12-18-2016, 11:19 AM
f/4 is neither on the Sigma nor the Tamron available - so that bit you have to let go, you will not get it from the zoom - and 600 to 500 mm is 0.9° difference
Sorry mate, this is just not worth to mention for me, especially at this FL the prime will perform great and the zoom soso, compared to it.
If it's the weight: Tamron.
If it's the added value: Tamron
I don't understand why Sigma is milking their sports clients for an extra foot, coming at 1/7 of the lens' price! Especially since it's not possible to balance the lens on a Gimbal with the standard foot without buying an extra long swallow-tail plate. And this I know by experience although I forgot about the 4 screws and remembered only half of them.
If I were about to buy again a long lens, I would consider the Tamron first, now it has 10 years of warranty in Switzerland, I can see the effort and value they put in and Sigma already got some scratches in their renommée for me. Quattro cameras and moon prices (very different ones, depending where you live), different speed in their Windows and Mac-versions of RAW converter, the mediocre 12-24, the very heavy 85/1.4, the very great 500/4 and the whole series of cinema lenses are in the row to counterbalance the list. They are still great, but as I see it, they should take care not to loose it and focus so much on cinema lenses.
Sorry mate, this is just not worth to mention for me, especially at this FL the prime will perform great and the zoom soso, compared to it.
If it's the weight: Tamron.
If it's the added value: Tamron
I don't understand why Sigma is milking their sports clients for an extra foot, coming at 1/7 of the lens' price! Especially since it's not possible to balance the lens on a Gimbal with the standard foot without buying an extra long swallow-tail plate. And this I know by experience although I forgot about the 4 screws and remembered only half of them.
If I were about to buy again a long lens, I would consider the Tamron first, now it has 10 years of warranty in Switzerland, I can see the effort and value they put in and Sigma already got some scratches in their renommée for me. Quattro cameras and moon prices (very different ones, depending where you live), different speed in their Windows and Mac-versions of RAW converter, the mediocre 12-24, the very heavy 85/1.4, the very great 500/4 and the whole series of cinema lenses are in the row to counterbalance the list. They are still great, but as I see it, they should take care not to loose it and focus so much on cinema lenses.