Sigma 600mm lens vs Tamron 600mm lens: My test results from a bird blind using a remote shutter release. Camera was mounted on a gimbal using F8 setting at different distances. Dappled...

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

My test results from a bird blind using a remote shutter release. Camera was mounted on a gimbal using F8 setting at different distances. Dappled morning light stayed about the same.

I found the Tamron 600mm lens is soft over 500mm. Sigma 600mm is sharp all the way to 600mm. The Tamron was good up to 500mm but no better than the Sigma 150-500mm lens. I had a younger person with good eyes look at the results to and they agreed. My eyes are getting a little old.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Interesting, but on WHAT camera body and were the subjects AF'd - and if so, were the lenses focus calibrated ?? Lastly, are we talking Sigma C or S lens ?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

imagemeister wrote:

Interesting, but on WHAT camera body and were the subjects AF'd - and if so, were the lenses focus calibrated ?? Lastly, are we talking Sigma C or S lens ?

Just wonder exactly the same.

Regis Loc: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho

Bill MN wrote:

My test results from a bird blind using a remote shutter release. Camera was mounted on a gimbal using F8 setting at different distances. Dappled morning light stayed about the same.

I found the Tamron 600mm lens is soft over 500mm. Sigma 600mm is sharp all the way to 600mm. The Tamron was good up to 500mm but no better than the Sigma 150-500mm lens. I had a younger person with good eyes look at the results to and they agreed. My eyes are getting a little old.

After posting hundreds of Tamron 600mm shots, I found that they were super sharp. You might need some calibration done with your Tamron 150-600 lens. I have owned both the Sigma 150-500 and 50-500mm lenses and they were not as sharp as my Tamron 150-600mm lens.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

imagemeister wrote:

Interesting, but on WHAT camera body and were the subjects AF'd - and if so, were the lenses focus calibrated ?? Lastly, are we talking Sigma C or S lens ?

Not a Canon. Yes AF and calibrated. Both

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Regis wrote:

After posting hundreds of Tamron 600mm shots, I found that they were super sharp. You might need some calibration done with your Tamron 150-600 lens. I have owned both the Sigma 150-500 and 50-500mm lenses and they were not as sharp as my Tamron 150-600mm lens.

I don't "sharpen" or use the "unsharp mask" or any other PP like you do when testing cameras or lens's. I like pictures people post right from the camera, shaky or not or if the camera was set wrong. I'm not the only one that said Tamron was soft over 500mm.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This is a pretty good review from Tony Northrup. Skip the dry and boring beginning and go to the conclusions near the middle/end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgurGidoSJs

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

joer wrote:

Just wonder exactly the same.

Joer did I answer your question. I did not say this and I don't know who did. "People from the Midwest are honest and hard working". Now days I'm not so sure. We have politicians too and to many people on welfare.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

imagemeister wrote:

This is a pretty good review from Tony Northrup. Skip the dry and boring beginning and go to the conclusions near the middle/end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgurGidoSJs

Canon guy. Never head of him just like you never heard of me. He's entitled to his opinion just like I'm entitled to mine. I don't get paid by any company.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Bill MN wrote:

Joer did I answer your question. I did not say this and I don't know who did. "People from the Midwest are honest and hard working". Now days I'm not so sure. We have politicians too and to many people on welfare.

Time to unwatch before this gets more ridiculous.

Jim Bob

Bill MN wrote:

My test results from a bird blind using a remote shutter release. Camera was mounted on a gimbal using F8 setting at different distances. Dappled morning light stayed about the same.

I found the Tamron 600mm lens is soft over 500mm. Sigma 600mm is sharp all the way to 600mm. The Tamron was good up to 500mm but no better than the Sigma 150-500mm lens. I had a younger person with good eyes look at the results to and they agreed. My eyes are getting a little old.

My results are the exact opposite and I own both lenses, albeit for different mounts: Nikon/Tamron, Canon/Sigma Contemporary.

Regis Loc: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho

Bill MN wrote:

I don't "sharpen" or use the "unsharp mask" or any other PP like you do when testing cameras or lens's. I like pictures people post right from the camera, shaky or not or if the camera was set wrong. I'm not the only one that said Tamron was soft over 500mm.

I understand, Bill. I don't always sharpen my Tamron 600mm shots. My unsharpened Tamron 150-600 shots were still sharper than the Sigma 500mm ones. I always put my new and existing lenses through a series of tests and compare them to each other. These are my own unscientific tests so they may differ from other UHH member's results. To each his own.
I personally like a more professionally looking photo which means I sometimes to a little PP.

Jim Bob

Bill MN wrote:

I don't "sharpen" or use the "unsharp mask" or any other PP like you do when testing cameras or lens's. I like pictures people post right from the camera, shaky or not or if the camera was set wrong. I'm not the only one that said Tamron was soft over 500mm.

Yeah. At 500, it's "softer" than at 150. The same could be said for virtually all 150-600 zooms. But I'd put my Tamron up against the best of them at 500 and 600, with and without some post processing. The Sigma, not so much. But that Sigma 35 Art, now that sets the standard and leads the class for sharpness and low distortion. Neither Nikon nor Canon can touch it. But I digress.

Regis Loc: Coeur d' Alene, Idaho

Jim Bob wrote:

Yeah. At 500, it's "softer" than at 150. The same could be said for virtually all 150-600 zooms. But I'd put my Tamron up against the best of them at 500 and 600, with and without some post processing. The Sigma, not so much. But that Sigma 35 Art, now that sets the standard and leads the class for sharpness and low distortion. Neither Nikon nor Canon can touch it. But I digress.

The Sigma 150-600 Sport is a very sharp lens, but also very heavy (6.3 lbs) and costly. I would bet my Canon 7D M2/Canon 100-400 III with or without the 1.4x III extender, is as sharp as the Sigma lens and much lighter and at about the same price. But, I can't prove it. The Tamron 150-600 sharpness is about the same as my Canon 100-400 II. The special and expensive lens coatings on the Canon 100-400 II provide better contrast from what I have read, but that would be a very subtle improvement.

Jim Bob

Regis wrote:

The Sigma 150-600 Sport is a very sharp lens, but also very heavy (6.3 lbs) and costly. I would bet my Canon 7D M2/Canon 100-400 III with or without the 1.4x III extender, is as sharp as the Sigma lens and much lighter and at about the same price. But, I can't prove it. The Tamron 150-600 sharpness is about the same as my Canon 100-400 II. The special and expensive lens coatings on the Canon 100-400 II provide better contrast from what I have read, but that would be a very subtle improvement.

The Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is a very capable lens mounted on the Canon 70D (see my photo downloads in gallery: "Natural Redhead-No Treatment Needed" and "Let's Give The Hummer Some" ). But I get significantly more consistent and sharper results with the Tamron on the Nikon. I wish I could justify purchasing the Tamron for the Canon.