-
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... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mclaren
- Start date
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
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370547
Kite
Well-known member
mclaren 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
Last edited:
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 always been very happy with the bigma - am on my second one having broken one last yr :-C
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 thought about getting the nikkor 400mm f2.8 prime but its a little out of ma range at £4k
you say that the sigma done better than the Nikkor 80-400 VR costing £1100?! wow, thats amazing!gordon g said:
as for broken sigma, i never wana do that to any of mine - would hate not to have a long lens lol.
its soo hard knowing which to buy cos some poeple say one others say the other... and tbh, i am on a budget lol and weight of the tamron is one thing which has made me go towards tamron very slightly
nez
Camera Gear Nikon D300 with 300 2.8 AFS VR lens
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 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.
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:
the 80-400VR looks a good lens and seems sharp but at £1100 is a tad out of my range atm.
Can you put a 1.4tc / 2.0 tc on the lens? i know u can put them on but some lenses the quality goes
im actually in the middle of putting together a portfolio as i woudl like to get in to the professional side of photography - would like to shoot sports photography mainly - wont touch weddings lol.
nikon and canon have similer price structures - i can get the 400mm for £4k brand new so about the same as yourslef on $9-10 aus.
sometimes though, its cheaper to get them imported from hongkong rather than buying from the shop as they do the same to get them and add on more money
sometimes though, its cheaper to get them imported from hongkong rather than buying from the shop as they do the same to get them and add on more money
paul goode
Well-known member
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Yikes!
That's sharp.
That's sharp.
DOC
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
DOC 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
Last edited:
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:
How fast is the lens? after looking at yours and doc's pics i have to say it looks sharp enough. the speed of the lens is important 2 me - i have a 70-300 sigma and its quite fast - same with my nikkor 18-55.
did look at the 80-400 VR but the price is sharp - concidering the prices of the usa to here but i can get a 200-500 for a decent price.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Not sure I know what you mean there, Mclaren - do you mean bad bokeh?
All lenses give some kind of bokeh - the word just refers to the (subjective) "quality" of the out-of-focus parts of the picture.
Do you consider the Sigma 70-300mm to be fast?
At f/4 - f/5.6 it's not the slowest lens in the world, but (for example) my Canon 100-400mm IS and Sigma 80-400mm OS are both f/5.6 at the long end, and yet one of the most common critiicms levelled against either lens is that they need to be faster.
Last edited:
DOC
Well-known member
The Sigma 70-300 is NOT a fast lens. ( i have one ) .
Neither is the Tamron. -( but it's WAY better than the Sigma 70-300)
Remeber - good lighting is IMPORTANT for good results - the Tamron loves sunshine.
A 500 F\4 - is fast . A 300 F\2.8 is very fast .
The zoom lens that go to 500 F \6.3 are not fast - BUT:
One cannot have it all and at the same time get it for a bargain . Fast lens cost money , and it all sums up to what you need the lens for...
If you are a Pro photographer - go only Prime lens, but for amateur photography with a tight budget - get the best at the lowest cost .
I find the Tamron's Bukeh to be even better than the Bigma's . ( from what i have seen with the Bigma's photos ).
Overall - the Bigma is looked upon as maybe the best long zoom lens at it's category - But i think the Tamron is at least as good .
Neither is the Tamron. -( but it's WAY better than the Sigma 70-300)
Remeber - good lighting is IMPORTANT for good results - the Tamron loves sunshine.
A 500 F\4 - is fast . A 300 F\2.8 is very fast .
The zoom lens that go to 500 F \6.3 are not fast - BUT:
One cannot have it all and at the same time get it for a bargain . Fast lens cost money , and it all sums up to what you need the lens for...
If you are a Pro photographer - go only Prime lens, but for amateur photography with a tight budget - get the best at the lowest cost .
I find the Tamron's Bukeh to be even better than the Bigma's . ( from what i have seen with the Bigma's photos ).
Overall - the Bigma is looked upon as maybe the best long zoom lens at it's category - But i think the Tamron is at least as good .
