None! Still waiting for one of these great manufacturers to give us a 600mm at least as they not going to accept teleconvertors. An apsc version being really lighter can be a good option too.... These are both heavy for a crop body
Just sold the Sigma 100-400 to buy the Tamron 150-500. I shoot dogs in action and found it just couldn't keep up. I'm hoping that the Tamron does better (it's arriving tomorrow!). I don't do little birds in flight so that doesn't tell me much. But if it's as fast as my Tamron 70-180, then it'll be a big step up from the Sigma.
Hola, que tal el sigma en calidad fotografica, por que lo has vendido?, es mejor el tamron?, yo dudo entre estos dos lentes, no se por cual decidirme, es para una spsc y para fauna. Gracias@@michelleosborne8958
@@michelleosborne8958you will find more fast action photos shot on Tamron 150-500 than on Sigma 100-400 and 150-600. Alas the difference between 400mm and 500mm is huge while not so much between 500 and 600mm. You can always rely on apsc mode Today I could test my old 150-600 G2 on LA-EA5 and sony A7IV and there was negligible difference between 500 and 600. My plans are going full sigma lenses because they have the exact same texture and feel of sony alpha cameras so it would look seamless, but the Tamron 150-500 sounds like it makes more sense, unless I can afford the Sigma 60-600. The Tamron is sharper than the G 200-600 though.
Thanks for the comparison! I love my a7iii, using the Tamron 28 -200 now for middle school sports and some birding. Probably going with the Sigma 100 - 400 this spring because of price, weight and overall reach.
Right now I'd go for the Sigma because of the price difference and the weight. However I'm not looking to buy any until in a few years - other lenses first. If by that time the Tamron has come down in price (& weight 😉) it might be an option... Great comparison review once again Stefan!
@@josemanuelnovo725 jajaja que bueno, bueno entonces ahora tengo otra consulta, que tal es usar el 200 600 vs 70 350, en rendimiento y en alcance obvio va hacer mas pero se nota mucho la diferencia?
@@stevenmorales9248 como calidad me quedo con el 70/350, pero el 200/600 tiene mas zom, depende para que lo quieras, son distintos, el 350 es mas portable y lo uso mucho mas.
Thank you for this content. I bought Sigma 100-400 for: size, weight, filter diameter, price. I don't regret. Good picture quality, nice stabilization. One trip to zoo made a lot of pictures for my Instagram profile :-) I just got tripod collar from Chinese manufacturer. Very good quality, 1/3 of Sigma price. I'm waiting for good condition to take perfect picture of moon :-)
I have the A7RIII with the Tamron 150m-500mm and my autofocus accuracy is much better during action shots than what was mention in this video. I'm closer to 85% with autofocus. The Tamron is a great lens on this Sony body.
I'm not a lens designer but does it really work like that... Zoom out to 500 then back to 485 and get an extra third of a stop of light from the aperture? I would guess the aperture itself is stepless and what you're actually seeing is the crossover at 485mm from it being displayed rounded down (from f/6.49 to 6.3) to rounded up (from f/6.51 to 6.7). Can someone confirm?
Yeah I have the Tamron lens and was thinking about this too. It's not like the lens suddenly drops it's ISO down if you go from 6.7 to 6.3, so I guess your theory is correct.
Great review. I am sold on the Tamron 150-500mm lense. The only problem I am having is not finding this lense in a Nikon F mount. Do you know what seller to contact? Thank you.
I've had the sigma 100-400 for several months now, and I mostly use it for landscape, which it's perfectly good for. However, I have not been terribly impressed with its AF, especially with moving targets. I've certainly gotten some excellent wildlife photos out of this lens, but the focus hit rate (even with animal eye AF on) is never good, and I usually walk away with a majority of photos off-focus ever so slightly when shooting wildlife. The only other criticism I have is the bokeh rendering is not my favorite. It's not terrible or anything, but it's slightly busy and can be quite distracting in some situations. If there's tall grass behind an animal for instance, it ends up looking a bit crazy. I may end up selling mine and buying the new 150-600 sport lens sigma just announced/leaked.
Mine was terrible and unacceptable，compared with my 200-600 G. But I have to say that 100-400 sigma is perfect for landscape, it is sharp enough and cheap enough.
Looked to me like the OS was far better on the Sigma, I hear version 2 firmware is said to solve the AF hit rate issues. Other than that, a good review, although the tables may be turned when the new Sigma 150-600 dn is put up against the Tamron. Plus is cheaper too :-)
4:04 that's the right direction for a lens to zoom in! IDK why Sigma went with the wrong direction. Zooming out will be easier that way, but for wildlife zoomin in quickly is the matter. Even with this being said I prefer the Sigma, Tamron's only 100mm more reach cant justify being 500$ more in price and 600g in weight! Canon 100-500 is optically superior to this lens and weights 300g less! I'm still waiting for them to make a 300-600 5.6-7.1 or even 8. Being a little lighter and a great match with their 70-300 which is only 500g. Even the Sigma with a tripod colar will be around 1.3kg which can't justify its 400mm reach only.
The Sigma does have the ability to zoom by pushing and pulling too. Optically, the Tamron is much better, specially in the corners. Wonder why we didn't see a 150-600..
@@StefanMalloch well it seems sigma's 150-600 is on the way! And I know about that push and pull ability of sigma's, but never holding a big lens like that as it causes more shakes by the reduced stability when you extend your arm. Laws of physics!
400mm just isn't long enough for me. I have the 200-500mm Nikkor which I use on a crop-sensor body (giving me 750mm equivalent) and about 40 percent of the time I STILL add a 1.4x teleconverter to it. (This is for mostly shooting birds.)
I wouldn't pick this lens for wildlife specifically. I'd use my Sony 200-600 for that. Crop mode + TC = 1260mm. But for landscape this lens is a winner.
Bro for the image stabilization you need to shoot higher shutter speeds that’s just common sense 1/20 of a sec is always gona be blurry and correction the tamron can shoot 30 frames a second burst mode
Which one are you going for?
None! Still waiting for one of these great manufacturers to give us a 600mm at least as they not going to accept teleconvertors. An apsc version being really lighter can be a good option too.... These are both heavy for a crop body
Just sold the Sigma 100-400 to buy the Tamron 150-500. I shoot dogs in action and found it just couldn't keep up. I'm hoping that the Tamron does better (it's arriving tomorrow!). I don't do little birds in flight so that doesn't tell me much. But if it's as fast as my Tamron 70-180, then it'll be a big step up from the Sigma.
@@michelleosborne8958hey bro, Is Tamron okay? Or sigma 100-400? Which one your fav?
Hola, que tal el sigma en calidad fotografica, por que lo has vendido?, es mejor el tamron?, yo dudo entre estos dos lentes, no se por cual decidirme, es para una spsc y para fauna. Gracias@@michelleosborne8958
@@michelleosborne8958you will find more fast action photos shot on Tamron 150-500 than on Sigma 100-400 and 150-600. Alas the difference between 400mm and 500mm is huge while not so much between 500 and 600mm. You can always rely on apsc mode
Today I could test my old 150-600 G2 on LA-EA5 and sony A7IV and there was negligible difference between 500 and 600.
My plans are going full sigma lenses because they have the exact same texture and feel of sony alpha cameras so it would look seamless, but the Tamron 150-500 sounds like it makes more sense, unless I can afford the Sigma 60-600. The Tamron is sharper than the G 200-600 though.
I think some people also forget that the Tamron has a third stabilisation mode. On mode 3 it's actually remarkably stable handheld.
I have both lens , I did find out Sigma have better image quality and image stabilizer than tamron .
Thanks for the comparison! I love my a7iii, using the Tamron 28 -200 now for middle school sports and some birding. Probably going with the Sigma 100 - 400 this spring because of price, weight and overall reach.
Right now I'd go for the Sigma because of the price difference and the weight.
However I'm not looking to buy any until in a few years - other lenses first. If by that time the Tamron has come down in price (& weight 😉) it might be an option...
Great comparison review once again Stefan!
Thank you for the review! It helps alot!
Buen video, estoy dudando entre estas dos lentes para una sony a 6700, cual me recomiendas para la fauna y por que?, gracias.
Yo estoy con la misma duda, lograste decidir alguno?
@@stevenmorales9248 si, al final me compre el sony 200/600 y el sony 70/350 😅
@@josemanuelnovo725 jajaja que bueno, bueno entonces ahora tengo otra consulta, que tal es usar el 200 600 vs 70 350, en rendimiento y en alcance obvio va hacer mas pero se nota mucho la diferencia?
@@stevenmorales9248 como calidad me quedo con el 70/350, pero el 200/600 tiene mas zom, depende para que lo quieras, son distintos, el 350 es mas portable y lo uso mucho mas.
Thank you for this content. I bought Sigma 100-400 for: size, weight, filter diameter, price. I don't regret. Good picture quality, nice stabilization. One trip to zoo made a lot of pictures for my Instagram profile :-) I just got tripod collar from Chinese manufacturer. Very good quality, 1/3 of Sigma price. I'm waiting for good condition to take perfect picture of moon :-)
What company sold the tripod collar?
@ iShoot, I bought it on the AE service. Available, now, on Amazon also.
The price difference is around 300 usd. Which one would you recommend for videos?
I have the sigma, and enjoy it. However, if the Tamron was out at the time I purchased the Sigma, I would have purchased the Tamron instead
RECON YOU GOT A BAD COPY OF TH SIGGY HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CENTERING?
How do these lenses perform with the A7RIV?
Both should be great!
@@StefanMalloch Thank you!
Still missing focus with subjects moving quickly towards you. Only with the A1 and A7IV it's been said the Tamron works perfect.
I have the A7RIII with the Tamron 150m-500mm and my autofocus accuracy is much better during action shots than what was mention in this video. I'm closer to 85% with autofocus. The Tamron is a great lens on this Sony body.
I have the sigma and it's so great for the price and quality of the build and images it can produce! Bang for buck I'm happy with my Sigma
Do u have any videos on larg printing, or how to get a pic ready for a larg print without compromising quality?
I don't do a lot of printing myself to be honest. I have a few pro shops I trust for that stuff. Maybe in the new studio though..
@@StefanMalloch cool, thank you for quick response. I appreciate ur work and sharing your knowledge.
I'm not a lens designer but does it really work like that...
Zoom out to 500 then back to 485 and get an extra third of a stop of light from the aperture?
I would guess the aperture itself is stepless and what you're actually seeing is the crossover at 485mm from it being displayed rounded down (from f/6.49 to 6.3) to rounded up (from f/6.51 to 6.7).
Can someone confirm?
Yeah I have the Tamron lens and was thinking about this too. It's not like the lens suddenly drops it's ISO down if you go from 6.7 to 6.3, so I guess your theory is correct.
You're correct. Dave McKeegan has a video on the topic.
Great review.
I am sold on the Tamron 150-500mm lense. The only problem I am having is not finding this lense in a Nikon F mount.
Do you know what seller to contact?
Thank you.
I don't think its an option for Nikon unfortunately.
Hi, just a question: Which one of these would perform better on a Sony A7S3 ? on the S Log 3 settings to Video Wildlife?
Sigma has better stabilization as you can see so for video I'd pick that 1. But if you have the money then go for the Sony 100-400 or 200-600.
6:58 15fps for a9 or a1? Isn't a9 capped at 10fps?
A9 is capped at 15fps with this lens with the E-shutter
The price of the sigma is really great 👌
good job, greetings from germany
I've had the sigma 100-400 for several months now, and I mostly use it for landscape, which it's perfectly good for. However, I have not been terribly impressed with its AF, especially with moving targets. I've certainly gotten some excellent wildlife photos out of this lens, but the focus hit rate (even with animal eye AF on) is never good, and I usually walk away with a majority of photos off-focus ever so slightly when shooting wildlife. The only other criticism I have is the bokeh rendering is not my favorite. It's not terrible or anything, but it's slightly busy and can be quite distracting in some situations. If there's tall grass behind an animal for instance, it ends up looking a bit crazy. I may end up selling mine and buying the new 150-600 sport lens sigma just announced/leaked.
Mine was terrible and unacceptable，compared with my 200-600 G. But I have to say that 100-400 sigma is perfect for landscape, it is sharp enough and cheap enough.
After watching your images on my 4k OLED TV, it does seem the Tamron IQ is a level higher.
Great Test...
Looked to me like the OS was far better on the Sigma, I hear version 2 firmware is said to solve the AF hit rate issues.
Other than that, a good review, although the tables may be turned when the new Sigma 150-600 dn is put up against the Tamron. Plus is cheaper too :-)
4:04 that's the right direction for a lens to zoom in! IDK why Sigma went with the wrong direction. Zooming out will be easier that way, but for wildlife zoomin in quickly is the matter. Even with this being said I prefer the Sigma, Tamron's only 100mm more reach cant justify being 500$ more in price and 600g in weight! Canon 100-500 is optically superior to this lens and weights 300g less! I'm still waiting for them to make a 300-600 5.6-7.1 or even 8. Being a little lighter and a great match with their 70-300 which is only 500g. Even the Sigma with a tripod colar will be around 1.3kg which can't justify its 400mm reach only.
The Sigma does have the ability to zoom by pushing and pulling too. Optically, the Tamron is much better, specially in the corners. Wonder why we didn't see a 150-600..
@@StefanMalloch well it seems sigma's 150-600 is on the way! And I know about that push and pull ability of sigma's, but never holding a big lens like that as it causes more shakes by the reduced stability when you extend your arm. Laws of physics!
The Sigma for hobbyist, the Tamron for professional. I don't think it's a hard choice.
Sigma a bit fuzzy, Tamron for missed focus. I dont think its a hard choice
I'm a professional and use the Sigma 👍🏻
@@LennonBright Literally
400mm just isn't long enough for me. I have the 200-500mm Nikkor which I use on a crop-sensor body (giving me 750mm equivalent) and about 40 percent of the time I STILL add a 1.4x teleconverter to it. (This is for mostly shooting birds.)
I wouldn't pick this lens for wildlife specifically. I'd use my Sony 200-600 for that. Crop mode + TC = 1260mm. But for landscape this lens is a winner.
Bro for the image stabilization you need to shoot higher shutter speeds that’s just common sense 1/20 of a sec is always gona be blurry and correction the tamron can shoot 30 frames a second burst mode
No you can't. Sony capped third party lenses when it comes to fps at 15fps. So you can't do 20fps or 30fps in burst shot
The difference between f/6.3 and f/6.7 is not 1/3 of a stop, it's 1/6 of a stop.
Hang on if i film with the Tamron or Sigma I can only film at 15fps on a SONY A7R III ? Huh?
What are you talking about? With third party lenses if you you can only do 15fps in burst shot.
It has nothing to do with the frame rate of video😂
If I’m buying a dedicated telephoto lens it’s got to have more reach than 400