What is the best lens for wildlife and bird photography out of the following 3 lenses listed below? I would appreciate if you could post your experience with regard to image quality and AF speed. Especially if somebody has used any of the two or all three lenses, please post your comments.
• Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM
• Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG Aspherical
• Tamron SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD IF
I have the 50-500. Focus is fast and pictures are sharp wide open. I have really enjoyed it (had it for a couple on months). It is heavy, so I would definitely say use a mono or tripod. From what I researched when I was looking, the 50-500 is much faster focusing and sharper than the 170-500. The Tamron also gets good reviews, but, I shoot mainly sports, and the extra range is really nice for sports. Plus, I think the HSM focusing on the 50-500 is a little faster than the Tamron. The Tamron is lighter I believe, so if hand holding, that might make a difference.
I had the 200-500 for a while, but ended up using it less than I expected. It was not bad, I just think for long tele you need primes to keep the sharpness.
Thanks Joe,Ovredal73 and Paul. I am having a possibility to go for the Tamron. But if it is not as good as Sigmas I will drop it. Hence would appreciate more inputs from the guys who have experience with both Tamron and Sigmas.
170-500mm is a good lens but it's not built as rugged as the other two.
The Tamron is a light-weight but is noticeably louder and a touch slower with AF.
The 50-500mm is the sharpest of the three in my opinion, is a touch quicker on the focus, but is the heaviest. I think the wider focal range of the Sigma is a plus as well.
I also had a 170-500 for a couple of years, and it's a good entry level super zoom lens, but given the choices I would reccomend the Sigma 50-500 over the 170-500. Can't comment on the Tamron.
The Canon 400mm f/5.6 would be a better lens and is not much more expensive. Right now after instant rebate the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is only 971.95 at Amazon.com. You get the final amount after rebate right before you click to place the order.. The 100-400mm is only 1219.00...
Don't always believe the backorder time. They had a great price on the 500mm f/4 one time but it said usually ships in 1-2 months. I had a bonus coming so I put in the order expecting it to ship after I actually had the bonus, it shipped the next day...oops... ..
Not meaning to hijack this thread but the discussion is leaning in this direction anyway ...
I have a Canon 100-400 and a 300 f/4 along with a Canon 1.4x and a Kenko Pro 300 2x but of course I want more ... should I look at the any of the lenses being discussed in this thread's title or am I better off using the teleconverters on what I have?
Tarpon, is Canon 400mm f/5.6 long enough for bird photography. My Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro is too short and I miss 90% of my subjects due to not enough reach.
tarpon6 wrote:
The Canon 400mm f/5.6 would be a better lens and is not much more expensive. Right now after instant rebate the Canon 400mm f/5.6 is only 971.95 at Amazon.com. You get the final amount after rebate right before you click to place the order.. The 100-400mm is only 1219.00...
I'm pretty sure the OP did not ask about either of those lenses.
..