mclaren said:is the tamron soft at the 500 mark more than the sigma?
i would have gave you £350 for it no problems but the only point i have to say is i have a nikon and not canondanake2 said:Why not look here. I am selling my Sigma 170-500 f5-6.3 DG APO lens. What I think is a bargain price. PM if you are interested.
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370547
There's a review of supertelephotos in this month's 'photography monthly'. unfortunately the bigma isnt in it, but the tamron is rated better than all the others, including a canon 100-400 and nikon 80-400.Kite said:I've heard that the opposite is true...
There are some impressive images in DOC's gallery here http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=6414
with the Tamron.
Although there are good images in the gallery taken with the Sigma as well I imagine.
Cheers
K
those are quite nice shots - like the dof on them - the problem i have found with super teleporto lenses is the fact they are never sharp and that if you are in low light, you can only really use a small range in apature - do componsate for light even if you use a high iso and you have to use a slow ss anaw.Kite said:I've heard that the opposite is true...
There are some impressive images in DOC's gallery here http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=6414
with the Tamron.
Although there are good images in the gallery taken with the Sigma as well I imagine.
Cheers
K
you say that the sigma done better than the Nikkor 80-400 VR costing £1100?! wow, thats amazing!gordon g said:ikon 80-400.
I've always been very happy with the bigma - am on my second one having broken one last yr :-C
mclaren said:tamron 200 - 500 or sigma 50-500?
i need cheap glass but fast and good. is the tamron soft at the 500 mark more than the sigma?
thanks ppl 3
hi there - at the moment i have about £600 which isnt alot for a super teleporto - and no where near enough for a prime 400mm. i use a d50 atm but im looking at upgrading to a D200 or D2x/D2xs when the D3x comes out which should be soon.nez said:Hi ther Mclaren I myself use the Nikon 80-400mm vr lens which i find to be one of the sharpest zoom lenses on the market today nothing i have tested has come up to the standard of this lens the autofocus is slow but on a pro bodied nikon the focus is faster i personally recomend this lens .By the way you said you were on a budget how much can you afford to spend you mentioned the nikor400mm 2.8 superb in every way but rather heavy and very costly.
Hope the info helps by the way i use a nikon d200 with the lens
Thanks.
link isnt workingDOC said:I am a big fan of the Tamron 200-500 ( that's because i own one ....).
It is ( i think ) - the best bargain for the money . It is lighter than the Bigma thus enabling Hand held shots with great ease, and i find it sharper at 500 .
It has it's flaws : No HSM ( noisier ), zoom range is 200-500 and not 50-500 ( even though i have used my Tamron almost exclusively at the 500 m"m edge ).
In low light - it hunts ( but don't all the zoom lens ?), but you can still shoot excellent pictures with the right combination of Aperture and Iso settings.
You cannot use a TC with the Tamron .
A prime lens is always better - ( wish i had the 600m"m .. ), - but with a tight budget - i find the Tamron to be the ideal solution .
I believe thatMy Gallery is a good example of the Tamron's capabilities.
DOC said:Try this :
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/6414.
Bigma, Tamron, 80-400 - i don't think you'll regret any of these purchases. They all produce excellent images.
have to say that it does look a good lens though i have noticed some bokeh in some samples i googled up.Stuart R said:I'll second DOC who's use of the "Big T" is outstanding. You can see my poor efforts with the Big T at: - http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/11165
All of the shots are handheld or on a beanbag. The lens is easily carried and used quickly. As you can see, most shots were taken around Edinburgh and Musselburgh. It is a good lens , but it does like good light and that can be a problem in Edinburgh!
Cheers
Stuart R
Not sure I know what you mean there, Mclaren - do you mean bad bokeh?though i have noticed some bokeh in some samples i googled up.