# Sigma 150-500 vs Tamron 200-500mm



## itznfb

looking for some more reach over the 70-200mm x1.7 for my D90 eventual D300/400 but i don't want to carry a 500mm prime or spend anywhere near that much $$.


i've narrowed it down to either the Sigma 150-500mm or the Tamron 200-500mm.

from sample shots i've seen and actual lens copy consistency i'm leaning toward the Tamron. it's also $150 cheaper. but i'm not too familiar with Tamron and couldn't find any review or product descriptions saying if there was any type of stabilization built in. anyone know?

has anyone had experience with both of these?


----------



## johnmh

The Tamron is a bit older and not quite at the same level as the Sigma 150-500. The latter has Sigma's version of VR - OS. It's useful on long lenses.

I haven't used the Tamron but looked at it a while ago when looking for a long light 'carry' lens - I settled on the 150-500. I've had it in Colorado and Montana on hikes - it did what I wanted it to do. I've also used it for sports but it needs GOOD light for fast moving action to get fast shutter speeds. You can hand hold but a monopod helps. 

IMO, you get your money's worth with the 150-500 but it has limitations. It IS slow - give it time to focus in marginal light - it's at the limit of AF. ANY Teleconvertors will require manual focusing. 

I compared this to the Nikon 80-400 and Nikon 200-400. Shooting at 400mm wide open the SIgma gave better than expected results - sharper than the Nikon 80-400 and almost comparable to the 200-400. The Sigma does soften up as you get to 500mm but stepping down helps.  
IMO, the Nikon 80-400VR is dated and not worth the cost at this point. The Sigma gives you an internal focusing motor and OS/VR.   The 200-400 VR is a great lens - but large, heavy and expensive.

There are not a lot of long zooms going to 400/500mm for under $1000 and there's a huge jump to the next level where you're paying *thousandS.*

Just watch out for sample variability - though this seems to have improved lately.


----------



## Rere

If you look at the reviews of both lenses on Amazon, you'll soon see which is the better lens.

I'm also about to buy one of these, and so far the Sigma has it.


----------



## gsgary

Both are very slow lenses


----------



## Alokchitri

Sorry to resurrect this very old thread, but I am in a similar dilemma.
I have been through all the possible reviews I could find and I knew are respectable. It seems that the Tamron performs a little better than Sigma 150-500 at the extreme 500mm end. Though I understand that this lens does not have VC (OS for Sigma). Moreover 150-500 is not an EX lens, which is the mark of Professional lens from Sigma stable whereas Tamron is labeled as SP, indicating professional grade. I understand that these type of variable zooms are far from professional quality fixed aperture lenses, but at least Tamron declares it's to be better made...
So what is the members here think?
Thank you


----------



## KmH

Rere said:


> If you look at the reviews of both lenses on Amazon, you'll soon see which is the better lens.
> 
> I'm also about to buy one of these, and so far the Sigma has it.


The reviews on Amazon are not reliable.


----------



## KmH

Alokchitri said:


> Sorry to resurrect this very old thread, but I am in a similar dilemma.
> I have been through all the possible reviews I could find and I knew are respectable. It seems that the Tamron performs a little better than Sigma 150-500 at the extreme 500mm end. Though I understand that this lens does not have VC (OS for Sigma). Moreover 150-500 is not an EX lens, which is the mark of Professional lens from Sigma stable whereas Tamron is labeled as SP, indicating professional grade. I understand that these type of variable zooms are far from professional quality fixed aperture lenses, but at least Tamron declares it's to be better made...
> So what is the members here think?
> Thank you


I think the SP and EX designations are a marketing ploy. I had 2 of the Sigma 150-500 lenses. It was a great lens for the price, and the case for each lens had an EX logo on it. I sold enough sports action shots made with those 2 lenses to pay for both several times over, and replaced them with  2 Nikon 200-400 mm f/4's.


----------



## Alokchitri

KmH said:


> Rere said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the reviews of both lenses on Amazon, you'll soon see which is the better lens.
> 
> I'm also about to buy one of these, and so far the Sigma has it.
> 
> 
> 
> The reviews on Amazon are not reliable.
Click to expand...


Thanks Keith

I agree with you regarding Amazonian reviews...so which lens to go for? I wish there was a comprehensive test comparing these two, because some are saying that Tammy is little sharper at the longer ends and I know that beyond 400mm the sharpness of the Sigma drops considerably. But as I intend to use the lens mainly for Bird photography, sharpness is very important to me.


----------



## Markw

They need to make an affordable 150-500/4-5.6 or better, DX. I doubt they ever will, but if they did, I'd expect it to be much smaller, lighter, and much more affordable because of that. Een though this is already pretty affordable when you realize what you're getting out of it. sigma wins hands down out of these two. The Sigma 50-500 is even better in terms of IQ.


----------



## Alokchitri

Markw said:


> They need to make an affordable 150-500/4-5.6 or  better, DX. I doubt they ever will, but if they did, I'd expect it to be  much smaller, lighter, and much more affordable because of that. Een  though this is already pretty affordable when you realize what you're  getting out of it. sigma wins hands down out of these two. The Sigma  50-500 is even better in terms of IQ.



I completely agree  with you Mark regarding 150-500/4-5.6, they should come out with one.  80-400VR has long passed it's life cycle and I have heard that it is  going to be upgraded. My two cents on this that there will only be a  AF-S tag with this lens and obviously few $$$ higher pride tag. Still it  will not be compatible with even a 1.4x TC making it's zoom range  unattractive to bird photographers. 

Regarding Sigma there  seems to be copy to copy variation. I agree that 50-500 OS seems to be  doing better but the problem is that it costs quite a bit high, about  $600 and I already have part of it's zoom range in my bag and that also  from Nikkor, so actually it will be wastage in a way.

Between Tamron and Sigma 150-500, the *main differences* that I could spot are as follows:

-----------------------------*Tamron 200-500*      ------------------*Sigma 150-500 OS*

Max Aperture (wide):         ----------f5 --------------------------------------                           f5.6
*Min Focus*:                      ------------------2.5m                        ---------------------------------220cm ------- Interesting to note, 
Weight:                         ---------------------1237g                         -----------------------------------1910g ------- Interesting to note
Stabilization:                     --------------------X                               -----------------------------------------Y
AF Motor: -----------------------                       X                              ----------------------------------------HSM
Min Aperture:                  ----------------32                               -----------------------------------------22
*Lens Elements*:                -------------13 ----------------------------------------- 21---------- No idea which one is optically superior,* is it lesser the better*?
*Lens Groups*:                    ---------------10                              ------------------------------------------15---------- No idea which one is  optically superior, *is it lesser the better*?

For bird  photography, it is more common to use Sv >=1/500 and at this shutter  speed OS really does not matter, moreover at high shutter speeds it is  recommended to turn the OS off. I have also seen that for BIF and other  type of specific bird related scenarios, OS simply slows the focus down,  unless it's a bank breaking lens like Nikkor 500 f4 VR. So for these  low budget lenses, how much OS is helpful, I am not really sure! 

Now, *which one looks optically more impressive?*


----------



## Markw

I meant the original 50-500mm NON-OS.  That's quite a bit sharper than the 150-500, but lacks the OS.

Mark


----------



## baturn

150 - 500 at 500. Ive had this lens for about 1 year. Love it. But took a while to learn it's limitations. Mostly , lotsa light.


----------



## Markw

Wow. That's quite impressive! Looks nice and sharp to me. Handheld?

Mark


----------



## penfolderoldo

johnmh said:


> The Tamron is a bit older and not quite at the same level as the Sigma 150-500. The latter has Sigma's version of VR - OS. It's useful on long lenses.
> 
> I haven't used the Tamron but looked at it a while ago when looking for a long light 'carry' lens - I settled on the 150-500. I've had it in Colorado and Montana on hikes - it did what I wanted it to do. I've also used it for sports but it needs GOOD light for fast moving action to get fast shutter speeds. You can hand hold but a monopod helps.
> 
> IMO, you get your money's worth with the 150-500 but it has limitations. It IS slow - give it time to focus in marginal light - it's at the limit of AF. ANY Teleconvertors will require manual focusing.
> 
> I compared this to the Nikon 80-400 and Nikon 200-400. Shooting at 400mm wide open the SIgma gave better than expected results - sharper than the Nikon 80-400 and almost comparable to the 200-400. The Sigma does soften up as you get to 500mm but stepping down helps.
> IMO, the Nikon 80-400VR is dated and not worth the cost at this point. The Sigma gives you an internal focusing motor and OS/VR.   The 200-400 VR is a great lens - but large, heavy and expensive.
> 
> There are not a lot of long zooms going to 400/500mm for under $1000 and there's a huge jump to the next level where you're paying *thousandS.*
> 
> Just watch out for sample variability - though this seems to have improved lately.



The Sigma will focus with AF with Sigma's own teleconverters. Although it has an HSM, which makes it faster than the tamron, it's still not superfast. Here's a UK based seller, the reviews are from ordinary peeps, so maybe slightly more reliable, as they do publish all reviews, good or bad.


----------



## Alokchitri

Sorry to resurrect it again, but would like to update, because I have found many users still ask similar question on internet.

After waiting for nearly a year, I saved enough and bought a Nikon AF-S 300 f4 last Saturday. After going through numerous user experiences and reviews, I found that Nikkor 300 f4 with a Nikon 14II or Kenko Pro 300 DGx 1.4x TC is going to give me the best IQ and that also for affordable price.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for your help


----------



## Markw

That's true. But you lose the convenience of a zoom.  So, it really depends what you're looking for.

On the same token, there's a 50-500 OS now, which performs impeccably.  Also, from what I've heard, the 120-300/2.8*OS *is just as good as the 300/4 at F/4.  So, if you don't mind the weight, that's a great way to go as well.  But, it's $3200.

EDIT: For sharpness.  Resolution is quite a bit worse. 

Mark


----------



## shefjr

I bought the sigma about a month ago and love it. My only complaint is the image quality on an overcast day is lacking. On a sunny day it's great!


----------



## Alokchitri

I agree, but it seems that at this price Nikon 300 f4 provides the best IQ, I had to forgo the convenience of Zoom and VR, but it does not seem to be a loss, when I compare the price and IQ...


----------



## adichiru

I have the Sigma 150-500 for more than 2 years now and I cannot say I regret buying it.

This is just one example of what I could do with it:



Details: Sigma 150-500 at 500mm f/6.3, 1/100, ISO 400, OS on in position 1, auto-focus, hand-held on Nikon D5000. No sharpness was added in PP. I should mention that I made this photo after about 1 hour of walking with this camera+lens setup through a park (for those worried for the weight....).

It is not a fast lens as anyone can see from its description but there is no other lens that I know that can do the same within the same money.
It has limitations and it can be frustrating but in good conditions and after you learn it, you have good chances to be very satisfied.

Unfortunately on my new D7000 it's behavior is a little weird: at f11 - f22 the camera over exposes the images for some reason.... but I usually stop at f8. Also, I just encountered another interesting issue: while on tripod, attached to D7000 which was set to shoot in remote mode with mirror lock-up, in live-view with zoom for better focus on a building I press the button on the remote command and it focuses correctly, the mirror snaps up, so I cannot see anything anymore. At this point, with other lenses, I usually wait about 6 seconds to make sure the entire setup is not vibrating anymore and than press the remote again to take the picture. If I wait more than 2 seconds the image is totally blurred as if the camera was shaken vertically. I realized than that after about 2-3 seconds after it focuses a faint sound can be heard - I suppose it's either the OS mechanism or the focus lens that moves. If I release the shutter before that the image is fine.
I have yet to make the same test on my D5000 to see if this is an issue somehow also related to the camera.


----------



## Markw

If the camera is on a tripod, take the OS off.  It will blur the image, like you're saying here.  It is trying to compensate for motion, and, because it's on a tripod, there clearly is none.  So, you end up with a blurry image.  Try it with the OS off, and you shouldn't have any problem.

Mark


----------



## adichiru

That's a good idea! I heard about that but never actually considered it so slipped my mind completely!
It is interesting though that in the same setup the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 with VR on does not behave the same - I had only sharp pictures.

Thanks!


----------



## adichiru

You were right Markw. It was the OS. With OS disabled everything is fine. Also I have tested a little bit more the over-exposure problem and it appears now only from f/16 and up to f/22. At f/22 over exposes about 2 stops! But I never need it at f/22 anyway.

Thanks!


----------

