Tamron 200-500mm or Sigma 170-500mm

[1963bus]

Hi Adam & Dave

I know neither lens is rated that much and both being at the bottom for 500mm zooms, I have the bigma and not having much luck with that and it cost double [this is no doubt down to me but I'm trying everything I can].

From what I see and read on all forums it seems the sharpest images have been on primes, trouble is we don't have thousands to spend.

We have to make do with what we can afford and live with the fact we won't be getting the sharpest of images, either that or give up

From the reviews I've read Adam, both the Sigma and the Tamron have a slow noisy motors to drive the autofocus.

Perhaps I can talk him into macro photography

Cheers for all the help and replies.

Brian.

[pressld2]

If you already have a bigma then I doubt you'll see any advantage from either of the ones you're looking at now.

Originally Posted by 1963bus

From what I see and read on all forums it seems the sharpest images have been on primes, trouble is we don't have thousands to spend.

I know that feeling well. They are hideously expensive but primes definitely give sharper images than zooms with the possible exception of the very high end pro zooms like the Nikon 200-400mm F4. But that lens will knock over £4000 off your bank balance too!

When I went digital in 2005 I bought a very cheap plastic 70-300mm lens so that I'd have something to use while saving like mad for my 80-400mm. But if you like at images in the Gallery from people using bigmas and compare them to mine with the 80-400 you'll probably still stick with the bigma!

Dave P.

[1963bus]

Originally Posted by pressld2

If you already have a bigma then I doubt you'll see any advantage from either of the ones you're looking at now.

It's for my 13 year old Son Dave, he saved up for the D40x but only has the kit lens [18-55mm] which isn't any good for wildlife photograhpy, Connor likes coming out with me but most of the venues we go to require a longer lens.

Knowing Connor he wouldn't be happy with either of these lenses anyway

[squishy]

I was enthusiastic about trying to photograph birds and stuff as well, when I was looking at cameras. It is just a shame that the fact is you can't get quality without the price tag or experience.

I have seen some really nice photos taken with the sigma (I've done some looking just now) so it seems if you get good light and you're persistent you will get some really good photos. They'll just be a little harder to get

Somebody on WAB posted a really good way of saying something (sorry, I can't remember who, so I can't credit you ): that telephoto lenses don't bring the far subjects close, they bring the close subjects closer. Even a long lens isn't substitute for learning the spots and skills that get you closer to your subjects.

I would recommend trying macro. you can get a very good quality macro lens for a lot less then a high quality ultra telephoto, and you get a lot of opportunities.


I understand why Connor wants a long lens (I really wish I could have one too). It's all those times i go out with my little fuji and see a whitethroat (or any bird, special or not) 5 meters away, but can't get close enough for a photographically good shot with my 300mm (equiv of only ~180mm on a APS-C). It's those times I just wish I could buy (or justify buying) a DSLR and the best lens I could possibly afford. But I can't buy one (or really hypothetically justify buying one)


If he does get one of these lenses, at least it would be educational, and he'll quite probably get a few really nice photographs!

[1963bus]

Hi Adam

Connor has shown a little interest in macro photography in the past though talking him into this as a preference isn't the perfect answer, I love bird photography, it's the getting up and going out, never knowing whats out there that does it for me.

This is a passion I share with Connor and we go out together, Connor trying to improve on his images sold his FZ28 and puchased the D40x. Obviously now he needs the lenses to go with that and as I quickly learnt, they're the most expensive bit.

We are now considering holding back on these two lenses and getting him the Sigma 150-500 O.S. lens, from what I've read it seems better than these pair and on par with the bigma [though this is only from what I've read].

Hopefully we'll get there in the end

Thanks again for your help with the lens issue above, the link you provided explained what I couldn't get my head round

Cheers
Brian.

[squishy]

that's probably a very good choice .

I have seen some stunning images taken with that lens, so in the right conditions it certainly can perform well. It does seem that if you drop back to F8 at 400mm it can be a sharp lens. Have a look at this review www.stockholmviews.com/sigma_150-500_os That review has a lot of comparison images at F/8 and shows the quality you can get (and it's a very easy review to read )

good luck

[lang]

HI 1963 Bus,
Similar problem to yours.
Would be interested in knowing what you went with.
Regards,
Lang

[astle9]

I own a D40x and the body does not have auto focus but you can use non auto focus lenses with it but obviously you manually focus plus a small green light in the viewfinder will tell you when focus has been achieved, it turns you from a point and shoot into a photographer and i love it, you need to plan your compositions better and plan your captures in advance, i too am searching for a longer lens so this thread is quite interesting.

[delros1]

i purchased the Tamron 200-500mm a few years ago,i have used it on the Nikon 200, 300, and the 700. the main reason for buying the Tamron was its size, as i cycle a lot, and with this lens in a backpack, i can still jump on my bike. i have found it to be very sharp,and the filter holder is a great help when using a polarising filter.over the last few years its has proved to be money well spent.