What to buy? 400mm w/ image stabil or 500mm without?

Raphy

I would greatly appreciate ANY feedback on this...

This is my situation: :rolleyes

I have the AFS Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G VR IF-ED. It has vibration reduction. I find the 300mm not enough reach...and even with the 1.4 TC, i'm wanting more!

I have an opportunity to purchase one of the two lenses second hand at a fair price:

Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX OS APO RF

OR

Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)

I'm struggling to make the decision because the sigma is 400mm and has optical stabilization (OS), but the tamron has 100mm more reach, but no OS... I would plan to use one of these with and without the Kenko 1.4x TC that i currently own. I doubt that the OS would work with the TC attached? i have no clue... I plan on using this lens for bird shots mostly.... I always use either a monopod or tripod...

I read great reviews on the tamron, and it's what i'm leaning towards and i've seen some beautiful photos taken with that lens... but the sigmas have always had good praise (especially the 50-500mm - which i am not going to purchasing right now).

Any thoughts ? experiences ? to help me make a decision.... ? :scratch:scratch:huh
thanks

pathfinder

I own several long lenses, including Canon and Sigma and Tamron.

I have written about the Tamron 200-500 several times here on dgrin

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=40471&highlight=200-500

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=49563&highlight=200-500

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28909&highlight=200-500

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=41819&highlight=200-500


I have also written about the death of my Tammy 200-500, and its resurrection by Tamron Factory Service. I still own it and still find it quite useful.

It is small for its focal length, lightweight, slightly slow to focus ( depends on your camera body to an extent ) and really deserves to be used with a good tripod. It is only f6.3 at 500mm, but my 20D will AF with it in good light, even though Canon says a 20D will not AF with smaller than f5.6

Sigma's teles are respectable also. IS is better for a hand held walk around lens, but it will be heavier than the Tammy.


The airborne shots in this gallery were shot with the 200-500. The close ups on the tarmac were not - check the exif data to be sure.

The Tamron 200-500 couples nicely with extension tubes for macros of butterflies also.

If cost, size and weight, are not an object, an EOS "L" long lens will be sharper, and focus faster, but in the real world, cost, weight and size matter a lot. I like the small Tammy for a walk around lens, but it WILL do better with a good support like a good tripod. 500mm does require good camera and long lens technique for optimum images.

Manfr3d

The difference between 400mm and 500mm isn't that big when looking trough the viewfinder. I'd go for the Sigma, it is also build very good.

pathfinder

I agree that 500 isn't really a lot longer than 400, but I almost always prefer 500 over 400 for most wildlife shooting

The Tammy will be lighter than the Sigma 80-400 IS as well.

I think the answer really comes down to whether you want to hand hold or shoot from a tripod. I own a Canon 100-400 IS L, but frequently find myself reaching for the little Tammy rather than the shorter, heavier, IS'd trombone zoom from Canon. I never developed great affection for a trombone zoom. I am sure the Sigma lens is fine, I like Sigma's 120 300 f2.8. But it is not a light weight either.

Raphy

Thanks a lot for all the input -- well... i pulled the trigger on the Tammy... and after taking several test shots, i was sold... looking at the 100% crops later on the computer screen also reassured me i made the right choice... I will be giving this lens a good workout at Indianapolis at the motogp. I know that this lens may not be a 2.8 prime, but we'll see what it can do.

Thanks again for all the input, and pathfinder, thanks for all the links and input from your experience with the tammy.

Photoskipper

I decided to start saving money for the 500 F4 IS.
Currently, I am using the 70-200 F2.8 IS and added the 2X for the 5D, so I have maximum 400 mm to play with.
Considering the 500 mm and add a 1.4 X so that I can get the range extend to 700mm or 1000 mm (with 2X).

Manfr3d

Photoskipper wrote:

I decided to start saving money for the 500 F4 IS.
Currently, I am using the 70-200 F2.8 IS and added the 2X for the 5D, so I have maximum 400 mm to play with.
Considering the 500 mm and add a 1.4 X so that I can get the range extend to 700mm or 1000 mm (with 2X).

Have you considered the Sigma 500mm/4.5 for less than half the price?
Here is a very good comparison of the two lenses from someone who has used both:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69791

Photoskipper

Manfr3d wrote:

Have you considered the Sigma 500mm/4.5 for less than half the price?
Here is a very good comparison of the two lenses from someone who has used both:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69791

Thanks a lot, Manfr3d. I may get the Sigma earlier by 3 months.
this is the first time I am looking at other super tele prime lens.

According to the site, there are couple issues I am not very comfortable.
1. The Image quality - once I was hooked up by the L-syndrome, I could not get myself out from it. I am not saying Sigma IQ is not good but just something I feel a bit different.
2. the AF - Sigma loss the AF with TCs. I have the 2X and plan to get the 1.4X together with the 500 mm so that I don't need to pay another 2k for the 600 mm or 6 K for the 800 mm. (I am very poor) As you know, the AF may be very useful for tracking the birds movement. I need it work.
3. The IS - the reason I pick 500 mm instead of 600 mm is handheld. I was told that the 500 F4 is still handheld-able with IS. It may give me another 2 steps for long distance spy shoot.
4. the 0.5 F - it may be important when add the 1.4X or 2X at low light. The IS on the 70-200 works fine with 2X, I believe the 500 can do so. 1000 mm at f8 may be better than f9

Considering to rent the 2 lens for a weekend to try out first. Cost is the most critical decision factor to my CFO (my wife).

Manfr3d

I don't own the lens but did some research a while
ago and found out that the Sigma can be had for as
little as $2000-2500 in mint condition on the used
market. You just might have to wait and search a bit
until you find one.

You can still get autofocus to work with the 2x Extender
on the Sigma 4.5 if you tape some pins on it. Explained
here: http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00H102

pathfinder

Raphy wrote:

Thanks a lot for all the input -- well... i pulled the trigger on the Tammy... and after taking several test shots, i was sold... looking at the 100% crops later on the computer screen also reassured me i made the right choice... I will be giving this lens a good workout at Indianapolis at the motogp. I know that this lens may not be a 2.8 prime, but we'll see what it can do.

Thanks again for all the input, and pathfinder, thanks for all the links and input from your experience with the tammy.

Glad to help. Shoot RAW and sharpen them in Adobe RAW converter - it really helps them look crisp.

My son wants me to come over for the races as well - he is working in the pace car pit for BMW.

Raphy

pathfinder wrote:

Glad to help. Shoot RAW and sharpen them in Adobe RAW converter - it really helps them look crisp.

My son wants me to come over for the races as well - he is working in the pace car pit for BMW.

So did u go to the Indy MotoGP race ???

Well, here is how my Tamron 200-500mm did ... http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=106051

pathfinder

I had to work:(: