This got released right around month I decided on getting a super tele-zoom lens. I decided on buying the Sony 200-600. I figured if I ever bought or rended an a9 or a1 series camera i could get the full 20+ fps for stills.
Found one for $850. I’m trying to start my sports portfolio. I already have the Tamron 70-180. Should I stick with the 150-500 for $850 or spend the extra cash for a sigma or even Sony lens
If you were building a portfolio I would say go with either the sigma or the Sony. I think both of them are sharper lenses Even if they don't have quite the reach. For me I use the Sony 100-400
That's not true. Many people reviewed this lens and said and shown it was sharp. And the Tamron 17-70 F/2.8 is super sharp. So where did you get your info from?
Sigma and Tamron have had the 150-500 ish for 20 years and still are the same old compromise, you pay peanuts and by default you get monkeys.... both brands have excellent glass, however this superzooms are probably their worst lenses in their line up, the only tempting advantage is the zoom range, everything else is too much of a compromise to justify getting one even considering how cheap they are. I had one 15 or so years ago and you just confirmed me why I got rid off of it, too soft, too slow aperture; OEM superzooms are better, still a compromise though, my experience and advise is to be patient, save some extra cash and buy second hand alternatives, i.e. 70-200 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and a X1.4 teleconverter, and depending on what you generally shoot maybe a second camera body for extra flexibility and convenience.
Nice shots. Thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work. Have yourself a very Happy Thanksgiving.
Another great review by the king of reviews thanks for sharing my brother I like the football pictures
This got released right around month I decided on getting a super tele-zoom lens. I decided on buying the Sony 200-600. I figured if I ever bought or rended an a9 or a1 series camera i could get the full 20+ fps for stills.
I think you made a good choice. I own the Sony 100-400 and love it.
Good afternoon Larry thanks for showing have a Blessed Thanksgiving 🙏🏾👍🏾✌🏾
Found one for $850. I’m trying to start my sports portfolio. I already have the Tamron 70-180. Should I stick with the 150-500 for $850 or spend the extra cash for a sigma or even Sony lens
If you were building a portfolio I would say go with either the sigma or the Sony. I think both of them are sharper lenses Even if they don't have quite the reach. For me I use the Sony 100-400
Tamron is soft in most cases.
That's not true. Many people reviewed this lens and said and shown it was sharp. And the Tamron 17-70 F/2.8 is super sharp. So where did you get your info from?
Sigma and Tamron have had the 150-500 ish for 20 years and still are the same old compromise, you pay peanuts and by default you get monkeys.... both brands have excellent glass, however this superzooms are probably their worst lenses in their line up, the only tempting advantage is the zoom range, everything else is too much of a compromise to justify getting one even considering how cheap they are. I had one 15 or so years ago and you just confirmed me why I got rid off of it, too soft, too slow aperture; OEM superzooms are better, still a compromise though, my experience and advise is to be patient, save some extra cash and buy second hand alternatives, i.e. 70-200 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and a X1.4 teleconverter, and depending on what you generally shoot maybe a second camera body for extra flexibility and convenience.