Sigma 50-500: Had this one and found it heavy and awkward for handholding. Others like it and good optics.
Tamron 200-500: Good optics, but poorly made, noisy, slower AF, and mine came apart inside after only a few months. Piece of junk compared to my Canon 100-400.
I have purchased several Tamrons and returned them for issues with the focusing and shutter release. Also I find that the Sigmas I replaced them with also had better optics. The bigma works great on a monopod.
More handheld images
Jude Perera wrote:
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.
Yes, I've done most of my bird photography over the past couple years with a 400mm f/5.6. It takes a 1.4x TC very well giving you a 560mm f/8 lens when you need it. It is a very sharp, fast focusing, contrasty lens. Use with a monopod except for BIF shots.
Tested the Tamron 200-500, 3 copies, the Sigma 170-500, 3 copies, and a Canon 100-400 just for fun, as I only had the budget for one of the other two last year November. The Canon had better micro-contrast than the other two, and IS of course, just a slightly shorter range.
I left the dealer with the Tamron 200-500: much better build than the Sigma, but not as good as the Canon, sharper than the Sigma, clever filter holder, very good case, seemed a solid performer.
Within 10 days I was back and got a Canon 100-400L. To hell with the budget. I couldn't get a sharp picture below 1/800 handheld at 500 mm with the Tamron. And I get 50% keepers handheld at 1/45 with the Canon at 400. Actually, it is hard to not catch motion blur with this lens . Colours, saturation and contrast are also better.
So, if you can stretch the budget a little, I'd recommend a Canon 100-400 L.
tarpon6 wrote:
I'm pretty sure if you could get a better lens for little or no additional cost you would want to hear about it.
Possibly, but he was asking about zoom lenses, not primes.
Also, I would hardly say a 400 prime is best for wildlife, since there are many times when 400mm is too much. You can't go from 400mm down to 50 or 100mm in a second or two with a prime.
. Colours, saturation and contrast are also better.