Also of interest to many of us is weight. Sure was surprised that the new Tamron is not light but it's all relative if you are thinking of it as a 200-600 replacement:
Sigma 100-400 = 40 ounces (actual weight of mine with caps is 43 ounces without foot)
Sony 100-400 = 49 ounces (actual weight of mine with caps is 56 ounces without foot)
Tamron 150-500 = 67 ounces
Sony 200-600 = 74 ounces
(Sony 1.4X TC = 6 ounces)
(Sony 100-400 foot = 3 ounces)
(Haoge Arca foot and ring for Sigma = 5 ounces at a cost of $50)
I was going to wait for the Tamron but disappointed in the weight since I've been on the hunt for a lighter option to the Sony 100-400. Got the Sigma 100-400 this week for just $800 new with full warranty.
I know it seems a little crazy to be the owner of both of these 100-400s yet in early testing the Sigma gives me 95% of the image quality when pixel peeping. In real world use, it would be hard to would discern meaningful differences, even with 61MP A7R4. At this point I really can't yet say if the Sony does indeed track better. When I read that Gordon Laing reassessed the Sigma tracking speed as compared with Sony, I decided to go for it. . .
If somebody would please come out with a razor sharp 300 f4 than can take a 1.4xTC, one of these will go. Should I stop holding my breath?
I just read the Marc Alhadeff comparison, which was excellent.
I am currently looking at the Sony 200-600 vs the Tamron 150-500, and the review didn't make my choice that much easier.
The size does matter to me, as I travel a ton and will being this lens - with other kit - on airplanes regularly.
That being said, I would have appreciated the extra 100 on the long end if the two lenses were equal in IQ and AF, but he says that despite the Tamron being excellent, the 200-600 wins on both AF and IQ.
I think if I get the 150-500 I will come back to wanting the 200-600 and probably just take a loss in selling it, but for now I will wait a bit longer for more reviews (and perhaps some additional competition)
200-600 is fantastic lens, tack sharp wide open at 600mm and even with 1.4x TC it's still sharp wide open. 100mm more FL, 1/3rd stop faster, faster AF, all worth 7 ounces over the Tamron IMO. I wouldn't hesitate to get the 200-600. Just be thankful your only option isn't the grossly overpriced Canon 100-500L.
Even though I have a 2-6 I think I'm going to get his instead of the Sigma 100-400. The size of the 2-6 makes it difficult to carry. What I'll do is pair the 2-6 with a 1.4TC and essentially just use it for birding or wildlife.
The Tamron will be used as a 100-400 replacement. The only drawback is the weight but it's has a longer reach with essentially the same light gathering abilities as the Sigma 1-4 throughout it's range. I usually find 400mm anyway to be a little short so maybe 500 will do the trick.
Dultimate wrote:
Even though I have a 2-6 I think I'm going to get his instead of the Sigma 100-400. The size of the 2-6 makes it difficult to carry. What I'll do is pair the 2-6 with a 1.4TC and essentially just use it for birding or wildlife.
The Tamron will be used as a 100-400 replacement. The only drawback is the weight but it's has a longer reach with essentially the same light gathering abilities as the Sigma 1-4 throughout it's range. I usually find 400mm anyway to be a little short so maybe 500 will do the trick.
Would love to see a review comparing the Sigma 100-400 and Tamron 150-500 head to head. A lot of folks will be contemplating between these two as you have. I recently picked up the Sigma 100-400 to (weirdly) complement my Sony 100-400. That aquisition was going to be the Tamron but the 4.2 lb. weight scared me off as compared with 2.5.
One other consideration for you: Not sure which body you have but if one of the "R" models, or the A1, you've got lots of megapixels to use APS-C mode and essentially have a 1.5 teleconverter with no loss of f-stop. This option works marvelously for me. Thus, using the Sony as an example, it becomes a 600mm f5.6. The Sigma just 1/3 f-stop behind at 600mm f6.3.
For lightweight back country and travel work, being able to carry just 2.5 lbs to get a relatively fast 600mm f6.3 that produces a big 26MP file is quite a versatile option.
If needing to go longer still, the Sony at 400mm plus the 1.4TC plus APS-C mode allows shooting at 840mm f8. I am curious about this option but have not tried it.
Dultimate wrote:
Even though I have a 2-6 I think I'm going to get his instead of the Sigma 100-400. The size of the 2-6 makes it difficult to carry. What I'll do is pair the 2-6 with a 1.4TC and essentially just use it for birding or wildlife.
The Tamron will be used as a 100-400 replacement. The only drawback is the weight but it's has a longer reach with essentially the same light gathering abilities as the Sigma 1-4 throughout it's range. I usually find 400mm anyway to be a little short so maybe 500 will do the trick.
I also have the 200-600 and Sigma 100-400; and am considering replacing the Sigma with the Tamron. While, according to Aldaheff’s tests, the Tamron is sharp wide-open, it is just fair at f8 and f11 at all FL’s, which concerns me. I’ll wait for additional reviews.
I anticipate that Dustin Abbott's full review should be out right away, too. Perhaps North American full reviews are embargoed until June 10 release date.
onthebeam wrote:
I anticipate that Dustin Abbott's full review should be out right away, too. Perhaps North American full reviews are embargoed until June 10 release date.
Really? That sounds like a policy instigated by someone who hasn’t heard about or maybe doesn’t like internet and youtube etc.
bjornthun wrote:
Really? That sounds like a policy instigated by someone who hasn’t heard about or maybe doesn’t like internet and youtube etc.
Truthfully, I have no idea. Yet Dustin posted example photos a couple weeks back but no review yet. For some reason there are lots of European video reviews posted over the past few weeks, but not much from North America, and no final detailed reviews I have yet seen.
Just a theory. I am aok with YouTube reviews yet some are of course much more helpful then others. I particularly liked Finnish photographer Matti Sulanto's linked to above. A straight shooter. Who doesn't "like" the internet? It's a blessing and a curse yet we don't have a choice unless choosing a monk-life of total isolation. Actually, I've done projects with plenty of monks and they, too, use cellphones and the internet.
Dustin Abbott has completed his "definitive" review. Looks like a real winner if you're looking for a more compact solution than the 200-600 that gives you more native reach than the 100-400 at a lower price point.
AvianScott wrote:
Dustin Abbott has completed his "definitive" review. Looks like a real winner if you're looking for a more compact solution than the 200-600 that gives you more native reach than the 100-400 at a lower price point.
For me, this was one of his best reviews yet. Answered all the questions I had. Obviously sample variation can play a role - I always wonder if companies send reviewers the best of the batch, but maybe I am just nuts - but this gave a very clear comparison between the two lenses I am looking at (the Tamron 150-500 and the Sony 200-600).
The Sony is clearly a tad better, and I assume as we see more reviews and more time goes by it will come out the Sony AF is a bit better too. Still, if size matters - and it does for me since I fly so often - then the Tamron is z very good compromise. I am still on the fence, but I think a longer yet affordable FE lens will come out (I have no valid reason to think that, just a hunch given the Canon 600 and 800 lenses) and have started leaning towards getting the Tamron over the Sony. If I get the Sony, I likely keep my Sigma, if I get the Tamron, it replaces both at the cost of 100 on the long end; but with a gain in size and weight.
I have some time to decide, I doubt the Tamron will be available for a few months yet and I am not in a major city with a good camera shop, so have no imminent access to new releases, but Tamron has clearly done a very good job. The center of the lens at close focusing at 150 was also extremely impressive on the Tamron in Abbot's review, which makes it able to pull close focus flower duty in the field
