[5711]

hi there



i got the problem of choosing a tele zoom for my canon.



the range should be like the 100-400L from canon



there are, however, alot of different products.



today i stumbled upon the

tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6,3 Di LD [IF]

and would like to know, if anyone has some info on this.



i need the tele zoom for animal photography in a city, mainly birds



i would like not to use the 100-400 since i already had quite some

troubles with dust after testing it once.

(on the ground, zooming, all dirty, clean it all the time, sucks)

also it has to be better protected against water...rain

and i do hate the pumpgun-alike-mechanism



what about the tamron 200-500 or sigma 120-300



right about now id go for the sigma, i do need some exercise anway..



any other sugestions?

trying to figure this out for two weeks now, and honestly

dnt know which one to choose..



any help highly appreciated



cheers

[popo]

Since I have two of those maybe I can add some thoughts.



It seems you've already decided against the 100-400L, or have you? I use the lens a LOT and it just doesn't give me any dust problems on a 7D. I've only had to clean the 7D sensor around 3 times in the two years or so I had it. The water resistance, or lack thereof, is a minor problem. I use it unprotected in moderate rain and after some time (some hours) you can get condensation forming on the internal optical elements. But it also dries out quickly afterwards. The question therefore is how much water are you likely to subject any lens to?



I recently also picked up the Sigma 120-300 OS. As far as I can see Sigma don't make any claims on water resistance on that either. I haven't really let it get wet yet, so I'm unsure how that performs. The internal zoom and focus means it does not have the extension which is the weak spot for water ingress of the 100-400L. In comparison though, it is a much heavier lens. Turning the zoom ring is much slower than the push-pull of the 100-400L. To my eyes, the image is slightly soft at f/2.8 and sharp at f/4 onwards. AF speed is comparable. No other image issues to report for now.



I haven't had a chance to try it with extenders yet, which is the main reason I got it, as I need more than 400mm with AF. I did not consider the 500mm class zoom lenses as they didn't offer enough over the 100-400L at the cost of their other problems. In particular I'd rule out the Tamron on the basis it has a backwards zoom ring and no HSM or VC.

[5711]

okay



maybe the 100-400 i tested had some issues already.

after all it had been a used lens



ive read about the softness of the sigma wide open, which is

almost too bad, since it was very interesting to me since it is

the faster lens, and that can be really great when shooting in a city,

following objects that suddenly get into a shadowy zone, which can happen quick here.



edit, as for the rain, got an promissing assignment this summer, but when all

odds are against me, it means i am in the woods for two weeks with downpouring rain..already got some lens covers for that, but that should awnser your questin about the water <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



anyway

that means to me i must test the 100-400 again.

goign to do that right now



cya and thx sofar

[popo]

Here's some samples I took from the 120-300 OS on 7D.





Gull - cropped sample shown. f/4 Note I had to do some shadow fishing here due to the lighting.





Coot - cropped sample shown. f/2.8





Swan - NOT cropped. f/2.8. Be careful not to confuse the thin DoF effects here with apparent lens softness.



Above images can be clicked through to my stock dA account where you can download the full size images. RAW processed in ACR with default sharpening in ACR only. Normally I'd use something stronger.



Basically while the images are a bit softer at f/2.8, it isn't excessive and I think for all but the most demanding of output sizes it is more than adequate.



I hope to be reunited with my teleconverters within the next week (they're out on loan) so I'll be exploring more of the lens capabilities then.

[Guest]

Before I went to u4/3 I used to have the excellent Sigma 100-300 f/4, which might be better if weight is a problem. It only weighed 1.5kg <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Built like lenses used to be before tbey started making them of plastic.

[5711]

well those images are fine.

the softness is quite..irretating i guess.

but nothing that could be helped of, like with raw editing.



i did have the a sigma 300mm f4macro which i used on my nikon d1x..that was probably

the best 300 ive seen sofar. in terms of resolution and sharpness.



i will test the canon 100-400 this day aswell, but i already kinda like it.

imagequality seems to be good. but this zooming mechanism..srsly annoying.



thx for your detailed post on the sigma 120-300



would be really interesting how it works with the extenders.

for me that would make it win over the canon..mainly because of the zoom mechanism ..

its fast, but rly annoying





i did however check your profile on dev.art. the first image got some srs

high quality. nothing to argue there

[5711]

now i had some time with the sigma and the canon



after running around with both lenses for several days i have to say, the weight of the sigma is

exhausting.



the zoom on the canon is damn fast if used to.

i am not there yet, but thats okay i guess.



image quality is great with both lenses.

100-400 on 400 is not that good, as can be seen

in the test on this page, but still, its good enough.



i do however miss the speed of the sigma with the canon lens.

but with 1k euros cheaper the canon 100-400l surly is one

hell of a good deal.



going for the 100-400 till i can afford a 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



thanks for your input, helped alot



cheers