hmm which lense????

Ok so i finally got a job and saved up enough money to upgrade my lense i currently have the lowest quality 75-300 mm canon lense and the ones i am looking at right now seem to be the tamron 200-500 or the sigma 50-500 ...i am not sure which one to get considering they are both around the same price... but i think the sigma has better glass ,but i was wondering if because it has such a difference in magnification if the quality degrades as you zoom in??? well any help to point me in the right direction would be appreciated. Also if there are any other lenses to take a look at that would work on my rebel...

Thanks

Brandon

I take it you want a long telephoto zoom, rahter than a more modest one in the 70-200 range? Or the 70-300 IS?

I'd be inclined to take the sigma over the Tamron - its over all a wider zoom range and optically has a fantastic reputation

The Tamron 200-500 has a front element that rotates with focusing, extends a great deal in zooming to 500mm, and the review I read said it suffers from CA also. It also costs MORE than the Bigma in the UK anyway. QED.

Unless you need something with huge reach, id say give them giant zooms a miss, from what ive read they lack IQ compared to a 70-200 for example. What would you use this for? General shooting or birds, planes etc?

Both have their good points and bad like all things. My choice would be (and was)the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) better IQ, greater focal range, faster AF. The only catch is the Sigma is heavier than the Tamron. I've seen quite good images out of the Tamron so it can perform, but I know the Sigma quite well (owned it for a year) and it's really hard to beat for value/quality and is certainly able to perform.

So my vote goes for the Sigma 50-500, if your after something lighter or another choice then I'd look at the Canon EF100-400 L IS. Not quite the same reach but another very good lens thats quite a bit lighter.

I'd agree with Mitcon: if you're wanting/needing a broad range tele zoom that reaches 500mm, the Bigma is hard to beat. It offers very good image quality, its build is excellent, as is its ring HSM and FTM override. It's a bargain of a lens really, and it's no surprise it has such a following. It's one of the few lenses I've used/had that I truly miss (even though I've got a cracker of a 1-4IS copy).

I'd go for a used 400 f/5.6L for about the same price as either lens you mention. Even the 400 f/5.6L with a 1.4x TC is capable of very good results.

Excellent lens, but the OP doesn't mention his focus being on birds in flight. The Bigma is just so much more versatile.

Tamron has slightly better optics but bigma has much more versatility.

It would probably come down to copy to copy variation between these two "budget" super zooms. For me, the ring HSM/FTM and overall build-feel makes it a no-brainer (but I'm not getting either at this point).

yeah i have been wanting something with more reach then my 300 for a while because it is very hard to get the bird to cooperate or just isnt possible to get close to...although it has been fun chasing or slowly stalking it. i wouldnt need to get as close with a stronger lense... i was also leaning towards the sigma 50-500 and possibly the canon 100-400...

and yes my main focus is on birds and wildlife

what about the glass quality on the 400????

Brandon

The 400 f/5.6L? The quality of glass 400 f/5.6L is among Canon's best.

This was taken handheld from about ten feet away (right at the minimum focus distance of the 400 f/5.6L):

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

now im leaning more towards 400 f/5.6L and possibly the sigma 50-500 because i am wanting to get into shots of flying birds and i have been reading that the auto focus on the 400 is much quicker and i can always add a 1.4X converter to get the stronger magnification...

Brandon

The EF400 f5.6L is very quick indeed in the AF dept, and the IQ super. Very nice glass indeed though not the fastest. Very popular lens for birding and certainly able without doubt, just doesn't have the versatility of a telezoom. Really depends on what you want, but a prime will be better IQ wise than a zoom.

The thing I like about the Bigma is when I'm out hiking/traveling/birdi​ng it's the perfect all round lens. Some people say they dislike the weight of it but I find my backpack is lighter these days as I don't need to carry a whole stack of small zooms, primes and larger telephoto primes. I can go out with just the Bigma and a macro lens and have every shot from 50-500mm or 1:1 ratios covered, throw a decent WA in your bag and your set for any oppertunity.

Another factor came up just the other day when I was out doing a shoot and another photog was there that I was grateful for a telezoom. Sadly he miss'd some of the better shots while changing his primes. With wildlife you need to expect the unexpected sometimes. Life is full of compromise, everything has it's place.

yeah i get what you mean but most of the time when im using my 300mm i keep it on 300 all the time taking shots as i get closer to a bird and then so right now im going for the 400mm f5.6 but the sigma is another good possibility...now its just deciding which takes better pics??? i think the canon lense has better optics but im not sure...

Brandon

The 400 prime will have better IQ than the Bigma, along with faster AF; it being much lighter too will help you track birds a bit easier as well. So if you are mainly shooting at 400mm and beyond (with TC), then the prime is the way to go for you. The perk of the Bigma is its versatility.