[SRoyC]

Hello friends





I use Nikon D90 with Nikkor 70-300G VR lens. I have been looking for some options for a longer reach and internet seems to be filled with Sigma 150-500 OS and Sigma 50-500 OS versions as recommended budget tele-zooms. Now there is one more from Nikkor, 80-400 f4.5/5.6. I almost settled my mind on 150-500OS version as it complements my 70-300VR better.

Now one of my Facebook photographer friend, who swears by Photozone, strongly recommended Tamron 200-500 Di version. I read the photozone review of this lens and it seems to be alright, more so if I stop down the lens to f8. I tried to find whether there is any comparative test between Siggy 150-500OS and Tammy 200-500 SP Di version, but there is none from reputed sites.

So may I ask the opinion of the members here about which lens would give me better IQ (150-500OS or 200-500 SP Di)? Is there any comparative test between these two lenses?



Please understand that I shall not be able to afford higher primes which are simply out of my reach.



Please help.

Thank you

[frank]

I think a big problem with the Tamron 200-500 is that it has no VC. Personally I would wait for an upgrade version of the Nikon 80-400 which is wished to have better IQ and faster AF.

[SRoyC]

Thanks for your reply Frank.

I understand your point regarding upgraded 80-400, but still the focal length will be 100mm (150 for my camera) short. And I think the price will be near $2000, just double of Tamron 200-500. Now as I am going to buy a zoom lens after all and I already have the 70-300VR from Nikkor, will it be judicious to spend almost double of Tamron for only 100mm extra reach? What would you say?

[frank]

[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1311876220' post='10293']

Thanks for your reply Frank.

I understand your point regarding upgraded 80-400, but still the focal length will be 100mm (150 for my camera) short. And I think the price will be near $2000, just double of Tamron 200-500. Now as I am going to buy a zoom lens after all and I already have the 70-300VR from Nikkor, will it be judicious to spend almost double of Tamron for only 100mm extra reach? What would you say?

[/quote]



Yes, if you decide to keep your 70-300vr then it probably does not make sense to purchase an 80-400. I noticed that some professional photographers use the Tamron 200-500 so I think it is a good lens with nice ballence among the IQ, price, and weight (the corresponding Sigmas are much heavier). But I feel that the Tamron lens is a little bit old and probably it will be upgraded to a VC version not too long (who knows). And of course for bird shooting this is not a best lens due to its slow aperture. Perhaps it is good for shooting animals that move not very fast and in good light condition.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1311919753' post='10297']

Yes, if you decide to keep your 70-300vr then it probably does not make sense to purchase an 80-400. I noticed that some professional photographers use the Tamron 200-500 so I think it is a good lens with nice ballence among the IQ, price, and weight (the corresponding Sigmas are much heavier). But I feel that the Tamron lens is a little bit old and probably it will be upgraded to a VC version not too long (who knows). And of course for bird shooting this is not a best lens due to its slow aperture. Perhaps it is good for shooting animals that move not very fast and in good light condition.

[/quote]

Birds tend to sit very still <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />....



Even if they move, one tends to be "birding" with good light, making a f6.3 aperture not really a big issue.



A bigger issue is AF tracking with bird in flight photography (when the bird is flying away or towards the camera).

[frank]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1311921195' post='10298']

Birds tend to sit very still <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />....



Even if they move, one tends to be "birding" with good light, making a f6.3 aperture not really a big issue.



A bigger issue is AF tracking with bird in flight photography (when the bird is flying away or towards the camera).

[/quote]



What do you think about the IQ of Tamron 200-500? I see very few review on this lens.



Frank

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1311922153' post='10299']

What do you think about the IQ of Tamron 200-500? I see very few review on this lens.



Frank

[/quote]

I have the same sources as you, never used the lens myself. It seems impressive for the price, I just do not like the bokeh much, and the CA is a bit high for a long tele. And of course



Lots of review of the Tamron actually, but trying to find them for the Sigmas, THAT is hard.

The Sigma 50-500 OS also has visible CA in the corners, but I like that it offers image stabilization. And it feels less of a "plastic toy" than the Tamron.



I think both are capable of good results at the long end, no idea about how they compare focus breathing wise. The Sigma obviously is quite a bit more expensive, but offers HSM, OS and a more sturdy feel.



I can't help you in your choice....

[SRoyC]

Thanks everyone for being kind enough to post here



Though the Sigma 150-500 is an HSM lens, there is not much of a confirmation how good the auto focus is, is it fast enough to track a flying bird? I have also read that the sharpness of the lens at 500mm end is sharper than that of 150-500...so things are pretty confusing to me. What about the CA? I am yet to find any comprehensive test report on CA factor of both these lenses at the extreme end. I am more tempted towards sharpness and contrast, both seems to be better at the extreme for Tamron. One more thing that strikes me is, without a Motor Tamron costs almost the same as Sigma which features both OS and HSM. If price dictates quality (considering both have almost the same Brand Value as Third party lens manufacturer), then Tamron should give better IQ.



At the end I am still very much confused... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[frank]

I don't understand why photozone does not test Tamron 200-500 again (on FX body). In certain sense this is a charming lens since it has an attractive focus range, it is not expensive but has a good IQ, and in addition it has a very light weight in the class.



Frank

[SRoyC]

I agree with you Frank...moreover, I think they should bring out a comparative test between the budget Long Zooms from both Tamron and Sigma (I am not even considering Tokina, I know it's a crap)