lens comparrison

Is the Tamron 150-600 that much better then say the 170-500 Sigma?? Is it worth the $400-500 difference or is there a better option? ... Anyone have any con's to either of these lenses?
If I'm not comparing apples to apples enlighten me. I'm wanting to up the size of my lens from my 70-200l .. I have a 60D.

Thanks

Steve

Heya,

Yes.

Sharper.
Better AF.
Better stabilization (VC).
More physical reach.
Not a discontinued lens.

Very best,

"Worth it" is one of those assessments that is rather dependant on your financial situation and how much value you place on your time spent doing photography. However, the 170-500 is long discontinued ('04ish I think) by Sigma and the reviews don't seem to be glowing. I'd say it's definately one of those situations where, in the long-run, you'll be more satisfied spending a bit more even it means being patient and saving.

Sigma has since come out with a 150-500, 50-500, and two 150-600 lenses (Sport and Contemporary). The market is flooded with Canon 100-400 mkIs. It's definately been an interesting 12 months in the 'affordable 400mm+' market.

Yep kinda what I figured ... Ill just keep saving no worries ... I guess I shoulda been more specific about lenses I should ahve said 500mm sigma's not just the 170-500 ... just seems like the Tamron is the best bang for your buck right now in that bigger range!!

Steve

Steve, I have the Sigma 150-500 mounted on a 60D and have been satisfied with it. The Sigma is even a better buy now then it was 2 years ago. I've also viewed many fine photos posted on the forums taken with the Tamron 150-600 and if I were in your place would give the Tamron serious thought. Having the extra reach won't disappoint you I'm sure and for the price it seems like a lot of bang for the buck to me.