Author Topic: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm  (Read 3026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline doctorwho

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Gender: Male
200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« on: February 16, 2007, 10:45:17 PM »
Both have max apertures of f6.3 - so no difference there. But which is the better lens? If I can beat Ian to it, could get the Sigma for £300 beginning of March, but I believe the Tamron is the better lens - just can't find it out there. As it's going to be one of these and a 90mm macro to end my lens buying (for a few years!) would like to make sure I end up with a lens to be proud of.

Carl

Offline IanMiddy

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Gender: Male
    • A few favourite pics with Kodak cams
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2007, 08:42:07 AM »
I've actually been asking myself the same question [and I'm not sure I'll go for the 170-500, since I also want a wide-angle (similar prob re 10-20 or 11-18) for an upcoming holiday in Scotland] and have checked the Dyxum and DPR reviews/discussions - most seem to favour the Tamron, but you certainly don't seem to see price reductions or S/H examples on it anywhere near as much as the Sigma(s)...

[I picked up an old Tamron SP 90/2.5 manual focus recently for £45, so taken care of that requirement, at least...]

IDM


Offline doctorwho

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Gender: Male
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2007, 12:47:48 PM »
There are one or two people I know that basically hate Tamron - always bigging up the Sigma, but despite the fact that everyone into wildlife owns the bigma, many comparison reviews I've seen have the Tamron as the better quality. Crunch time on payday I think...

Offline Fud

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 3399
  • Gender: Male
    • ElmerFud on Flickr
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2007, 08:18:20 PM »
Read a lot of reviews prior to buying the tamron last May and have not been disappointed with the quality.  Only problem has been getting out in to the country often enough to use it.

Couple of the first photos I took with it



A900+VG, A77+VG, Minolta 17-35G,  Sony CZ24-70 F2.8,Sony 70-200 F2.8 SSM, Sony 70-400 SSM, Sony 135STF,85 F1.4, 200 F4 Macro, 600 F4 HS APO

Offline doctorwho

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Gender: Male
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2007, 10:13:06 PM »
Yup. that's the one I really want, but needs must....

Offline IanMiddy

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Gender: Male
    • A few favourite pics with Kodak cams
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2007, 07:24:16 PM »
If I can beat Ian to it, could get the Sigma for £300 beginning of March

Carl - see its gone - did you get it ??

Cheers

IDM

Offline doctorwho

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Gender: Male
Re: 200-500mm vs 170-500mm
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2007, 07:32:45 PM »
Ian, bane of my life is shop sites that never update their lists - been sold mate.

If you spotted ballpointpenthief's ebay lots (some cracking items), you'll notice the Sigma 105mm macro went....I know where ;)