Tamron 150-600 G2 or Sigma 150-600 C on the R7? (1 Viewer)

[schmidtbence92]

I have the Sigma for a year now, and the R7 for more than half a year. Accepting the camera's main flaws with the rolling shutter and stuff, I have 2 main issue:

1: The infamous pulsing. Is it at least a little bit better with the Tamron, or it's the same?
2: MFD: I really like shooting hoverflies, butterflies, dragonflies in flight, and especially with hoverflies, the sigmas 2,8 meters MFD is a bit rough.

So I know that changing to the Tamron would be an upgrade regarding the second one. But how about the first one?

And I'm mainly a BIF shooter, I do that 70% of the time, so my main concern would be the AF speed. There are controlled tests on youtube where the Tamron seems waaaay slower than the Sigma, other reviews say that it's even faster. So I'm completely confused about this.

I would also ask about sharpness, but I guess it should kinda be the same unsless I would really pixelpeep, and even then it would be barely noticable.

 

[KarlK]

I've tried the Tamron and in my experience there is quite a lot of focus pulsing so I expect that it's similar to the Sigma (which I haven't tried). If I were you I would consider RF100-400 or RF100-500 depending on budget. In my experience the RF native lenses AF performs a lot better. They both also have a much better MFD than 2.8 meters, if I remember correctly the 400 is just below 1m and the 500 is slightly above 1m.

I own a RF100-400 and have tried the 500 on a few occasions and compared to the Tamron I'm very happy with the AF performance when shooting BIF for both lenses. When using the Tamron I've still gotten good shots but it's not even close to how accurate the RF lenses are in my opinion.

So to answer your question I don't think it's worth getting a Tamron if focus pulsing is your main concern. Although I can't answer if it's better than the Sigma.

 

[tomtompl]

I've been using Tamron plus R6 for year and a change. Judging by the comments in the internet, I lean into the theory that one needs to get lucky with the Tamron, since my copy does not pulse, AF is OK and - the most important - I made a few acceptable photos of birds in flight.

 

[SteveT100]

I have the Sigma for a year now, and the R7 for more than half a year. Accepting the camera's main flaws with the rolling shutter and stuff, I have 2 main issue:

1: The infamous pulsing. Is it at least a little bit better with the Tamron, or it's the same?
2: MFD: I really like shooting hoverflies, butterflies, dragonflies in flight, and especially with hoverflies, the sigmas 2,8 meters MFD is a bit rough.

So I know that changing to the Tamron would be an upgrade regarding the second one. But how about the first one?

And I'm mainly a BIF shooter, I do that 70% of the time, so my main concern would be the AF speed. There are controlled tests on youtube where the Tamron seems waaaay slower than the Sigma, other reviews say that it's even faster. So I'm completely confused about this.

I would also ask about sharpness, but I guess it should kinda be the same unsless I would really pixelpeep, and even then it would be barely noticable.

I had the Sigma 150-600 but for BIF consider the newer RF 100-500