Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
The only thing that the Bigma really has over the Tamron is the ultrasonic focus motor. IQ wise, the Tamron is demonstrably superb, and loses nothing to the Bigma there.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
overall, which is better... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mclaren
- Start date
paul goode
Well-known member
mclaren said:
I think DOC has said it about the Tamron and my findings with the Sigma are that they aren't much use with a converter.
I also doubt very much that either lens is any use at all for professional sports photography. In that environment these lenses attached to a consumer grade camera have 'sedate' autofocussing speeds. To get into that field will need an enormous financial commitment in genuinely fast prime lenses and professional grade bodies, unless Snail racing takes off big time.
rezMole
Well-known member
DOC said:
Agree totally with DOC. I've been using the Tamron for over a year now and have no complaints. Even in the UK, in dull light, it does well for the cost (see My gallery).
I do find that i ofen use it in manual focus - mainly because i find it faster - i am used to using an old Canon A1 which was manual). At 500mm, from what i've read in a number of magazine reviews, the Tamron is very sharp in comparison to many other zoom lenses, even wide open, which is a big plus. (I usually put info about shutter speeds on most of the pictures in my gallery).
I choose this lens over the Sigma mainly because it is lighter and more manageable than the Sigma 50-500. Like DOC, i nearly always use it at 500mm. It isn't silent, but the birds you will be using it to photograph won't be close anyway, so this has never been a problem.
As for using a teleconverter - i'd say never use one, on the Tamron or the Sigma.
I would thoroughly recommend the Tamron (and i'm not someone who is "devoted" to Tamron - my "next" purchase will probably be the fast Sigma 300mm prime).
paul goode
Well-known member
Putting sports photography to one side and going back to wild bird photography I had a delve through the records to try to find the most stupid set of camera settings at which the 50-500 still produced a good image and came up with this:
ISO800, f5.6 (as reported), 1/40 sec (!) @ 500mm
ISO800, f5.6 (as reported), 1/40 sec (!) @ 500mm
Attachments
DOC
Well-known member
I owe my great enthusiasm for the Tamron to rezMole ( and Rob chace ) - who heartly recommended the lens to me over a year ago. I have never regreted the moment i bought it.
As for the Bigma - Paul - you have showed this amazing photo which is the actuall proof of the Bigma's capabilities in the right hands and settings ( i also assume it was shot with a tripod ). Using a tripod will result in extremely sharp photos , but being a lazy one like myself - i don't fancy carrying a tripod with me - and that's why i love the Tamron .
As for the Bigma - Paul - you have showed this amazing photo which is the actuall proof of the Bigma's capabilities in the right hands and settings ( i also assume it was shot with a tripod ). Using a tripod will result in extremely sharp photos , but being a lazy one like myself - i don't fancy carrying a tripod with me - and that's why i love the Tamron .
paul goode
Well-known member
DOC said:
Thanks for the comments DOC. I do think that its your belting images that have resulted in many puchases of the Tamron.
The Robin image was taken with the lens on a beanbag, my favoured support for the lens. I appear to live in a world of permanent twilight so I always planned to use the lens supported somehow, hence any weight issues never bothered me.
In hot, sunny climes I'm sure that the ability to travel light becomes a major factor and undoubtedly the Tamron is the sensible choice. In the murky weather of the UK maybe that HSM motor gives the Sigma the advantage, although not if you can use MF! I've got a duff eye and have to rely on the AF system, so I tried to go for the best AF I could afford.
Paul
rezMole
Well-known member
DOC said:Maybe i should ask Tamron for my share of the profit .....
Maybe i should too. I have recommended the lens to a good half dozen people on BF - many in private messages. I dreaded doing it the first couple of times - just in case other people's opinions didn't match mine and they hated it! Luckily, everyone who went on to buy one seems more than happy with it.
I'd still like a Nikon 600mm prime though!
paul goode
Well-known member
mclaren said:
If it is 2 months old it must be a DG so that is an absolute bargain.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Heh!rezMole said:
Been there myself with the Sigma 80-400mm OS - I've had tons of enquiries about that lens since I got mine.
So far, so good...
rb_stern
Richard stern
Tamron 200-500 and Nikkor 80-400
My Nikkor 80-400VR (the Nikon version of IS on a Canon) broke a while back (my dropping it just may have contributed!), and I decided that I would buy a 2nd long lens, but it would have to be cheaper than the 80-400. After a lot of research on the web, I bit the bullet and bought a Tamron 200-500mm. zoom, without VR, and with a Nikon mount. The dSLR pics I have posted here within the last 6 weeks have been with that lens. I now have the 80-400 back, so now - which am I going to use as my standard bird photography lens, and which as the spare or for other photos?
Points for and against -
Quality of image -- About equal
Weight -- Tamron is lighter, and therefore can be carried longer in the field
Length (and therefore ability to fit in my camera bag) -- Nikkor
Sharpness in bright light -- About equal
Sharpness in dim light -- Nikkor, because of VR
Suitability for non-birding photography -- Nikkor, because the 80- 200mm. focal length range is covered.
I was thinking of selling one of them, but I think I'll keep them both, for slightly different purposes, and for next time one of them needs repair.
Here are 3 composite images of thr same subjects, a few seconds apart, at the maximum focal length, and hand-held - i.e. what I would normally use for birds - in each case the left hand image at 500mm. is the Tamron, and the right hand, at 400mm. is the Nikkor - these are straight from the Raw (nef) file with no post-processing or even sharpening applied apart from down-sizing for the web. I can see almost no difference in sharpness or image quality in this bright light, even in the original large images, but the extra 100mm. reach of the Tamron, + its lighter weight, means that I will be using it most of the time as my prime birding lens.
The exifs are -
Pic 1 Tamron, 1/800, f6.3, Nikkor 1/1000, f5.6
pic 2 Tamron, 1/400, f6.3. Nikkor 1/640, f5.6
Pic 3 Tamron, 1/400, f6.3, Nikkor 1/500, f6.0
Richard
##########
Richard Stern
317 Middle Dyke Rd.,
RR#1 Port Williams,
NS, Canada, B0P 1T0
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
##########
My Nikkor 80-400VR (the Nikon version of IS on a Canon) broke a while back (my dropping it just may have contributed!), and I decided that I would buy a 2nd long lens, but it would have to be cheaper than the 80-400. After a lot of research on the web, I bit the bullet and bought a Tamron 200-500mm. zoom, without VR, and with a Nikon mount. The dSLR pics I have posted here within the last 6 weeks have been with that lens. I now have the 80-400 back, so now - which am I going to use as my standard bird photography lens, and which as the spare or for other photos?
Points for and against -
Quality of image -- About equal
Weight -- Tamron is lighter, and therefore can be carried longer in the field
Length (and therefore ability to fit in my camera bag) -- Nikkor
Sharpness in bright light -- About equal
Sharpness in dim light -- Nikkor, because of VR
Suitability for non-birding photography -- Nikkor, because the 80- 200mm. focal length range is covered.
I was thinking of selling one of them, but I think I'll keep them both, for slightly different purposes, and for next time one of them needs repair.
Here are 3 composite images of thr same subjects, a few seconds apart, at the maximum focal length, and hand-held - i.e. what I would normally use for birds - in each case the left hand image at 500mm. is the Tamron, and the right hand, at 400mm. is the Nikkor - these are straight from the Raw (nef) file with no post-processing or even sharpening applied apart from down-sizing for the web. I can see almost no difference in sharpness or image quality in this bright light, even in the original large images, but the extra 100mm. reach of the Tamron, + its lighter weight, means that I will be using it most of the time as my prime birding lens.
The exifs are -
Pic 1 Tamron, 1/800, f6.3, Nikkor 1/1000, f5.6
pic 2 Tamron, 1/400, f6.3. Nikkor 1/640, f5.6
Pic 3 Tamron, 1/400, f6.3, Nikkor 1/500, f6.0
Richard
##########
Richard Stern
317 Middle Dyke Rd.,
RR#1 Port Williams,
NS, Canada, B0P 1T0
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
##########
Attachments
I've done quite a bit of research on both of these lenses... I don't own either (yet) however my local camera store had them both in stock the last time I went in and I mounted both of them on my Nikon D50... I prefered the feel of the Tamron, it was considerably lighter. The reviews and comparisons I've read also seem to favor the Tamron (especially at 500mm which is where I'm sure I'll use it the most). I will be purchasing the Tamron in less than a month hopefully
gmax
Sontium Dweller
DOC said:
I'm very satisfied with the 'Ilovegoodlight' Tamron which I recommend quality/price - wise, and I've got nothing to add except that the Gratulatoria list is now longer: thank you Doc for the good advice
I just regret not using it very often in these days, due to my recently arrived Canon prime, but I promise to exploit again this great lens asap
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Glad you've made your choice, Mclaren, so I'll just add this: the photographer can make up for - or waste - any theoretical advantage of one lens over another.
Regardless of how good the lens is, it's down to the photographer to get the best of it.
I mention this because there have been innumerable threads on here from people who have bought lens X because other people have done well with it, used it for a week or two (without learning to use it properly) and given up on it as a bad job.
Even dafter, they've gone on to buy some other, more expensive lens "because it's a better lens" and got no better results - the fact is, they were the problem, not the first lens.
Regardless of how good the lens is, it's down to the photographer to get the best of it.
I mention this because there have been innumerable threads on here from people who have bought lens X because other people have done well with it, used it for a week or two (without learning to use it properly) and given up on it as a bad job.
Even dafter, they've gone on to buy some other, more expensive lens "because it's a better lens" and got no better results - the fact is, they were the problem, not the first lens.
