Lens suggestions

Been looking at the tamron 100 - 400, and the sigma 150-600, but I cant make my mind up because i cant get the idea of "i am getting honest review information/honest photo samples taken with it".

 

Its like the tamron 18-400 with 22.2x magnification, the sigma 150-600 only has "4x" to it, but it gets great reviews. While the tamron 18-400 depending on individual review is either the greatest thing to happen to camera lenses since we started USING camera lenses instead of a pinhole camera, or the greatest evil to anyone wanting sharp, clear, crisp photographs that can be viewed larger then playing card size.

 

That bird photo in my uploads for profile approval was most likely taken at 15 yards at 300mm with my af-p 70-300. I had been under the impression based on website reviews and nikon itselft that i should have been able to have nothing but the bird head in the photo

You're confusing reproduction ratio with zoom ratio. When people say a 150-600mm is a 4x zoom, they mean that the ratio of the longest focal length (600mm) to the shortest (150mm) is 4:1, or 4 times. It has nothing to do with how large of an image of an object the lens will make on a sensor. That's reproduction ratio. For example, a repro ratio of 1:2 means the lens will project an image of an object on a sensor that is exactly half as wide (or half as tall) as the actual object. Note that this is a maximum. Any lens can of course also project smaller images if you just put more distance between the object and the camera.

 

The maximum reproduction ratio of the 70-300mm lens you have is 0.22x, or 1:4.5. This repro ratio applies only at 300mm and only at the closest focus distance. So if you zoom in to 300mm and get as close to a bird as you can while still being able to focus on it (1.1 meters for this lens; that's a lot closer than 15 yards), you will get an image of the bird that is almost 1/4 actual size. That might be enough to fill the DX frame with the bird head. If it's a big enough bird.

Tommarcuis, The Tamron 100-400 is a much different size lens than either the Sigma 150 - 600 contemporary or sport or either version 1 or 2 of the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron 100-400 is small, affordable, relatively sharp and has an optional albeit vestigial tripod foot. You would probably not go wrong with either Tamron or Sigma but if your planning to photograph small birds then the reach of a 150-600 makes it a better over all choice. Keep in mind that both 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses are slow and limit you in the early morning or end of the day. From personal experience the Tamron 100-400 is an easy lens to carry around compared to the Nikon 200-400mm f4, 500mm f4 or 600mm f4 teles but may be all you need. Good hunting.

Just go and get the Sigma 60-600mm Sport.

 

Short of a mega-expensive f4 prime, it's about the sharpest way to get to 600mm. It's at it's best wide open too.

If you have Nikon zooms . . .

• The zoom ring on the Tamron zoom turns in the same direction as the Nikon.
  
• The zoom ring on the Sigma zoom turns in the OPPOSITE direction as the Nikon.
  
  • If you zoom by muscle memory, as some (me) do, this can be REALLY confusing to your left hand, when you zoom in, instead of out.
    
  • I shot volleyball with a Sigma 17-50/2.8 zoom, and gave up in frustration after 15-20 minutes, for the above reason. I kept turning the zoom ring the WRONG way, and losing shots. My left hand much preferred the older Tamron 17-50/2.8.
    

I would look at the Tamron 100-400 and the Tamron 150-600.

If you NEED the reach, the 150-600 will give it to you. But at the cost of bulk (size and weight).

If it's sharpness at the long end you need, the usual wish for a long tele, then the Sigma 60-600mm is notably superior to the Tamron..

 

Sigma S 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Tamron SP 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

If you don't mind the rotation direction for the zoom, the extra weight 2kg V 2.7kg,and maybe 1.1/2 x the price, the Sigma is the more modern and much sharper lens.

Edited July 1, 2020 by mike_halliwell

There is no free lunch.

 

In general, you buy a super/ultra zoom, like the 18-400 is for convenience, not Image Quality (IQ).

You don't have to change lenses, you just turn the zoom ring. It has a massive 22x zoom range (400/18=22x)

But, to get that convenience, you generally give up some IQ, because of the optical compromises to get that 22x zoom range.

So rather than excellent IQ, you get good IQ.

Good IQ is what I call "good enough" for most people and purposes.

 

The shorter range zooms, like the 150-600 have a shorter zoom range (600/150=4x), so have less optical compromise and better IQ.

If you look at the Full Frame pro lenses, you will see that the standard zooms are limited to an even shorter 3x zoom range (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8) for max IQ.

 

So you have to make a decision.

Do you want convenience or maximum Image Quality.

 

But technology keeps moving. What was once considered impossible is now possible, and with good IQ.

The Sigma 60-600 and Tamron 18-400 are examples of previously impossible lenses.

And today's "good IQ" is better than prior years "excellent IQ."

The 60-600mm Sigma looks like a very good lens but your only going to get that on a tripod.

The 60-600 is almost 6 pounds and can’t be considered a walk around lens.

The Tamron 100-400 is a joy to carry and a far sight better than its predecessors and certainly in time will be surpassed.

Still shooting any long lens hand held is less than optimal and probably obviates any improved resolution.

The 60-600mm Sigma looks like a very good lens but your only going to get that on a tripod.

The 60-600 is almost 6 pounds and can’t be considered a walk around lens.

I handhold mine all the time. An hours romp around the local nature reserve with it is no trouble at all. The Nikon 200-500mm is just 400gm less and no-one thinks that's a tripod only lens that you wouldn't walk around with. I happen to have both and hadn't noticed the extra weight until I looked up the specs.

 

The VR is good for about 3 and a bit stops, so a minimum shutterspeed of 1/125 is easy. No good for subject movement, but fine for a stationary bird up a tree.

 

PS. I'm 5ft 6 and could probably benefit from a gym membership.....:D

Anyone have unedited photos taken with them?

If it's sharpness at the long end you need, the usual wish for a long tele, then the Sigma 60-600mm is notably superior to the Tamron..

 

Sigma S 60-600 mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Tamron SP 150-600 mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

If you don't mind the rotation direction for the zoom, the extra weight 2kg V 2.7kg,and maybe 1.1/2 x the price, the Sigma is the more modern and much sharper lens.

 

 

There is a problem with using LensTip reviews to compare the Tamron 160-600 to the Sigma 60-600. The review of the Tamron lens is dated 2014 and tests the old Tamron 150-600 lens. Tamron has had the new G2 model out for a few years. I understand it is an improved lens.

 

You are not only comparing apples to oranges; you are comparing old apples to new oranges.

comparing apples to oranges;

Err, explain. Sure, there's no other x10 range zoom that ends in 600mm..... tangerines to satsumas maybe.;)

 

It's also so much easier to make a x4 zoom than a x10.

 

However, I get that the newer G2 may be better. Do you know of any review site that's published measured MTFs of them both?

Err, explain. Sure, there's no other x10 range zoom that ends in 600mm....

 

No, I do not know of any other such lens. Which is why it is the Orange. And the 150-600 is the Apple.

 

My point is that comparing an older version of a lens makes it an invalid comparison.

 

However, I get that the newer G2 may be better. Do you know of any review site that's published measured MTFs of them both?

 

No, I do not. But I am not the person making the post that compares the lenses. My only point is, if you are citing data comparing two products, be sure you are comparing the newest versions of each, or the comparison is suspect. This is especially true when posting to a thread where the OP is asking for recommendations for a purchase.

 

By the way, if the OP is interested in examples for the Tamron 150-600 used by real people in the real world, he should look at posts Bill Boyd has made in Nikon Wednesday and the Monday and Friday Nature threads. Many of his images were taken using the Tamron lens. I have been very impressed with the images.

Not that I understand DxO's methods very well, but assuming they did the same for the G1 AND the G2 versions, it's no sharper.

 

Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 review: Affordable tele-zoom - DXOMARK

 

Sadly, they haven't tested the Sigma 60-600mm S or, as far as I can find, the Nikon 200-500mm.

 

Real world usage (I own the Sigma and the Nikon 200-500mm) shows that the Sigma is way sharper at the long end, which interestingly bares out exactly what the LensTip reviews say.

 

Bottom line with all such lens suggestion threads is read them all and then go and try them.

 

If weight is an issue, even though it may be a better lens, if you don't take it out with you 'cos it's too heavy or bulky.. what's the point? Only get what you can deal with.

 

examples for the Tamron 150-600 used by real people in the real world

I can understand Real World, as in objects, people, etc and NOT targets but, err, Real People?

 

Just what exactly is the alternative....? Mythical...? :eek:

Reviews by Rambo, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Superman just have to be credible don't they? I mean, would Superman lie to you?

I can understand Real World, as in objects, people, etc and NOT targets but, err, Real People?

 

Just what exactly is the alternative....? Mythical...? :eek:

 

A poor choice of words on my part. I should have said ordinary people as opposed to paid testers or "journalists" whose publication may be compensated by the manufacturer in some form. In other words end users like us.

PS. And don't forget the Tamron 18-400mm is designed for DX only. Whereas the Tamron 100-400mm is FX, as are all the Sigma and Nikon lenses mentioned.

Luke Skywalker

I have a worrying feeling he's a recognised 'prophet' from a recognised religion.......:D

. . .

 

Bottom line with all such lens suggestion threads is read them all and then go and try them.

 

If weight is an issue, even though it may be a better lens, if you don't take it out with you 'cos it's too heavy or bulky.. what's the point? Only get what you can deal with.

 

 

Holding the lens for 5 or 10 minutes in the camera shop is nowhere near what your arms will feel like after 4 hours in the field.

So if it seems heavy . . . it will be HEAVY after a few hours.

 

I got the Nikon 70-200/4, because I can handle that for a 5 hour shoot. Even so, my arms are tired/sore.

I would have given up shooting with the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens.

Holding the lens for 5 or 10 minutes in the camera shop is nowhere near what your arms will feel like after 4 hours in the field.

So if it seems heavy . . . it will be HEAVY after a few hours

I've never heard anyone complain about the Nikon 200-500mm as a walk around lens for HOURS and it's only 400gm heavier. If you've got a handy allen key you can save some weight by taking off the massive tripod foot...if you're going to handhold all day.:)

 

Having a suitable strap arrangement can make a heavy combo seem much lighter. I personally find the OpTech stuff ideal for me.

 

But, sure, the final bottom-line is, if you can't take the weight, don't buy it.

 

Maybe hire them for a weekend and see what works for you?

I think it's worth stepping back and asking how badly you NEED 600mm.

 

IIRC, the OP is using a D7200, or at least some flavor of D7xxx, which is a crop sensor camera.

 

That makes 600mm equivalent to a 900mm on FX/film. That's a wickedly long lens, and one that is not easy to use. If you need a lens that long, you know you need it, but it's impractically long for a lot of uses.

 

In addition, even at around 500mm on full frame, I find that it takes a lot of practice to make it manageable. If handholding, VR or its equivalent is your friend. Still, though, it doesn't solve all ills and I'd be seriously looking at a monopod at a minimum. Weight is also beneficial, as a heavier lens(at least up to the point where it doesn't cause your hands/arms to shake) tends to be a bit more stable.

 

The above is also why mirror lenses can be difficult to use effectively. I have a 500mm Nikon that mostly sits on the shelf. A while back, I played with a 1000mm my local shop had in stock, and had issues getting sharp photos outdoors even at 1/4000 on a D700.

If you need a lens that long, you know you need it, but it's impractically long for a lot of uses.

That's why it's a zoom.....you have a choice of ANYWHERE between 60mm to 600mm FX...:p

 

For an hour's walk around the local reserve with anything from a whole 60ft tree to the small bird on-top as targets, I go with no camera bag and no other lenses. Just the 60-600mm held kinda Rambo like. The neck-strap connectors are on the lens (!) but the tension is adjusted so the D850 and grip can be held in my right hand and the left can cradle the lens front/middle, usually somewhere near the zoom ring.. It divides the weight onto 3 points. If i know I'm going to stake-out a known location, yes, I might take a monopod.

 

The VR is so good, I often (but not always!) don't take any bins with me.

 

mirror lenses can be difficult to use effectively

I've still got the Sigma 600mm F8 Mirror..somewhere. It was a sod to focus accurately in anything but good light.

 

I wonder if focus peaking might give it a new lease of life? Maybe on a Z50?....:cool:

 

I played with a 1000mm my local shop had in stock, and had issues getting sharp photos outdoors even at 1/4000

There's gotta be enough room in there for some VR prisms... and what with focus modules easily capable of AF @ >F8, there's a niche ready to be filled.....:D

Edited July 9, 2020 by mike_halliwell

I started out in photography (by coincidence) using Canon equipment and I've kind of stuck with it. I know many photographers who prefer Nikon for good reasons.

 

So this is a 'generic' question on lenses. When - some 15 years ago - I tried to figure out what lenses I might need for my 'brand new' DSLR,' most of the articles I read concluded that 'the greater the zoom range of a lens, the more compromises it makes w,r.t. image quality'. As a result, I still have separate zoom lenses for the 24 mm - 70 mm range, the 70 mm - 200 mm range and 400 mm (wildlife). I also have a 1.4x extender for greater reach.

 

So my question is this: has lens technology developed sufficiently over the past 15 years that 'wide zoom' lenses compromise image quality much less than 15 years ago?

 

Mike

So my question is this: has lens technology developed sufficiently over the past 15 years that 'wide zoom' lenses compromise image quality much less than 15 years ago?

Yes.

The same technologies which have improved super-zooms over the past 15 years have also improved primes and zooms with smaller zoom ratios. Most modern super-zooms are good enough for most purposes, but the other lenses are still better :)

The same technologies which have improved super-zooms over the past 15 years have also improved primes and zooms with smaller zoom ratios. Most modern super-zooms are good enough for most purposes,

Whilst this is obviously true, the OP was after lens info regarding reach to atleast 400-500mm.

 

but the other lenses are still better

 

Primes in the 400-600mm range? Yes, if you want to mortgage your house AND take up gym lessons.

 

Although I guess the exception are Nikon PF lenses.

 

Not a lot has changed from the 13 yr old AF-S 400/2.8 G IF-ED VR and AF-S 600/4 IF-ED VR... and I still can't afford one....:(

 

Weight, yes, but IQ? Maybe, but not by as much as superzooms have...;)