Tamron 200-500mm vs. sigma 170-500mm (1 Viewer)

gmax said:

Hello Steve, thank you for your appreciation.
As soon as I can, since my RAWs are stored at home, I'll bring them here in my office and upload .. in any case, if the shot is good from the start, there's no night-and-day difference between the two of them: I apply just a small amount of sharpening, and take care of blurring the background when possible.

Apparently there's no easy solution to the problem mentioned: it's a structural limit.
I find quite cumbersome switching the AF/MF button, aim and switch again... usually there's no time enough to do that (or I'm not that good at it); it works for static subjects though, especially when there are twigs and branches in between, making AF struggle.
What I usually do is aiming at the point where I expect the subject coming (usually infinite) and focus on a nearby object: in this way, I'm quite prepared and need only fine tuning; it goes withouth saying that you MUST know your spot, understand what your most frequent opportunities are and CHOOSE what your next subject will be ... Murphy's Law always applies here, when I set my rig for a wader in the mudflat, a raptor appears over the reedbed, when I wait for a seagull diving in the pond, a wren pops up foraging on the ground .. that's the funny part of our hobby! :-O

As for flight shots, I try to be as precise as possible, I wait for the subject to be quite close and autofocus ONLY when the focus point IS on the subject (and TRY to keep the focus on it), so a good panning technique is quite useful ... or, if the bird is flying, say, from left to right, I quickly anticipate it and AF on an object roughly on the same plane, then come back on the subject.
As you can see, there's no one single recipe for any situation, except buying a FMF lens ... just kidding, I do believe that lots of practice make life easier ...
Cheers,
Max

Click to expand...

Telecorder said:

Distance to subject, subject size and IQ of the lens are all inter-related. -- The first two correlate to determining the long end needs and the latter is strongly related to cost.

Mothman13 did a chart for a Nikon D80 with a 1.5X crop Factor for different FOV image sizes (18mm - 500mm)...

http://www.pbase.com/mothman13/image/74511515 (5 - 30 feet)
http://www.pbase.com/mothman13/image/74511517 (35 - 60 feet)

Evaluate your intended subjects' sizes in light of his FOV chart above.... A perched Bald Eagle is ~24" tall. At 200' the field of view for a 500mm lens is ~72" so the subject would occupy ~1/3 of the vertcal FOV. In my experience, cropping more than 1/3 - 1/2 to fill the FOV is when your IQ starts to degrade.

If you're anticipating a 'birding' lens for use out and about, then at least 500mm should, and eventually will probably be, your goal.

Having done the same due diligence, my research indicated the consensus for moderately priced ($500-1,000) alternatives (Nikon-mount) to get to 500mm seems to be--

300 f/4 + TC
Bigma
Tamron 200-500 Di

--FWIW, The Sigma 170-500 seems to be a hit or miss with good copies

--The 300 f/4 + TC has best IQ but is a bit more pricey and is a fixed focal length

--The Tamron has a bit slower AF in lower light and IQ better in the 300 range

--The Bigma has the better AF and contrast; especially in lower light, compared to the Tamron

--All best shot on stable tripod but, it good light, can produce good images w/monopod or good hand holding techniques and faster shutter speeds/higher ISO if needed.

Availability of used copies seem to be in reversed order:
--Bigma most available
--Tamron 200-500
--300 f/4


If low light/poor shooting conditions are prevalent (such as cloudy UK et al), all seem to be frustrating due to slower long end apertures. In good light/shooting conditions, with good techniques, can produce some good-great images.

The Bigma with a Kenko Pro DG 300 Pro 1.4X TC will still AF... Using the Sigma EX 1.4X TC, with the initial pin taped, will also allow AF. As one would expect, low light and/or poor contrast will cause more AF hunting when using a TC. Operator experience & technique also will play a large part in consistent results but it all starts with quality glass -- especially as the distance to subject increases and/or subject size decreases.

A lot of my images in my wildlife galleries are hand held with the Bigma/D50.


My personal Bigma review after 3-months of shooting last year--
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=181762#post181762

User survey of performance ratings for various lenses--
http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp

Bigma Reviews-- (Some for Canon Mount)
--www.lonestardigital.com/Sigma_50-500.htm
--web.archive.org/... .../8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50500_463/index.htm
--www.fredmiranda.com/... ...roduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
--www.naturescapes.net/092003/hf0903.htm
--www.vividlight.com/Articles/413.htm
--www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-50-500mm-f4-63-EX-DG-APO-HSM
--www.creationview.com/Review9.html
--shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0101sb_megazoom/
--www.photographyreview.com/... .../sigma/PRD_84817_3128crx.aspx
--www.polkcountycameraclub.com/articles/Sigma50-500mm.html


In the end, I'd recommend the Bigma as one of the best 500mm lens for its price point, IQ and versatility. If your budget is limited, then a feeding station/blind to close the subject distance would be the way to go.

Click to expand...

Beth_W737 said:

Can anyone give me advice for a lens? I have a Pentax K10D, and am going to Costa Rica in the spring (March/April), and wanted a good lens for wildlife/rain forest photos...currently have 18-55 kit lens and 50-200, but not thrilled with them...I'd been wanting a longer reach lens but am not sure whether I'd be better off getting a 400 or 500 mm lens, or a faster 2.8 lens (ie, 200 mm 2.8 or 300 mm 4). Can anyone give me some advice?

Beth

Click to expand...