Tamron 200-500mm or Sigma 170-500mm

[1963bus]

Hi all

As the heading says really, after a reasonably priced [cheap] 500m lens for my Son and wondered if there was a significant difference between these lenses.

Another query if I can while your here, I own a Nikon D80 and Connor has a D40x, are lenses interchangeable between these camera's. Got to ask as I've seen lenses advertised [ebay] that are for either the D80 or D40x but not both?

Many thanks in advance.

Brian.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Im not 100% but I remember being told that some of the entry Nikon models such as the the D40 are limited to lenses with built in autofocus (I think or certain other functions) as the entry level models do not have it built into the body. This might be why some third party lenses would not work with the D40. But to be honest I not sure. Best wait for a Nikon expert to come along, but its an idea for while we wait

[MeadsMan]

I would like to hear more about the Tamron lens you mention,is it sharper than the sigma 500 zoom ?

[1963bus]

Hi and thanks for the replies guys

Hi Ukwildlifeo, I read the reviews on the D40x before purchasing and apparently it doesn't have much in common with the D40 but internally is nearer the D80 sharing the same/similar processor etc and brought out to compete against one of Canons models at that time.

Hi MeadsMan, I spent much of yesterday and this morning reading reviews on both these lenses [Tamrons 200-500mm & Sigma's 170-500mm].

Firstly the Tamron, reviews commented on how fantastically sharp this lens was, better even than the Sigma 50-500mm
It got an awful lot of praise then the few that commented on it being terrible, noisy, soft and slow.

I moved onto Sigma 170-500mm reviews and got more or less the same, those that had it and were using it loved it with the few who didn't rate it at all.

One confusing point was it was always compared with Canons 100-400mm which is god knows how many more times expensive so made no sense comparing

I seem to have got from this that the most expensive is always the best which is understandable, the lower priced lenses are knocked because they can't compete, again understandable.

What I am having trouble finding out is "what's the best of the cheapies"
We are not in a position to fork out £1000's on a lens [wish we were], we have to make do with the lower end/budget lenses.
Guess we need someone we know off here that's now well respected that started off with the cheaper zooms [both] and can lend their words of wisdom

What I have learnt on both lenses seems to be,difficulty in focusing on flying/moving objects as the auto focus is slow, noisy auto focus motor, apparently there are good and bad ones, work better in good light

I am a little worried that perhaps the good reviews are from people that like myself, can't afford a dearer lens and the bad reviews from people who can

Back to reading good/bad reviews

[wizzo]

1963bus, that's a very good point that I've never given any consideration to before! Maybe there is something in photographers justifying their purchases, one way or the other. I know that in the past, I've bought 'stuff' and agonised over whether I could have spent less and obtained the same results. That's why I like reading Ken Rockwell's opinions on this subject on his website. Some people don't like him but I think that some of his opinions are valid, and if nothing else, it's good reading This is the link KenRockwell.com Wizzo

[david156]

Hi 1963bus

Can't really add to whats been said as I use the canon 100-400 L. But when I was first looking for a longer lens I was very tempted with the sigma. But I thought the 150 - 500mm sigma had replaced the 170 - 500mm. and reviews suggested that it was a lot better aswell.

I could be wrong cos it was a few months ago.

Cheers David

[1963bus]

Hi David

I don't know if the 150-500mm actually replaced the 170-500mm although Sigma no longer make the latter.
Only from reading I get that the 150-500mm is more on par with the 50-500mm [or better?] and benefiting from O.S. [optimised stability I think], so yes a much superior lens to the 170-500mm, also a much more sort after lens

I am after a reasonably priced zoom for my 13 year old Son, he saves like crazy and has just bought himself the Nikon D40x.
We have a budget of around £300 so yes the lens will be second hand and most likely ebay problem with both the "Bigma" and the 150-500mm is they make £500 plus.
As this lens is for my Son I really just want the best we can get within budget, any other lenses out there that I should know about or be considering

Thanks
Brian

[squishy]

I'm pretty sure the AF on the sigma 170-500mm WILL NOT work with the D40x. I don't think the Tam 200-500 does either.

To be frank I think you'll struggle to get any half good quality lens that goes to 500mm for £300.

[1963bus]

Originally Posted by squishy

I'm pretty sure the AF on the sigma 170-500mm WILL NOT work with the D40x.

Hi Squishy, do you know that for fact?

I can tell you that both D80 and D40x kit lenses are identical in mount, contacts and AF/M switch on lens. My kit 18-135mm lens works fine on the D40x so why won't other lenses?

You are not the first to say this but I'm not sure where you're getting your info from

[squishy]

It's because the D40x, D40 (and i think the D60) all lack an on board AF motor.

That's what the AF/M means on the kit lens I believe. If you're D80 kits lens didn't have AF/M, that wouldn't work either.