I don't really shoot large distance but if I had to pick it would be Sigma, then Sony then Tamron although I can't say I've had much experience with Sony so it could be better than sigma, I just don't have enough of a comparison.
Thanks for this comparison! I tested both lenses and kept the Tamron. I needed a lens for a safari tour and the size and weight difference is a big plus for the Tamron. On paper the differences seem small, but I found the Tamron handling a lot easier. Also the zoom mechanism is so much smoother on the Tamron. The Sigmas was very stiff, even at the 'smooth' setting and when zooming from 150 to 600 you have to grasp your hand several times. IQ wise I found both pretty similar. The Tamron was a bit sharper at 500mm but at 600mm the Sigma was razor sharp. Giving up the 100mm extra is painful but for me the pro arguments of the Tamron overweight this loss. Lastly I also found the image stabilisation a bit better with the Sigma and the focus speed a bit better with the Tamron.
Great comparison video! FYI - it seems a lot of reviewers don't quite understand the 3rd stabilization mode on long Tamron lenses. Mode 3 gives another stop of stabilization by only engaging the mechanism at the moment the shutter is released. So if you don''t need the stable viewfinder that Mode 1 gives you on a half-pressed shutter, then you actually gain extra stabilization in the final photo. Mode 3 is my mode of choice unless I need that viewfinder to be particularly steady in some given situation. Uses less battery too!
Hi Larry, I still don´t understand mode 3: the viewfinder is already stable in mode 3 WITHOUT press pressed shutter...its always stable ... and btw didn´t this consumes always battery?
Great video. I am using Sigma in months, weight and length are really trouble for carrying and select the back pack for it. So I am considering to change to Tamron which I had a chance to test it and quote love it. One more reason is Tamron 150-500 will be matched with my new Tamron 35-150 🙂
After much due diligence I just bought the tamron 150-500 mm lens and loving it after trying it out. To me the compact size lesser weight and auto focus sharpness are paramount in my decision on top of the price. This is almost same weight and size as Sony 100-400m zoom with similar sharpness and autofocus features except it’s more than 50% discount in price of the Sony lens. Sigma is good but it’s just too long too heavy which for me a travel landscape photographer us a deal killer. I shoot with Sony alpha R3 with 42 megapixel so I can easily crop in to get a 600-700 mm look or using my Sony apc 6500 camera to get a 750mm lens. (500mmx1.5)
I have the Sigma 100-400, and have been tempted to get something a little longer, but it's hard to justify. The 100-400 is already such a capable lens.
Que tal la calidad de imagen?, estoy dudando si comprarlo pero dudo de su nitided, es necesario el anillo para el tripode, o lo engancgad por la camara, gracias.@@dunnadidit
Switched my sigma 200 400 to tamron 150 500.Sigma lens are notoriously dust magnet and iffy focus which I experienced first hand. I’m very happy with tamron build and fast AF.
I got the sigma and I don’t regret it, it’s actually quite a bit cheaper than Tamron in uk as well. I’m very impressed with the stabilisation and it was the close focus that made me choose it over the Sony 200-600.
Where did you bought it? I can’t find the sigma in stock anywhere and I was willing to go for the sony…Ive just bought a Panasonic g9 with Leica 100-400 yesterday which costed me £1700 because I wanted something smaller and lighter but image quality and iso is not there compared to my sony a7iii and I might return them and get either sigma or sony. What do you think, what should I choose?
@@Super01041994 I got mine from Wex the day after it was released, I did have it preordered though. I had a G80 and then a GH5 a few years back and now I’m on Sony I would never go back. The only thing I did miss was the stabilisation of those cameras but the A7Siii is pretty good to be fair. Plus the AF on Sony will be a real luxury after Panasonic.
I'm leaning towards the Tamron. Because what is not mentioned here is the close focusing distance at the long end. The Tamron can focus much nearer to the subject.
Yeah that was something I didn’t actually test! Do you know what the numbers are at the long end? (Or more specifically it would be cool to know what they both are at 500mm)
Since 2D magnification is a factor of the square of the focal lengths there is a 1.44x increase in magnification from 500mm to 600mm. That's a lot more than the 20% increase in focal length and makes the Sigma a lot more attractive for those shooting small and/or distant subjects.
Could you elaborate a bit more on the AF performance? Many other reviewers claim that Tamron although having less reach and smaller max. aperture absolutely dominates the Sigma when it comes to AF speed (probably due to the VXD linear motor vs stepping motor on the Sigma). For fast action like birds in flight it's definitely THE most important thing in a lens like this. Thank you!
I just picked up a mint ex-demo copy of the Tamron. I'd previously used the Sigma in A mount 150-500 guise and the Sony 200-600 on a full frame body (A7iii) and wanted something lighter for my a6700 and so far it's been great. The lighter setup really makes a difference when you're out for the day. Also having got used to 600mm on full frame with the Sony, I'm not really missing the extra 100mm the Sigma would give when I'm already getting a 750mm equivalent with the APSC crop. Something else to bear in mind with the Tamron, if you drop it down to 499mm it's at F6.3 too, you only hit F6.7 at the full 500mm.
Terrific job with this comparison. I'm testing out both of these lenses now and I have to say that extra 100mm, the click stops on the collar, and the extra bits are really great draws for the Sigma. But gosh that 100-400 Sigma is nice, too! Decisions, decisions!
It seems like the main draw of the Tamron is (once again) the size, weight, and price. But considering how large these lenses are already, is the Sigma's extra bit of size going to make a difference?
Hey does putting those chapters in the videos effect your view time and in turn decrease how much RU-vid will pay you? How much time does it take to add them? They are super helpful and time saving and I really wish more RU-vidrs would do it, and put as many as you do. You don’t put too many, I’ve seen that be a problem on any video but I’m sure it’s possible. The chapter titles are always accurate and descriptive and much appreciated.
I don’t think it changes anything on monetization. And I think it actually improves watch time (this is anecdotal) because people can skip to the next section instead of just leaving the video. It generally takes me about as long as the video. I watch it through once and make them as I watch. You can see how I make them in the description. By typing in the table of contents there, RU-vid automatically adds them. I think you need to have one at 0:00 for it to work though. I’m really glad to hear that they are helpful! That makes me feel great about the extra effort!
I have the Sigma 100-400, great lens and the Sony 200-600. I'm using on A7iii. I almost always pick up the heavier and bulkier Sony 200-600, the internal zoom is a big winner in my opinion and also the ability to add tele converter (I have the 1.4) gives great flexability. I know your review is about the other two lenses but if you can spare the $ the 200-600 is the ultimate in this group in my opinion.
I had the sigma 100-400 and loved it and really wanted the 200-600, but in the uk at the min you can practically get the sigma and Sony for same price with discounts. It was the close focus of the sigma that won me over as it will be quite versatile. Ultimately the Sony is obviously better but sometimes versatility wins for me!
I purchased the Sigma 150-600 dg dn. It's great. I am still getting used to the weight though. I use it on my Lumix S5. Birds, Insects, plants and Landscapes are what l spend the most time doing.
Already have the Sony 200-600mm, but might get the Tamron with Tilta Mirage matte box to use both on a7S III and a7 IV for wildlife. a7 IV has a 1.5x crop at 4K@60fps which can be handy.
I use the Tamron 150 500 on the A6600 and get 225 mm to 750mm. It i not as good as the Sony 70 350 for focus but works very well. My figures on the 150 to 500 weight is only 1725 gram compared to the 70 300 of 700 grams. I wish they made a longer version of the 70 350
Indeed, if sony could make it 1000-1200g 100-500 F/5-6.3 for aps-c it would be excellent, wouldn't mind some vignetting to make it even more compact. Also chosen tammy 150-500 for my sony a6600, AF is slightly better after v3 update in photography and is nearly equal to sony, in video still behind 70-350, but optically tamron is superior to 70-350, more contrast, sharpness and less CA.
I prefer sony 200-600 with internal zoom and it is really sharp and quick focus. But despite that these two lenses seems like also good. If there is a chance to compare three of them that will be interesting for telephoto lense lovers)
Something not mentioned to be aware of- I bought the Sigma and immediately had to return it because the zoom functions backwards compared to all my other lenses. Too many years of muscle memory made this a deal breaker, so returned and got the Tamron.
The Sigma is in my sights for a while now but even though the bang for your bucks is great, 1300 € is still sooo much money for me. I only bought my A7 III a year ago and the new Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2 (which is GREAT) but i soooo need a good Tele. Urgh, decisions, decisions.
that picture at 5:17, it was in a facebook group with funny 360 option, you move your phone and it gets funny and funnier, it has been weeks to that but it was funny
The tamron one has a linear motor though, i think for sports the autofocus should work better. Not sure about the aperture, the difference in light from 6.3-6.7 is minimal, its not like 1.2 to 1.8 or something
I have the Sigma 100-400 and the Sony 200-600. The weight of the Sony is just too much for me due to chronic back pain…so I’ll probably get the Tamron 150-500mm. Fingers crossed!
1) Sigma FTW!! Mainly it has arca swiss and will fit nicely on my 3LT Brian! 2) I'm gonna try Optyx for sure. It's all those trail running races I take pictures of!! So many runners!!
I have the Sigma 100-400 because of its small size and relatively light weight. I plan to pair it with the Sony 200-600 for when I want more reach and don't mind a bigger lens. Going with the Sony because the image quality is just a hair better than the Sigma and it can be used with a 1.4x TC for those times when 600mm isn't enough. That's as far as my budget can stretch.
@@dunnadidit I think it's a good paring. The 100-400 is a great standard tele zoom to have while the 2.25x increase in magnification from 400 to 600 makes the 200-600 a worthwhile addition for extra reach. Add in the TC to get to 840mm and it's 4.4x greater magnification vs 400mm.
The sigma is good bit lighter than the older dslr version I have for my Sony, plus its same a 90mm filter thread like the C version of the dslr version, not 105mm like mine, not sure if that makes any difference on performance on letting light in.
Hey Bud. Great vid. Don't know if it's just me but I always felt like sigma is on another level compared to tamron. Don't know what it is exactly but sigmas in my experience are always better built. What do you think about this?
I’ve come to this conclusion on a handful of comparisons and reviews too. It’s not that the Tamron is ever bad by any means, but it’s nearly almost cheaper and it usually just feels a little cheaper too.
@@dunnadidit Absolutely! I totally agree. Sigmas somehow have this something that screams "quality" to me while tamron even though not worse in many ways doesn't feel as premium.
Good stuff! Which is most weather proof, and which has the best image stabilization? In fact - if you could only bring one of them, which would you bring on a sailboat to take pics and video of seascapes, birds, whales, dolphins etc?
The weight for Sigma Sports is only 2100g for the sony version. Nikon and Canon are 2.860g. Do you guys have the same numbers? Amazing Video by the way! Thank you!
Interesting. I just went to my local camera dealer to compare the 3 lenses..Tamron Sigma and Sony. The dealer received notice while I was there the Sony product is stuck in Massachusetts, and dont know when it will be in..That being said I almost laid the money down for the Sigma, but seeing Im spending a significant amount of money, Ill wait until the Sony gets here..Just a case of woulda shoulda coulda..Thanks for your great review
Eh. Being in the Nikon Z system, the Sigma wwould have to be an F mount with an FTZ adapterr. Hardly ideal, I will take the Tamron any day of the week, thank you ver much.
Hello , I hesitate between the Sony mount and the panasonic mount .... I have a sony A7 M3 and a panasonic S1R, which mount you will choose for sports photos at night, but with good lighting ... Thank you
Thanks for the great comparison. At the Sigma lens, what is the fairly big knob standing out - at the part more towards the camera? Could not find any info about it yet...
Hi wonderful & onjective review as usual....have been hearing some users facing some focusing issues with Sigma...since I am planning to buy one of these Zoom lens for mainly Landscape photography with some Bird & Wildlife photography which would be your final recommendation...currently there is a discount scheme on Sigma 150-600 so its infact slightly cheaper than Tamron. I use a Sony A7RIII currently...Thanks !!
Hey mate! Love your vids. I was wondering since you work on davinci on a Mac. Do you calibrate your screen and work on davinci. Or because of the rec709-A requirement you kinda have to stick with the factory settings of the monitor? And how would that effect a reference monitor? Thanks Danny
i have an A7S3 and doing sport video like youth football and basketball, softball, would the tamron 100-500 be good for that or what 200 or bigger lens would you recommend.
I didn’t do any direct tests, if I had to guess I’d say they’re both a bit better quality than the 100-400 but it wasn’t enough to make me drop my 100-400 and buy one of them.
In comparison I got the Tamron ex-demo for £799 UK. Nearest Sony I could find was £1100/1200. Having owned the Sony previously, it wasn't worth the price difference to me.
This wasn't a very helpful review. You just went over the external/physical parts and only a tiny bit about image quality, autofocus capabilities in camera, etc.
I’m surprised that the Sony 200-600 didn’t make it into this comparison. It might also be interesting to hear how the coma is in these two lenses, wide-open, as the 600 reach is appealing gateway lens for astrophotographers. The Sony’s coma is negligible, and I would love to see coma comparison b/w Sony and these two lenses.
@@dunnadidit Not when you're talking about an EF 600 f4 MK2 vs EF 500 f4 MK2 and realising how much easier and nicer the 500 f4 is to handhold, sacrificing that tiny amount of focal length was fine to me.
