raptort Loc: Saginaw, MI

I am quickly approaching retirement and plan to spend most of my time enjoying nature/wildlife photography. On a fairly tight budget and haven’t upgraded recently. Latest was a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 which I’m very happy with. I purchased my onetime dream camera sometime ago, Canon 7D, but really see no reason at this time to change it. My other zoom lens is the Sigma 170-500mm 5-6.3 APO DG. Of course, a short time later they came out with the OS version. I’m wondering if I am missing the chance for better quality photos and should upgrade to a Tamron 150-600 G2. Reviews seem to favor it over the Sigma Contemporary and I wouldn’t consider the Sport because the much higher cost. Part of me thinks it’s a no brainer and just do it. But will the VC/OS and extra 100mm make that much difference? Is the quality also that much better? I try to use a tripod or monopod whenever I can currently and keep a pillow handy in my car for those opportunities. Also always make sure to use a high shutter speed if I try to handhold. I know the new lens should help in that area.
I’ve learned so much since I started following UHH and felt what better way to get advice but to post my question. Thanks,

Oh by the way, is it common for a Snowy Owl to take up residence as far south as mid-Michigan? Saw quite a few this past winter and was quite surprised to see a redwing blackbird attacking a Snowy a few weeks ago in the same area I saw it in winter/spring.

Kuzano

Birds are changing migratory patterns about as often in these times, as I change my Tighty Whiteys. Almost daily. Pelicans are in locations they have never been found. Spotted and other owls in Oregon are moving around. More Bald Eagles are wintering on the North End of Coeur d' Alene lake in Northern Idaho. We're getting Snowy Owls in Oregon, at about the same latitudes as Michigan. (or, is it longitude?)

Hell, Sunflowers are moving natural growth area's North and West of the state in which they are the State Flower.

Nothing is as it was in the past. Then, what about the algea blooms in Florida and whereever?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, the optical quality of the Tamron will be a good upgrade for you ! - Sadly, the Sigma 170-500 was never noted for it's optical performance. 8-(

..

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

How about a Canon EF 100-400L instead? It would also fill in that big gap you have now between the 17-70 and the long tele.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

If you do not use a tripod/monopod, and rely on hand holding/pillow over the lens, VC will help. Tamron's are excellent lenses, I have the 24-70 and 70-200 G2 and get fantastic results.

With rapidly changing climate, now that we are approaching a tipping point, animal migration patterns are in a state of flux. Who knows how it will shake out.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Welcome brother. I am also retired and very much enjoy nature / wildlife, especially birding, photography. Did a lot of study before buying as I am also on a fixed income and ended up with the Tamron 150-600mm G2 for birding. After tuning (which was a bit frustrating), I am very pleased with it. On brighter days, it also works well with the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. I always have a tripod (Manfroto befree) in my backpack, and use it when I can, but shoot handheld at least 50% of the time. It takes some practice, but you can get very good results given Tamron's VC.

Your sigma 17-70mm, which gets excellent reviews, should serve you well for landscapes.

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

x2 on the Tamron 150-600 G2, and also even with the 1.4x tele. Works excellent for wildlife and my copy of the lens
is perfectly sharp. VC is excellent on it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I cannot speak to the optical quality of these lenses but I live and die by the IS being available in the lens. It is a huge and deciding factor on getting a lens or not. I must have it since I discovered it for myself. Greater percentage of shots are good and looking through the viewfinder is not a jumping mess. I chose the 24-105mm over the 24-70 just for the IS reason.
I am also considering the Tamron 150-600mm G2 for a Christmas present and here and elsewhere have heard great things about it. The extra 100mm will make a difference but in telephotos not as dramatic as a few mm do in WA lenses but it does make a difference.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Don’t spend more money until something breaks or you can clearly see a defect that an upgrade will overcome.

As for Snowy Owls, they visit North Florida. Algae blooms? We have seen them here for ages - nothing new.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

First, Snowy Owl's are seen along the Erie coast near Erie Pennsylvania. Second, I have many friends who swear by their Canon D7 mark II and the newer 100-400 II lens. That is all they use and they get great shots.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I've been using the Tamron 150-600 G2 for a couple years now and love it. Take a look at Mike Jackons Best of the Tetons web site, he uses the G2.

gwilliams6

I am a pro and have the Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm f5-6.3. It is top quality and very sharp. Some reviewers rated the Sigma better than the Tamron G2, so it is all about who you read really. The Sigma Contemporary has actually tested slightly sharper than its heavyweight brother the Sport version. I am shooting on pro quality mirrorless Sony A7RIII and A7III and loving my Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm f5-6.3. I think it is one of the best super-zooms on the market. I own very expensive Sony G-master lenses but think my Sigma is one of the best lens buys I have made in my 40+plus year professional career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6tCUFXiDws&t=194s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56cqFNYFX0M

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I think you'd be happy with the lens upgrade. The 170-500mm is quite old now (it was superseded by a 150-500mm, which in turn was superseded by a 150-500mm OS, which in turn was superseded by the two Sigma 150-600s).

On original 7D you lose autofocus with any f/5.6 lens with a 1.4X. 7DII and 80D can focus the combo.... are f/8 capable. But original 7D is not.

IF you could use a 1.4X, I'd instead recommend the Canon 100-400mm... either version, but especially the "II". The Canon lenses use fluorite for great image quality, and their AF is more reliable.

But since you can't use a 1.4X teleconverter, one or the other of the 150-600mm makes more sense. I don't have any of them, so will leave it to others who have compared them and can comment. You also might look at Bryan Carnathan's reviews and lens tests at www.the-digitial-picture.com. There you can see for yourself side-by-side test shots done with the zooms at different focal lengths and apertures. Just be sure to use the same or similar cameras, for fairest comparison. (Unfortunately, the 170-500mm is too old, dates to before he started testing lenses, so you can't see how they compare to your current lens, only with each other.)

To me, at all focal lengths and wide open (where most lenses are "at their worst") the Sigma "Contemporary" looks a little sharper and appears to have a bit less chromatic aberration than the Tamron G2. I'll leave it to you to compare other apertures and see for yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Something else you might consider, you can probably sell your 170-500mm for at least $300... maybe a little more (I see some in stores for up to $400). That might offset some of the cost of the new lens and make possible buying something a bit more expensive (if it's truly "better", of course... to me the Sigma Sport looks just slightly sharper at 500 and 600mm, but not as sharp as the Sigma C at shorter focal lengths... could be copy variation... the Sport lens is also a lot bigger and heavier, too).

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Snowy Owls have become quite common in northern Pennsylvania in winter.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

G2 is more expensive. Slightly better or worse depending on focal length being tested. They are competitive. You cant make a bad decision selecting one or the other. (selecting the Sport version would be a bad decision based on your criteria :-)