All 3 150-600's side x side (Page 2): Some more comparisons between the Tamron and the sport version. I got my Sigma 150 600 mm lens today. So far, just a quick glance, I am...

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

MT Shooter wrote:

I get a lot of questions about the difference in size of the three 150-600mm lenses on the market, and there really is VERY little difference in physical dimensions between them. The only real difference is in the weight of the Sigma Sport model due to its full weather-sealing, Pro quality barrel build, and several more optical elements inside.
Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups.
Sigma "C" has 20 elements in 14 groups.
Sigma "S" has 24 elements in 16 groups.

Some more comparisons between the Tamron and the sport version.

I got my Sigma 150 600 mm lens today. So far, just a quick glance, I am impressed! Below are listed just a few changes I am seeing that are different from the Tamron 150 600 mm.

The lens itself is a year newer than the Tamron.

Tamron minimum aperture is an f32 F 40. Sigmas minimum aperture is a fixed F-22

Tamron has 20 elements, Sigma uses 24

The Tamron diameter is 95 mm, Sigma is 105 mm so the Sigma will allow more light gathering.

Tamron uses 13 groups, Sigma uses 16

Minimum focus is only 4 inches difference, Tamron being 106 inches and the Sigma is 102 inches. Not really much difference.

One of the things I noticed right away was the weight difference. This Tamron lens weighs 4.3 pounds, the Sigma lens weighs 6.31 pounds, just a shade over 2 pounds heavier. This is due to the amount of metal used in the Sigma lens. The Sigma lens is about an inch and a quarter longer and fully extended to the 600 mm position.

The Sigma is also weather sealed and the Tamron is not.

So far it looks like the Sigma is winning. The truth will be when I get to take some photos with it. Hopefully I can shoot with it tomorrow, but if not I will shoot with it Friday.

Jim D

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

DirtFarmer wrote:

At my age, I concur :!:
:thumbup: :thumbup:

(PS: it was a video)

Hmmm, think I'll take a quick break from this thread to go look around. Back later for page 2.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

oldtool2 wrote:

Some more comparisons between the Tamron and the s... (show quote)

Hey Jim,
Let's at least compare Apples to Apples.

"Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups.
Sigma "C" has 20 elements in 14 groups.
Sigma "S" has 24 elements in 16 groups."

The "S" is, in fact, a bit above the other two friend.

Pull your pants up, your bias is showing. ;) :roll: :lol:

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

jethro779 wrote:

Surrender your wallet & money to your wife. Then you can go in and drool.

Never do that. She,ll spend it herself. Much more fun to control (or not control) your own pleasure spending.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

MT Shooter wrote:

I get a lot of questions about the difference in size of the three 150-600mm lenses on the market, and there really is VERY little difference in physical dimensions between them. The only real difference is in the weight of the Sigma Sport model due to its full weather-sealing, Pro quality barrel build, and several more optical elements inside.
Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups.
Sigma "C" has 20 elements in 14 groups.
Sigma "S" has 24 elements in 16 groups.

I think the old Canon 150-600/5.6L was still a little bigger than the Sigma.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

speters wrote:

I think the old Canon 150-600/5.6L was still a little bigger than the Sigma.

That lens had 19 elements in 15 groups. First zoom to use inner-focusing.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

speters wrote:

I think the old Canon 150-600/5.6L was still a little bigger than the Sigma.

At over 9 pounds it was considerable bigger than the Sigmas. It was also 18 1/2 inches long. I actually had one a few years back, it was an odd looking duck for sure.

MTG44 Loc: Corryton, Tennessee

Thanks Carter for taking your time to show us all the differences between lens.Thats a big upgrade from your old place.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

SonnyE wrote:

Hey Jim,
Let's at least compare Apples to Apples.

"Tamron has 20 elements in 13 groups.
Sigma "C" has 20 elements in 14 groups.
Sigma "S" has 24 elements in 16 groups."

The "S" is, in fact, a bit above the other two friend.

Pull your pants up, your bias is showing. ;) :roll: :lol:

Yeah, I guess it is. Just want to make members aware that there are 3 lenses in that range. Yes, it is more expensive but there are good reasons for that. Some, like myself and Carter feel it is worth it mainly due to the weather sealing but there are other reasons for the cost such as the elements.

Jim D

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

oldtool2 wrote:

Yeah, I guess it is. Just want to make members aware that there are 3 lenses in that range. Yes, it is more expensive but there are good reasons for that. Some, like myself and Carter feel it is worth it mainly due to the weather sealing but there are other reasons for the cost such as the elements.

Jim D

;) :thumbup:
For me, weather sealing is a moot point.
My camera isn't waterproof anyway... :?
Plus being retired from a job where you worked no matter what the weather was (out in it), I tend to pick and choose when I want to get out in it. :lol: :roll:

Rolling the Sport Model into the Contemporary and Tamron match is like comparing the Sport to some $5-10 Thousand dollar lenses. Not really fair. ;)

Jim Bob

What? Are you all nuts? You grovel at Shooter's post as though it contains some heretofore unknown or unknowable and therefore, especially revealing and useful info. Come on. It's a photo of 3 lenses for Chrissakes.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

SonnyE wrote:

;) :thumbup:
For me, weather sealing is a moot point.
My camera isn't waterproof anyway... :?
Plus being retired from a job where you worked no matter what the weather was (out in it), I tend to pick and choose when I want to get out in it. :lol: :roll:

Rolling the Sport Model into the Contemporary and Tamron match is like comparing the Sport to some $5-10 Thousand dollar lenses. Not really fair. ;)

That may be true, but look at the topic. All 3?

As for picking when to shoot I would love too but the birds don't listen to the same weather reports as we do. I worked in bad weather also so being out in it doesn't really bother me much.

Jim D

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

What? Are you all nuts? You grovel at Shooter's post as though it contains some heretofore unknown or unknowable and therefore, especially revealing and useful info. Come on. It's a photo of 3 lenses for Chrissakes.

Sonny and I are discussing something. You don't like it? Upper left corner, click "unwatch". That's not hard to do is it?

And what I posted earlier might be useful to some.

Jim D

Jim Bob

oldtool2 wrote:

Sonny and I are discussing something. You don't like it? Upper left corner, click "unwatch". That's not hard to do is it?

And what I posted earlier might be useful to some.

Jim D

"Might be" is right. Any meaningless post could claim the same value. Why so hostile? No need to take offense simply because I find the photos essentially worthless.

cmc65

Jim Bob wrote:

What? Are you all nuts? You grovel at Shooter's post as though it contains some heretofore unknown or unknowable and therefore, especially revealing and useful info. Come on. It's a photo of 3 lenses for Chrissakes.

There are some of us who would like to see all three lenses side by side and do not have access to a camera shop to do so. Carter knows this because he's in tune to most of the people who post on this site and I for one appreciate the time he took to do this for us. He always presents useful information in an unbiased fashion and we know how knowledgeable he is with most of the brands we have questions about.