russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I rented all three lenses from a local camera store here for one week each. I went to the same places each week so I could get the same type of pictures: San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, San Diego Zoo, San Diego Zoo Safari Park, SeaWorld, Lake Murray, Santee Lakes, Sweetwater River, Ramona Grasslands, and La Jolla Cove. I'm not particularly interested in the sharpest pictures because whatever pictures I get are taken into various editing programs and messed up significantly until they no longer look like a picture to begin with. Photoshop, onOne, Nik, Redfield, Photo-Paint, Paintshop Pro, etc., etc., etc. I sell my Photographic Art to Realtors, escrow agents, title agents, and loan agents as close-of-escrow gifts. Thus, I'm more interested in getting the picture, something to play with, rather than getting the sharpest picture.

Initial research online indicated that I wanted the Sigma Sport 150-600mm. After real-time use, not so much.

Camera: Canon 760D

Prices:
Sigma Sport, $1,999
Tamron G2, $1,399
Sigma Contemporary, $1,089

Weight:
Sigma Sport, 101 oz
Tamron G2, 71 oz
Sigma Contemporary, 68 oz

All three had a rotatable tripod mount, and since I don't use monopods or tripods for still pictures, only videos, I rotated the mount 180° so that it became a carrying handle on top of the lens. Quite convenient.

Note that all three of these lenses were rentals, and we all know how people treat rented stuff, so some of my problems noted below might be due to previous mistreatment of the lens rather than an actual problem with the lens.

Throughout the range, I actually thought that the Tamron provided the sharpest pictures, followed by the Sigma C and then the Sigma S. Interesting.

The Sigma S had a propensity for taking significantly underexposed pictures. I can work with those in Photoshop, but why? Retaking the picture provided a normal exposure but the picture I wanted already was gone. For the price, surely the focusing algorithms should always provide me with a properly exposed picture that is easiest to work with in Photoshop.

On the Tamron, there are four controls on the barrel of the lens: Focus Range, Auto Focus/Manual Focus, Vibration Compensation On/Of, and three Vibration Compensation custom modes. Due to how I was holding my camera and supporting the lens, I had a propensity for turning Auto Focus to Manual Focus, so the next time I went to catch a quick shot of some scampering squirrels or flying birds, well, the shot wasn't there. Towards the end of my 7-day rental, I had successfully altered my holding style so that I was never switching Auto to Manual.

The Tamron wasn't working in AI Focus or AI Servo mode initially. I eventually did get it to work in those burst modes, kid of critical for BIF pictures, but inconsistently. I demonstrated the problem to the camera store when I returned the lens, and got a credit from them.

One of the reasons why it has taken me so long to get a lens of this size is because I'm don't like using neck straps, shoulder straps, monopods, or tripods. I just like to carry my camera around and take what they call "hand held" pictures. That usually means that I need a fast shutter speed to get good pictures. Fast shutter speeds mean I need lots of light. Lots of light means that I need big aperture openings. These comparatively inexpensive zoom lenses typically have maximum aperture openings in the 4.5 range. Both the Tamron and the Sigma are f/5 at 150 mm and f/6.3 at 600 mm. Would those maximum apertures let in enough light to let me take good hand-held pictures? My unequivocal answer is, "Yes!"

The Tamron 150-600 appears to let in more light than my walkaround Tamron 28-300 at equivalent focal lengths of 150, 200, 250, and 300, and it was truly rocking at 600mm. I had not a single problem with light. Granted, technology changes, and my Tamron 28-300 is about eight years old, so that might be a factor.

Another difference I have noticed between these two lenses is the quality of the bokeh. Tamron was giving me absolutely stunning pictures of tiny flowers with much better background blur than either of the two Sigma lenses.

I find it interesting that the direction the zoom ring rotates is not standardized. Canon and Tamron lenses rotate to the right. Nikon and Sigma lenses rotate to the left. I have a Canon camera and have been using a Tamron 28-300mm lens for eght years. I guess you know which direction I like the zoom ring to rotate although I was willing to be convinced otherwise. I ended up not being convinced because of the fact that I do hand-held pictures exclusively. If I'm at 150 and want to zoom to 600, with the Tamron, I'm already supporting the lens with my left hand so it's an easy and natural rotation. With the Sigma zoom, I would have to terminate my lens support and move my hand up to the top of the camera to rotate the zoom ring to the left. Trying to rotate the zoom ring while still supporting the lens with my left hand resulted in discomfort as I tried to rotate my wrist out of its natural range. I almost dropped the camera and Sigma lens a couple of times because my right hand (and mind) wasn't prepared to try to support that kind of weight by holding on to just the camera.

The picture below is of a wild rose at the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge. This rose is about a half inch in diameter and the background is a bunch of wild grasses, bare dirt, and pebbles.

Although I am familiar with Adorama, B&H, and Cameta, I chose to see what else was out there, excluding imports from Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, England, Germany, etc. A Google search for a Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens sent me to eBay. The price was good so I went to check on seller reputation. With a 99% rating over 447,963 sales, and reading through a hundred of the comments, I was satisfied with that. I went to check out and eBay asked me if I wanted to use PayPal or apply for PayPal credit. I have been using PayPal since 2004, so what the heck. Let's see what PayPal credit has to offer. Well, they offered me a $3,000 credit line. For the lens, I could choose to pay it off in 6 months with no interest or 24 months with no interest. Decisions, decisions, decisions. I chose 24 months with no interest to get the nice low payments, which will allow me to buy a new computer; this one is ten years old. Lens should be here in a week with free shipping from Edison New Jersey from Buydig. Now if only Adorama, B&H, and Cameta would do PayPal.

Cost was $1,399 and the bundle included "Console Lens Accessory, Memory Card Reader, Card Wallet, Mini Tripod, Cleaning Kit, [64GB] Memory Card, Microfiber Cleaning Cloth, Backpack, Tripod, Dust Removal Blower System, Lens Cap Keeper, Filter(s)." Since I don't use tripods, I messaged the seller to let them know they could keep the tripod, save postage, save resources, etc.

Just a few hours after I purchased the lens from eBay via PayPal, I got an email from Consumer Priority Service (CPS) offering me an extended warranty. I was offered an extended warranty when I check out, but it was $144. The CPS extended warranty totaled $37.49 and provides a 2-year extension after the manufacturer's warranty has ended, including accidental damage from day of purchase and no deductible. Such a drastic difference meant checking ratings and complaints for CPS. I was satisfied with what I found there so I purchased the extended warranty. My confirmation email offered me an addition 30 days if I would like CPS on Facebook. No problem.

Hope my actions, experiences, and choice can help someone else, but I would highly recommend renting something like this before you buy. I was lucky because I have a local camera store that rents all sorts of stuff. If you don't, try borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com or lensprotogo.com.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I cannot comment about other renting places but my experience with Lens Rental has been very good. Their customer service I believe is top notch.
Roger Cicala, the owner, periodically reviews lenses and he has technicians at Lens Rental to check the lenses, repair them when necessary and give his customers the best that there is.
As per your experience, the Tamron 150-600 VR has found favor in the hands of many photographers.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Very interesting Russel,

I understand that you are highly modifying your photos, but given that I use Lightroom and Photoshop to get a realistic look to my pictures, which lens would you recommend?

I must take issue with your assertion that Adorama does not accept PayPal. I use PayPal when I buy at Adorama all the time. PayPal is always offered at checkout.

On another issue, I am concerned about vendors who buy top seller ratings by offering extra items or discounts in exchange for good ratings. I wonder what that 99% rating would be if they did not offer incentives.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I'm sure he'll get back to us. He may be tied up doing research for Consumer Reports...

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

If I were going for realistic real pictures, I'd probably still go with Tamron. I did not notice a $1,000 difference in sharpness at 600mm for the Sport like it, and some of my friends, claimed. Maybe if I were always using a tripod I could see the difference.

Good to know that Adorama now accepts PayPal. They didn't the last time I used them, but that was six years ago.

CPS only offered an extra item for liking them on Facebook. As to Buydig, I think 447,963 sales says quite a lot, and Buydig had the worst rating at 99%. Everyone else was 99.2, 99.5, 99.6, and even 100%. Invariably, though, I almost always choose higher sales volume over low. I would choose 447,963 sales at 95% satisfaction rating over 1,894 sales with 100% satisfaction rating.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I am curious as to the cost of rental?

J. R.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

The Tamron and Sigma Contemporary were 120 for 7 days and the Sigma Sport was $150 for 7 days. Remember that this was my local camera shop in San Diego, which actually has two stores, one just for rentals. Online, with a much larger potential for rentals throughout the world, might be less.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Very strange that you're not interested in sharpness!!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

The exposures must have been great! Well,almost.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I know, but I'm not trying to sell the perfect picture to anyone, nor am I trying to prove to anyone that I can take the perfect picture.

My purpose is to create a business, Photographic Art by Russel Ray Photos, that will provide for me in my old age, which, since I'm 62, is rapidly approaching. I don't expect
my health insurance to survive under Twitler, and I have pre-existing conditions that caused me to have to go without insurance from January 1, 2004, to June 30, 2014. Summary rejection by insurance companies until Obama and the ACA came long. Thus I anticipate needing lots of money for my old age health and living in dealing with Twitler's policies.

Photographic Art by Russel Ray Photos doesn't require sharpness. Similar to a painting; does one really expect sharpness in a painting?

I'm currently doing a little over $10,000 a month selling my Photographic Art. That's not a mistake. A one followed by four zeros. I have a very well-defined target market and I've been in marketing for 51 years, so I know how to market to people. In fact, I even explained my marketing to everyone here at UHH a few years ago. Here it is if you care to read it: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-327835-1.html

The Photographic Art below was created from "throwaway" photos which never ever get thrown away. They simply go into a folder titled "needs serious help." The pedicab was a grossly underexposed picture. I work only with RAW files (CR2/DNG) so I was able to bring up the lighting and shadows, but that introduced noise. Using Topaz DeNoise or Photoshop's own denoise filters and actions created a picture that wasn't sharp, so it's give or take. However, in denoising, I noticed excessively denoising created a beautiful work of Photographic Art.

For the hibiscus flower, it was a grossly overexposed photo, which then created one of my Top 10 best selling Photographic Art works.

I actually have found that the less my Photographic Art looks like a picture, the more sales I get. I'm in the process of removing the poor sellers from my portfolio, all of which look too much like, well, pictures. If someone wants a picture, they can take it with their iPhone or buy something from one of those guys who has a Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 ($120,000) on a Canon 1DX Mark II ($5,999.00). At the age of 62, my retirement portfolio can't handle those. In fact, if I get catastrophically sick or see that I'm otherwise going to be a burden on society, I'm choosing the suicide route.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Just the exact opposite, actually. Seems the worse the picture is, the better Photographic Art it creates, and the better the artsy part of the Photographic Art, the better the sales for that specific work.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Got an email just now from Buydig that my order was shipped at 11:41 a.m. East Coast time this morning.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Very interesting!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Been there, done that. Forty years ago.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

What a surprize!