Sigma 50-500mm Vs Tamron 200-500mm....

[kross]

which is better interms of sharpness at the 500mm end?
what about contrast, color...blah blah blah....:p

i'm thinking of using the $$$ to get couple of other lenses instead of splashing it on the 500mmf4is alone..... so, i need to know which of the above 2 performs well at the 500 end. i intend to use the tele lens on a tripod 99% of the time for birding.....:rolleyes:

[peterdoomen]

They both get good reviews:
Tamron:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=248&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

Bigma:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=105&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Though I think the Bigma would be a really nice lens because of its versatility. Imagine you can get from 50 to 500mm in a fraction of a second!

P.

[Tee Why]

Tamron is sharper at 500mmm end per photozone.de

[NickSimcheck]

My understanding is the Tamron overall just isn't the lens that the Bigma is. I like the idea, and wanted the Tamron myself, cause I like the thought of 24-70/70-200/200-500. But the Bigma just can't be beat

[Hellashot]

I have the bigma and love it. The only negative I've heard from someone with a Bigma is the weight, and that some people have had the Bigma and eventually sold it for lighter and shorter focal length lens like the Canon 100-400 or the Sigma 80-400.

[Crush]

I actually had a Tamron 200-500 on my 20D Friday. Didnt have a tripod, so all hand held. One shot was just the lens, and the second was with a Tamaron 1.4 converter. I know they arent great, but I didnt think too terrible. Both pictures shot in raw, and only resized.
http://www.pbase.com/crush1287/image/58088015
http://www.pbase.com/crush1287/image/58088016

[mijbril]

I have the Tamron, I like it. As beyond 200 is my least used range, I simply didn't want to blow the bank yet I still wanted to get some good shots, & in that, the Tamron does that quite well indeed. It's cheaper & lighter than the Bigma which I also looked at, but as I have better lenses than the 50-200 range than the Sigma would provide it seemed a pointless doubling up.

But keep in mind, if you're thinking of the prime 500 f/4 but wanting save cash in getting a zoom that goes out to 500, don't start comparing them & expect either the Tamron or the Sigma

[NickSimcheck]

Sorry about my first post, the information I was recalling was on the 170-500 Sigma being a junk lens. The Tamron is a very nice lens.

[NickSimcheck]

Can anyone comment on the focus speed/noise? With f/6.3 would it loose AF on a 350D? Now I'm actually thinking about trading my Bigma for this lens.

[Crush]

well I went out and bought the tamaron 200-500.......now just have to wait for a bright sunny day!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Can anyone comment on the focus speed/noise? With f/6.3 would it loose AF on a 350D? Now I'm actually thinking about trading my Bigma for this lens.

Bigma has faster AF. The HSM motor is unequaled =by any other third party lenses. The onlky way to get AF as fast as or faster than HSM is via Canon USM or Nikons version.

Both lenses are actually f/6.3 at the long end, and both "trick" the Camera into thinking they are f/5.6
Haven't used the Tamron,. but Sigma has this trick down pat.. they do it on several lenses and it works flawlessly. I assume that Tamron is just as good at this f/5.6 act :) So AF will be functional in both cases.

[CyberDyneSystems]

well I went out and bought the tamaron 200-500.......now just have to wait for a bright sunny day!

Looking forward to your review! :)

[Mitcon]

Have to agree with CDS, from what I've seen the Tamron is ok but I have the Bigma and it's a very able lens. Faster/quieter than the Tamron, I find the Bigma quite sharp enough and the contrast pretty good too. For bang for your buck$ it's just hard to beat the Bigma.

[kross]

well I went out and bought the tamaron 200-500.......now just have to wait for a bright sunny day!

congrats and great!!! looking forward to your shots!!

[ScottE]

The important difference for the Bigma is that it has full time manual focus overrided. You can instantly focus manualy to zero in on the eye of an animal peeking out from behind a bush when autofocus would pick out the bush.

When I first got my Bigma I thought that the 50-200 mm portion of the zoom range would be as waste of time. Who needs a 50mm f/4 lens that weighs a ton? It is not as good in the 70-200 range as my 70-200 f/2.8 Canon. Having used the lens for about 5 years, I now find that there have been many times when I was happy to be able to zoom out to 50mm to catch environmental shots or when an animal moved closer than expected. If I had to change lenses I would have missed the shot.

This winter I was photographing a cross country ski race. I could not get far enough back off the trail to use my 70-200. The Bigma at 50mm was perfect. I could zoom out to follow skiers as they came down a hill, track them as they climbed up the hill in front of me and still frame them as they jockied for position on the curve immediately in front of me. No other lens that I am aware of could have done all that.

[LightRules]

I'm a Bigma-praiser too. The bottom line is that there is simply nothing like it that delivers this kind of optical performance with 10x range, HSM/FTM, and tremendous build quality; and all for $900. It's indeed a special lens.

[tengr_68]

Good review of the Tamron here.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_200500_563/index.htm

[ak_powder_monkey]

every photography store I've been too says that the bigma literally falls apart...

[NickSimcheck]

...Where's the punchline? ;)

[macropod]

I've owned a Sigma 50-500 for over 4 years now and have used it extensively. I find it to be sharp - all the way to 500mm, ultra-quiet, fast-focussing, reliable and heavy. In spite of the weight, I'll happily go hiking with this lens as my primary lens. Since hiking & tripods really don't go well together, I often use a BushHawk shoulder stock for extra stability - works a treat.

I can't comment on the Tamron from personal experience but, when I was in the market for a long lens, the reviews I read didn't seem to suggest it was as capable. Since then, Sigma's upgraded the lens to the DG version - which means better coatings on the rear element, in particular, to reduce internal reflections.

Cheers