Long Telephoto zoom for Bird Photography- Tamron 200-500 or Sigma 150-500 OS (BigmOS?

[Alokchitri]

Hello friends


I use Nikon D90 with Nikkor 70-300G VR lens. I have been looking for some options for a longer reach and internet seems to be filled with Sigma 150-500 OS and Sigma 50-500 OS versions as recommended budget tele-zooms. Now there is one more from Nikkor, 80-400 f4.5/5.6. I almost settled my mind on 150-500OS version as it complements my 70-300VR better.
Now one of my Facebook photographer friend, who swears by Photozone.de, strongly recommended Tamron 200-500 Di version. I read the photozone review of this lens and it seems to be alright, more so if I stop down the lens to f8. I tried to find whether there is any comparative test between Siggy 150-500OS and Tammy 200-500 SP Di version, but there is none from reputed sites.
So may I ask the opinion of the members here about which lens would give me better IQ (150-500OS or 200-500 SP Di)? Is there any comparative test between these two lenses?

Please understand that I shall not be able to afford higher primes which are simply out of my reach.

Please help.
Thank you

[sk66]

I would choose the stabilizes version of the 50-500 as my first choice. I have handled many of the Tamrons and they are my least favorite of the third party vendors. Sigma is my go-to for third party.

Comparing the two (assuming good copies) the Sigma will be a little sharper (even though it "shouldn't be") with better contrast and a quieter motor. My impression is that the Sigmas focus a bit faster as well.

I did a quick check on FredMiranda.com for the reviews and the ratings there seem to follow my impressions. FWIW, I have owned the Sigma 50-500, used the Tamron (didn't like it, maybe had a bad copy) but I have not used the 150-500 (but it generally rates lower than the 50-500, it seems there may be more QC issues with it)

[kirbinster]

I had the Tamron and sold it. I did not like it as it was usually very soft, even when stopped down. I find I get better pictures with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a Nikon 2x TC than I got with the Tamron.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I find I get better pictures with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a Nikon 2x TC than I got with the Tamron.

I would agree with that, and it's comparable or better than the Sigma as well (using my VRII and TCIII) but the combo is also about $1k more.

[Alokchitri]

Thanks for the replies sk66 and kirbinster

Well, I do not intend to buy 50-500OS mostly because it's price is near $1700, about $700 extra. I that price I can go for 80-400VR of Nikon (non AF-S version).
I am considering the price quality factor. There are many users who are reporting they are getting excellent shots with 200-500 by stopping down it ti f8. Though there is about 1px CA at the 500mm end which I think is tackled better in 150-500....but 150-50 is very heavy, hand holding the lens is almost not an option, unless I can pump up my biceps and triceps...

[Jo.T]

i went with the sigma 120 - 400mm lense it is faster focusing than the 150 - 500mm. I have been very happy with the results i've been getting. When it comes to birds what ever you have it is never long enough

Cheers Jo

[Alokchitri]

Originally Posted by Jo.T

i went with the sigma 120 - 400mm lense it is faster focusing than the 150 - 500mm. I have been very happy with the results i've been getting. When it comes to birds what ever you have it is never long enough

Cheers Jo

I agree with you Jo regarding birds
But as I already have the 70-300VR, just another 100mm would not be worth spending.
I was pondering over the following thoughts (like searching for a solution of a practical problem theoretically)
Though the Sigma 150-500 is an HSM lens, there is not much of a confirmation how good the auto focus is, is it fast enough to track a flying bird? I have also read that the sharpness of the Tamron lens at 500mm end is sharper than that of 150-500...so things are pretty confusing to me. I am yet to find any comprehensive test report on CA factor of both these lenses at the extreme end. I am more tempted towards sharpness and contrast, both seems to be better at the extreme for Tamron. One more thing that strikes me is, without a Motor Tamron costs almost the same as Sigma which features both OS and HSM. If price dictates quality (considering both have almost the same Brand Value as Third party lens manufacturer), then Tamron should give better IQ.
Finally I am still very much confused...

[ishootRAW]

I wod also consider the tokina 80-400. It's very sharp from what I've heard.

And you can always put a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter on it.

[Alokchitri]

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

I wod also consider the tokina 80-400. It's very sharp from what I've heard.

And you can always put a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter on it.

And I have heard it is one of the worst in the market....don't get me wrong mate

[FDCPR]

When I first got back into photography, I tested a lot of the lenses mentioned here. I had been a serious mammal photographer on film, but took a ten year break. Moved to digital and wanted a setup at a decent price to see if I enjoyed shooting birds. Of all the consumer grade lens I tested I ended up buying the Sigma 150-500 OS. There are problems associated with this lens, one being the difference that is seen between lenses. I have a friend that went through eleven of these lenses until he found a good one. I was lucky in that the one I was shipped performed great for me. I found the lens to be very sharp even at 500mm, but I've also seen versions that at 500 looked very soft. If you purchase one make sure the dealer will work with you on swapping lenses.
I've since moved to the Nikon 600 and my son has taken the Sigma. There are times when I wish the Sigma was still close by for me to use, son lives a few thousand miles away, as the Nikon is very heavy to take on a long walk. In the right light, the Sigma needs lots of light, there is not a lot of difference in the IQ. It's when in the low light which is where I shoot most of the time that the Nikon really outshines the Sigma. Well that and being a little longer. I've tested the print quality by printing images from both lenses and then had some very experienced photographers try to pick out which lens was used. With ten 20x16 prints they could not determine which came from which lens.

Again, I highly stress this is having the right light and getting a good version of the lens.

As far as using the Sigma with a teleconverter, my experience was that the images were unusable. You can make a species shot with the Sigma and a teleconverter but that's about all, it will be extremely soft.