Should I wait for the Tamron 150-600 or go with Sig 150-500

Since the Tammy looks like it's quite a wait
am I wrong to go with the Sigma??

This will be my first long zoom purchase
so I'm kinda clueless.

I'm using a 60D if that matters.

Heya,

The Sigma is a good lens (50-500). The Tamron is a good lens. Go with the focal length you need.

Personally, I don't see much reason to not get the Tamron at this point. Is it perfect? No. But neither is the Sigma.

I would bet that the 600mm lens holds value, no matter what, because it's 600mm. And if you're looking for reach, well, an extra 100mm makes for more reach (especially on a crop).

Very best,

If you have the extra money and don't want to wait, the Sigma 50-500 is a bit better than the 150-500. I'd suggest getting either the Tamron or the 50-500, not the Sigma 150-500.

It's a good question. One local photo shop owner (who didn't really seem to have a vested interest one way or the other, so seemed fairly objective) said that in his opinion based on history, the Sigma lenses tend to hold their value a bit better than the Tamrons, if that matters to you at all. But ultimately as MalVeaux indicated, if you "need" 600, go with the 600. I was considering this lens but ultimately decided I probably don't really need that much reach and went an entirely different way (a lightly used 400 f/5.6L), which is quite a bit more compact and lighter (also, obviously, shorter FL).

Wow, I hadn't thought about the Bigma.
I just went thru the sample images thread and there are really nice images.
I'll have to do some more thinking along those lines.
Also have to take into account how much weight I'd be lugging around.
Currently have 10-22, 18-55, 18-135, 55-250, 70-300 and a 50 1.8 II.

By just lugging the UWA, the 18-55 and the 50-500 it might not be too bad.

I'd PM DAA about it...he had the sigma 150-500OS, and bought the tamron...so you can actually get opinions from someone that has used both
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.p​hp?u=298876

I own the 150-500OS, and think it's a great bang for the buck...i was interested in seeing how the tamron worked out, as it seemed like it could be a cheap upgrade...upon seeing images from it though, honestly i'm not really impressed at all...it looks to be worse than the sigma in my eyes...also i'm not sure how well the AF performance is, but i can do some BIF with my sigma...it does seem like that's something that may be lacking on the tamron

if you can find the sigma used, you can buy it now, and then if you want to still get to 600mm sell it when the tamron becomes more readily available

I got tired of waiting for the Tamron to come in stock, and I have a trip to Africa in 2 weeks; I bought the Sigma 150-500 this week. After reading through all the reviews comparing the lenses (plus the 100-400L), it seems that they are very very close in performance. For my uses I think I can handle any minor differences in post-processing, and I think it'll fit the bill for me nicely.

I get the lens tomorrow, so looking forward to playing around with it this weekend!

I really like the extra 100mm reach of the Tamron 150-600, sometimes even like a little more but I know that's greedy!

I both the tamron and the sigma. I will not bother using the sigma again. If you can wait it will be worth it.

larrycumba wrote in post #16706021
I both the tamron and the sigma. I will not bother using the sigma again. If you can wait it will be worth it.

is it just the longer reach, or can you be more specific as to the advantages?

i feel like most 100% crops i look at, just aren't doing it for me...i do think i'm going to have to rent it though to compare

Wondering the same thing myself.
Is it a IQ issue how it feels to use or something else?

YARDBURNER wrote in post #16704955
Since the Tammy looks like it's quite a wait
am I wrong to go with the Sigma??

This will be my first long zoom purchase
so I'm kinda clueless.

I'm using a 60D if that matters.

I had the Sigma but was never happy with it,Maybe I had a bad copy as that was a common problem.
Had a Canon 100-400 and thought it was very good except i did not like a few things about it so sold it .
The Tamron is new and the jury is still out on it but alot of Good reviews and pics here and elsewhere.

So several things to weigh for your investment,I say try both if possible and decide for yourself,Always going to be a few things people will nitpick about but as long as You are happy with whatever you get is all that matters.

I still own both. Considering the Sigma is only $900 new now, I think it is FAR from an easy choice. My Tamron is noticeably less sharp wide open at 600 than my Sigma is wide open at 500. Both at 500, it's too close for me to call the difference - even though MTF charts might show one - I can't see it.

For whatever reasons and whether it's more me or the lens I really can't say, but, I find the Sigma more forgiving and just plain easier to get keepers with. Maybe that will shift as I grow more accustomed to the Tamron, but it doesn't really feel like it. Even shooting off a solid tripod, the Tamron just has a tendency to give some disappointments, shots I feel like I nailed, but turns out I didn't. Whereas my Sigma is totally predictable, when I feel like a shot is going to be well exposed and sharp with it, the image is in fact well exposed and sharp.

AF... My two copies, advantage Sigma. Again, the Tamron is good when it's good, but isn't entirely predictable. Under no circumstances have I seen the Tamron AF outperform the Sigma AF.

The only body I own is a 60D, BTW...

I know it seems Andre and I are the only ones that think so, but I do agree with him - I've seen nothing in all the Tamron images posted that looks any better to me than my Sigma can do. I certainly have not taken a picture with my Tamron yet that is any better than my Sigma.

Dunno... I think if you really are in a hurry and are looking at an uncomfortable wait for the Tamron, you may as well get the Sigma and I don't feel like you'll be losing out on anything - except the reach, or course - but that reach goes soft, unless you have the light to stop it down. But, don't get me wrong, either, for under $1,100 and 600mm, I'm not disappointed in the Tamron either. Just don't see it as having any advantage over my Sigma other than the extra 100mm is all.

- DAA

[QUOTE=DreDaze;1670775​7]is it just the longer reach, or can you be more specific as to the advantages?

It is the extra reach at 600 and the sharpness at that length. The focus limiter is a big plus and I like the background blur. With it, I can get nice shots of small birds I would normally pass up. With the Sigma there was more focus hunting for me. That said, between the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma I would usually choose the Sigma only because of the reach. Please bear in mind I haven't had enough experience with it yet to really grade it's value on birds in flight. The Tamron is a good balance between the Canon and the Sigma especially for the price.

I´m kind of in the same boat on debating the same two lenses. With current prices here in Germany the Sigma is €800 and the Tamron is around €1200 to €1300. I have currently the 1100d/T3 so will be looking to a new body soon as well.

A new 60d is going for around €700 currently so with the Sigma I would have around €400 towards a new body. So I dont know whats a better idea. Blow everything on the Tamron and then save for another 6 months or so for a body. Or get the Sigma and get a body a couple of months later.

The combination would be for birds and wildlife but I guess my "style" of photography is walking and generally sneaking about the local fields here and a general day out for me is a 10 to 15 mile walk as I use it as exercise as well as taking photos. This brings into weight factors and the fact I would be shooting hand held as I dont really like using a tripod and dont have a decent one anyway.

So with those facts any idea what would be best?