sigma once made a 50-500mm lens that was unstabilized so be careful you don't get that one.
Click to expand...


Well I hadn't planned for going for a non-OS or VC version, I've had great luck with image stabilization and even though it isn't a feature I use a lot I sure would miss not having it at this point.


----------



## JacaRanda

[REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG

Canon Rumors


----------



## grafxman

JacaRanda said:


> [REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG
> 
> Canon Rumors



After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.


----------



## JacaRanda

grafxman said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> [REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG
> 
> Canon Rumors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.
Click to expand...


Different strokes, wants, needs, desires?  

Coastal will have one in time and I will guess that he will post an honest and informative review of it as he has done before.


----------



## coastalconn

grafxman said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> [REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG
> 
> Canon Rumors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.
Click to expand...


Most people that are looking at this lens don't really worry about MFD, and at 9 feet it is 1:5 so the entire image would be 5" wide on a crop sensor.  For me personally that is fine.  The reason most people would but it is potentially better IQ.  Also 600mm will put more pixels on your subject resulting in more detail.  I also suspect this will focus much faster with Nikon cameras that have the center F8 capability..  But no one is poopooing your lens, so I'm still not really sure why you are seemingly getting so defensive?  Being a birder I would be ecstatic if this was a 600 F6.3 prime, the short end will never get used by me, but at least the MFT charts looks like it is optimized at 600, which would be quite the accomplishment by Tamron.  Hopefully it will be in my hands in 3 weeks for some real life shooting...


----------



## Derrel

Be VERY wary of these YouTube knuckleheads that mount a lens on a tripod inside a house and then shoot video of a lens trying to focus on NOTHING....and be extra-wary of YouTube knuckleheads that put a fricking LENS CAP on a lens, and then film the  lens as it hunts back and forth. Oh My Flippin Gawd...

THAT is NOT, I repeat, that is NOT ANY way to test "autofocus"! That is about as stupid as "testing" acceleration of a car by placing it in Neutral with the hand brake on firmly, and then revving the engine up to red-line over and over. 

"Vrrrooooom! *Vrooooom! **Vrooooom!** Listen to how FAST this car is! Listen to its acceleration! "
*
A couple of other comments: the "newest" Nikon AF systems can now autofocus down to f/8 on some of their AF points. A lens pointing at a painted wall inside of an apartment dining room is going to give false, unrepresentative data, compared with the same tele-zoom outdoors, being aimed at REAL subject matter, with "real" details.

Some of these first-to-YouTube tester types are ridiculous, and when stuff is brand-new, these Yahoos get hits.


----------



## grafxman

coastalconn said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> [REVIEW] Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD ENGLISH REVIEW : Page 3 of 4 : IT - WYSWIG
> 
> Canon Rumors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading that review of the Tamron 150-600mm I can't see why anyone would buy it over the Sigma 50-500mm except for the cost. Like the the Tamron I have it won't focus in low light. It won't focus any closer than almost 9 feet. Furthermore I know from my experience with Sigma's 150-500mm lens that 150mm is not wide enough. You couldn't pay me to put that thing on any of my cameras. I would miss too many shots that I could easily get with the Sigma 50-500mm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people that are looking at this lens don't really worry about MFD, and at 9 feet it is 1:5 so the entire image would be 5" wide on a crop sensor.  For me personally that is fine.  The reason most people would but it is potentially better IQ.  Also 600mm will put more pixels on your subject resulting in more detail.  I also suspect this will focus much faster with Nikon cameras that have the center F8 capability..  But no one is poopooing your lens, so I'm still not really sure why you are seemingly getting so defensive?  Being a birder I would be ecstatic if this was a 600 F6.3 prime, the short end will never get used by me, but at least the MFT charts looks like it is optimized at 600, which would be quite the accomplishment by Tamron.  Hopefully it will be in my hands in 3 weeks for some real life shooting...
Click to expand...


Sorry if I sound defensive. I'm just relating my personal experience regarding the Sigma 50-500mm and wildlife photography. I hope you're very happy with the Tamron. However when the day comes that you see a painted bunting, the most beautiful warbler in North America, at 5 or 6 feet in dim light and your Tamron won't focus I hope you recall our conversations here. I went to the Sigma 50-500mm after missing 3 important shots with Sigma's 150-500mm because the action was too close to focus and I needed a wider lens.


----------



## matthewo

I'm sure the 50-500 is a good lens for the price.

But i would be very surprised if the brand new tamron isn't better. The 50-500 is a pretty old lens and has been out a while. Im not downing on old lenses, the 20 year old nikon 500mm p is almost as sharp and contrasty as the 500mm vr with just a bit of CA, and of course manual focus. 

Im glad the 50-500 works for you, but i wouldn't say its for everyone, like said not everyone needs mfd of 5-6 feet. DOF is already a pita at 14 feet and 500mm, for small birds even at f11-f14 unless the bird is sideways its still not all in focus.

If it was up to me i would rather have an extra 100mm vs 3-4 feet less mfd.

For me, the biggest thing that turned me off of the cheaper tele zooms and made me save up for brand name prime lenses was autofocus accuracy and speed for moving birds. Contrast was a close second along with lens speed, sharpness was not much of a big deal to me, the 150-500 was decently sharp.

Just as you said, you missed a bird due to mfd, well i missed a series of interesting shots with the 150-500 due to it wouldn't focus at all, and i was all over the subject. After a few hours of shooting the 150-500 just got worse and worse at focusing. But like i said this is just my experience and if im going to spend the time shooting wildlife i want reliable autofocus that doesn't depend on how long i use the camera, how cold it is outside, etc, and im sure thats one reason the why all the nikon/canon primes cost what they do, so much extra r/d and testing to make sure they just work.

I use my 500 many times a week for many hours, even all day sometimes, it always works and i never have to worry about it. Its so reliable i almost depend on it to work like its a piece of glass with no moving parts. I know thats not a good idea, but it just has not let me down.

and its not like I wanted to spend that kind of money on a lens, but after owning probably 5 or so different lenses over 300mm, and using pretty much the whole Nikon telephoto offering, I made my choice on it


----------



## apaflo

grafxman said:


> Sorry if I sound defensive. I'm just relating my personal experience regarding the Sigma 50-500mm and wildlife photography. I hope you're very happy with the Tamron. However when the day comes that you see a painted bunting, the most beautiful warbler in North America, at 5 or 6 feet in dim light and your Tamron won't focus I hope you recall our conversations here. I went to the Sigma 50-500mm after missing 3 important shots with Sigma's 150-500mm because the action was too close to focus and I needed a wider lens.



If that is your experience, perhaps your solution does work for your situation.  Given that you have at least  three camera bodies, my choice would have been to grab a second body equipped with a more appropriate lens.  That is because in my world there isn't yet a 10:1 zoom  worth mounting.  The Sigma 50-500mm isn't even close.  Compromising 1000's of shots to be able to use the same lens to shoot "3 important shots" isn't productive.

As for it's close focusing limits, the new Tamron 150-600mm happens to have exactly the same MFD as the Nikkor 80-400mm AF-S. Given the longer focal length, and the Tamron is a 4:1 zoom as opposed to a 5:1, Tamron appears to be providing a lens that will be very useful as a "lightweight" birder/wildlife tool compared to the heavy fixed focal length 500mm and 600mm lenses and with longer reach than the other available zooms.

Of particular interest are the MTF graphs.  The 10 lp/mm graph at 600mm is excellent, and indicates it will have above average contrast.  The 30 lp/mm graph shows an increasing difference between sagittal and meridional going from the center to the edges of the image.  That probably means increasing astigmatism and a less sharp image at  the edges than at the center.  Overall, it doesn't appear that it will be sharp wide open at maximum focal length compared to the Nikkor 80-400mm.   It remains to be seen how it will compare at 400mm and 500mm, especially when stopped down a bit.

Given the low price and the 600mm maximum focal length, I decided to pre-order the Tamron in hopes that it will fill a missing niche that will make it a very useful tool.


----------



## grafxman

I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:

IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.

Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:

IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.


----------



## LShooter

They look good to me!


----------



## Derrel

grafxman said:


> I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:
> 
> IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.
> 
> Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:
> 
> IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.



Well...if a lens's MFD is too long, there's always an extension tube. Of course, it's "ideal" if a lens can focus really close, but practical and design considerations often keep wildlife far enough away so that the MFD is **not** an issue. And besides, there's plenty of wildlife that you do not really WANT to be ultra-close to...bears, alligators, crocodiles, big cats, and so on. One of the reason's Canon's extension tubes are so SOLID, and heavy-duty is that they can be used on their 300,400,500,and 600mm lenses to bring the MFD way close, for people who CAN manage to get very close to subjects.


----------



## grafxman

Derrel said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing people here saying they have no use for a close focus lens for wildlife photography. How would you get a shot such as this one then:
> 
> IMG_8338 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> That shot was about 4-5 feet away. If the lens had been on the 7D instead of the 6D it would have been at 100mm or less instead of 138mm.
> 
> Here's a couple of other close shots at under 9 feet:
> 
> IMG_7087 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> IMG_9940 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> None of us have the ability to predict the future so we simply don't know when we will need a close focus lens. The simple fact is, as I have personally experienced it, when wildlife of any kind presents itself for photography, you and your gear should be ready and capable of making the shot. I would not have been able to make the above shots and many others without a Sigma 50-500mm lens. As I have stated elsewhere, I bought that lens to replace the excellent Sigma 150-500m which doesn't focus close enough to get those shots. I have encountered wildlife, such as that boar, that I was somewhat concerned that they might try climb through the car window and land on my lap! If you spend enough time in wildlife areas sooner or later you will likely experience the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...if a lens's MFD is too long, there's always an extension tube. Of course, it's "ideal" if a lens can focus really close, but practical and design considerations often keep wildlife far enough away so that the MFD is **not** an issue. And besides, there's plenty of wildlife that you do not really WANT to be ultra-close to...bears, alligators, crocodiles, big cats, and so on. One of the reason's Canon's extension tubes are so SOLID, and heavy-duty is that they can be used on their 300,400,500,and 600mm lenses to bring the MFD way close, for people who CAN manage to get very close to subjects.
Click to expand...


Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.


----------



## apaflo

grafxman said:


> Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.



The Sigma 150-500mm is not a particularly good lens, and perhaps a Sigma 50-500mm is better...  but the 500-500mm is a 10x zoom and it, as can be seen clearly from MTF charts, does not compare to truely good lenses either.

Given that you have multiple camera bodies a much better solution when riding in a car is to have two bodies, each with a different lens, ready for use.  I'd rather have a 500mm fixed focal length lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the other, or some such combination.

 Your lens selection includes not just that example, but two other zooms that are 10x or more!  Perhaps you shoot primarily for web display, in which case that might be good enough.  For those who intend to produce large prints a different set of lenses is necessary.

I spend a great deal of time outdoors in a wildlife area (I've seen polar bears, seals, snow owls, foxes, caribou, whales and what not from my front porch!).  But like most who do wildlife photography, my needs aren't geared for photography from a car.  I do that too but just as often I'm traveling on Arctic tundra with a 4-wheel ATV.  That means two things are necessary, in order of priority, a long focal length and high quality build.  At lower priorities,  I often carry two cameras and might have a 105mm macro lens for closeup work...   but I never have a need for long lenses to focus close.


----------



## grafxman

apaflo said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Derrel, I think you're missing the point I'm attempting to make here. I didn't manage to get close to any of those critters. They all came walking up to me or walked past me while I was sitting in my car. I would not have had any time at all to install an extension tube. When things like this happen and if you spend a lot of time outdoors they will happen, you need to be able to immediately take the shot. If I had stayed with my Sigma 150-500mm or some other lens that wouldn't focus under 9 feet, I wouldn't have got any of those shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sigma 150-500mm is not a particularly good lens, and perhaps a Sigma 50-500mm is better...  but the 500-500mm is a 10x zoom and it, as can be seen clearly from MTF charts, does not compare to truely good lenses either.
> 
> Given that you have multiple camera bodies a much better solution when riding in a car is to have two bodies, each with a different lens, ready for use.  I'd rather have a 500mm fixed focal length lens on one camera and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on the other, or some such combination.
> 
> Your lens selection includes not just that example, but two other zooms that are 10x or more!  Perhaps you shoot primarily for web display, in which case that might be good enough.  For those who intend to produce large prints a different set of lenses is necessary.
> 
> I spend a great deal of time outdoors in a wildlife area (I've seen polar bears, seals, snow owls, foxes, caribou, whales and what not from my front porch!).  But like most who do wildlife photography, my needs aren't geared for photography from a car.  I do that too but just as often I'm traveling on Arctic tundra with a 4-wheel ATV.  That means two things are necessary, in order of priority, a long focal length and high quality build.  At lower priorities,  I often carry two cameras and might have a 105mm macro lens for closeup work...   but I never have a need for long lenses to focus close.
Click to expand...


Clearly your needs and environment are radically different from mine and probably most folks. I live in FL which has abundant wildlife of all kinds. Much of it is close but then again, some of it is quite far away. My most recent photo expedition I shot wildlife at 1600mm with the SigMonster and a doubler. The Sigma 50-500mm was on one camera and the SigMonster was on another camera. Speaking of build quality I've read in many places that the SigMonster is second to none in build quality. BTW, I have a Canon printer, Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II, that produces 11" X 19" inch prints using pigmented inks. I've been happy with the results however everything I shoot does go to flickr.


----------



## apaflo

grafxman said:


> Clearly your needs and environment are radically different from mine and probably most folks. I live in FL which has abundant wildlife of all kinds. Much of it is close but then again, some of it is quite far away. My most recent photo expedition I shot wildlife at 1600mm with the SigMonster and a doubler. The Sigma 50-500mm was on one camera and the SigMonster was on another camera. Speaking of build quality I've read in many places that the SigMonster is second to none in build quality. BTW, I have a Canon printer, Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II, that produces 11" X 19" inch prints using pigmented inks. I've been happy with the results however everything I shoot does go to flickr.



 I doubt my needs vary that much from the norm.  Most wildlife photography is not done from a car window.  I'm past the age where I can hoof it for hours, but that is not an uncommon method for many.  The most commonly expressed need is for a longer lens.  

 And indeed your use of the SigMonster demonstrates exactly that.   Sigma is often criticized for poor quality control, but their build quality seems to be high enough.  Of course this discussion of an $8000 lens that can't focus closer than 18 feet is immaterial to the previous comments anyway.  It isn't an alternative to the Sigma 150-500mm, while the Sigma 50-500mm and the new Tarmon 150-600mm certainly are, along with the Canon and Nikon 400mm zooms.

  Okay on the print size, as that is essentially what I was refering to.  11x19 is not a "large format" print.  16x20 prints are, but at 20x24 and larger it really becomes significant.  I put images on the Internet for entertainment, but I sell large prints and shoot with that in mind.


----------



## robbins.photo

So would now be a good time to jump in with a "If you like your current lens, you can keep your current lens" comment?

eh, probably not.. lol


----------



## runnah

Is the OP still shocked or has it worn off?


----------



## matthewo

any sample photos from the 300-800 with the 2x.

I don't think I would even use a $17,000 Nikon 800mm with a 2x, for anything but maybe a moon shot.


----------



## grafxman

matthewo said:


> any sample photos from the 300-800 with the 2x.
> 
> I don't think I would even use a $17,000 Nikon 800mm with a 2x, for anything but maybe a moon shot.



Here's a few. Some are high ISO photos. In retrospect I should have used the 6D instead of the 7D. I shot a lot of video at 1600mm. Just search my photostream for 1600mm.

IMG_1131 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1366 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Here's the same shot at 500mm:

IMG_8321 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1159 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1372 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Note that the EXIF info says 800mm not 1600mm. That's because I taped the 3 pins so I could get autofocus with the view screen. It was very windy during the 2 weeks I was out. The air at Dinner Island Ranch was full of dust and the air at Merritt Island was full of moisture.


----------



## JacaRanda

Doggonit you will take and enjoy taking close up photos of wildlife because that is the definition of true wildlife photography.  Now get out there and find those insects.


----------



## coastalconn

runnah said:


> Is the OP still shocked or has it worn off?


LOL, this thread has changed quite a bit, but I still say the Sigma is very god for the money..

Now onto the more important things.  The Tamron 150-600 is looking like it has a pretty zippy AF motor.  The 7d does looks like it starts to struggle a bit at 600mm.  I'm not as familiar with Canon, but I'm guessing the outer focus point they use isn't a cross type?  These seem like much better tests than the "lens cap tests"
7D 






and some sample raw shots..  Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD ? Raw samples | CamAhoy!

Hopefully it will only be a few weeks until I have one in my hands, B&H lists January 17th, Adorama doesn't list a date yet..


----------



## coastalconn

Looks quite zippy on the 5dm3


----------



## snerd

Ya know, I've got a Sigma 150-500 and have hardly used it. Of course, I do have a Canon 70-200L II, but I think I'll take the BigMa out for some pics this weekend. Spread the joy around some. Yeah, that's the ticket!


----------



## grafxman

That's very impressive. The red twigs in the first video look like they're much closer than 9 feet. Now if it focuses OK in dim light and has a stability system as good as Sigma's then you might have a lens as good as your Sigma 150-500mm coastalconn.


----------



## apaflo

grafxman said:


> That's very impressive. The red twigs in the first video look like they're much closer than 9 feet. Now if it focuses OK in dim light and has a stability system as good as Sigma's then you might have a lens as good as your Sigma 150-500mm coastalconn.



 The MTF charts indicate the Tamron is going to be sharper and have higher contrast than either the Sigma 50-500mm or the Sigma 150-500mm, except for two strange quirks of the Sigma lenses.  Both Sigma lenses appear to have less astigmatism than the Tamron right at the edges of a cropped sensor camera but won't be as sharp closer to the center, at shorter focal lengths.  At longer focal lengths that is still true of the 50-500mm, but not for the 150-500mm which is worse than the Tarmron at 600mm all across the sensor with the Sigma showing less contrast, more astigmatism, and less sharpness.

Again though, for those who print large this tilts towards the Tamron, and for those who mostly post to the web the ultimate sharpness is not as important.  The extended short focal length range of the Sigma 50-500mm with a shorter minimum focusing distance might well be more signiicant to your work, while the extended long focal length range and higher IQ images might appeal more for what others need.


----------



## grafxman

apaflo said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very impressive. The red twigs in the first video look like they're much closer than 9 feet. Now if it focuses OK in dim light and has a stability system as good as Sigma's then you might have a lens as good as your Sigma 150-500mm coastalconn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MTF charts indicate the Tamron is going to be sharper and have higher contrast than either the Sigma 50-500mm or the Sigma 150-500mm, except for two strange quirks of the Sigma lenses.  Both Sigma lenses appear to have less astigmatism than the Tamron right at the edges of a cropped sensor camera but won't be as sharp closer to the center, at shorter focal lengths.  At longer focal lengths that is still true of the 50-500mm, but not for the 150-500mm which is worse than the Tarmron at 600mm all across the sensor with the Sigma showing less contrast, more astigmatism, and less sharpness.
> 
> Again though, for those who print large this tilts towards the Tamron, and for those who mostly post to the web the ultimate sharpness is not as important.  The extended short focal length range of the Sigma 50-500mm with a shorter minimum focusing distance might well be more signiicant to your work, while the extended long focal length range and higher IQ images might appeal more for what others need.
Click to expand...


Well said. However those charts don't seem to mention how good it's stability system is or how good it focuses in dim light. Those are two problems my Tamron suffers from. Those are areas my Sigmas do just fine in. The review I read that someone posted here also mentioned the new Tamron didn't like to focus in low light situations either. To my mind that makes it a great lens for shooting in controlled conditions where you have a tripod and plenty of light. However I never use a tripod for the Sigma 50-500mm. I don't even rest it on the door sill unless I have a doubler on it and I have yet to encounter a controlled condition in a wilderness area. Furthermore I can easily hand hold the Sigma 50-500mm lens at 500mm even it an awkward position. It's stability system is excellent.


----------

