Anyone shoot a Tamron 150mm-500mm?

[KHarmon]

I am thinking of getting a long range zoom lens and I am, as usual, shopping on a budget. Local shop in Lubbock said that if I am shooting in good light the 150mm-500mm is a good choice. Anybody have one of these and do you think it is worth the investment. It would save me about $3000 to $3,500 for the Canon 100mm-400mm F4L.

KHarmon

[AB26]

Hi Kris,

If you can save up to afford the Canon lens, rather do that. Budget lenses seem to be "disappointing get what you pay for lenses".

[Manfred M]

So far as I know, Tamron does not make a 150-500mm lens; Sigma does (and we own one and based on our experience; onboard failures of the focusing motor and autofocus electronics, twice within 6 months of buying the lens); we would have problems recommending this lens.

Tamron makes a 200-500mm; but it is not stabilized, so for me, a non-starter given the focal length of this lens.

[chrisletts]

So far as I know, Tamron does not make a 150-500mm lens; Sigma does (and we own one and based on our experience; onboard failures of the focusing motor and autofocus electronics, twice within 6 months of buying the lens); we would have problems recommending this lens.

Tamron makes a 200-500mm; but it is not stabilized, so for me, a non-starter given the focal length of this lens.

The Tamron 200-500 is a fine lens, and the fact that it doesn't have VR isn't to me a major problem.

[Manfred M]

The Tamron 200-500 is a fine lens, and the fact that it doesn't have VR isn't to me a major problem.

I think it depends on what and how you are shooting.

I shot a slow f/6.8 400 Leitz Telyt for years, but could only hand-hold it well enough with the gun stock type support it came with, and even there, the number of blown shots due to camera movement were quite high.

I have both the Nikkor 80-400mm (the first generation one) and the Sigma 150-500mm, and have tried them with and without stabilization turned on and certainly when shooting hand held, I find using stabilzation really makes a noticeable difference. If I were using a tripod, monopod or other support, I might feel different, but these are not really suitable for the type of shots I use the lenses for.

[RustBeltRaw]

The Tamron 200-500 is a fine lens, and the fact that it doesn't have VR isn't to me a major problem.

Some explanation would be beneficial with statements like this. Personally, I don't see a reason not to have an image stabilizing system in lenses above 100mm (or possibly lower). My dad uses a EF-S 75-300mm f3.5-5.6 USM, and my sister has a newer EF-S 75-300mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. The latter is dramatically superior. I strongly advise against getting a telephoto without IS. It will make your long-lens game much stronger.

...Said the guy who owns and loves an EF 100mm f2.0 USM.

[Geoff F]

I use the Sigma 150-500 and it has been a good lens for me. An economical way to get to 500 mm but still have a zoom function.

It is heavy and the auto focus is rather slow. But otherwise OK. The stabilisation is surprisingly effective, even when handheld at 500 mm; although any lens this big tends to be best on a tripod.

There were some production problems with a few batches of this lens but that seems to have been overcome now.

I suppose another alternative, but losing zoom, is the 400 mm prime lens plus a 1.4 x converter which is a set up favoured by some bird photographers.

[KHarmon]

You guys are right....it is a Sigma. I had been looking at Tamron right before this post so I guess it was stuck in my head.