Printable View
Has anyone here used either a Tamron 200-500mm 5-6.3 LD or Sigma 50mm-500mm f4-6.3 lens? I'm not likely to get a Canon 500mm anytime soon and wondered if either of these lenses were worth a try? Or maybe get the 100-400 Canon and then later get a TE.
I have a Canon 70-300 and a TE from Tamron that works but I seldom use it. Lens alone does better for me.
thank you,
maria
As discussed, Canon 100-400 will not AF on anything but the 1d with teleconverter, so generally don't even think about that scenario. I own the Tamron 200-500 but only use it for backup now. I have many friends who use the Sigma 150-500mm stabilized zoom and love it.
Getting to the 500mm focal length was a big turning point for me, and increased my passion for wildlife photography. Hopefully it does the same for you as well!
Best of luck,
Dave
I've had the Sigma 50-500 for a little over a year now. I purchased it used and made the decision to buy it because I was seeing some really nice work being presented in various forums shot with this lens. It's not an "L" lens and has some limitations, but as you learn to work around those limitations results get better and better.
Thanks Dave,
I had read that getting to 500mm was an important siep up in nature photography and now that we have our own small Bosque out in Mesilla, New Mexico I really wanted to try it out. But Hubby won't like me spending as much on a lens as I did on our last car so I was looking into alternatives to the Canon. Did you not like the Tamron?
thanks again,
maria
Bob, what limitations do you mean? I would guess it might be a bit soft on the long end? But not unusable? This coming year I will either be able to upgrade my Rebel XSi or get a long lens, and was trying to decide which way to go. The Canon 7D (or other nice Canon) or an affordable 500mm? I lean toward the glass because there will always be a new camera out but glass lasts and can be used on the new body whenever I get one.
thank you,
maria
Maria - The autofocus on my Tamron is extremely slow, and will hunt back and forth often while trying to lock in on common targets. In order of the budget superzooms I'd recommend: Sigma 150-500 OS, Sigma 50-500, and the Tamron last.
Here's the photostream of one of my contacts who uses the Bigma (50-500mm) http://www.flickr.com/photos/hvanneyri/
I would advise that he seems to use expert technique and rarely shoots in subpar lighting. The typical user won't be able to squeeze out the same IQ.
Here is one of my favorite shots I took with the Tamron 200-500, but as I said I think it's an inferior lens. Several people on this forum advocate it, but I have never seen consistent output that can rival the Sigmas.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidra...7600985744723/
Specifically, center sharpness, contrast, and colors are worse. Get a Sigma and go out to kick some butt!
This is a very wise choice. The lens will have a far greater impact on your work. Heck, this XSI is a well-liked model anyhow capable of fine IQ. Sounds like you're heading in the right direction to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariakruse
Maria,Quote:
Bob, what limitations do you mean? I would guess it might be a bit soft on the long end? But not unusable?
With my copy I need to stop down a bit to get the results I want. I'm usually trying to shoot at around f/8.0 to f/10.0. That means a bit of a compromise at times in iso. Beyond that it proforms well.
Good points above. I use Sigma 50-500 for few years now. Over the years I have been able to improve my technique in getting excellent images both hand held and on stand using a mongoose head. I have a much better keeper rate now. The glass having front extending elements, it is important to balance it properly on the stand. The glass performs excellent in good light. I am typically using apperture priority mode with f/8 and ISO 400 and also ensure that the shutter speed is higher than the focal length as the thumb rule. Here is one of my recent posting http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52762. I will be testing this with 7D soon and hopefully be able to see better AF and less noise.
Thanks Dave,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blinder
I will look for the Sigma 150-500. Sounds like a doable deal.
maria
Yes,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blinder
I like my Rebel just fine and since I haven't maxed out what it can do yet I figure it's a good time to get a few lenses. I like the ones I have so far and really only need a nice long lens, maybe a wide lens, then a fisheye, perhaps a...Oh dear. I seem to have become very greedy in my old age. Ah well.
thanks again,
maria
I'll remember that Bob,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Decker
thank you.
maria
Thank you Indranil, I had forgotten I will need a sturdier tripod. That's a terrific shot of the diving pelican. Wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Indranil Sircar
maria
I own a Tamron 200-500 and enjoy using it even though I agree the AF can hunt a good bit in some situations. I've never used a Sigma telephoto so can't comment on the difference between the two. I would suggest looking at the lensrentals.com repair data that they publish every six months. They dropped the Sigma 150-500mm because of a high repair rate. Just one fact to consider before purchasing.
Allen
Allen,
thank you so much for that information. I wondered about the Tamron mainly because I already had a Tamron 1.4 TC and was curious if it would work on the longer lens. I guess it's a good thing I have a bit of time to do some research.
maria
Maria,
I started getting into long lenses with the Tamron 200-500mm back in 2005 mated to my then EOS350D. It is slow but I have had some pretty good images from this lens. I have shot both avian and MotoGP and for its price I cannot really complain.
Bear in mind with the 1.4 hooked up the focussing goes even slower and you have to step it down to at least f9 to get some respectably sharp images. Wide open you will get colour fringing (CA) and soft pictures.
These days it just sits in the dry box and I should really let it go honestly.
I cannot comment on the Sigma as I have not used or owned that lens.
Maria,
I own a Tamron 1.4 pro teleconverter. I do not recommend using it on the Tamron 200-500. At 500mm f6.3, the lens is just not fast enough to use with a teleconverter and get consistent results. Plus you will lose autofocus except in very exceptional light. The Tamron TC is a great accessory and I use it with good results on a Sigma macro lens I have (f2.8) but I would not recommend it for the Tamron 200-500.
Allen
I think you're right and I won't use the 1.4 tc on whichever lens I get. I had it around because I bought it when I got a very inexpensive Tamron 70-300mm. I used it for about 2 weeks and bought the nice Canon lens instead. I took the Tamron to a local camera dealer to sell for me and forgot to take the TC. Thought it might be useful, but probably not. Since hubby just bought me the Canon 100mm macro last month, I have some time to research the lens choices out there, before I voice the need for a new lens. I even checked with KEH but they haven't anything in the range I want. It's all good though.
Thanks so much for the help and advice, and have a safe and happy holiday season.
maria
I am new to this forum. I am looking for something with a little longer reach. I have a 70-300is and it just does not do enough for me. I like the sound of the Sigma 150-500 os, but have read it has a high failure rate. http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009...repair-data-35. Is this old news or has Sigma fixed the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Blinder
I like the sound of the Sigma 50-500, but the OS on the 15-500 would interest me.
BTW we are going to Yellowstone Teton area next year, just need something I can afford.
Thank you Dave, I appreciate the information. Your friend does some really nice work and your Northern Harrier shot is lovely.
maria
I have owned sigma 50-500 and canon 400/5.6L and now i have the 300/2,8L IS USM! I should not go for the sigma or Tamron! Buy a canon 100-400 or the 400/5,6L! The sigma 50-500 is 460mm not 500mm!
/M
I've never heard this before. Anyone have a cite... able to verify?Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnus Thornberg
Magnus,
Thank you ,
I have heard that the Canon 400mm 5.6 L was a very good lens.
maria
Maria,
In general, you will get much better results with fixed focal lenses. Even a fixed lens + teleconverter will usually provide sharper images than a zoom at similar focal lengths. I urge people to photograph the moon as then people can compare results all around the world. Also the high contrast with a black sky will show flair and chromatic aberrations that a test target will not show. This is important as often there are extreme lighting situations when photographing wildlife.
I have a Sigma 170-500 lens that is a little sharper than my canon 100-400 L IS lens, but neither are as sharp as a 300 f/4 with TCs. On my photograph the moon page I have a 300 L IS f4 +1.4x tc compared to a 100-400 L at 400:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2
So if you have a chance to use a lens before purchasing, test it on the moon and compare to the images on the above page.
Roger
Thanks Roger,
I checked out your page and can see how much sharper the prime lens is. The moon is really a nice idea for testing lenses. I have to admit I was considering the Canon 400mm L and a TE but was worried it would be limiting as I prowl the field with critters coming around at varying distances. But from what I read, it's unlikely any would come too close to use the lens. I am fortunate that I can take some time in deciding while I squirrel away cash for the eventual purchase.
thanks again,
maria
thanks roger that was a very interesting read, and i think i will be trying the 150-500mm without a filter on to see if that brings out some sharpness.Quote:
Originally Posted by rnclark
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott benson
Scott,
Then you may also want to check out my evaluating filter quality page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...filter_quality
Roger
i currently use the tamron 200-500mm on my 50D. most of the time i'm wishing it was prime L glass from canon. i really have limited use for the 200mm focal length, as i'm trying to get as close as possible to my subject (usually very small, skittish birds). but at 500mm, the 6.3 aperature is almost useless in anything but bright sunlight. of course, i'm after the sharpest, cleanest image possible, and while i can obtain decent exposures at 400 iso, the noise is too noticable for my taste; i try to shoot at a maximum iso of 200. when i'm fortunate to get in close enough without scaring away the birds, i back off the focal length a bit — to about 450 or less — as things at the 500mm length tend to be a bit soft.
while this may sound like a negative review for the tamron lens, it's not. i went with what i could afford at the time, and for the price, this lens delivers. (the photos on my blog were taken with this lens.) you just have to get to know it. the autofocus is pretty fast — the more light the better, though. the zoom and focus rings feel good and it's nicely constructed; doesn't feel cheap at all.
plus...some of the quality shortcomings are due to me — i handhold this bugger. i'm sure a tripod would help, but can't afford one of those right now, so i end up with a lot of motion-blurred bokeh and feather, eye, and beak details that aren't as sharp as they could be.
a hawk landed in a tree in the woods behind our house this weekend, and i was able to get about 45 feet or so away from it. i shot handheld at 200 iso, 450mm, and between 640 & 800 shutter speed. this lens really performed! i was absolutely blown away by the quality of the photos, and i haven't even pulled them into photoshop yet.
hope this input helps.
Handholding a 500mm non-stabilized consumer grade lens isn't a good idea.
For optimal sharpness I'd go with a sturdy tripod (not cheap), step down to f/8 when possible, and perhaps employ Mirror Lock Up to nullify mirror slap. Poor technique creates poor photos. I'm comfortable going up to ISO 1600 regularly on a 40D, and higher on subsequent models when needed.
i just re-read your original post and noticed you are in NM! i grew up there; just moved to NC about 4 years ago. since things are so wide open in NM, and so much happens with the landscape/sky at any given moment, i would want to be prepared to go from inspiring little critter to inspiring grand vista quickly. i skimmed over the other posts, but i thought i caught that you have a couple of other lenses?
that would be ideal.
get a canon 400mm prime for your critter shots, and keep a good wide-angle lens for when the sunset does its thing, or for when you crest the top of a hill and the red-orange-beige-and-green landscape punctuated with a sky of sweeping altocumulus and cirrus clouds just happens to take your breath away.
Thanks for the info on that lens Doug,
You're braver than I am. I will handhold my 300mm sometimes if I have to and I have something to brace myself on but 500mm, wow! I'd have to use a tripod. I'm pretty good at carrying my tripod and camera and using it like a monopod sometimes. Makes it easier for me. I envy you guys that can handhold a lens like that. Maybe if I work out a bit I'll develop the muscle.
maria
@Dave || yeah...a tripod is next on my list. i was looking at gitzo legs with a wimberly head, but that's about $1200 away. in the meantime, i'll have to come up with some creative ways to stabilize that beast. i'm getting pretty good at bracing my left arm against a solid object (a wall, tree, etc.) and resting the lens on my forearm. that and squeezing off a burst of 3–4 frames of the shot, going on the unproven theory that at least one of those frames caught the camera in between jitters.
i know...but i'm trying to do the best with what i'm fortunate enough to have at the moment. we gotta start somewhere...
Dave, you know, before I started reading the posts here I never tried anything over iso 200 for fear of noise. I had been told it was awful. After noticing that you guys shoot at a lot higher iso I tried and found that the noise wasn't nearly as bad as I had been told. Nothing a little noise removal couldn't cope with. Thank you,
maria
Yes, Las Cruces, NM, It's a lovely place and now we have our own bosque out in Mesilla. Lovely skyscapes and desert landscapes to play with. How do you like NC? A canon 400 would be great. I have a 70-300, 50, 18-55, and a 100mm macro for my Canon and a few others for my Oly but nothing really long. There was a hawk, or eagle across the hwy and the empty field from our house that was up on a telephone pole with a rabbit or something and I just didn't have enough reach on any of my lenses to get any kind of shot at all worth keeping. Am throwing money I make into little red bucket for long lens. In a couple of months I should have enough to get either a Sigma, a Tamron, or the Canon 400. Thanks for all the help,
maria
Doug,
are there any camera shops in your area? We only have one here now, but he gets in some nice tripods sometimes for not a lot. Maybe a pawn shop?
maria
As recommended by some other New Jersey photgraphers I use this setup for my 500mm f/4 lens:Quote:
Originally Posted by mariakruse
Benro C-358n6 Carbon Fiber Tripod Legs
Manfrotto 393 Heavy Duty Gimbal Type Head
No problems yet with the tripod, and it's become one of my best friends. I got it from B&H or Adorama online (forget which), will cost half of what the Gitzo will. I have friends who have been using this setup for over 3 years for telephoto work.
ISO 1600, Canon Xti Digital Rebel. Processed with Noise Ninja.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariakruse
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/...870c35fb48.jpg
@Dave || thanks for the tips. the manfrotto head looks really nice, indeed. i'll have to look into the iso thing a bit more, too. i still have so much to learn that it frightens me sometimes.
@maria || i've been meaning to check into camera stores here. i think i remember a ritz camera close by. it would make a lot of sense to check out prospective tripod systems first-hand. thanks for reminding me. i'm so hooked on b&h online that i forget about the brick-and-mortar stores.
Dave, that is really a nice shot. I have become more adventurous with my iso use. It's teaching me a lot. Since I have a 70-300mm for both cameras it's fun to take the same shot at the same iso and compare results. So far no huge difference. That surprised me since there is a difference in the sensor size of the Canon Rebel XSi and the Oly E-500. Perhaps it is the glass? What lens were you using?
maria
Doug,
I know what you mean, I tend to think online first. We only have the one small shop here but he's a nice guy and gets in some used tripods in once in a while and lets me check them out when I drop by.
have fun,
maria
Canon 500mm f/4 ISQuote:
Originally Posted by mariakruse
I am new to this so forgive. On one hand we have someone hand holding a 500mm, and btw the photos on the blog look great to me. On the other hand we have someone with a tripod setup that sounds like it weights a ton, and I am sure he gets great photos also. Isn't there a lighter weight cheaper way to go?
Gary, I do alot of walking around with a Tamron 200-500. Right now I am using a monopod for convenience (and cost) rather than a tripod so that is something to consider if you are looking for something in between hand holding and a tripod. I'm sure a tripod would give me better results but I do not feel like lugging the clunker of an old tripod I have now and do not want to spend the $$ on a lighter tripod at the moment. I have a Bogen 680B monopod.
Hi Gary - I generally don't recommend handholding long lenses for those new to wildlife photography. The people who excel at it have worked on the long lens technique for years, and composition and necessary shutter speeds are second nature to them. A beginner starting out handholding a consumer telephoto is going to have a very small success rate. You can get away with a lighter tripod like a Manfrotto (decent quality), as long as you don't plan on upgrading to the heavy Canon Supertelephotos. However, using a gimbal head like a Wimberly, Mongoose, or the Manfrotto 393 is an important investment and will aid with overall image quality as well as higher success rate in action captures.Quote:
Originally Posted by gary joslin
I can and do handhold the 7lb Canon 500mm f/4 IS, and would feel comfortable handholding any 500mm lens with enough available light... but I am not a beginner.
Thanks for the replies. I do have a monopod. I use it some, like with the first shot. It was with a 70-300 is and cropped pretty heavy. Thus the reason for wanting a longer reach.
With the 2nd you are in a moving small boat with people elbowing around...
http://joslin-family-photos.smugmug....07_A3Wv5-M.jpg
http://joslin-family-photos.smugmug....84_HJrJx-M.jpg
