Super Telephoto Lens Shoot Out! Sigma vs Sony vs Tamron (Sony E-Mount)

[@Martin-nu6ym]

I'm happy with the 100-400 GM. Some other factors that make the lens a viable choice for me. 1) The tripod foot can be replaced with a nicer Kirk foot that is interchangeable between the this zoom and the 70-200 GM. That foot also becomes a great hand grip for carrying the lens and it supports the QD-mount system. 2) I have both teleconverters for those rare times I need the extra reach. 3) It can handle the AF requirements of the stacked sensor cameras.

[@WarnerVision]

The reason I picked the Sony 200-600 is because of the internal zoom, particularly for filming. If you use the camera and lens on a properly balanced video tripod head (with dialled-in counterbalance) then it means the rig is perfectly balanced no matter what focal length you are at, allowing perfect pans and tilts with no wobble or creep. By contrast I used to own the EF version of the Sigma 150-600, and there was no way to have the tripod head balanced for all focal lengths, as soon as you went to 600mm the rig would want to tip downwards, and at 150mm it would want to tip upwards, simply because the centre of gravity shifts with the weight of the protruding barrel.

[@TomCalton]

That's a fair point - thanks for sharing!

[@anthonyboyd7719]

one of the best comparison reviews I've ever seen. efficient, to the point, informative, well organized, includes all vital info and engaging. your sense of humor caught me off guard and was more than a little edgy, but that just made me appreciate your style even more. excellent work.

[@TomCalton]

Thanks Anthony for your kind review of my review. Glad you enjoyed the video - thanks for watching and commenting!

[@jeroenvdw]

I'm still not sure which one to choose, the 150-600 Sigma lens or the 200-600 Sony. I heard when shooting sports that the 200mm is sometimes too close to the subject and that 150mm would be better. Then again the Sony lens can use teleconverters for shooting wildlife. 1st world problems...

[@PatrickWithCamera]

One of the best comparison on youtube. I'm a bit surprised that between 400mm sony and 500mm tamron is huge difference in zoom, while between 500 and 600 is so slim.

[@AlainKapture]

It is simple to explain. 500mm is 25% more then 400mm. 600mm is only 20% more then 500mm.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

@@AlainKapture It is not that simple, bought 200-600 and its not alyways 600mm, it depends on focus distance, on closer distance can set even 350mm instead of 600mm, tony northrup explain this issue in his review of telephoto lenses comparison.

[@firpofutbol]

Tamron all the way. Lighter, smaller, good price.

[@dainesefreak]

I've owned all of these lenses and out of the Sony 200, Sigma and Tamron, I'd buy the one you get the best deal on. In the real world the difference is minimal. I currently have the Tamron due to the size and weight. The Sony GM is lovely, but i found myself combining it with the 1.4x converter due to the reach, but then I found it a bit too limiting due to the loss of light.

[@e1evn1ee]

The cheapest Tamron really impressed me.. especially for the goodness of minimum focusing distance and the image quality coming out of it. Nikon shooter tho :) still waiting for our Z 100-400

[@TomCalton]

They're all impressive to be fair! Great to have such a solid selection of lenses to choose from. Thanks for watching! 😊

[@alfredvinciguerra532]

I own it and the price and performance it’s super very happy with it. I use it for wildlife photography light and easy to store focus great closer and excellent range

[@oliviabourg1829]

that was the most in depth comparison video i’ve seen so far, thanks a lot, very helpful !

[@disco.jellyfish]

Both the Sigma 150-600 and the Sony 100-400 are really solid choices. The sony is great if you want a tele lens but find the 70-200 too short, while 200-600 starts at a too long zoom. You could get both but that is even more expensive. if you otherwise also have a 24-70 in your kit you will have a slight gap of focal length in between you cant really cover perfectly, but I think its worth the compromise. you should really only get the 70-200 if you need it for the f2.8 aperture, while also having OIS at 70mm, which can look really good when shooting from the shoulder. But if you had to choose which lens you need to add to your 12-24mm f4, 24-70mm f2.8, 24/35/50/75mm f1.4 collection, you'd probably want to prioritize the 100-400 if you can only afford just one extra lens. If its 2 you'd obviously want to get the 70-200mm and either the 150-600mm for the minimal focal distance or 200-600mm for the best possible sharpness and minimal focus breething. If you were on Canon there is also a 100-500, which is really good, but you'd need to be on a different mount for that. But Canon cameras generally have access to simply better lenses than Sony cameras.

[@Bo_Hazem]

I think it's about time we get the new 100-400mm GM II with probably a better aperture at like f/4.5 at the zoom end and make it 82mm filter thread for that to happen. Also with the new focusing engines that are quite and fast, despite being fast already.

[@kynio3433]

HI, I was wondering how did you get such a good stabilisation on Tamron 150-500, even better than Sony 100-400. I have both of those lenses and the Tamron is horrible in comparison to Sony. Can you let me know what sort of magic did you do? I use both lenses on no IBIS body A6400.

[@TomCalton]

I paid a gypsy woman to bless me with hands of no shake. Seems like it worked. 😜 I shot these lenses on an A7III, so it's likely the IBIS that's making the difference. Hope this helps!

[@kynio3433]

@@TomCalton Thanks, one more question. Were you testing on wide end or on the long end?

[@PatrickWithCamera]

On a6400 @500mm it's effectively 750mm, so it's really hard to be super stable, I'm using it on a6600 and stabilization can be really jerky, with new V3 update its a bit better, but mostly for photo, for video still too jerky in most situations, only tripod or monopod for serious video footage. I find that 3rd stabilization option is best for photo and video, but it draining battery fast.

[@rodrigofernandezgajardo5348]

Thanks for the video!! If you plan to review some APS-C lenses, the Sony 70-350 against any of these would be very interesting to watch!

[@TomCalton]

Thanks for watching and commenting! I've just bought a Sony A6600, so I do have some APS-C lens tests in the pipeline. But probably more portrait lenses as that's what I shoot with most tbh

[@Patrick-vi9xr]

I've tested 70-350 against tamron 150-500 on a6600, tamron @150mm is sharper at middle while being softer at the edge, from 300mm to 500mm tamron is sharper across whole frame and have little better contrast than sony long end, AF is tiny bit better on sony 70-350, while stabilization is on similiar level.

[@tsizzle]

What about the Tamron 50-400mm f4.5-6.3?

[@menoigarashi3168]

Great review! However, Which camera did you use for the tests?

[@TomCalton]

Thanks! Sony A7III

[@JakeHoffman4life]

I think anyone trying to save some money on the Sigma over the 200-600 is really trying to save over the GM. So here I'd really like to see Sigma's 100-400 in this comparison rather than Sony's 100-400. I think we mostly know it's awesome.

[@Kozitaju]

Very nice and very detailed comparison between these lens. Thanks you !

[@TomCalton]

Thank you! Appreciate it 👍

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

Great video & great lenses 🔥🔥 I love the tamron Because of its small size & beautiful shape 👌 as well as its great image quality

[@saraspics]

Awesome comparison! I’m going to test out the Tamron and see how it does, if that doesn’t do the job, I will try the Sigma next. Thanks for the great video!!

[@scottlo3621]

Thanks for detail and clear testing. So I'll prefer Sigma as smaller size when storing and trade-off in image quality.

[@TomCalton]

You're welcome! Glad I could help 👍

[@bennettwong2574]

sony 200-600 or tamron 150 -500 if the price are just ~$130 difference?

[@rondub]

Great, thorough review. Thank you

[@TomCalton]

You're welcome Ron! Glad you found it helpful 👍

[@melodyofailingheart9400]

Finally glad to see the much needed third party telephoto options for E mount. Although personally speaking, Sigma lenses are always kinda overpriced in my country so the net price difference between Sony and Sigma for me is just around USD 80 - 100; so I'd go for Sony only. Nice video as always.

[@TomCalton]

I agree! Thanks for the support 👍

[@jamessonfield]

Stabilisation test 👊👊👊👊 Legend

[@TomCalton]

👌

[@kidcut]

This was the exact video I was looking for! The new sigma 150-600 vs tamron 150-500 vs Sony 200-600! The Sony 100-400 is kind of in the smaller class but still a great comparison !

[@TomCalton]

Glad you found it useful 🙂

[@ziginox]

Darn, I was hoping the Sigma 100-400mm would be in here as well

[@TomCalton]

Unfortunately we couldn't get hold of one in time to make the test 👎

[@wendywitzig119]

Bummer, I was looking at that one too. Gonna watch for Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals. Can't decide.

[@mishaberger]

Same. It’s by far the lightest and cheapest!

[@mishaberger]

Oh, and the new 60-600 as well, though it’s even heavier than the 200-600

[@knowyouryoga]

Hello which one would you recommend Tamron or Sigma. Where I live Sigma is 150$ cheaper than Tamron but I hear Tamron af is better than Sigma

[@Thexderify]

Great review though it might be mentioned that the 100-400 also has a 77mm thread so is cheaper for filters if needed compared to the 95mm threads of the others

[@TomCalton]

Fair point - thanks for your comment!

[@kynio3433]

Does the Sigma have only 90 degrees of rotation or can it go 360?

[@jtouch2859]

Could check Gmaster with 1.4x & 2x extender ? I would love to see how sharp and good both extender .

[@TomCalton]

Usually extenders reduce image quality so didn't see the point tbh.

[@timwhite1111]

Sony 200-600 is significantly sharper at the long end than the 100-400 with 1.4x.

[@jtouch2859]

yup but i think gm with extender will be much lighter and you can sharpening your images with topaz ai .

[@timwhite1111]

@@jtouch2859 Yeah the 100-400 with 1.4x is definitely a lot lighter. With Topaz though, the same can apply to the 200-600 with 1.4x. I have them all and use them for different things, the main thing I was missing from the 200-600 was close-focusing, an area where the GM is superb.

[@philipgowdy]

Good to the point Video however I do think you should of completed the range with the Sigma 100-400e which is also a super lens for full frame and very light and small for long treks etc.

[@TomCalton]

You're not wrong, though unfortunately we couldn't get hold of the Sigma 100-400mm in time for the test, so regretibly we had to miss it out 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Super01041994]

Great review! The sigma 100-400 is £660 on E-infinity, tamron is £1000, the new sigma probably around the same price £1000 to £1100 and Sony £1330. It's so hard to make a choice now 😂

[@TomCalton]

It's great that we have so many solid options for Sony E-Mount, but you're right, it makes it tough to know where to spend your money!

[@turke765]

I own the sigma 100-400, whilst a good lens for most amateur work, you honestly do get what you pay for. At least on my copy, the 350-400mm end it does start to suffer compared to what you have before it. AF performance also isn't that great. The sony 100-400 is a big big step up, more than what you may expect, but of course, you pay for that.

[@MarcelVolker]

The Sony GM might have the shortest reach but it accepts teleconverters... So would be interesting to see how it compares with a 1.4x TC stuck on.

[@halschnee9862]

I've seen tests comparing the Sony 100-400 GM + 1.4TC to the Sony 200-600. The 200-600 wins every time because you lose some image quality with the TC. The GM is better in the overlapping range when used without the TC (200-400). If I remember correctly, Mark Galer has a good comparison video. If you primarily need the 400-600 range, the 200-600 is a better choice. In the shorter, range, the 100-400 is superior.

[@TomCalton]

Exactly - what he said ☝️

[@timwhite1111]

Yep, as above. 200-600 at the long end is comfortably sharper than the 100-400 with 1.4x

[@generaltso9402]

Agree with Hal, Tom & Tim. At the long end, 200-600 much better than the 100-400 with 1.4x

[@oscarshen6855]

The Sony 100-400 GM is one of the best lens Sony ever made. Along with the 35mm F1.4, these are the few lenses that really worth that premium price.

[@TomCalton]

I certainly wouldn't disagree!

[@alexverbeke2228]

And the 24mm f/1.4, the 50mm f/1.2 and the 135mm f/1.8 ^^.

[@Donbros]

@@alexverbeke2228 and 20mm g and 16-35gm and 14mm gm

[@alexverbeke2228]

@@Donbros and 12-24 GM, 16-35 G, 24-70 GM II, 70-200 GM II...each lens made by Sony in the last years, I suppose😁

[@Donbros]

@@alexverbeke2228 since mid 2017 sony found the lens winning formula haha

[@DemonsofRazgriz05]

Great content as usual!

[@TomCalton]

Thank you! 🤜🤛

[@ColdCoffeePhotography]

nice work! would be interested if you were able to use the 100-400 GM with both the 1.4x & 2x TC's, which I believe none of the others can use?

[@adamadamis]

The SONY 200-600mm can also use the teleconverters

[@opti420sk]

Great review!

[@DanuteP]

Thanks so much!

[@TomCalton]

Thanks for watching!

[@thomaspampillonia5163]

according to your test it is obvious that the GM will win with the 400mm, a 600mm requires more lens more glass and composition. But it is interesting to see that the 3 real 500-600mm are the same

[@TomCalton]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. With the GM you substitute focal range for image quality. It's great that Sony shooters have so much choice though!

[@metaler4274]

Best review ever.

[@dontcareboutname1]

Not too speak negatively of your editing or anything. But that white flash, scene change over and over and over. Really makes this video unbearable too watch at night. Even a bit during the day.

[@TomCalton]

No worries - I appreciate the constructive and polite feedback. I have since reduced this transition in my most recent videos as you're not the first one to mention this.

[@kingweddingmedia]

I feel like you missed a massive benefit for this type of lens with the 200-600. Although you mentioned the internal zoom, for lenses like this that are going to be used outside, that’s a huge benefit for weather resistance - I’ve not got any experience of the tamron or sigma, but the ease and smoothness of the 200-600 zoom makes that lens an absolute joy to use (particularly for sports) compared to the GM. When I used the GM I found it’s girth and stiffness (no pun intended!) to be awkward, harder to adjust quickly, whereas the 200-600 is easy and can be done with one finger. I think an extra point for the internal zoom and an extra point for the ease of the zoom would have been justified (I agree the extra length isn’t ideal though, so perhaps a point less for that!). That’s me speaking as a sports photographer though, so I can appreciate other niches may have different priorities/preferences.

[@TomCalton]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and for the fantastic use of the words girth and stiffness 👌). I don't think you're wrong at all. The internal zoom is a little easier to use for sure, but in my opinion, not enough to be a huge advantage. I found the smaller size and low weight of the GM to be much easier to use, but I also have fairly large hands, so the extra GIRTH of the lens wasn't something that registered with be to be honest. But then again, most of what we're talking about is down to personal preference. Bottom line, they're all really good lenses and so you can't really go that far wrong! My advise would always be to pick the lens that suits your own preferences and shooting style.

[@kingweddingmedia]

@@TomCalton all true mate! I have small hands so that also makes sense! I saw someone else recommended the 70-350mm Sony lens if you’re planning more with your a6600 - it’s a stellar lens (probably my favourite lens) really incredible range and sharpness on such a small lightweight lens, definitely worth picking up if you can/are interested! Looking forward to seeing your review on the new sigma 24mm f2 as that’s one that I’d potentially be interested in!

[@TomCalton]

Thanks for the recommendation - noted! 👍 The 24mm f/2 review should (hopefully) be ready for this Friday coming, so keep your eyes peeled for that one ☺️

[@Fessoid]

Thanks for comparison. Like for quality, dislike for sexual corruption. Is it GM produce larger object for about 100+ meters other then G (due to X 0.35 magnification over X 0.2)?

[@Revan89]

I'm don't use super telephotos, but it was a fun video to watch, as always.

[@TomCalton]

Appreciate the support as always brother 🤜🤛

[@veselinvasilev9362]

Thanks!

[@gweeds334]

came for the review. stayed for the comedy

[@TomCalton]

I'm just glad someone finally finds me funny 😅

[@Thomasmcse]

Thanks for your great video. Sigma might be my best option. But your video helped me to find the right lense, Just need to buy it. ;)

[@claw247]

That Gm is trending at $1500 used I might have to scoop it up

[@blubberflutsch]

What was the distance of the chart shots? I assume, these lenses are optimized for large distances - at least at the long end, so those charts may be misleading.

[@TomCalton]

I think that's a fairly big assumption. A high quality lens should be able to provide good results at either end of the zoom range and throughout the entity of the focusing range. But, for the sake of clarity, the chart is printed on A3 photo paper and the shots are taken so that the chart fills the frame entirely. This meant that when taking the images with the longest end of the zooms, the camera was approximately 10m away.

[@alexcarroll9774]

Never expected to hear the term man-meat in a telephoto lens review...

[@TomCalton]

😂

[@VBITS97]

The huge thing you didn't cover is minimum focusing distance. I bought the Sony 200--600mm expecting it be a longer version of my A-mount 70-400mm. The 200-600mm drove me crazy because the minimum focusing distance at 600mm is 13 paces ( say 12 yards or 11 meters). A cute little bird would focus on a twig 10 feet away (say 3m) and I couldn't get focus. If I backed away enough, without falling down a bank, I could get a shot, but then I'd have to crop so much I'd lose any advantage of 600mm over 400mm. For other photography, such as sports or larger wildlife, the 200-600mm is superb. But, not for me. So, I'll be exchanging my Sony for the Sigma which can almost do macro. I'll keep my 70-400mm because it works as well as it did on my A99ii with the LAEA5 adapter on my A74.

[@BenJordan]

He covered that at 11:49

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Indeed, 200-600 could be so much better lens with a little shorter focus distance.

[@StratOfG]

sadly you can't use teleconverters with the sigma yet :/

[@TomCalton]

That's true. I'm sure Sigma are working on that though 🤷‍♂️

[@jeroenvdw]

From what I've heard Sigma has a contract with Sony that's all about lenses but no mention of teleconverters. This is why they cannot produce tc's for Sony. And maybe Sony doesn't want to allow 3rd parties to produce tc's for their camera's.

[@TomCalton]

Hmmm, interesting! Next time I have a call with Sigma UK I'll ask them and see what they say about it. Thanks for sharing!

[@Drogenhunter]

Thank you for this in depth comparison!

[@TomCalton]

You're welcome - I hope it was useful!

[@kingfisher111]

Thnx for the subject.

[@TomCalton]

You're welcome - thanks for watching!

[@MiscThoughts]

You're a funny guy - and yes, the 600 is for shooting birds, that are on the other side of your neighbors house. Cheeeeeky.

[@afanasieguler7833]

Bought the Tamron, returned it and bought the Sigma 150-600, each lens here has its benefits and it's hard to pick winners, but I could pick the Tamron as loser, I'm a beginner so take everything here with a grain of salt. The only benefit Tamron has is light weight, but at 1.8kg I couldn't feel the difference compared to Sigma, and you lose 100mm at long end. If lightweight is that important, you should go with with Sigma or Sony 100-400. At around same price with Sigma you getter better IQ, better reach, better build quality, customisable buttons, better macro capabilities, better stabilisation. Focus was probably my biggest concern, but so far I prefer the Sigma, I had experienced some focus hunting with Tamron, didn't happen with Sigma yet. I'm a newbie and still have shaky hands, on top of that my A7 III doesn't have a very good viewfinder, with Tamron I found almost impossible to track my subject or to catch the bird when starting to look from viewfinder, on the other hand Sigma compensates a lot of my shakiness. My copy of Tamron also had some big dust particles behind the front element, at 0 pictures taken, this seem to happen very often on Tamron lenses, it shouldn't affect IQ but others noticed more dust adding up with time, most probably there is already a lot of dust inside the lens. In conclusion, Tamron does inovate with lighter lenses, when you cut 20mm, Image stabilisation on a 70-200 f2.8 and offer it 50% cheaper and 50% lighter then that's a good trade off. However cutting 100 mm making it f6.7 at longer end, increasing the price by ~10% and only reducing the weight by ~15%, I don't see how this was a good idea.

[@zoltantolgyesi645]

all you just wrote here are bullshit. stop it, get some help.

[@alexanderkoumis8424]

@@zoltantolgyesi645 Seems like reasonable critique of the Tamron to me. Care to point out what you think is wrong?

[@PatrickWithCamera]

400mm was a bit too short for birding on crop sensor, 500mm makes life easier, also love tamrons focus distance, it has best magnification ratio at 170-190mm giving probably best working distance, not too far to notice all small bugs and critters, but not too close to make them run. Selling my 100-400 and 200-600, because tamron is best balance of them two(ofcourse on crop bodies like a6600/a6700 which I use). About dust particles, agree, i've got one behind front element after year, it was quite intense use, but still feel sad about it.

[@kapilesh14]

If Sony makes a mark ii version of 100-400 that would break the ranking completely.

[@534A53]

and also break our wallets :P

[@rogeryoung3587]

Phew! I've got the right lens.

[@TomCalton]

😅

[@stans5270]

Splash Proof... If you know what I mean... Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod.

[@TomCalton]

😜

[@otoburkaplan]

god bless you

[@TomCalton]

Thanks

[@kkygeek]

The most more you remind us, the more we think you're one of those!

[@TomCalton]

😉 if you know what I mean?

[@marcelkressner]

I am missing the Sigma 100-400 This would be a Budget Option too

[@Hilal_abdelilah]

😉if you know what I mean lol

[@TomCalton]

😜

[@ethanc.83]

Alex, haven't you already written an article on exactly the same thing within the past few weeks? Perhaps even two articles on this very subject within the past month? When is enough enough? By the way, these zooms you have written the 3 articles about are economy-level zooms, designed to be light and inexpensive ... which hardly qualifies any of them to be considered among the "best" supertelephoto zooms. Because they are small, light, and cheap, there are lots of compromises that have been made when it comes to largest maximum aperture and focal length range. These are all economy lenses. Hardly "the best".

[@TomCalton]

I think you're in the wrong place pal - no one called Alex here... 🙄

[@ricknicholson5894]

The more I watch these comparisons the dumber they strike me. Have like zooms compete against like zooms, a 100 - 400 is not qualified to run against 600 zooms. How about comparing a 50mm lens against a 135mm lens. You wouldn't. Why? Because it's dumb, two different lenses with two different jobs, not at all similar except they happen to be lenses. It seems most comparing long zooms want to include the 100 - 400, why? I don't know. Reverse the scenario and it is rarely or never done. Do a comparison of 400 zoom lens but bring in the 500 and 600 zooms, never done. Why? Because it doesn't make sense. If you don't agree with me, I look forward to your comparison of 50mm lenses versus the 135mm lenses.

[@GrandpaTom]

Disgusting! If you know what i mean.

[@normanschultz1142]

Unsubscribed..... you know what I mean