Tamarin 150-600 vs sigma(again!). Need to decide today ! (Page 2): I am thinking of trying a 200-500 NOY because it's a Nikon, but because of its reported AF speed and sharpness. The...

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

billnikon wrote:

I have the Nikon D750 and I have the new Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 lens. I use group auto focus around a central focusing point in the center of the viewfinder. Focusing is fast and very accurate. Look, the Nikon is not that much more and it is a fixed F stop 5.6. And it is NIKON, why use anything else?

I am thinking of trying a 200-500 NOY because it's a Nikon, but because of its reported AF speed and sharpness. The label on the side of the lens really has NO meaning to me.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

billnikon wrote:

I have the Nikon D750 and I have the new Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 lens. I use group auto focus around a central focusing point in the center of the viewfinder. Focusing is fast and very accurate. Look, the Nikon is not that much more and it is a fixed F stop 5.6. And it is NIKON, why use anything else?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

photofreak8573 wrote:

I have a dilemma. We just bought a second D7 50 bo... (show quote)

There is so much more to a lens. Relying on advice from members is just one factor and likely not the best. Most will tell you I have and like it but that is using there own standards which may not be the best. Construction, metal mounts, weather sealing, aperture blades (number and design), coatings, elements and groups, sharpness (not (not just in the middle but edge to edge), transmission rate for AF, image stabilization, manual focus override, internal or external zoom, internal motors (types), locks, balance and handling, how much chromatic aberration, vignetting, distortion, etc all have to be a part of the decision matrix. Go to DxO labs and put that lens and others on your camera body (including other top of the line) and look to key values and add that to all the input you receive. Do your homework and you will not be disappointed and in the process you will learn a lot.

Geez, I just read some member provide analysis by taking a picture of a TV screen inside his bedroom and announced the lens to be very sharp! Oh, come on.... give me a break!!!

O2Ra

billnikon wrote:

You need to test drive the Nikon, focuses as fast as my Nikon 200-400 f4 and gives it a run for its money on sharpness (really sharp, super sharp) . I cannot say the same for Tamron and Sigma. Like I said, the Nikon 200-500 costs a little more but down the road you will be happy with the Nikon.

Autofocus speed , consistency and sharpness plus the f/5.6 is why I'm considering this lens. If it's the choice between the other two I'd go Sigma for two reasons: first I've heard of poor internal build quality of Tamrons and Second the Sigma has the USB dock. I have a couple Art series Sigmas. If it were not for the USB dock I'd never have known how good these lenses were. I have a tough time getting the focus points set with the dock but once they are done it's phenomenal.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

cjc2 wrote:

In the Tamron v. Sigma debate, I prefer the Sigma, but the more expensive sport version. Head to head, I prefer the Sigma because of the dock. (I predict that others will eventually release something similar!). Have not tried the Nikon, but do have every intention of doing so. IMHO. Best of luck!

In most tests, the Sigma C actually performed better than the Sports version optically!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

billnikon wrote:

You need to test drive the Nikon, focuses as fast as my Nikon 200-400 f4 and gives it a run for its money on sharpness (really sharp, super sharp) . I cannot say the same for Tamron and Sigma. Like I said, the Nikon 200-500 costs a little more but down the road you will be happy with the Nikon.

Again, I have the Sigma Sport which is the most expensive of the group and adds a host of features for the additional money. I bought it, specifically, to see if I might be interested in a Nikon 200-400 for my sports work instead of my Nikon 400/2.8. Sometimes, I think that the ability to zoom takes your attention away from where it should be when photographing sports, but when players are close, shorter can be faster than switching cameras. Haven't decided this one yet! In addition, I am disappointed that Nikon chose to leave of the Nano coating on this new lens. Regardless, I will, most likely, buy one. Might even end up selling the Sigma! Best of luck.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

speters wrote:

In most tests, the Sigma C actually performed better than the Sports version optically!

What tests would these be?

George Kravis

I have the Tamron 150 - 600 and am quite pleased with its performance on my Canon 60D. I recall that it was less costly than the equivalent Sigma. I found it to stack up well against the canon 100 - 400.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

photofreak8573 wrote:

I have a dilemma. We just bought a second D7 50 bo... (show quote)

Sigma for the dock .......otherwise, flip a coin !

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

ptcanon3ti wrote:

I am thinking of trying a 200-500 NOY because it's a Nikon, but because of its reported AF speed and sharpness. The label on the side of the lens really has NO meaning to me.

REALLY????

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

billnikon wrote:

REALLY????

YES REALLY!!!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

billnikon wrote:

You need to test drive the Nikon, focuses as fast as my Nikon 200-400 f4 and gives it a run for its money on sharpness (really sharp, super sharp) . I cannot say the same for Tamron and Sigma. Like I said, the Nikon 200-500 costs a little more but down the road you will be happy with the Nikon.

The Nikon 200-500 does not focus as fast as the 200-400 and neither is it as sharp. It has different elements groups, coatings, etc. It has a higher price to it for good reason. It is not the same in any aspect except it a Nikon.

O2Ra

speters wrote:

In most tests, the Sigma C actually performed better than the Sports version optically!

I rented the Sport version last February from lens rentals. I was so impressed with the build quality and speed of focus . Not that the Contemporary is a bad lens but I would go the extra mile to get the weather sealing and build quality. I fell on ice backwards smashing the lens into the ground so hard . I was sure the lens and my camera were both junk. It bent the lens hood and the zoom rotation was a little rough at first but I finished out my rental with the lens then sent it back with a note of what happened. Lens Rentals checked it out and said it was fine. Sure wish I'd have had a USB dock at the time because the focus needed calibrated. With my Nikon D7000 (which I was using then ) every lens I've put on it has needed calibrated to the body. Now my new D810 doesn't seem to have that problem. But after getting the USB dock I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. And with the 150-600 there is so many adjustments you can do with the dock. I'd spend a week setting it if I had to. It would be phenomenal I guarantee it. I'm so impressed with the quality of the new Sigma lenses. Like I said I'm a fan of their new stuff. Only thing I wish was better is the amount of focus misses. But I shoot a lot with a very shallow depth of field so it's expected. I shoot too shallow too often. I'm learning to open up more when needed. ( beginner kinda)

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

I have to vote for the Sport 600. but I am biased. I own one and it is awesome on my D610. The dock is also a plus.
You should try both and decide for yourself.

Then there is no one to blame or compliment besides yourself.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I wanted to get a 150-600. I tried a Tamiron and I tried the Sigma Sport. The extra lens element in the Sigma sport made e big difference wide open.
So I went with the Sigma Sport. You need to go witha lens that you feel meets your objectives.