Sigma 150-500 or Tamron 200-500mm for Nikon D80?

Which of these two lenses would you get? The are both about the same cost, the Tamron you get 50mm less than the Sigma which there is a $100 difference in price (it's lower than Sigma).

Sigma 150-500mm is $999 and Tamron 200-500mm is $899, both are f/5-6.3

I'd go with the Sigma

I'd go with sigma as well.

The Sigma 150-500 has OS (optical stabilization) while the Tamron does not ... Well worth $100.00 in my opinion.

bhowdy wrote: The Sigma 150-500 has OS (optical stabilization) while the Tamron does not ... Well worth $100.00 in my opinion.

Especially for hand holding.

I had the sigma lens you are talking about, and I returned it... not once, not twice but three times... They kept telling me that I must have gotten the "lemon"...Ok, ONCE I would believe that, maybe even twice... the third time? No way. I refused to accept another sigma, and I exchanged/upgraded it to the Canon EF400mm f5.6L...The hand held pics I've taken with the Canon are much Sharper than the TRIPOD ones I took with the Sigma... The Sigma, from 350 upward? Soft. Totally soft. I could not enlarge them past 8x10, nor could I look at them at 100% clearly... The guy at the place I bought my lens from (B & H) originally said "Your 7D must have a problem, I've never HEARD of this"... and then I forwarded the pictures to him from the THIRD lens they sent me... along with pictures taken with my Canon EF 75-300mmf4-5.6III USM (Not IS) that were sharper handheld, also, than the sigma's "tripod taken" pictures ... I am just telling you this so you can be an informed consumer... maybe you won't have a problem with whatever one you purchase... I just know for ME, I will NEVER, EVER buy anything for my camera except a Canon lens, again...If I can't afford it? I'll wait until I can!!! Good luck, good shopping!

I go with the Sigma. I have the Sigma 50-500 and love it.

dragonflies8888 wrote: I had the sigma lens you are talking about, and I returned it... not once, not twice but three times... They kept telling me that I must have gotten the "lemon"...Ok, ONCE I would believe that, maybe even twice... the third time? No way. I refused to accept another sigma, and I exchanged/upgraded it to the Canon EF400mm f5.6L...The hand held pics I've taken with the Canon are much Sharper than the TRIPOD ones I took with the Sigma... The Sigma, from 350 upward? Soft. Totally soft. I could not enlarge them past 8x10, nor could I look at them at 100% clearly... The guy at the place I bought my lens from (B & H) originally said "Your 7D must have a problem, I've never HEARD of this"... and then I forwarded the pictures to him from the THIRD lens they sent me... along with pictures taken with my Canon EF 75-300mmf4-5.6III USM (Not IS) that were sharper handheld, also, than the sigma's "tripod taken" pictures ... I am just telling you this so you can be an informed consumer... maybe you won't have a problem with whatever one you purchase... I just know for ME, I will NEVER, EVER buy anything for my camera except a Canon lens, again...If I can't afford it? I'll wait until I can!!! Good luck, good shopping!

You'll miss out on Zeiss lenses then.

Ok smartie I take it back... Zeiss is beautiful piece of glass... my son actually has a Sony camera with Zeiss glass and it's very sharp. Honestly, though, I hope that if you (OP) do decide to go with the Sigma you have better luck with it than i did...
I have a friend that has the Sigma, for his Nikon, and he loves it. Never had an ounce of trouble with it... which is why originally I went with the Sigma... I also have an aquaintence who has it too... she loves hers, we were shooting side by side one afternoon - she showed me some of her pictures ... hers were awesome:thumbsup: ... but if I were to show you the ones I took with mine?(we were shooting same settings, tripod, and remote)... You'd ask "what kind of photographer took these "??? It really had me questioning myself after the third lens...but believe me, it wasn't me... I had another friend(he's a professional photographer, has had his own business for over 20 years, as well as being a high school photography teacher) shoot with it (on my camera, ANd on one of his) and they still came out totally soft at 300mm... so just be cautious/buyer beware...that's all.(((hug))) Down off my soapbox now, lol.

dragonflies8888 wrote: Ok smartie I take it back... Zeiss is beautiful piece of glass... my son actually has a Sony camera with Zeiss glass and it's very sharp. Honestly, though, I hope that if you (OP) do decide to go with the Sigma you have better luck with it than i did...
I have a friend that has the Sigma, for his Nikon, and he loves it. Never had an ounce of trouble with it... which is why originally I went with the Sigma... I also have an aquaintence who has it too... she loves hers, we were shooting side by side one afternoon - she showed me some of her pictures ... hers were awesome:thumbsup: ... but if I were to show you the ones I took with mine?(we were shooting same settings, tripod, and remote)... You'd ask "what kind of photographer took these "??? It really had me questioning myself after the third lens...but believe me, it wasn't me... I had another friend(he's a professional photographer, has had his own business for over 20 years, as well as being a high school photography teacher) shoot with it (on my camera, ANd on one of his) and they still came out totally soft at 300mm... so just be cautious/buyer beware...that's all.(((hug))) Down off my soapbox now, lol.

I know a few ex-Canon shooters who say Sigma seems to work a lot better on Nikon than Canon. I suspect the Nikon mount is slightly easier to reverse engineer than the Canon one.

While I'll agree, mostly Sigma isn't as good as Canon/Nikon lenses. It's not always the case, and Sigma does have it's champions ( www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests )I've VERY happy with my Sigma 50 1.4 and apparently this lens along with the new Sigma 85 1.4 is better than a lot of Canon/Nikon rival lenses.

BTW. You compared the Sigma ZOOM lens to a Canon 400 5.6L PRIME lens. Canon tele-primes are absolutely fantastic and I'd say the comparison is far from fair. (to be fair you did compare it to a Canon 70-300. I find that Canon lens to be soft compared to the 70-200 f/4L IS too. So I'm being a bit mean).

I'd like to see some samples from your expriment. "Soft" is a pretty relative term. I'm not saying your wrong, you're probably right, but I'd like to see how soft it is. I've seen samples from the Sigma 150-500 (taken with Canon cameras) that aren't exactly "prime sharp", but they're OK. I wonder if it's better stopped down or something. Wide open I'd leave it alone.

If I still have and can find the pictures I took with the Sigma and the Canon 75-300 and 70-300 lenses, I will definitely download them for you to see... the Sigma lenses I had just did not, for some reason or another, work with my camera. Yes, you are right, I was not fair in comparing, the 400 is a Prime, and yes, it is sickeningly sharp, lmao! But my 75-300 (which is not an IS, it is just the plain ole' that came with the XTI kit I had purchased a few years prior, but my 70-300mm DO is an IS... (Ive used both of them in comparing the Sigmas that I had) I have also heard that for some reason, the Sigma can be funky with Canon...in all fairness to Sigma, they were willing to take the lens(es) in and "repair" them, until they found out they were brand new, and then they told me I had to deal with the dealer, but said" if" the dealer would not honor the return they would THEN do something to help me out... (didn't need to though, as B & H was more than helpful with this whole issue) but after the third one, I just felt, I wasn't taking another chance... although another 100 mm of shooting distance would've been NICE, I think I was just done...

dragonflies8888 wrote: If I still have and can find the pictures I took with the Sigma and the Canon 75-300 and 70-300 lenses, I will definitely download them for you to see... the Sigma lenses I had just did not, for some reason or another, work with my camera. Yes, you are right, I was not fair in comparing, the 400 is a Prime, and yes, it is sickeningly sharp, lmao! But my 70-300 (which is not an IS, it is just the plain ole' that came with the XTI kit I had purchased a few years prior, but my 75-300mm DO is an IS... (Ive used both of them in comparing the Sigmas that I had) I have also heard that for some reason, the Sigma can be funky with Canon...in all fairness to Sigma, they were willing to take the lens(es) in and "repair" them, until they found out they were brand new, and then they told me I had to deal with the dealer, but said" if" the dealer would not honor the return they would THEN do something to help me out... (didn't need to though, as B & H was more than helpful with this whole issue) but after the third one, I just felt, I wasn't taking another chance... although another 100 mm of shooting distance would've been NICE, I think I was just done...

To be perfectly honest, I'd think twice too before buying a Sigma Zoom. I hear good things about their 50-500 though. Apparently it's better than the 150-500.

dragonflies8888 wrote: I had the sigma lens you are talking about, and I returned it... not once, not twice but three times... They kept telling me that I must have gotten the "lemon"...Ok, ONCE I would believe that, maybe even twice... the third time? No way. I refused to accept another sigma, and I exchanged/upgraded it to the Canon EF400mm f5.6L...

Not to put you down, but did you ever think the problem was you..the photographer?
I say this because, my husband and I both bought the Sigma 50-500mm at the same time. We went out to use this lens for the first time. We shot the same subjects and we both got soft, out of focus images. We weren't happy about it. We were like WTF??? The camera was on a tripod too.
After awhile of having this lens and going out more and shooting with it, we learned how to use the lens. Now all the pictures we take are good. We gained experience on a new lens. No problems. Love the lens.

I also know a woman who bought the Sigma 150-500mm around the same time I bought the 50-500mm. She photographs surfers and never once did I hear her complain about a soft focus. I have even seen her shots and no soft focus/blurry subjects.

I'm not saying lenses can't go bad or be bad from the start, but after getting one 3 times, I wouldn't think it be the lens.

So far I must say, I like Sigma lenses. I love my macro lens and I like the 50-500mm I just wish it wasn't so heavy. lol

This was shot with my Nikon D80 using the 50-500mm at 500mm hand held.

cwightmanphotos wrote: This was shot with my Nikon D80 using the 50-500mm at 500mm hand held.

Nice shoot, what did you have your ISO set at?