Nice comparison! I had a chance to review the Canon 100-400mm L, Tamron G2 and Sigma 150-600mm C & S. All were super performers, however they had their strengths and weakness. All had great sharpness and contrast. The Canon lacked the extra 200mm needed for birds and that extra zoom, the G2 and Sigma S were more expensive and I couldn't justify or see a difference for myself so I went with the Sigma C and I love it, super sharp, fast and well balanced. I am super careful with my equipment and rarely will I expose it to harsh elements. If you are a bit more aggressive then I am then I would go with the G2 or Sigma C, they have a better weather seal. Any of these lenses are awesome so don't feel like you settled because of price.
Thank you for writing this. Cuz I'm kind of torn and really don't want to spend the extra $400 for a minimal sharpness. Plus I keep seeing the sigma on sale for about $740. I'm currently selling my Sigma art 50- 100 and my Tamron 17-400mm
You can't really compare sharpness at 1:1 when the lighting conditions are different for the two. How the light falls on the subject makes a huge difference to the sharpness of the final image. If you're not using lab conditions then pixel peeping isn't gonna help anything.
@@Bido11561 I think on Amazon it's for $899, and with plenty of extra accessories, 2 straps(shoulder and wrist), 32 and 64gb card, lens pouch, sigma usb dock, mini tripod, camera carrying bag
@@sanket_billade A lot of the amazon accessories are cheap junk thrown in to make it look like a good value, although the usb dock and shoulder strap sound like nice adds.
How much can you correct sharpness on Lightroom as I'm seriously thinking of buying the Sigma, but don't have the budget to go for the Tamron. I guess what I'm asking is if I get some photos that aren't as sharp and for example, i wanted to print them to sell, can they be made super sharp. I've just bought a Canon 80D body only and have Lightroom on a disk, but obviously can't test out any photos on Lightroom yet.
I got to test the Sigma 150-600 C for free this past weekend. I rented a Canon 100-400 II to try out and go to a bird sanctuary in High Island, TX. When I arrived Sigma had a tent set up near the entrance and would let you try any of their zoom lenses for free. Even the 300-800 and the$6000 500mm f4 prime! I took a few pictures with the 500 for fun but only really tested the 150-600 C seeing as how it was the one I thought I'd purchase if I got one. After coming back home and looking in light room I was stunned at the quality of my pictures on the Sigma! I got more keepers from it than I did from the Canon. I thought the colors were better with more contrast as well. Both were amazing and super sharp! (although not as sharp as that 500mm!!!) I was so impressed I'm driving to the local store tomorrow to get one.
From what I've heard the original was cheaper. Got one used and it works alright. Has some focusing issues at 600mm that I can't fix on my D3300 on top of simply not being that sharp at 600mm.
I obviously cannot speak for him but I imagine there is a big difference between reviewing something and thinking it is good or even better and what you'd recommend for a piece of gear. I think my 964 Turbo is an amazing car I wouldn't recommend it to others though if they asked me what car they should get- especially since they are through the roof on collectors market
Nice comparison. Glad to see the Sigma is close enough for most of us. I got mine for $775 with a $100 gift card last year and have taken many shots I really like with it. I have found the IS to be quite amazing as well.
When it comes to pricing I think we should keep in mind that the $400ish is more than 40% higher than the Sigma C. While they used to cost nearly the same the old Tamron is about $130 less although most of those comparisons had the Sigma as the clear winner. Interesting to see what the next 40% cost increase as you move from the Tamron mk2 to the Sigma S as the price difference is proportionally the same.
This video was made just prior to a major firmware update from Sigma, which completely rewrote the AF firmware. Sigma claimed a 40% improvement in AF speed with the update for 150-600mm “C” lenses. The Sigma update also seemed to correct the tendency for the lenses to front or back focus, which improved the final results when using the 150-600mm “C” lenses.
Wish the same could be said for the Tamron, as front- and back-focus is an issue with the G2 as well. It doesn't happen consistently and I found the Tap-In didn't help much at all (I prefer using my camera's AFMA and adjusting it accordingly). What Tamron should have done is add panning detection to mode 1 so I don't have to flip the switch to mode 2 when a bird takes off. Apparently they added it to G1 because it only has one option, but not G2...
you never gonna have so much light that let you stop this lens down and maintain your shutter speed and ISO in acceptable level. maybe a mid day summer only
I owned a Sigma 50-500 back in the day and was very happy with it at the time. Currently I am a Tamron shooter but I don't have anything in the 150-600 range any longer and am considering returning to the long lens. I think sharper images and the arca compatible plate will swing me toward the Tamron, unless I decide that I really must have the 60-600 range that only the Sigma offers.
Hi there, How do you manage to get the almost the same image, focusing on a owl? Do you use two cameras side by side, or did it wait for a lens change???!!!
Thanks for the nice video. One thing I will never understand though is, why many photographers are often leaving either the camera body or the back of the lens opened and exposed to dust without the cap on!!!!!! As you do in the beginning of this video out in the field.
Holdup, dont go for the looks Go for the specs, the tamron's VC is better and way better focus maybe the sigma looks better but it doesnt mean its better
@@dodothebird2199 and maybe the Tamrons VC is better but that doesn’t mean it’s better 😂 see how that works? At the end of the day the specs do not matter if your pics aren’t coming out as good.
Great video, the way you present the pictures AND the context really helps in making judgements. One nit, though. I noticed that on the pictures of the owl, the apertures on the lenses were different; the Sigma was at 6.3 and the Tamron at 7.1. Now, I don't know how much difference that would make, since the slightly wider aperture on the Sigma would reduce DOF a bit, but also allow a better capture at faster shutter speeds. It's just another variable/complication to consider when comparing the images. You did note that you took a number of shots with each lens, and it'd also be interesting when comparing to know what the percentage of useable images was for each lens to get some measure of focus accuracy- clearly one useable image in 5 shots vs one in 50 says different things about the lens.
I just came across this video and I'm wondering why you compared the Sigma C with the Tamron G2 when the Sigma C should be put up against the G1 and the G2 should be put up against the Sigma Sport to be fair. I started with the Sigma C and went to the Sport, then to the Nikon 200-500mm, but now I'm back with the Sigma Contemporary because of more reach, it's not as heavy as the others and the image quality is just as good if not better.
Thanks for the great review. I don’t understand why so many ppl get into the microcosm of lenses as most of aren’t pros. I’m a hobbyist. But I am addicted to these vids. I’m getting the Sigma C. Great vid.
Hi. Nice comparison. You mentioned Rule 500 and shutter speed 1/600s, 80D is a crop, should it be multiplied by 1.6? The shutter speed should be equal or faster than 1/960s. Just an idea.
Is the focal length the same on the Tamron and Sigma 150-600? As far as does one reach out further than the other? I tried a zoom that went out to 400, yet the image was only a faction bigger than my 55-250z, from the same distant.
I shoot the Sigma Sport as build quality is important to me because my disabilities cause a lot of clumsiness. But most tests compare the Tamron with the Contemporary when its pricing is closer to the sport, I accept in this case the Contemporary is probably your own. However, if I had to buy today I'm not sure which I would choose, the Tamron looks an excellent lens and I think these two manufacturers will be outplaying Canon and Nikon before long. But with this lens I don't think there is enough there to warrant selling my Sigma to get a Tamron. As usual a great and very honest review.
I think if you are really picky about sharpness on each pixel, you'd go for 600mm prime anyway. my opinion based on this video is, although they are very close in terms of sharpness, I think I'd go for Sigma for it's better stabilisation. nice video :)
Hi Toby, I plan to go to Tanzania in June and I am not sure which lens I should buy for my Nikon d5500. Would you go for 70-200mm f2.8 or 150-600 f5-6.3? Also, I should mention I currently own Sigma 8-16mm, Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 and Nikon 50mm f1.8. Thank you in advance for your answer. Marek
Thanks so much for a great review. I have been waffling between...among the three...these two as well as the Nikon 200-500. The big downside to the Nikon is it's price because my ship hasn't really come in yet, but I always like to stay with the Nikon glass when possible. Is there any chance at all that you might do a comparison with the Nikon & either of these two lenses in future? I'd be very interested in seeing that!
It may well be that my eyes are just not as sharp as yours, but I thought the photos of the sand were a dead heat with the Sigma looking very slightly better and with the moss I saw no difference at all. The shots of the buildings were the only test where I definitely saw the Tamron as superior. For me, I'd take the money and run with the Sigma but they both seem to be excellent lenses and I don't think you'd go wrong with either.
I don't think my eyes are better but I think seeing the images in Lightroom vs you seeing them in a video on RU-vid makes the difference. They were all pretty close but the Tamron was better in most cases. The sigma certainly is a great value.
Hey Toby, did you test the Sigma Sport vs. the Tamron??? Or are you assuming the optics are the same, just the build more solid... Just curious.. The sport has the built in dock and firmware updates have been plentiful... I was pleased with the Sigma Sport in Africa, but I don't think it's nearly as fast as the Canon 100-400 or my 500 f4.. Thoughts???
I did not test the Sport version - I have seen a few other reviews that put the Tamron ahead of the sport too but I think it is much closer to a draw because the sport is supposed to be a little sharper than the contemporary, plus all the additional features. Next I want to test Sigmas 500 f/4, I hear it is as sharp, if not sharper than Canon at a fraction of the price.
Late, but can you compare a Sigma contemporary to a Tamron G2? AM I wrong, but aren't the g2's a better line in Tamron's catalog, but the C series by Sigma is budget? Or is that not relevant here?
On some of your images it looked like the Tamron focal length was on the short side, have you tested for focus breathing? Or is this a no issue, just curious thanks.
I got the sigma a month ago and I'm really pleased. The biggest lens I had before is the 18-200 vr I Nikon and this sigma is really very much bigger - and I understand it's a "light" 600mm. The sigma sport or Nikon/canon 500-600mm are much heavier - I would not like to have a lens that put more strain on my shoulder/back.
Hi Toby, how would the 7d II and the 100-400 ii + 1.4xIII compare to the tamron G2? I am looking to buy one of the two lenses for BIF and nature in general. Is the AF of the Tamron G2 up to speed with the 100-400ii + 1.4xIII or is it not as good. Same question for the sharpness. I am willing to spend the money on the Canon if it's the best in AF and sharpness. Greetings from Belgium
Nice video but I will really like to se a video sigma's 150-600mm sport vs the Tamron 150-600mm G2 but I can only find videos that have sigmas 150-600mm c lens
Which firmware version was the Sigma running? I know there was a firmware update for the lens that improved AF speed and accuracy, there are also customization for the stabilization you can do with the Sigma. Additionally, lighting differences make a HUGE difference, maybe the most difference? when shooting with long zooms. Better lighting will 99% of the time yeild sharper results regardless of the lens.
I don't know which firmware was being used. These were both new lenses. I do know lighting makes a huge differences and was careful to test in the same conditions. Thanks!
Well, the first and second samples the lighting is quite different. Additionally, if the slowest shutter speed you can get away with (with a static subject) is better on one lens than the other, thats the lens with the best stabilization. Anyways its nice to see a comparison between the Sigma and G2, thanks for the upload.
Fan boys will swear by the Nikon. Reality is, the Tamron is 600mm vs. 500mm so Nikon is 100mm short. Image quality is equal. Nikon is twice the price. Easy win for Tamron.
I used the Tamron 150-600mm DI VC USD (first version) and it simply isn't sharp and has focusing issues at 600mm so I try to use it as a 150-500mm lens.
I want to use both lenses with my Sony a7 but I have many dilemmas. Tamron has a Sony α-mount and can be used with the Sony LA-EA4 adapter which offers great optical phase detection. However the Tamron α-mount doesn't have internal image stabilization like all α-mount lenses from Sigma and Tamron. That is not a serious issue with newest e-mount cameras which have inside stabilization but my Sony a7 lacks it. Also Tamron and Sigma don't offer teleconverters for the α-mount. Only for Canon EF mount and Nikon F mount. For the record 1.4X allow autofocus for both lens. The 2X teleconverter work only in manual focus mode with both Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm lenses. On the other hand the canon version of the Sigma 150-600mm is supported by the Sigma MC-11 EF to e-mount adapter. That is very important. Also the MC-11 permit the vibration control of the lens. The MC-11 adapter can be used with a teleconverter and the sigma 150-600mm.
Last image - stabilization: As I recall the Tamron G2 got 3 different VC modes.... did you try if changing it made a difference... (Look at the lens shortly @ Cebit but only got as far as noticing that their is at least one mode i never got a sharp image). Thx for doing the review, though. And providing the full res. Caz on my monitor at least the difference in sharpness got pretty much eaten up by the video compression. In any case.... I know slightly different target group... but I am very interested to find out how Sigma's newly announced 100-400 will perform. Simply because I find myself doing most of my work traveling for which the 150-600 is to big/heavy. Plus not using it for wildlife (alot).
I agree about trying the different VC modes but it probably won't make a huge difference. In the past I've found Sigma's stabilization to be pretty good albeit quite noisy on the 150-500mm. I no longer have it for a side-by-side comparison but I found it pretty reliable, except after a few years it started to judder whenever I panned diagonally in a certain direction. From what I recall it still did pretty well with panning motions in the regular mode 1. The Tamron G2 seems to have more streaking and added blur if you happen to use mode 1 for panning. As for handheld situations I think the Tamron only does well until around 1/320 sec at 600mm (that's about 3 stops on an APS-C where it is a 960mm equivalent). I get how they want you to use mode 2 for panning situations but sometimes things happen too fast before you can pan. I recall reading how most manufacturers put a panning detection in mode 1 as well but I'm not sure Tamron has done this. Overall I find the Tamron to be hit-or-miss with its VC.
Over the past 3 months or so I have managed to buy a copy of the 150-600 G2 vs the Sigma 150-600 C I must say your findings in this video do not reflect my findings I found the G2 a lot worse than the sigma C. I have made about 40 videos recently looking at this lens and found the sigma far superior.
For me the real difference is the difference in weather sealing. $900 vs $1400 is definitely a lot but I’d rather have the overall improvements in the new version of the “g2” Tamron with the addition of having an actual weather sealed lens. Another really good comparison to me would be the 150-600 Sigma Sport series vs the Tamron g2.
hi ! thanks for such an interesting review. I wonder about the optic qualities ( sharpness, contrast, etc ) and focus speed between the canon 100-400mm IS II and the Tamron 150-600mm G2. What did you find in your field experience ? Im gonna move from Canon 7D mark II + 100-400 IS II ( amazing lens ! ) to a Nikon D500 for better low light and dynamic range results. I´m still scratching my head about what lens to get with enough optical quality to match the canon 100-400 IS II....my budget is around 2.800 dollar .The Nikkor 200-500mm is an option but I feel the color rendering of the Tamron is warmer and I like that. If you can share some insights of your experience I would appreciate a lot ! Thank you and happy shooting Marcos Baumann Santiago - Chile
Marcos Baumann Why would you go with the Tamron when you can get the 200-500 for your Nikon which has gotten great reviews? I think the light transmission of the Tamron is significantly lower which is not a good thing on a variable aperture lens. I think you see the outcome on the owl pic comparison with sigma getting you 2000 ISO vs 5000 on the Tamron at the same settings. If I could use the Nikon 200-500 on my Canon I would in a heartbeat!
Hola Jorge, gracias por pasar. True ! you are right on the spot about the 2 lenses mentioned above. Yesterday, I had the chance to do a mano a mano shooting with 7D mark II +100-400 IS II VS D500 + 200-500 / 5.6. It was in very low light using Isos between 1600-3200. To be honest, it was the best thing I could do ! The differences are marginal with an advantage of 0.5 stop ISO/NOISE to the D500. The sharpness/contrast of this 2 lenses is similar ,but I give a slight advantage to the canon 100-400 IS II in the acuity/sharpness department. I don't see a reason to move to nikon now so I will stay with my Canon gear. Saludos Marcos
Nice review Toby. I have first version of this lens, and I would love tripod collar with AS built in. From what I seen shooting birds in Milwaukee area Tamron outnumbers sigma 10 to 1. I think Sigma made mistake by making 2 versions of the same lens. Nobody wants to buy cheaper one because they think it's lower quality, and nobody wants to buy sports version because it is much more expensive than Tamron.
This is just my opinion on Sigma's pricing and observation of lenses used in my area. I didn't say anything about quality of Sigma lenses, never used them so I wouldn't know.
I already have the 600mm Tamron and because of the size and weight of it, I have trouble hand holding it and getting the proper quality out of it. I'm checking out videos, to see if there's something I'm doing wrong, but it appears I may need to use a tripod more often. Problem with a tripod is, I shoot mostly birds. Thank you for putting up your video, it was helpful.
Agreed. A bit late on the commenting, but the nikon is far faster. Sure with a crop body nikon you're getting a 1.5x magnification, and using a 150-600 ends up being a 900 while the 200-500 is a 750, that f5.6 Is soooo much better. Plus it's faster at focusing. A lot faster.
Josh Mandeville It is 1/3 stop faster than F6.3. It means absolutely nothing. It’s the same difference as F1.4 compared to F1.6 Also 1.4 teleconverters still work with AF with both Sigma and Tamron (and Nikon of course).
It means generation two.....it's a better lens all around....twist zoom instead of push pull...just a little better all around.....get Tamron g2 over the sigma contemporary....or get the sigma sport over the g2....if you got the bucks !
I'd like to have seen here more shots of birds at the Same conditions tô evaluate the sharpness. Different ISOs ? Are WE evaluating Stabilisation or Sharpness? Thema give us shots taken at the Same exactly exposure conditions
Hi Tobes!!! Was just wondering if you could follow up on the video capabilities of the Nikon d500? You could specifically focus on the 2x crop, and if there is any good glass to counteract the crop. You see, I'm considering an a6500 as the video quality is 'superb', yet the ergonomics and battery life are horrible. I would much prefer to go with the more robust and non overheating Nikon d500 - the only thing in my way from doing this is the crop in 4k video. Also, since the camera uses a lesser segment of the sensor, the low light quality apparently also decreases.
Forget sharpness, good copies are all sharp. We want AF reliability, stability etc. I’ve heard G2 is twitchy, faster than Nikon 200-500, but slightly misses focus more often. Doesn’t matter how sharp if the focus isn’t reliable.
Tendency to back-focus around 10-20m under certain conditions. Tap-In Console can help a bit but still very inconsistent. Stabilization performance is also mediocre as this video demonstrates - at 600m it's only good down to 1/320 and sometimes adds blur when it shouldn't at higher speeds. In mode 1 it also doesn't cancel panning motion like some other models leading to viewfinder lag and added blur. I get Tamron says not to use it at speeds faster than 1/1000s, but I want the viewfinder to be stabilized, and expect it to still perform well as other options have.
ted tedsen sorry I think you are mistaken. he is using the Sigma Contemporary not the Sport. it is even illustrated in Lightroom comparison. So my comment remains valid.
but the picture he poses on is a Sport I have the sport on my d810 and d4 can see it on the lens hood C does not have the big metal hood but plastic one also all the buttons on the lens tells me it's Sports the contemp dosent have all the buttons
HI Mariuss - I don't know but I actually would be surprised if the release a G3 for DSLRs - Much more likely that this lens will only be released in a mirrorless version moving forward.
Tamron clearly sharper on the moss. Sigma slightly sharper on the building. Both lenses have very similar sharpness zoomed in and when zoomed out are indiscernible . The Tamron did appear to have better contrast IMO, but that could have been difference in the lighting. I would not be afraid to shoot with either.
I rly like Tamron lenses but the Sigma looks much more attractive for me. It has a better quality at 400-600mm. I believe everyone want a zoom lens for high range so the Sigma is a superior choice. It cost 900 € at amazon compared to a 1400 € for the G2 tamron. Easy choice for me, Sigma.
Hi Toby, on the Sigma did you have the Sigma dock and for C1 set AF focusing speed to Fastest and have the firmware at latest as the latest FW improves focusing speed some, 20%+.
I been approved by adorama, and was looking for someone to push me a little more to the Tamron 150-600,ok also can you tell about nikon 200-500mm before I make the decision can you tell me about nikon vs Tamron. Thanks 😊 Great 👍 video.
I'm looking for this sort of reach for 70D daylight action (BIF/sport/airshow). Your static subject IS observation is very concerning. Can you comment on dynamic subject IS and auto-focus acquisition and tracking (BIF...)? Any thoughts on 100-400 IS II cropped (or TC'd) "600mm" IQ.
Jon Lautenschlager I have had the Sigma put on my 7d mk2 and have found it to be really inconsistent with BIF. It is fine if it is gliding slowly but any fast movements and it loses it every time so i have put my 400 f5.6 back on.
