I only own the Tamron. if you look back I said I sold the Sigma. I sold it as it disappointed me that is why I bought the Tamron. As far as I am aware no one in this series of posts ever mentioned Sigmas Pro series of lens so why add it to the equation? There is a lot of difference in price between the new Canon 100-400 and the Tamron 150-600 in sterling it equates to £1100 and you would expect the Canon to be slightly better, but I have seen some work where the originator thought the Tamron sharper against the Mk1 Canon !00-400 that was being used and yes I was aware of what settings I was using on my Tamron, I was quite impressed by its first time out even on my old 500D in not very good light. Dull and overcast and shot in jpeg, not even raw. It is quick to autofocus much quicker than the Sigma. I did enquire of the Sigma sport and I am informed is not available in the UK yet and is supposed to be in the same price bracket as the Canon 100-400 mk2. Here endeth this series of the epistle. Happy shooting. Washy

In response to your comments you only have to look at Regis's images shot at 600mm to see wether the Tamron is sharp at 600mm. I will also say the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma 150-500(or at least the one I had)at 500mm. Because the 150-500 Sigma at 500mm dropped off dramatically

canada geese taking off

(Download)

heron frog hunting 60 yards away

(Download)

The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here

put it on a mono pod see Gregory's post on his new Benro mono pod

I did have the Sigma 150-500 but today I traded it with some pounds for a brand new 150-600 Tamron which focuses quicker hunts less and is sharper. In my book money well spent and its about the same weight as the Sigma.

I did have the Sigma 150-500 but today I traded it with some pounds for a brand new 150-5600 Tamron which focuses quicker hunts less and is sharper. In my book money well spent and its about the same weight as the Sigma.

Just use a third party 's paper with their profiles (free) if you buy their paper. Less hassle great results

ok thanks for trying.Washy

Lens only Beverly
Regards Washy

would you be willing to send this lens to the UK England?

Forgot, color monki both screens and set brightness/ contrast to your satisfaction on both as well

In answer to your question, Yes there is an advantage in having two monitors. Don't let any one tell you there is not, if they have never tried two. I have a two monitor set up, both work independent from each other the screen resolution can be different on either . I use one as work in progress (Lightrooom) the other has work in progress ( Photoshop) at the same time. One has my desk top showing the other has my email on it etc. Easy to set up as long as your computer has HDMI , you just need a cable. not expensive to do either. I watch videos on you tube on how to use Photoshop etc on my no 1 screen while I actually follow the video on my own images in Photoshop etc on my no 2 screen. I would never go back to one screen now. As long as your computer has enough power and memory go for it.
Washy

Regis That Tammy does you proud. Are you shooting jpegs or raw. Even with an ISO of 1600 your Canon/Tamron combo shows very little if any noise and those images are so sharp. Washy

Most landscapers shoot between f8 and f22 so there is no need to buy a 2.8 lens an f4 will do and will be less bucks and just as sharp this image is heavily cropped and taken at f11

wet rocks

(Download)

How many PROFESSIONAL photographers do you know that actually use a Sony . Any sporting event any wildlife all Canon or Nikon, no others. The Canon and Nikon users rest their case!!