Walt C

considering the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 and the Sports model and the Tamron SP 150-600mm.
Any suggestions??

Bill_de Loc: US

Lots of threads on the subject.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search.jsp?q=sigma+150-600&u=&s=0

--

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

which camera, if Nikon, I prefer the Nikon 200-500. If not, I would choose the sigma sport over the tamron.
you may also want to consider renting the three or four lenses and see which one you prefer before buying.

wolfman

If you don't mind the weight, Sigma Sport.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Best suggestion is to buy one and use it! Choose primarily based on budget as the optical differences between any of the superzooms is minimal, the Sigma Sport is the only one that is weather sealed if that makes a difference to you.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Give the "Search" function at the top of the page a try. Type in Sigma 150-600 then do another Search for Tamron SP 150-600. See all the discussions on those 2 lenses.

Bill_de Loc: US

I already did the search for him, and provided a link. Hopefully he's been spending his time reading.

--

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Check this out.

http://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c/6

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

The Sigma sport seems to have a better reputation, but it costs twice as much as the Tamron, so is it fair to compare them? Only your budget will determine this.

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I have the Sigma Contemporary and have been amazed at the images I am getting with it. The two below are both hand held. The first is hand held at dusk with a shutter speed of 1/15th if I remember correctly. That one has a little fill but even the ones without fill are tack sharp.

(Download)


(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Try these links.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15236

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

Those are nice photos; Tack sharp they are not! Download and then enlarge and there is not very good detail. It is not fair to compare to compare reasonably good zooms that are priced in the $1k to $2K price range to prime super telephotos which cost about $12k. You can say the posted owl photos are good enough, OK. You can say the difference between a $2k ZOOM lens and a $12K prime telephoto is not worth $10K and for most that is true. But if your budget and swing it; and if you want the sharpest of the sharp, Either Nikon or Canon prime 300mm or 600mm (or the Canon 200-400 with 1.4built in) will produce the very best. Maybe Nikon has a comparable zoom to the canon mentioned - I don't know.

I'll post an owl photo taken at Bosque del Apache. Download both and enlarge and you'll see a very significant difference. That does not mean that the other owl picture is not pleasant and worthwhile. But let us not be deceived that a $2k zoom lens can compare to a $12K prime. 600mm f4 prime lenses can be rented for a few hundred dollars if you are taking a trip for bird photography which is a more cost effective way to use that type of lens. My 300mm f2.8 with a 2x will produce absolutely tack sharp photos at about half the price of a 600mm prime.

I only comment because so many thing the 150-600 zooms are the best; they are good, but not the best.
Cheers,
Bill

600mm f4 handheld and 1DX

(Download)

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

that is an excellent photo, but you need to clean your lens or your sensor, there are several spots on the photo that look like lint spots.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Tacks aren't really very all that sharp.
(But I still wouldn't want to sit on one)