Nikon D3 and D7100 with either Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm

<p>Hi Folks.</p>

<p>I was not sure if this was the correct forum in which to post, but it does involve my Nikon gear, so here it goes. Since I do bird photography and sports photography I am looking for a nice long lens that won't totally break the bank. I've been reading the reviews on the Tamron 150-600mm lens to use with both my D3 and my D7100 and the specs and results I've seen are pretty impressive. When I was at the photo expo in NYC last month, I got to see both lenses and notice that the Sigma had 2 different vibration compensation modes, one that is similar to Tamron and one that is "optimized" for panning shots where the horizontal VC remains engaged but not the vertical (that is what I understood, anyway). This intrigued me since you frequently pan when birding. Does it make sense to wait and see how the Sigma (contemporary model, not sport model) performs when it gets released or is the Tamron lens just as good? Any thoughts appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rick</p>

<p>if I knew that Sigma was coming out w/ a competitor, I'd wait for it unless the need was too great. Both Sigma and Tam. have been really cranking out good lenses these days.</p>

<p>Bob Atkins reviewed the Tamron (in Canon mount) for photo.net: http://www.photo.net/reviews/tamron-150-600/<br /> For a slow 600mm/f6.3 zoom, it seems to be excellent with those limitations, and it is just over $1000. The Sigma is around $2000, almost double the price. I understand that the Sigma is a huge lens, with a size similar to that of a 300mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>I have no experience with either lens. I had some interest when the Tamron first came out, but I am well aware that a 600mm/f6.3 is going to have a lot of limitations.</p>

<p>I agree with the idea of waiting to see the Sigma unless you really need to move forward on a purchase.</p>

<p>For the Tamron, I recommend looking at this website: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html The author's photographic work is more than sufficient to convince me that his is a meaningful opinion. Take a look at his gallery shots and I think you'll see what I mean. Scroll down his blog to the late October posts to find his Tamron review.</p>

<p>The only reviews I've seen of a Sigma 150-600 have been of the Sport model, which costs about double the Tamron. The Contemporary model was announced at the same time as the Sport, but I've not seen any evidence of it yet. I suggest you email Sigma and tell them you are considering either the Tamron or their Contemporary 150-600, and ask them when you can expect to see their lens in stores as you want to make a decision on your purchase. If you get a reply with useful information in it, you could make yourself rather popular in Nikon forums by posting the reply!</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your thoughts. I just sent an e-mail to Sigma asking for a more defined timeline for release of the contemporary model as well as some official specs. From what I know so far, the contemporary version is not fully weather sealed at it will be softer at the edges than the sport model. It's also supposed to be two pounds lighter than the sport version, and about half the price. I was very impressed with the sport version at the NYC photo expo, but it would be hard to carry the 6 pound behemoth around birding trails. I was impressed with the multi-focal length zoom lock and the 2 VC modes, neither of which are present on the Tamron. But I've seen real-world photos taken with the Tamron and they're not bad. Some are a bit soft at 600mm, but very usable. <br>

If I hear back from Sigma, I'll update the forum with anything new that I learn.</p>

 

<p>Richard, appreciate in advance if you can keep us posted. However, I kind of doubt that Sigma will provide you (or anyone of us here) any advanced information that is not already in the public domain.</p>

<p>The problem with lens advertising/promotion and review is that I can capture some great images with just about any junk lens. When I capture something in beautiful light, no subject motion ..., a lot of cheap lenses can do well at f8. When the subject is birds in flight, athletes running ... under dim light, it would be a lot more challenging. If a long AF lens can successfully AF in 2 out of 100 captures, I may consider it terrible, but if they only show you those two good ones without ever mentioning the other 98, the reader may consider that lens excellent. Unfortunately, there are many ways to provide deceptive information.</p>

<p>Hi Richard, I have been shooting with a Nikon 300 f/4 and 1.4x tc for several years and never thought of buying a non-Nikon lens, but recently purchased the Tamron 150-600 to try. I shoot only birds. Comparing the Tamron to the Nikon prime, I must admit that the Tamron is just as sharp, if not sharper for bird feathers. Besides optics, this may have to do with the fact that the Tamron has stabilization where the Nikon 300 f/4 does not. The stabilization may also make up for the difference in speed (f/5.6 and f/6.3 for Tamron). I shoot handhold only. I really don't know what the actual reason is, but I can tell you that the Tamron seems to work very well with fine details such as bird feathers, even at 600mm and f/6.3. It's also just slightly bigger and heavier than my Nikon lens and tc. Take a look at the last 3 images in my "Birds" folder and compare these to all the others shot with the Nikon 300/4 and 1.4x. I should point out that the Tamron images are from my first attempt using this lens. I did another shoot yesterday with equal results. Of course if you are not in a hurry wait for the Sigma, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on the Tamron. I use a Nikon D7000. Best of luck and feel free to contact me if you like. Rob</p><div></div>

<p>nikkor 300 f4 is sharper than a tamron 150-600.<br /> tamron 150 -600 has more flexibility.</p>

<p>as i use a d3 as my main body, i have to say i found the tamron 150-600 to be not as sharp as i was used to by using nikon lenses of all kind.</p>

<p>i would recomment a test, go rent it and test it and do not compare shots that were beeing shot handheld under different conditions.</p>

<p>go get the lenses, all of them up for testing. frame something using a tripod, shoot it.<br>

do test autofocus with subject comming toweards you, passing by alos passing by and/or comming towards you in backlit situations.</p>

<p>choose your lens</p>

<p>Monday I went to the Tamron Road Show in Sacramento, CA to try their 70-200 f/2.8 on my F100 film camera. I loaded a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 for the test. I was mainly interested whether the lens would focus and the VR would work on my F100. The camera store was in downtown Sacramento; subject matter was limited.</p>

<p>When I finished testing the 70-200, I had several frames left on the roll, so I tried out the 150-600, just for fun. The attached picture was taken handheld with the 150-600mm lens set to 600mm 1/50 of a second f/6.3. I would say the VR and focus work. If I needed such a long lens, this one is hard to beat for price/performance. </p><div></div>

<p>And here is the same view shot a 70mm with the 70-200 f/2.8. As you can see, the banner is about a city block away.</p><div></div>

<p>If I were in Richards place, the question would not be, "Is the Tamron just as good?", but "Is the Sigma worth almost twice the price?" What does that extra $800 get you? Do you need it?<br>

<br />Disclaimer: I have the Tamron. It's VR seems to do fine with panning.</p><div></div>

<p>Try this again<br>

Here's a crop of the above full frame (stuck into the 700 px max).</p><div></div>

<p>the question i would ask would be about the reliability of both lenses.<br>

an ever increasing number of tamron users using the nikon mount are having problems with the lens freezing and refusing to focus unless released and reseated in its mount.<br>

only time will tell re the new sigmas but i am keeping an eye on the sports and contemporary and disregarding the tamron because of its issues despite seeing very nice results from it.</p>