Not to be overly picky, the plane was a C-17 and not a C-130. As a former Air Force Navigator I tried but couldn't let that go. Thanks for the review. I'm planning on buying the Sony in the near future based on the reach. I have a 100-400 and it just doesn't cut it taking pictures of birds.
Ha! Yes, someone else pointed that out, and the fact is, my brother in law (who works for Boeing here in Seattle) was standing right next to me as it flew by and called it a C-17, and I have no idea why I said C-130 in the video. But, there you have it. These things happen. The Sony is a great lens... I really enjoy it, though it is a bit chunky.
Finally a review of these lens on a a7R3!! I wanted to know how good is af speed and accuracy for sports like rugby, and it seems very good. Maybe not good as my 70-200 f4 sony (is very very quick).. The sigma 100-400 you suggest at the end of video (for less weight) has equal speed af like tamron 150-500?
Awesome review I love your honesty and accountability for your own mishaps this is a super telephoto I’m considering due to its compact design, weight and price I’m not a professional just a hobbyist
@@MatthewGore :)) they are still useful because i made this youtube account to post gameplay ,and i need to learn how to edit ,and for start your video was great! :D
My brother-in-law works for Boeing and was standing right next to me while I shot this, and he told me that it was a C-17. I don't know why I said C-130! Thanks for the correction 😃
@@storms888 Nope.... that is most definitely a juvenile bald eagle :-) There were ospreys out too, but that's not one of them. Even a juvenile osprey has a dark beak and the telltale stripes on the head behind the eyes.
Excellent review! ( I worry that the lense companies influence reviews by offering free / discounts on lenses to reviewers)) I have an a7iii and plan to buy one a super zoom shortly: Looks like another Tamron will be in my bag shortly.
I really like my Tamron. But one thing to consider is the focal length deviation in crop mode / APSC. With the Tamron I am at 750mm. With the Sony I could reach 900mm.
I've actually never used an A7RII, so I don't know how its autofocus compares with the riii, especially with this lens. With the riii, though, I was favorably impressed with the autofocus performance while I was shooting sports... the lens is definitely fast enough. I did have trouble when I was shooting flying birds, but the trouble was with getting focus on the eyes of the bird when I was using multi-point focus, I'd get sharp focus on some part of the bird, at least. So, if your camera can track wildlife with any lens, it shouldn't be a particular problem with this Tamron, in my experience.
I have an A7R2 and have only used it once for birds -- its ok in good light, but the autofocus really struggles on slower lenses like F6.7 Probably stick to center point af
Great review as always Matt - one thing that we found out in our review of the Tamron we recently published is that the collar/foot are actually very poorly designed for carrying the lens. We walk by hand holding the camera (our A1) with the lens and the foot is just too short and too close to the lens (and we have small hands) plus the lock knob will cut right into your hand if you carry the lens with your left hand. Tamron (or a 3'rd party manufacturer) needs to completely re-design the collar/foot for this lens.
Ahh, that's very interesting. I used the Tamron for about two months while I was making this video, but that's one problem that I didn't run into. Now I'm trying to remember if I swung the foot out of the way. When I was walking with it, I did have my Blackrapid strap connected to the foot, though... so I don't think so. I'll have to take a look at your video and see if it jogs my memory.
Ahh, I see what you mean... you're talking about using the foot as a handle. Yes, I can see how that would be uncomfortable. My hands happen to be long and thin, so it wasn't a problem for me, but I also don't expect any of my lenses to be very comfortable when I carry them by the foot unless they're big primes :-) It would be cool to see a 3rd party foot for it, though.
@@MatthewGore Yap, exactly, we were walking with it in the hand (no strap) for long periods - not fun at all - just poor design of the foot. You can certainly do this with other long lenses and this can be fixed with a new foot/collar design.
Did you need a press pass to shoot the rugby match? I had met a few of the players last summer while out in Seattle and had been interested in asking them about shooting photos for the team but wasn't sure who to contact first.
Yes, you'll need a press pass to shoot from the field, but it is a small enough venue that you can probably also get good photos from just beyond the fences at field level if you have a lens like one of these.
Hi for bird photography which one would you recommend Tamron or Sigma where I live Sigma is cheaper by 150$ I hear sigma's af is slow compared to Tamron
I haven't used the new Sigma enough to be able to tell you, but I can say that the Tamron is faster than the old Sigma 150-600 C for Canon (though it's still usable).
Thanks for the review. It was very good all around. I'm using the canon 100-400 with an adapter for the a7r3 and I'm doing mostly landscape photography, and price is a serious consideration. for me the Tamron would be actually almost 800$ cheaper. Would you recommend it instead of the sony in this use case?
Yes, the Tamron seems like a good option: it's nice and sharp, and moderately compact for it's focal length, if you want 500mm of reach. I haven't used the new Sigma 100-400 for E-mount, but thats another one to consider if you're just looking to switch mounts... it's less expensive.
I have a Sony A7iii full frame. I'm looking for a budget lens to shoot little league baseball. The only telephoto I currently have is a 70-300mm Sigma on my old T3i. It works but there isn't enough background separation for me. Would you recommend this or the 600mm sigma to get that background separation and freeze action?
When it comes to background separation (and reach) the Sigma lens will have a bit of an advantage... a longer telephoto lens will generally give you better separation, and the Sigma has a slightly larger aperture (6.3 vs 6.7), which might make a slight difference as well. That said, with these being zoom lenses, most of the time you're shooting, you'll not be shooting at the lens's extreme extended length... it'll be, 400mm, for example... an in that case, you'll get the same results regardless of the lens you use (regarding separation). I'd actually be more interested in reach overall (the Sigma's is significantly better) and the autofocus performance. The Tamron's AF performance is excellent, but I haven't used the Sigma (assuming we're talking about the new Sigma 150-600mm for Sony E) enough to know how its AF is. The old Sigma 150-600 that I mention in this video is fine, and I've used the lens to shoot amateur and some professional sports, but I wouldn't try to shoot fast action with it. (See my review of it here: www.lightandmatter.org/2018/equipment-reviews/lens-comparisons-equipment-reviews/sigma-100-400mm-or-150-600mm-which-should-you-buy/ ) Unfortunately, the only way to get the type of separation and contrast that we all really want is to buy a big prime zoom... a 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4, and most of us don't have the extra $10k or $15k to throw around for shooting little league. Good luck!
@@ryandetert450 Hmm. I'm not sure... it's working fine from my end :-) Might try disabling ad blockers and see... there is some javascript at work on the page.
What about for Video? I’m planning on getting a long telephoto to shoot the big winter swells coming through the next couple month. I’m hoping to do a nice cinematic video of the surfers when there’s big clean days. I can borrow a legit video tripod, and was looking at either this or the Sigma 100-400? How are they for video and how much of a must is that extra 100ml? Cheers for the vid and you have some lush locations around your area!
Unfortunately, I don't really shoot much video, so I'm just not an expert there. I've had very good video performance from my Tamron lenses in general... their AF motors and their AF systems are excellent, but I just haven't done much video shooting with this lens. I would say that the extra reach of a 500 or 600mm is always appreciated, especially with a zoom lens where you can back off a bit if necessary. The nice thing is that you can switch your camera to APS-C mode and get a much tighter crop at the same 4K resolution if you shoot full frame, and you get much better reach. I'd definitely go with a 500 or 600mm, but which one is up to you. From my limited video experience with it, the Tamron should be solid for you.
Seems like 500mm compared to 600mm isn't that big of a difference. 150mm compared to 200mm is much more noticable. I have a 135mm 1.8 and I'm looking for some more range. It's so hard to decide! If only the Tamron/Sigma lenses had a TC on Sony E, or if the Sony lens was a 150-600mm then the choice would be easier.
Hi Matthew, I have a questions, I have alot of Canon EF lenses. I have the following: EF Canon 300MM f4 L, EF - Canon 70-300MM 4-5.6 IS, EF - Sigma 150-500MM F5-6.3, EF- 100MM 2.8 I also have the MC-11 sigma EF to E mount adapter (updated to latest version). My camera I am using is the Sony A6500, which lenses out of my collection would achieve these sharp results. Also if you can tell me what settings you use to get sharp images. ISO, Shutter Speed and F stop. Would be greatly appreciated. I do not have Sony lenses. I want the images to be sharp like the bird photos at 500MM (I am guessing Sigma would be the best bet) but I cannot achieve those sharp results. This is why I am asking.
Hi Amy, The good news is that all of those lenses should be able to produce images that are as sharp as the Tamron, though of course you'll need to be closer to your subject with some of them. I've shot some really nice bird photographs with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, and you'll have better reach than that. Getting your settings right is important, but not the full story. To start with, you'll want to shoot at at least 1/1000th second to stop any action so that you don't get motion blur or camera shake. Probably the easiest way to do this in the field is to set your camera to Shutter Priority ( that's "S" on the main mode dial) and then set your shutter speed to 1/1000. The camera will then set the aperture as wide as it can go to give you enough light to shoot at that shutter speed. If the aperture is as wide as it can go (like f/4 on your 300mm lens and it's still blinking a warning message in your viewfinder, then increase your ISO until it stops. If there's decent light, then ISO 1600 should be enough, and if it's bright sun, then 400 might be enough. But, even with your camera settings correctly set, you'll need to make sure that your camera is as stable as possible. If you have very steady hands, then great... you might be able to hand hold them. If you're not sure, then use a monopod or tripod. Probably the most important thing, though, is to shoot in good, contrasty light. Good light quality will make a photo look very sharp, even when it's technically not super sharp. Recognizing good light takes experience and practice, and I'm not even sure that I can explain what I mean in a comment like this, but you'll know it when you see it. Good luck!
@@MatthewGore Thank you so much for the reply, because I love my 300MM f4 L lens, but the issue is with the A6500 and the MC-11 adapter is the focus does not seems to work well with that adapter, all my other lenses I have works perfectly. Would I be able to achieve this with my 150MM - 500mm Sigma lens since the MC-11 works flawlessly with that. I am not sure if that lens is sharp aswell like the 300MM f4 L. Again thank you so much for taking the time to respond, if you can reply to this too, would be greatly appreciated, and I will try your advise. Does not hurt to learn new things.
@@amybella Hi Amy. I also have the Sigma MC-11 adapter, since I (mostly) switched from Canon to Sony four or five years ago. I have the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 DG for Canon EF mount, which I used briefly in this video, and although its resolution is not quite as high as the Tamron tested here at the 600mm end, it's plenty sharp to be able to give you sharp looking photographs when used properly (You can see my images from it here: www.lightandmatter.org/2018/equipment-reviews/lens-comparisons-equipment-reviews/sigma-100-400mm-or-150-600mm-which-should-you-buy/ ) I believe that the lens you have should have similar performance to this one. Again, the important thing is to use a fast enough shutter speed (1/1000th or faster) and also make sure that your camera is stable.
Did you actually ever use the Sigma 150-600 Sport for e-mount? No shots taken to compare as that lens is really updated and is a new design without an adapter needed
No, unfortunately when I was making this video last summer, the new Sigma 150-600 for E-mount hadn't been announced yet. I'm still waiting to test the new lens.
With the announcement of the 35-150, I'm really debating of ditching the 70-200(180) and getting a 100-400 or 150-500/600. So 14-24, 35-150, and then a telephoto. Looking forward to seeing how the sigma does compared to the rest
That would be a wild kit, but sounds like you'd have everything covered! I'm pretty excited to spend some time with the new Sigma Sports series lens, too :-)
Depends on what you want to shoot. The 18-300 is a convenient walk-around lens that covers everything with moderately good image quality, for APS-C cameras. The 150-500 will only be telephoto, but especially on APS-C cameras, but will have significantly better image quality throughout its range.
I'm a huge fan of mid-range telephotos, and I'm still working on improving my photography with wide-angles. Telephotos in this range are useful, but can also just be a lot of fun.
No doubt the Tamron is a great lens, but, knowing what I know about where it is constructed, Vietnam, it wasn't going to happen for me. The Sigma 150-600mm is Made in Japan. Both are good for birding and landscape shooting, from all the other reviews I have seen.
All over the place. Not a true comparison of the lens you used. Bias for Tamron came through. I always liked using Tamron when I had full frame cameras. The SONY 200-600 is a beast, and provides more detail.
Don't know if you watched this, but that's exactly the conclusion I came to in this video... the Sony is a bit sharper, and I prefer to have the 600mm reach. :-) Though, there was a pretty serious decentering problem with my copy of the Sony, unfortunately, so I had to focus on other things this time. I agree that it's all over the place.
Yeah. That’s due to the extra 100mm of optical focal length. It certainly isn’t worth 1000 dollars to me. I got my copy of the Tamron 150-500 for 800 dollars. Open box. Because the guy returned it due to a dust particle. Which is going to happen on all lenses. My girlfriend’s Sony 200-600 has tons of dust in it. So it definitely still get in there. Happy with the tamron.
