Super Telephoto Shootout: Sony vs Tamron vs Sigma for Sony E-mount cameras
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2024
- A whole bunch of lovely new super telephoto zoom lenses have arrived for the end of summer, for Sony E-mount cameras. Let's see what these three can do, and what the differences are!
Links to full reviews:
Sony 200-600mm: • Sony FE 200-600mm f/5....
Tamron 150-500mm: • Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6...
Sigma 150-600mm: • Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6....
Buy them here (Amazon affiliate links - thank you for your support!):
Sony 200-600mm: geni.us/Sony200600
Tamron 150-500mm: geni.us/Tamron150500FE
All pictures taken by me on a Sony a7R III camera.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Sidewalk Shade', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - Jak na to + styl
I’ve made up my mind, I’ll go for the Sony! No, the Sigma, the Sigma. Or maybe the Tamron?
Same here I've been sitting on the fence for a long time
😂 same here but I'm going with the Sigma because of it's focal range, minimum focus distance, price & weight
SIGMA for me!
I am leaning towards Sigma, but I like the internal zoom of the Sony. it's not rare for me to shoot in dusty conditions or around saltwater.
but the fringing is the wooooooooorst in sigma!
Chris's reviews are really the best for lenses, he developed an amazing standarized testing that he keeps constant, so you can use it to compare different lenses, and when he does an explicit comparison like this it's really better.
He really is the best lens reviewer on youtube, it is the standardized method that really makes his reviews the most useful of all. I hope he doesn't get bored of doing them, I rely on them! LOL. I got the Sony 200-600 + 1.4x TC, it is amazing.
Super comparison! You’re especially killing it lately. Great work, Chris!
Thanks for the excellent review that helped me to decide to get the Sony 200-600 + 1.4x TC many months ago. It really is a spectacular lens, thanks for all your hard work. Your reviews are the first ones I go to before any other reviews. I hope you don't get bored of doing them. LOL
One thing I've really grown to love about the Sony lens is how easy it is to adjust the zoom. Being internal means you have less mass to move and there are no added barrel seals needed so it's pretty easy to adjust with just my fingertips.
Sigma also has shotgun-like push-pull zoom, which may be better option for some people. But this Sony internal zoom comes with cost. This lens is really, really long. It's longer than my Sigma 100-400 with body mounted, which means I won't be able to fit it in my current backpack in camera compartment.
Superb comparison! Great work Chris (as usual)!
Oh THANK YOU! I've been desperately trying to find a comparison of these before I buy one soon. Thank you!
This isn’t the video we asked for, but instead the video we needed 🙏🏽 Thank you Chris
I like how you compare these super Telephoto lenses. Your review is very informative and decisive facts you laid out. I am very appreciate your information. Look forward to your next review
Having owned the Sony for some while now I'm happy to see the comparisons here and your opinion that the Sony is your preferred option Christopher especially as I would guess that the vast majority of owners would use the long end of the focal length most of the time however the Tamron and Sigma are both serious contenders in view of their cost and performance. Thanks for taking the time and effort involved in making this very informative comparison.
Really good work here Chris - thanks
Great review. I have the 200-600mm and man that Sigma is impressive at that cost!
Wow, what a superb comparison! Thanks.
Great video Chris. Yeah, the tripod collar on my Sony is wobbly too. Love the lens, though.
yeeees...been waiting for this!
Awesome, thank you for this honest comparison!
Great comparison - thank you !
I have the Sony 200-600mm for both my A7iii and A7Rii, it's a beast. I love the image quality. As an older chap, I must say it's no lightweight though. For travel, I am considering the new Sony E-Mount APS-C 70-350mm for the A7Rii as I'd get that extra crop factor 'zoom' and still have a massive file on the R series Sony sensor and a fraction of the weight in the lens.
I also shoot with the A7RII and purchased the Sony 200-600 because I thought it would provide better AF on the older body than a 3rd party lens. It's been a great upgrade over the Sigma 150-600mm for canon EF with the sigma adapter which is what I used to use.
I just bought the Sigma lens, and so far im very pleased with it.
well done. perfect work!!!
Amazing review! So detailed yet very concised.
I actually bought the Sony 200-600 around 6 months ago as I saw no intention from either Sigma nor Tamron on releasing a superzoom for E-Mount.
Now that all 3 lenses are officially out I can say that I'm actually pretty glad I went with the Sony, not because the other two are terrible lenses, but becasue it's best for what I need it for.
Thanks again for the amazing review Chris! I would have no problem watching you reviewing paint dry or ice melting.
Since you're convinced you've made the right choice, may I ask what you use the lens for? I can't make up my mind which one to go for 😭 pros and cons with all three lenses.
@@edc641 I use it mainly for sports, sometimes local wildlife around my house, and rarely candid photos of my friends and family.
I believe that for 80% of photographers - the Tamron and Sigma will suffice.
@@DoubleLombax Thank you. I'm mostly interested in using the lens for birds. I guess the Sony is the way to go for best hit rate when those birds are flying around all over the place. I really like the compactness of the Tamron, but we're talking 500mm vs 600mm on (sometimes) fast moving birds. Just wish the Sony was a little more discrete, and easy to put in my camera bag. In my super expensive country the sigma will be like 1800$ and the Sony is 2500$.
@@edc641 clearly the Sony. The Sigma could be good but should be cheaper. Price difference is not large enough and Sony will keep a better resale value.
Thank you Chris, that's a useful comparison. In Hong Kong, the prices of these 3 lenses are very close. Personally I will buy Sony if I need a long telephoto lens.
So glad you're able to provide such a comparison!
However I think if reach is the absolute priority nothing can beat the sony + TC's. I know I wouldn't have been able to get the images of eagles or foxes here in ON Canada if I didn't have at least 840mm to work with (for context I'm using 24mp bodies a7iii/a9). I personally have no trouble with its size or weight.
Two notes; the sigma is only the least expensive in the UK, while in the US it's more expensive. Also, in terms of image quality, there seems to be some amount of copy variation. Another reviwer, Dustin Abbott, compared the Sigma and the Tamron and found the Tamron to be a little sharper, especially mid-frame, and the Sony was the sharpest out of all of them.
Great review, but I have to point out that you missed the teleconverter topic. This alone makes the Sony much more versatile.
That's exactly the reason I will go for the Sony. I would have preferred the Sigma because of its smaller size and wider zoom range (and better price), but the option to use the teleconverter is the most important here. (But I have to say, that I already own the Sigma 100-400, so I have an option at hand if I need a smaller telephoto lens.)
@@jonny5723 I had the Sigma 100-400 too btw, and I sold it precisely because it didn’t support teleconverters. I regret not getting the 100400GM years ago and enjoying bright aperture when I want, 800mm reach when I need it.
Sigma does support teleconverters, but they are only available for L-Mount.
@@Stasiek_Zabojca exactly. But when the discussion is whether to get the Sony 200-600 or the Sigma 150-600, it's obviously all about the e-mount.
About the wobbly foot of the sony, mine was too, and there are 4 screws to tighten under it. I don't know the others but the internal zooming of the Sony is areal pleasure to use as it can be moved just by one finger.
Good review.
Good video. You may want to consider how these lenses work with teleconverters.... - that will be a key decision factor for nature especially bird photographers
I really want to see som new Prime Tele Lenses, like fx 300 4.0 (4.5), 400mm 4.5 (5.6) and 500mm 5.6.
Thank you!
This is a great video comparison showing three super Telephoto lenses. Now is the hard choice of choosing the sony or Sigma!?
All three seem like great lenses, tbh.
I always hit the like button before watching the video. I have a total confidence in Mr. Frost's reviews.
Nice, very nice
Awesome video as usual. The Sigma's image stabilization didn't look great. I have the 100-400mm C and it's not great either (although it's a Canon mount lens on a Sony camera, but I've heard others mention the lackluster stabilizer too).
Hi, I have a query. I bought sigma 150-600mm lens recently and using it with Sony Alpha 7iii body. I am having an issue with focusing distant subjects with full zoom. It's all blurred whenever I am trying to focus... There is no problem with a close subject though... I am confused if it is a lens problem or camera setting issue .. I am clicking with the setting- AF-C and focus point flexible... I am new in this field, so if you plz suggest me something it will be very helpful to me.
In Switzerland the Sony is cheaper than the tamron. Crazy. This is partly because the Sony is crazy "cheap" here, the equivalent of USD $1867, or GBP 1346.... (that's including all taxes)
what? XD I live next to Switzerland so where did you find it so cheap?
@@NicoTheVideoMaker Microspot have it for CHF 1799, and Digitec for CHF 1709 with the 10% voucher they have currenty. Best price on the Tamron is just under CHF 1900. No idea why the Tamron is so expensive. The Sony is very good value in Switzerland though.
@@gemsandlasers269 thanks! unfortunately I live in Italy and those sites do not have shipping available outside switzerland and liechtenstein, if only there was a way to get some stuff from there lol (actually I checked and lots of stuff is cheaper there)
also are those sites trustworthy?
@@NicoTheVideoMaker absolutely. They are among the biggest online shops in Switzerland and I have bought a lot of stuff from them and never has a problem. Also they belong to coop and migros respectively and they are one of the biggest grocerieshop chains we have in switzerland
I have three questions:
1. Did you test the in-lens stabilization on a camera with in-body stabilization (IBIS)? The reason I ask is some combos where both types of stabilization are active make for a lot more assistance. This is most likely with native lenses, such as the Sony OSS lens on a Sony camera with IBIS. I'm wondering if the 3rd party lenses can do the same.
2. Did you put these lenses on a tripod fitted with a gimbal head? That's popular with big telephotos like these three and generally works best with internal focusing and zooming lenses like the Sony 200-600mm because those may change balance less when racked in and out. Lenses that extend can upset the equilibrium on a gimbal to some extent. It's usually not a big deal and certainly doesn't prevent using them on a gimbal, but is something a frequent gimbal user might notice.
3. On a related note, both the Sigma and the Tamron have an Arca-Swiss quick release compatible dovetail built right into their tripod mounting feet (as required for most gimbals and handy for other things, as well). Does the Sony have this too? The 3rd party manufacturers have started doing this on all their lenses that are fitted with tripod collars. I just wonder if and when the OEM companies (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.) will start doing the same. It's a small and simole, but thoughtful feature all lens makers should incorporate. It doesn't detract in any way from using some other mounting method,big the Arcs system isn't your choice. At the same time, the Arca QR system is by far the most widely used and versatile.
Thanks for the interesting video.
By the way, I wonder if Sigma is getting away from offering two versions of their 150-600mm: a more expensive Sport and a more affordable Contemporary. This new Sport version is smaller than the old one (for DSLRs), with weight and price reductions too that put it a lot closer to the old Contemporary version.
Perfect review, I love your work. At 8:03 I think that the focal length is 200mm, not 600mm :-)
I recently compared the Tamron and Sony on the street in daylight, using my A9. The Sony is noticeably faster in picking up faces and eyes. That could change with a Tamron firmware update, but I have a feeling the Sony lens will always be king.
As far as I know, the Sony lens also have an advantage of working with Sony teleconverters. I've read that the AF is not working when you use Sony TC with Sigma lens (in this case it was 100mm-400mm). I don't know if it also applies to Tamron, but I guess it does. Also I've read that Sigma cannot produce TC for E-mount because of the agreement made with Sony, so they only make it for L-mount.
The Sigma may focus the closest, but according to factory specs, the Tamron has the greatest magnification. ("Closest focus" doesn't always equal "most magnification" because magnification is a function of distance and focal length. Two lenses with identical closest focus distances will differ in magnification if they differ in focal length when at closest focus.)
Sony 0.20x
Tamron 0.32x
Sigma 0.29x
You may look initial cost but remember you will have this lens for YEARS!! I had the Sigma before the Sony came out main reason was the update block that also is used for adjusting the different settings to your style of shooting like leading or lagging shot sharpest point. The reason I went Sony even though I had the Sigma was first it was a Canon mount and used an adapter (this one is Sony mount) making longer and when using the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters lens identification along with teleconverter ID with total mm was not in metadata properly in Lr or PS but that issue not covered in this review. Also an issue of telephotos on Canon/Nikon cameras with a teleconverter is AF does not work when lens and teleconverter are f/8 combined (Checked on my Canon T2i), but on the Sony 200-600 AF worked great even with 2x but was said tracking AF was a problem f/13+ but I had no problems with white pelicans flying behind trees always locked on during horizontal tracking.
Nothing said here BUT what made me happiest with the Sony 200-600mm was IS + IBIS (A7iii) off tripod was the ability to lock AF on to the moon with just the lens in Full Frame and APS-C but also with 1.4x and 2x teleconverter on, attached to a binocular harness for stability getting a 1800mm (sensor crop APS-C) image filling the entire frame, look trying to find the big moon at 1800 is a skill in itself but a good test if ever tracking birds and shooting 10FPS but getting a perfect in focus capture in single shot is amazing to me! And using bracketing able to do HDR imaging of moon phases without PS blending work like shooting with a mounted telescope on a tracker.
While I had the Sigma before the Sony came out I captured the lunar eclipse on a cold 20 degree January night from hours before to an hour after while on a tripod not only getting the moon but stars around it with focus locked on everything tack sharp every image all night without a tracker (did not have one) with only a buddy heater under and a fan blowing on the protective filter (get one of those) to prevent frost build up.
I had the previous 'bargain darling' sigma 100-400 for e mount for 9 months. Bought a higher megapixel camera (A7RM4A) to replace the godawful lag of the A7M3 and realised the sigma was blurry garbage.
So there you go, 'buy on price, buy twice'
@@godsinbox maybe you had a bad copy, I actually kept my Sigma 100-400 after comparing it with GM 100-400. Mine is as sharp as GM. I shoot on 33MP A7IV.
Worth to mention only Sony can shoot with 20 and 30 FPS, and only Sony accept teleconverters. 3rd party lenses limited to 15 FPS.
The choice is very obvious when you include those facts.
Why would 3rd party lenses be limited to 15 FPS? Where can you find that info?
@@jeroenvdw It's been that way for awhile now, 3rd party lenses are cut in half while using AF. For instance, If I'm not using AF, i can shoot 30 on the tamron or sigma lenses I have.
@@jeroenvdw Not just 3rd party, most Sony lenses won’t do 20/30 fps in AF-C.
@@michaelbuddy There used to be hacks for Sony cameras when they had the old operating system with apps, I haven't seen any hacks at all since they switched. But yeah, that would be great
I am surprised that for such a lens extensive comparison there are no comments on the handling difference between a non extending and extending lens. If you are shooting primarily sports a non extending length is a non-brainer, and it would come ahead of anything else in terms of a lens choice here. Nevertheless thank you very much for making this extremely useful review!!! Might worth spending a bit of time explaining why the Sony AF is so much superior (fast linear motors) supporting 20 and 30 fps. In fact the Sony is an incredible package for the money.
Would've been interesting to also include the Sony 100-400 GM with teleconverter.
There are comparisons of the 100-400 vs 200-600 already. The second one beats the first with teleconverter, as expected.
What should also be noted is that you can only use teleconverters on the Sony. Sigma isn't allowed to build teleconverters for sony E-mount and at least for the Sigma 100-400, the original Sony 1.4x converter isn't working. I have tried it...
I’m not a fan of the color fringing from the Sigma.
Agreed. I mean you can probably correct that in lightroom if you shoot raw, but that is a big bummer and given how close they all are is a big consideration in my mind if you were looking at these 3.
@@Tomec86 I always shoot raw, and I have Lightroom. It’s just that the entire image had a blue hue to it from all the fringing. I know that’s an extreme case, but still…
@@NaughtyShepherd Fair enough and even though it's extreme it's still something that can happen so should be a consideration for others. (In fairness I have none of these lenses and am just making conversation to spark others thoughts/experience to help people decide)
Contrary to the Christopher Frost said, this is a video showing us which is the best lens (For our use) or for sharpness, size, contrast, bokeh, macro and flares.
Christopher, I just want to put the new 7artisans 50mm f0.95 on your radar. While it looks like it won't be very sharp wide open, it may still be a very useful lens for me.
The Tamron's small size makes it a phenomenal proposition for travelling with some wildlife and bird photography. Otherwise, why on Earth has no one else made a zoom in this range with a constant aperture besides Nikon? The Nikon 200-500 f5.6 also seems to be about 1,200 pounds. If I were a non-pro wildlife and bird photographer, I would choose the Nikon system purely for that lens. I assumed everyone would copy it within months. But it's been years and no one else has a comparable lens in that price range.
@@michaelbuddy I don't think anyone is going to actively turn down the fixed aperture f5.6 for the same money. Not unless they want a really compact version like the Tamron or the Canon fixed aperture lenses. If the big companies made an equivalent of the Nikon lens, I'm sure they'd sell like hot cakes.
I'm concerned regarding their focal length. I ve some tamron lens but apparently their longest zoom is not the 'true focal length' compared to Canon counterpart. Eg 50mm in tamron is equivalent to 38-42mm in Canon lens.
Have you seen any difference of these 3 lens at 500mm?
The canon sensor has a 1.6x times crop factor, the others aps-c companies (sony, fuji, nikon) has 1.5x times crop factor
While I can understand some people maybe being bummed by the Sony being 200mm at widest, I'd argue this is actually a good thing comparatively. Why? Ask yourself what some of the more common zoom lenses are for people. 24-70, 70-200. This fits in nicely right after that so you have a smooth transition between things. Now admittedly this involves extra lens switching for that 150-200 range, however honestly speaking I don't know if that is a big deal since if you're needing this zoom range chances of wanting to be that slight bit wider (and not being able to take a step or two) back is probably rare.
I've often struggled with my 150-600 being too long on the wide end for stuff like airshows. Sure you can switch lenses, but then you're missing shots. And it's not like you can back up into the crowd behind you. Canon's 100-500 seems ideal unless 600 is completely required.
@@PASquared That is definitely a fair use case for the wider telephotos. Given that a lot of people do shoot airshows maybe this is more common than I thought it would be to want/need, however this is also a case where everyone will know their own needs and just from a general standpoint I still say that the 200-600 fits in nicely.
PS I do actually agree/like the Canon 100-500 over these on paper. However given that I think that is RF only I don't know if it's a fair comparison for a e-mount lineup to mention.
Thanks for helping me quantify the, arguably, insignificant difference between the three. I think my verdict is that I'll end up buying a Sony GM telephoto when someone decides to pay me a few grand for a photo shoot.
if only the sigma didnt have so much CA! still on my list of super telephoto lenses though for that price.
Does anyone know why the Tamron is more expensive in Europe whereas it's the cheapest in the US? Would make a lot more sense if it was cheaper than the Sigma in the UK.
Hey Chris, could you test out the Tamron 35-150 f2.8-4 lens please? I think it might be interesting alternative to a 24-105, with a faster aperture
Its 35-150 f2-2.8 not f4
Its an amazing lens i won it in a tamron contest
Just a thought. With today's high res cameras, is there really a need for teleconverters? I'm thinking that TCs have a (more or less) negative impact on the image quality, and with the absurd amount of megapixels in modern cameras you could just crop if needed?
Yup.
Somebody needs to do a test comparing images made with a lens/teleconverter v. same lens and cropping (on the same camera, of course).
Not everyone has the money to buy not just more expensive high resolution bodies, but also upgrade their computer to keep up ;)
A TC is a cheaper alternative for those people :)
(And of course TC + absurd high MP is even more zoom range xD )
I bought the Tamron 150-600 years ago for use on my nikon dslr. When I upgraded to my Z6, I found the Tamron did not work with the new autofocus. Soooo, I had to buy the Nikon 200-500mm.... moral of that story for me is STICK TO FIRST PARTY LENSES! IMHO.
I chosen tamron 150-500 for a6600, it was the only one that I could handle a little longer and don't get muscle strain ;D. Nearly same AF as 70-350 in good lighting, tamron got sometimes problems in low light, stabilization for photo is same as 70-350, with video sony 70-350 was slightly better.
Would like too see if there is a major difference between the 150-600 DG DN vs MC-11 Adapted DG OS HSM Contemporary
I have gone with the canon 150-600 contemporary and the mc-11 for my A7R II. And I can tell you that the auto focus is not nearly as quick or reliable as shown in the video. Heavy focus pumping and calling 1000% out of focus shots good according to the camera. This is for AF-C when shooting wild life in particular.
On an A7 it was a little worse sometimes not focusing at all.
I just went for the adaptered version since even with the adapter it was 500 bucks cheaper (used). But can't recommend really. Will get to try it with a 6D Mk2 in the coming weeks. We'll see how good the AF is natively.
Was literally waiting for this video on your channel..
Please compare Canon RF 100-500mm with Sony 200-600mm.. That'll be a very helpful for those who are planning to invest into new system for wildlife... I think many people wanna see whether CANON'S 100-500mm can KEEP UP with SONY 200-600mm or not!!
i think both lens very good but i go sony because 600mm
I don't think there will be any other lenses than Canon. With Sony you have Sony itself, Sigma and Tamron... And I heard rumors that there may not be any other lenses for Canon, because of some legal conflicts with Canon for making lenses for their mount.
@@Stasiek_Zabojca Not only Sigma and Tamron, there are more third parties who make lenses for Sony. You may be right, there may not be any Sigma or Tamron lens for Canon RF mount. But there is already a(or some) beautiful 3rd party lens by Rokinon/Samyang for Canon Rf mount cameras.
@@shankhanilsarkar2161 I was talking specifically about those super telephoto lenses.
But yes, there are also many other cheap and good lens manufacturers.
You should´ve added the Nikon p1000 just for fun.. ;D
I got the 200-600 on sale for $1,400, but if I couldn’t find that deal and had to do it all again, I think I could be happy with the sigma. The only thing is that you really cant underestimate how amazing internal zooming is in harsh environments… that said it barely fits in my 31L prvke bag haha.
I haven't seen that 1400 price in a long time, wish it would go on sale for that again.
@@brandonh2550 I think it will… Sony has pretty good end of the year/ early year deals; just keep your eyes out for them 🤙🏽
Ima totally take advantage at the end of year this time around
I remember seeing it for a low low price and i fucked up not getting it then cause now i want it
So If you were to choose one for APSC WITH UNLIMITED BUDGET WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? I KNOW YOU LIKE THE SONY FOR FULL FRAME BUT AS FAR AS APSC ID LIKE TO HEAR WHICH ONE YOU WOUKD CHOOSE. THANKS!
I would pick fujifilm x-h2 40mpix + fujifilm 150-600 + converter
I would pick the 70-200 2.8 gm ii with and 2x tc, giving an 140-400 f4 lens and 200-600 f4 counting the crop factor, and still having the zoom lens without the tc, if i need more reach i would lean toward 600 f4, or 200-600 for portability
In regards to dust, always thoroughly check inside the lens before accepting your purchase. Not that it REALLY matters, but my copy of the 200-600 had a lot of large specks of dust behind the front element. To be honest, I don't find a pump zoom lets in any more dust than a non-pump design. My 100-400 doesn't have a single speck of noticeable dust even when using a powerful light to inspect.
I mean, if you buy a lens new and it has obvious dust in it, that's weird.
But dust has no effect on image quality. Never make used lens purchasing decisions based on dust--dust is fine. Learn what mold looks like, though, haha.
@@Tzadeck Well, I've had resale affected by "dusty" lenses. Yes, it's true it has no effect on image quality. I had to look at 3 different copies of the 90mm 2.8 Macro before it looked clean inside, one speck of "dust" looked like a metal shaving. I don't care if there is dust from normal use, but I just find a lot of dust is unacceptable for a brand new, premium priced lens. No worries about mold thankfully, my stuff sits in a ruggard dry cabinet and my house isn't moist or damp from humidity :)
Can't exactly inspect a lens when you order it online though.
@@jimmyqballs Yeah, fair point--it could affect resale value. But that's only because people seem to think dust is a problem, haha.
@@logitech4873 True, but I buy all my lenses local through "my store". Not only does he beat any big box store, he does no tax as well. Came in handy when I got the 400 2.8
These lenses really are all over the place re their optical performance. Expecting top optical performance at this price point is bound to reveal compromises. Can't wait to see Nikon's upcoming 400mm Z and 200-600 Z lenses, if their other mirrorless lenses are anything to go by we're in for a bit of a treat, fingers crossed.
I assume the third stabilization mode for the Sony is only for left-right shake (is for panning up and down). Can someone confirm this?
I own the 200-600. The first os is thier regular algorithm. The second is for panning since it removes left and right compensation (or up down forgot which axis). The third applies an aggressive stabilization for erratic movements like birds in flight diving and you need quick movement, but this wouldn't be very good for video since it won't be as smooth compared to the first one
@@karafuru7666 perfect
as often, the tamron seems to be a good compromise.
With 20/20 hindsight and limited cash, I would have gone for the Sigma, but I got the Tamron instead as it came out first and I didn't know of the Sigma version coming out (buyer's remorse). That said the Tamron still performs really well on a sunny day and doesn't disappoint, and the Sony version is a joy to use but a total pain in the back lugging it around. Personally, I don't really see the need for a teleconverter most of the time, and I would probably rent the Sony version with a teleconverter for days which I need it.
@@michaelbuddy agreed. Honestly when it comes to some genres of outdoor photography, more time is spent working out just to carry heavy gear out in the field than actually taking photos. Packing light certainly helps in those cases.
Bought the Sony. Fantastic lens until you go shooting small wildlife such as birds. The minimum focus distance of 10 meters (I measured 13 paces) drove me crazy. A little warbler would pose 3 meters away and I couldn't get focus. So, I sold the Sony and bought the Sigma. I did a formal test using a tripod and I found the Sigma could do 26cm at 150mm and 2 meters at 600mm, It cost me a lot to switch but I'm happy I did. If you are not a birder then either is great. I might note that at 150mm the Sigma is in macro territory. The Sony, not so much.
Good to know! Everywhere the Sony ist listed with a min focus distance of 2,5 Meters. But i think @200 . So when its 10 m @600 then i will Go with the sigma
Why did you compare them at different focal lengths?
I was wondering the same!!!! There is something I have seen in Tony Northup's channel, about the sony lens, not being really the true magnification, but to be honest I can't understand how this works!!!!
Between the Sony and sigma. Rented the Sony for this weekend!
Please let the world know which one you choose and why, ok?
Warranty period should also be a factor to consider. Sigma has a 4 year warranty, the Sony has a 1 year warranty. I'm not sure about the tamron.
6 years
Nothing wrong with being soft in the middle! How is the Sigma the better value at $100 more than the Tamron?
I know, it´s a totally different beast altogether, but since I bought the Sony RX10 IV, which is only 1.1kg and has roughly the 35mm equivalent lens of 24mm-600mm f6.3-f11, I just bring this to almost everywhere. It is not as good and not as high resolution, but the difference to these lenses is just not worth it for me and it is just so versatile. But that's just me.
I have the RX10iii and still bring it with me when I just don't have the room for interchangeable lenses. It's a great rig for sure
RX10 is great as a backup camera or for travel. I had the original and then the MK3. I sold the MK3 and am waiting for an update.
a7Siii is not only a old camera it is also out of date sensor. Try testing new lenses with newer Sony cameras.
I think Tamron is the best
The Tamron ends up being the same mass as the Sigma once you add in the tripod collar and lens hood.
Not really. The Sigma weighs 2.1kg, while the Tamron weighs 1.88kg with the tripod collar or 1.72kg without it.
Sony might be expensive but that internal zoom is worth every bit of money, I would take that!
internal zoom make your bag bigger, and you cannot pull to zoom, BAD user experience
@@hunglemed Agreed on size but I rented the sony and the zoom has very short angle of rotation. It's really nice to use.
@@hunglemed Have you tried the Sony?
I've owned a Sigma 150-500mm which is similar to the Sigma & Tamron in this video, and the Sony is just as easy to use - if not easier, because of how smooth the zoom mechanism is.
How severe is the Sigma’s color fringing? That can change my mind back to Sony…
I'm not sure if it's a bad contrast test, but to me, Sigma image quality chart is all purple with fringing. Sony and Tamron are very nicely black and white.
@@daruvar1951 yeah I noticed the same thing!
@@michaelbuddy but you agree that Sigma shows disastrous purple edges in this video, right? Maybe sample variations.
Has anyone ever told you that you have great posture?
Hi nice review but your comments on the Sony build quality has me vexed. I had a 200-600mm lens for about 6 months. The paint on the lens was very thin and would wear off quite quickly. The lens hood kept coming off so I ended up having to carry it off the lens till I needed it. The lens mount kept coming loose it was the 4 small screws holding the mount that was at fault. I thread locked them which seemed to stop it. So it was changed for a Sigma 60-600mm and a Canon R5 much better now
The Tamron would be the easiest choice if it were just equally sharp as the others :(
how time hasnt been kind to the tamron, it was the bargain darling a month ago, now it is overpriced and underperforming relative to the latest newcomer.
I'd say go for Sigma 100-400 DN for the compact size and low price. But Sony all the way for anything serious.
Super thanks for the comparison. At the end I'll go for the SIGMA: while I need the 600mm (so Tamron is out), the portability factor for me - I'm NOT a pro - is a primary concern. No probs for 15 fps limitation (I've an A7r3), no probs for potential dust (my usage is far more limited than a pro), no probs for AF. Image quality - looking at many other reviews/comparisons as well - seems quite close to the Sony (a little less at the center, a little sharper at the edge). And I like other Sigma features more, such as the included arca plate, bag and... +/- 30% lower cost. So... waiting for the Sigma to be available in Italy :)
I just scrolled through all your videos looking for a review of the Fuji X 16mm 1.4. lens. I got a little car sick. Wish there was a more efficient way to look through a user's uploads. I didn't, surprisingly, see a review.
I don't think I've covered that yet. Yes, I'm going to sort out the Sony / Fuji reviews into separate playlists soon
based on this comparison we should expect Tamron to lower the prices very soon imo.
I would go for the sigma, seems to be an excellent allrounder.
damn the CA on the sigma from 350 is soooo bad
I read that at high ISO, the Tamron and Sigma are really bad at autofocus.
@@michaelbuddy sorry let me be clear. Wildlife photography when the light is low and ISO is pushed up. The Sony lenses are way better at tracking.
@@mochamocha1040 thats true, but mostly in so heavy demanding conditions iso is so high that images will be deleted anyway
It's a bit odd that both the Sony and Sigma lenses reach to 600 mm here while the Tamron model selected was to 500 mm (while Tamron has a 150-600 mm G2 ready for comparison).
And what about Nikon lenses, so they are the main ones, it's a shame that there is no comparison with at least the most popular 200-500mm f5.6, otherwise thanks for the comparison
I loved that lens. Focus wasn’t super duper fast but quick enough and the stabilization was rock solid. Worked nicely with 1.4 teleconverter too
Perhaps because this is a review of three Sony E mount lenses ?
The reason why I bought the Tamron was the size, the Sony wouldn’t have fit in my backpack
Had chance to test both, sony 200-600 and tamron 150-500, my copies in terms of sharpness was bit different, tamron was sharper @500mm than sony@500 but tamron was softer @150mm than sony @200, I kept 150-500 because it can fit medium size bag, while sony don't fit in anything with normal size, its a bazooka, also white color bring too much atention.
Hehehe, Sony have minority share at Tamron...... 😁😁😁
Barely any different in sharpness, but lots more color fringing on Sigma.
If the sigma had internal focus, id get it… but it doesnt.. so its probably going to be the sony
Sigma has CA.
Sup Chris buddy brother in Christ 😁🙏😃🪐🌏🔥
💔💔💔
The sony is the worst balanced, it's too long and too unbalanced (front heavy ) for a walkaround which is why i now have the sigma 150-600