Tamron 150-600 G2 or Nikon 200-500

Well

I'm sending back my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary-rather reluctantly, but it appears that it is defective. (See my earlier thread on the "weird" behavior.  I have heard from Sigma that this is a defect, and from a few other people who have had this problem. I really like this lens otherwise, but not sure a different copy will solve the problem.

So...looking at the new Tamron 150-600 G2. A lot more expensive, but in the same weight range. The Nikon 200-500 is a consideration as well, but getting up there weight-wise. I found that I can hand-hold the Sigma C for short periods of time (very surprised to find that out). I think though, I would not do well with the Sport version, weight wise.

I have seen very little talk here from anyone who actually has (and likes or not) the Tamron G2. That is my main query, though a comparison with the 200-500 would be handy. Anyone actually using the Tamron?  Likes? Dislikes? Comparisons?

It has had some favorable reviews on a few sites. DPReview has not rated it yet.

Thanks- as always - you folks are great at ferreting out the finer points in these cases.

Oh, and I am shooting with a Nikon D500.

Why not just get a non defective version of the lens you had?

 Sounds like your honey moon with just a 300 f4 is over  

We all knew that lens alone just doesn't cut it.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Why not just get a non defective version of the lens you had?

It's a thought. I just wonder how often this occurs. 

DChan wrote: Sounds like your honey moon with just a 300 f4 is over  

We all knew that lens alone just doesn't cut it.

Actually, I still love that lens for walkabout. It works well with the 1.4 TC too- still light enough to carry.  I've gotten some decent pictures with it.  Getting a super tele serves a different purpose- I shoot from my car or with a tripod somewhere I don't have to carry it very far. And as I mentioned, I was surprised to find I cold hand-hold the Sigma for short periods of time. I'm not pushing my luck with that, though. It's just sooo nice to have some really long reach for those little birds I see all the time here.

Cynthia Crawford wrote:

DChan wrote: Sounds like your honey moon with just a 300 f4 is over  

We all knew that lens alone just doesn't cut it.

Actually, I still love that lens for walkabout. It works well with the 1.4 TC too- still light enough to carry.  I've gotten some decent pictures with it.  Getting a super tele serves a different purpose- I shoot from my car or with a tripod somewhere I don't have to carry it very far. And as I mentioned, I was surprised to find I cold hand-hold the Sigma for short periods of time. I'm not pushing my luck with that, though. It's just sooo nice to have some really long reach for those little birds I see all the time here.

Yup, those little birdies are the problem. I do know a photog who I think still shoots with a 300 f4 (she's been doing that since I met her a few years ago). She had considered longer lenses but probably found them too heavy to carry around. Her photos mostly are just for web viewing though.

Mark Picard wrote:[font=Arial, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif]Cynthia - Check out my old post:  viewtopic.php?f=57&t=266359  I also use the D500. I have no experience with the Tamron. I deal with B&H and they took back the Sigma C lens without a problem (she ended up with the Nikon 200-500mm). I think you would like the Nikon 200-500mm. Maybe try the Tamron and if you don't like it, send it back. Everything I've read on it looks promising...and as far as the Nikon 200-500mm goes, I don't know of anyone that had anything bad to say about it. Of course, it only goes out to 500mm, whereas the Tamron/Sigma S/Sigma C goes out to 600mm. For little birds that extra 100mm is a lot![/font]

Thanks  for that link, Mark.  I didn't think my Sigma C was soft, but I'm sending it back for the vibration problem. Ordered another one and the Tamron for comparison. I don't know if I just lucked out with the first Sigma, sharpness wise- I did not calibrate anything. I'm sorry to be sending it back.

These are the last pictures I took with the Sigma. Handheld. The kingfisher was sharpened pp- maybe I moved a bit-a little soft. The Grackle is untouched other than jpg compression. (Not the greatest picture, but I think it's sharp, right through the branches).

So- it will be interesting. B&H are terrific for returns- I didn't have to pay to return the Sigma since it was deemed defective BY Sigma.

If I don't like either of these lenses I might try  the 200-500, but I'm not so excited about that one. Kind of creeping up there weight wise as well.....

Cynthia - 

Tamron 150-600mm G - 4.38 lbs.
Sigma 150-600mm C lens - 4.30 lbs.
Nikon 200-500mm lens - 4.60 lbs.

Tamron cost - $1399.
Sigma cost - $989.
Nikon cost - $1399.

Mark Picard wrote:Cynthia - 

Tamron 150-600mm G - 4.38 lbs.
Sigma 150-600mm C lens - 4.30 lbs.
Nikon 200-500mm lens - 4.60 lbs.

Tamron cost - $1399.
Sigma cost - $989.
Nikon cost - $1399.

Thanks Mark- yeah....pretty similar weights, I guess. Sometimes a lens feels heavier or lighter according to how well it balances on the camera  and/or how heavy it feels on the extended long end.  We shall see!

Cynthia Crawford wrote: If I don't like either of these lenses I might try  the 200-500, but I'm not so excited about that one. Kind of creeping up there weight wise as well.....

Cynthia, reluctant as you may be I think you should try one. After shooting it for a bit I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be sending it back.

Decision made!  Love the Tamron.  Replacement Sigma froze up at times, Nikon 200-500 pretty nice, but less reach, a little heavier, and just for me, uncomfortable to hold.  

Nice things about the Tamron:

Seems sharp throughout the range. (Maybe I won't even have to fine tune it, or not very much). Fast focus. Arca Swiss foot built in. Lens locks physically) at any length with a push of the extension ring, or can lock with a toggle.  Seems to "see" through branches and other stuff, (like dirty windows). Nikon would not do that so well.

One drawback with all these lenses- I usually put the lens foot on the left side to go in my side mount gimbal , and it is hard to get my hand in there to access the function buttons without turning the lens in the collar. Never had that problem before.

Cynthia Crawford wrote:Decision made!  Love the Tamron.  Replacement Sigma froze up at times, Nikon 200-500 pretty nice, but less reach, a little heavier, and just for me, uncomfortable to hold.  

Nice things about the Tamron:

Seems sharp throughout the range. (Maybe I won't even have to fine tune it, or not very much). Fast focus. Arca Swiss foot built in. Lens locks physically) at any length with a push of the extension ring, or can lock with a toggle.  Seems to "see" through branches and other stuff, (like dirty windows). Nikon would not do that so well.

One drawback with all these lenses- I usually put the lens foot on the left side to go in my side mount gimbal , and it is hard to get my hand in there to access the function buttons without turning the lens in the collar. Never had that problem before.

Thanks Cynthia for sharing your experience!  Never would have thought that the Sigma lenses would have had so many problems right off the bat (says something about their quality control)!  Maybe since this is the newest iteration of the mega zoom lenses they have been able to improve things.  It is great that they include the Arca Swiss quick release system standard in the tripod collar, something Nikon (and Canon) could learn from!  And with the TAP-in console you will be able to update the lens firmware (again something Nikon and Canon could learn from).  Enjoy your new lens and will look forward to seeing the pics you get with it.

Cynthia,

My advice would be to get the Tamron and ignore any negativity from folks who shoot test charts, etc. The Tamron is hands-down an excellent wildlife lens. Three images here taken last week with the Tamron 150-600mm G2. All at 600mm. 

So don posted some nice photos with the Tamron. As noted earlier, it was my final choice, and I'm pretty pleased with it, though still getting used to it various functions.  It's been really cold here off and on, but did get out to see a Great Gray Owl- a real rarity here.  It was  a bit of a challenge- a windy day, and the owl was entangled in branches. Raw came out a bit soft, but worked up pretty well in Photoshop. In retrospect, I think I should have tried harder to get the shutter speed up. Winf was a big factor with a long lens, even on a fairly sturdy tripod. That thing really sticks out when extended tom 600mm!  Here is one:
Tripod, f/6.3, 1/800,ISO 800 Dynamic 25 points , matrix metering, VR off. 60% crop.  
Tree Sparrow Monopod, f/6.3, 1/8000, ISO 800 Spot metering, VR on. Cropped about 50%.  Also at 600mm.
A little action, BIG crop. 1/1250, f/6.3, ISO 800, Group metering, Monopod. Lighting was difficult.
 All taken with Nikon D500.

DonMammoser wrote:Cynthia,

My advice would be to get the Tamron and ignore any negativity from folks who shoot test charts, etc. The Tamron is hands-down an excellent wildlife lens. Three images here taken last week with the Tamron 150-600mm G2. All at 600mm. 

Hi Don

those are really nice- encouraging to see-thanks!


[font="Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif]Save[/font]