Bill,

I can't agree with you on this one. Yes the Sigma is a grand more but you are gaining a lot with that lens. The reason it is heavier is because it's much better constructed.

Much of the time he may be shooting that lens off of a tripod. Is the OP going to be shooting outdoor sports where the weather may get bad? If that's the case the weather proofing alone is worth a lot. After shooting with both lenses I decided the one I am going to keep is the Sigma because it is better made.

Those that know me know I shoot freehand a lot. Most of the time I can find something to rest my lens against such as a tree or a stump or fence. You can also use a monopod to your advantage. I just recently bought a tripod from MT that converts to a monopod when I need it to. It is made by edge, the same company that makes a gimbal head that I use quite often. It is very nice and reasonably priced.

IQ between the two lenses is very similar making it almost a mute point, with the Sigma having a slight edge. I will agree with you about the softness on the edges. It's not unusual to see a little softness when you are getting that big of a lens. I have seen people complain about it but I don't understand why because when you are shooting at 600 mm you are going to be cropping the photo most of the time. In which case any softness on the edges is going to be removed in the crop.

As for Tamron being first on the market that just tells me that Sigma may have the newer technology built into the lens. That would be a plus for Sigma.

I haven't seen any comparison done between they Tamron and the Sigma contemporary lens yet. I would like to see that comparison done. Between the two lenses that I have seen comparisons done on I would have to go with the sport lens. It is a better built lens with weatherproofing and anybody that might be shooting in bad weather knows that can be worth a lot.

Jim D

Here is my two cents. Shooting with the Tamron SP 150-600mm VC is a much easier proposition than shooting with the much heavier Sigma 150-600mm. The weight alone will cause you to tremble while holding the Sigma. The Tamron is plenty sharp, and the notion it is "soft" on the edges is hardly worth commenting about, since every lens shows "softness" on the edges. Take a look at the price difference, the Sigma Sport only removes more money from your wallet, the Contemporary model is about the same price as the Tamron, but give you no advantage. The Tamron, also has a 6 year warranty for everything. Tamron was also first on the market. That's where my money is.

B

I'm the advisor to a high school yearbook and high school newspaper. I have a great student photo staff and some pretty good equipment - several canon 60D's and a variety of lenses. I realize that if we are taking a basketball game, or any indoor sport, that we need fast (2.8) lenses and have them. Is this kind of lens really necessary on a bright day outside? The longest 2.8 lens we have is 200 mm. That won't get me to the outfield in a baseball game or across the field very well in field hockey or soccer. We have a couple of 300 mm lenses but they are not 2.8. They seem to do OK outdoors, but maybe I'm missing something. I'd love to have thousands for a 300-400 mm 2.8 but this is a school and that just isn't realistic.

First post to UHH, but I've been reading and learning for a while.
So here's my question: I've been using a Canon T3i for a couple years, I've progressed a lot, but consider myself still learning. My most common use is landscape, I travel to some pretty cool places and enjoy the challenge of capturing them.
I'm not always thrilled with my image quality and, after a recommendation, I'm considering an upgrade, seriously considering a 5D3. I understand it will also require additional investment in lenses, etc. And I intend to keep my T3i for family gatherings, etc.
What do you think, will the 5D3 actually bring me to a new level of capability, or should I just maintain my progress with the T3i?

I have used Lightroom for 5 years and have recently had an inevitable hard drive crash. Reconstruction of the Lightroom files has been a several month process and I am still not finished. I have lost my love of Lightroom because of the filing system it uses.

I have spent some time with a professional photographer and he uses Photoshop only and opens the files in Bridge, does some editing and then uses Photoshop to finish his developing process. I am switching and I have spoken to others who despise Lightroom's filing system. I want my digital negative or my raw files where I can easily find them, work with them and put the edited negatives in a filing system of my choosing. One that makes sense to me.

Jim

I don't care much for Lightroom, it just doesn't fit my style and it is limited because it does not do layers. You have to experience what fits your own style, I would not say Lightroom is horrible, because there are many people use it and love it. Try out the 30 day free trial to see if it's for you, other than that there are many other software programs like ACDsee pro 8 which I just love and you can also download a free trial as well. Test out different programs to see which you like the best.

http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-pro-8?gclid=CPSg3-u1lMUCFQGTfgodIGMAIA

Or the ACDsee Pro 8 Ultimate which includes layers.

http://www.acdsee.com/en/products/acdsee-ultimate-8