Looking into LONGER Lenses

[Art Scott]

My longest lens is and ahas been for ever has ben the Siggy 70-210 f2.8............but I am finding I truly need longer for wildlife....................
So my self imposed choices are:

Siggy 170-500

or

Tammy 200-500


Both seem to get relative solid reviews........SOOOOOO....

I was wondering if any of our members have owned both?

If not then have you owned either and your thoughts on the lens you owned?

THANX in ADVANCE!!!

[jonh68]

I am going to violate your parameters, but many gung ho wildlife photographers go with the 100-300 Sigma F4 and 1.4 TC if they are going the 3rd party route. Or, they get the Nikon 300 f4 and 1.4 TC.

With the TC, they have a 420 mm reach and optics about the same or better than the ones you suggest.

Without the TC, the IQ will be better and you get a constant f4.

[Art Scott]

With the TC, they have a 420 mm reach and optics about the same or better than the ones you suggest.

Without the TC, the IQ will be better and you get a constant f4.

Thanks for the suggestion.:thumb:thumb:bow:bow


:D Right now I need all the reach I can get for my $.....the 500 is effectively is 750 on a 1.5 crop sensor camera........the 300 is just 450.......
If I could afford I would be seriously looking at the 600mm Nikon lens, but that is not in focus right now at all.

[jonh68]

I know what you mean by reach. :D

I have been using a 120-300 Sigma with a 2.0 TC and I have gotten pretty good results. It has be used at 7.1 to get sharp pictures though.

[kini62]

I've seen quite a few really nice shots from the Tammy. Last ones I recall seeing were from the Sony SLR talk at DPR.

Gene

[darkdragon]

I have the Sigma 170-500 and really like it. Do I wish it was faster, of course. My only issue with it is that the autofocus is rather slow - but I'm not complaining too much because nobody I shoot with even has a lens over 400mm but me :wink

It can be very sharp with decent light so that it will focus correctly, or if you are taking a shot of a static (or slow moving) subject.

[Jim K]

Ira Runyan, who hangs out in the Wildlife forum, shoots with a Tammy 200-500 and gets lots of nice captures with it. I'll ask his opinion but I'm sure he will have good things to say about it.

[IraRunyan]

I use the Tamron 200-500mm attached to a Canon XTi body. I would really like to own the Canon 500mm f4 lens, but thats well over 5 times the cost of the Tamron 200-500mm.

The Tamron is a light lens compaired to the Sigma which really helps when handholding the lens (I'm not a big stromg guy). The Tamron 200-500mm is very sharp at all focal lengths when set at f8 or higher (the "sweet spot" for the lens is at f11). Below f8 the quality of the imiages drops off, so as a result it does best when you have a lot of light.

Check out my photo gallery for samples of shots. Most were taken with the Tamron 200-500mm.

[Art Scott]

I use the Tamron 200-500mm attached to a Canon XTi body. I would really like to own the Canon 500mm f4 lens, but thats well over 5 times the cost of the Tamron 200-500mm.

The Tamron is a light lens compaired to the Sigma which really helps when handholding the lens (I'm not a big stromg guy). The Tamron 200-500mm is very sharp at all focal lengths when set at f8 or higher (the "sweet spot" for the lens is at f11). Below f8 the quality of the imiages drops off, so as a result it does best when you have a lot of light.

Check out my photo gallery for samples of shots. Most were taken with the Tamron 200-500mm.

Thanx and disregard the PM:D

[BigAl]

I wouldn't get the Sigma 170-500, but rather the Sigma 50-500 (better optics, HSM). AFAIK, the 170-500 has been withdrawn from the Sigma product range since the 150-500 was introduced.

In tests I did, the optical quality of the Tamron 200-500 is not as good as the Sigma 50-500 (Sigma on left, Tamron on right):

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/photos/117766299_Rm3Jg-L.jpg


The Tamron is lighter and has 3% more magnification than the Bigma (meaning if the Tamron was 500mm, the Bigma would be 485mm) - (Bigma top, Tamron bottom):

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/photos/455129385_5GGtj-L.jpg (http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/photos/455129385_5GGtj-O.jpg)

The last are 100% crops, the lines are to show the difference in magnification. Again, look at the knurling on the tap fitting to see that the resolving power of the Bigma is better than the Tamron (click on image to get 100% view).

[Scott_Quier]

As I was reading this thread, I was wondering if someone would mention the BigMa. I had this lens for a couple of years and, foolishly, sold it. The copy I had was way sharp - even better than indicated by BigAl's posted images. Might be something to consider.

BTW - this is not a lens you will be able to hand-hold very often. It's a little slow (aperture) and quite heavy. But, on a tripod, WOW.

[Art Scott]

As I was reading this thread, I was wondering if someone would mention the BigMa. I had this lens for a couple of years and, foolishly, sold it. The copy I had was way sharp - even better than indicated by BigAl's posted images. Might be something to consider.

BTW - this is not a lens you will be able to hand-hold very often. It's a little slow (aperture) and quite heavy. But, on a tripod, WOW.

i did consider the BIGMA but since I have everything covered upto 200mm, Idecided against it.......I think DocIT and I discussed the BM, it merits and drawbacks a year or two ago.........and yeah I see what BIGAL does wih it and I am always amazed............

[aj986s]

Don't know if you saw this latest review in PopPhoto:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5725/prooptic-500mm-f63-mirror-lens-review.html

A bit special purpose, but the price is impressive.

[Scott_Quier]

Don't know if you saw this latest review in PopPhoto:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5725/prooptic-500mm-f63-mirror-lens-review.html

A bit special purpose, but the price is impressive.
One of the best catadioptric lenses is the old Vivitar Series 1 solid cat. Here's (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/solid_cat.shtml) what Michael Reichmann had to say about that lens a couple of years ago.

I have no idea how the ProOptic 500 measures up to the Solid Cat.

What Ziggy had to say (link (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=121938)) might be of interest.

[DsrtVW]

I have a 170-500mm Sigma and it serves the purpose you need good light to get sharp captures at 500 but I was happy with but have since upgraded. I had it posted for sale back in Jan it is still for sale if you are shooting Nikon I have not put it up on eBay yet
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/photos/234237356_VBHQM-M-1.jpg
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/photos/272773905_EkxTd-M.jpg

http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/photos/234795664_SXC8z-L.jpg

[Art Scott]

One of the best catadioptric lenses is the old Vivitar Series 1 solid cat. Here's (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/solid_cat.shtml) what Michael Reichmann had to say about that lens a couple of years ago.

I have no idea how the ProOptic 500 measures up to the Solid Cat.

What Ziggy had to say (link (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=121938)) might be of interest.

I have looked at the Vivatar "solid cat" for several years, as I used the series 1 70-210 when it first hit the market and had great respect for the series 1 line for quite a while........I keep tabs on what is happening with them on the bay......as for pro optics......I figure it is not any better than phoenix so i wouldn't touch either.......but iamy have to grab a Vivatar 800 series 1 "SC" in the future to play with...................

[Art Scott]

I have a 170-500mm Sigma and it serves the purpose you need good light to get sharp captures at 500 but I was happy with but have since upgraded. I had it posted for sale back in Jan it is still for sale if you are shooting Nikon I have not put it up on eBay yet

Your pics are really good and I understand that it needs really good light and that it probably would not be a great lens for sunrise or sunset wildlife pics but after the sun gets a bit higher it should work wonderfully...........btw you did not link back to your FS thread....................

[Photoskipper]

I faced the similar problem last year. The 70-200 F2.8 IS could not reach the birds in the wild. Even the 2X TC could not help too much. Finally, I got the 500 mm F4 IS in Feb. It is big and heavy but yet "handheld-able".

The IS helps me for low light situation such as under the shade of the tree where the birds like to hide. Good to do with 1.4X TC but AF does not with 2X.

[DsrtVW]

Art
Sent you a PM on the FS link

[Art Scott]

Art
Sent you a PM on the FS link

Thank you for the PM.........