Tamron vs Sigma 100-400

[Bill T]

Hi folks - I shoot a D500 and Z6. Favourite subjects are waterfowl (more so than BIF). Often shoot from a boat. I have a Nikon 200-500 that I enjoy but sometimes want a shorter lens when birds are close. I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and love it for a light sharp easy to manage lens, but sometimes would like a little more reach for the Z6. The 200-500 tends to live on the D500. Admittedly I find it a bit heavy to handhold in a boat but that is not a huge issue.

Interested in the Nikon 100-400 S Lens that is on the plan for 2021, but I fear that it will be in the $2500 US range (probably more than $3000 up here in Canada) which is more than I have to spend. So I have been looking hard at the Tamron / Sigma 100-400's. They seem close in IQ with early reviews giving the nod to the Tammy for focus tracking over the Sigma. But I have read anecdotally that the Sigma has improved focus tracking with firmware updates. Although most birds I shoot are fairly static, if a loon goes on a 300 yard take-off run I would like a lens that can track the action.

Just wondering about anyone with real life experience with these lenses. I did trip over a bit of a show stopper recently when I realized that Tamron software for the Tap-in Console does not work with Mac OS Catalina. Apparently Tamron Japan is blaming Apple for constant changes and not showing any motivation to update their lens software for the console. However the Sigma dock software appears to work with OS Catalina.

That last hiccup made me think that perhaps I better go Sigma. I am a dedicated Apple user and my old Windows PC's are 9-10 years old and past being upgradeable. I also do not want to spend $400 (or more) just to buy a Windows PC just to update lens firmware. I suppose Tamron could have a change of heart and eventually update their software to be compatible with Mac but ????

I just wonder if anyone has real life experience with the Tamron / Sigma 100-400 lenses. Sorry for the long ramble.

 

[ruley74]

Hi Bill,

I can only offer my thoughts on a Canon when testing last year on my M50 when i had it. for me it seemed the Sigma i tested had the better IQ at the long end but the Tamron seemed slightly better in AF. I ended up forking out the extra and getting the Canon 100-400 II at the time as it blew both of them out of the water in every aspect... except price!

If i was to pick on eat the time it would have been the Sigma.

No consideration for the 80-400G Nikon? I imagine used prices would be reasonable.

 

[Bill T]

If i was to pick on eat the time it would have been the Sigma.

No consideration for the 80-400G Nikon? I imagine used prices would be reasonable.

Hi Dean - thanks re the Sigma. Encouraging. I guess I looked at the 80-400G but it is running around $2000 used here in Canada. I often see 80-400D lenses for sale used for around $800-1000, but I don't think I want to go back that far.

On the other had if folks think the 80-400G lens is worth adding to the mix for the extra $$ then I would appreciate your feedback also. I would need to do some more research. At least a G lens would also be useful on the D500 whereas if I really waited and invested in the upcoming 100-400 S (Z mount) then it would be limited to the Z6. On the other hand I have to hope the IQ of the new Z mount would be an improvement. If money was no object ......LOL

 

[Bill T]

Looks like on doing some quick research the Nikon 80-400 G may be good at the short end but less sharp at the long 400 end. Saw some comments that the Tamron / Sigma 100-400 's are better than the Nikon at the 400 end. Nikon is notably a pound heavier than the T/S lenses.. I saw a few comments about it being overpriced for what it is. I always prefer feedback from folks who have real life experience. On first glance the Nikon is older (2013) and a $1000 more costly for less IQ than the T/S lenses?

 

[ruley74]

Yeah I've read similar but there's also people that are quite happy with it. I've not tried it myself as i wanted the longer reach with the 200-500. Be interested to see if people can chime in with direct comparisons in the Nikon space.

For me at the time i got the Canon over the other two i was very happy i spent the extra, but it might not be so clear with the Nikon.

 

[Gannicus]

I can speak about my experiences with the Tamron. I have never used the Sigma. I purchased the Tamron after many of the initial reviews were very good. Most reviews gave the nod to the Tamron over the Sigma for AF, IQ, and VR, plus the zoom ring turns the same way as Nikon. It was my first long telephoto lens and I didn't know what to expect. The good: autofocus was indeed very quick. Almost as quick as the 70-300 AFP, very quiet too if that is something important to you. VR or VC as Tamron calls it also seemed to be very good with stationary targets. The bad: the lens I owned only seemed to produce sharp images at near minmum focus distance and near/at infinity wide open, stopped down it was fine due to larger DOF. Anything in between would appear a little soft. It was never consistent so using the dock to fine-tune did not seem to help (it's also a pain in the a$$ to do with a long lens). I found that many of the bird pictures I took were just not that sharp. Looking through the Tamron 100-400 groups on Flickr I also did not find a lot of sharp images. Unlike Nikon, the VC on the Tamron did not produce good shots when panning no matter what setting I tried. Keeping a low shutter speed to blur props at airshows resulted in hardly any keepers. I got the 200-500 because I wanted more reach than 400. I kept the 100-400 to take when I go out for street/cityscape photography (no matter what I am shooting, if I see a bird or plane I have to take a picture) but it was too bulky so I always left it at home. I ended up selling the 100-400 and got the 70-300 AFP FX version. It is smaller and lighter and images at 300 cropped to 400 look sharper to me than 400 on the Tamron. Any AF issues on our Z6 would hopefully be a non factor. I did use the 100-400 5one time on my wife's Z50, however it was very lowlight. AF seemed as fast as on my D7500, but due to the high ISO noise (my wife has auto ISO all the way to 51,200) I don't know if it nailed focus better than it did on my D7500. The other thing I did not care for was the color rendition. It seemed to make the camera expose everything with a bluish tint. It was noticeable to me but some people may like it. The other disclaimer would be that a Z6 firmware update could make the Tamron non working for quite awhile. Tamron still does not have all of their lenses working on the Z cameras. Though the 100-400 does for now.

 

[Bill T]

Thanks JC - all good info and input

 

[Bill T]

For me at the time i got the Canon over the other two i was very happy i spent the extra, but it might not be so clear with the Nikon.

All reviews I read or saw clearly said the Canon lens was superior to the T/S lenses. But price was substantially higher.
Now reading some comments about the Nikon 80-400 being a dust pump ie accumulating dust more so than other lenses ??

 

[Gannicus]

Thanks JC - all good info and input

You're welcome. It seems like if you ask 10 people their experience with a third party lens you'll get 10 different answers. If you ask 10 people their experience with a Nikon/Canon lens 8 out of 10 will at least have similar views. Good luck with whatever you go with.

 

[bsinc1962]

I've owned the Nikon 80-400 and the Sigma 100-400. If I had to do it again I would pick the Sigma. The Nikon is big and heavy in comparison and IQ wise I found them to be a wash. The Nikon feels very solid and well made and would last a lifetime. The Sigma is light and feels plasticy but held up well in the 2 years I owned it.
Out of the box the Sigma wasn't all that sharp and needs the dock to make it sing. After tuning with the dock it was very sharp end to end but it took some work to get it that way. I used it on the D500, D850, Z6, and the D5. Worked well on all of them.

 

[dabhand16]

Interested in the Nikon 100-400 S Lens that is on the plan for 2021, but I fear that it will be in the $2500 US range (probably more than $3000 up here in Canada) which is more than I have to spend. So I have been looking hard at the Tamron / Sigma 100-400's. They seem close in IQ with early reviews giving the nod to the Tammy for focus tracking over the Sigma. But I have read anecdotally that the Sigma has improved focus tracking with firmware updates. Although most birds I shoot are fairly static, if a loon goes on a 300 yard take-off run I would like a lens that can track the action.

Not answering your question but I get great results with my old 80-200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 with a 1.4x TC.

 

[Bill T]

I've owned the Nikon 80-400 and the Sigma 100-400. If I had to do it again I would pick the Sigma. The Nikon is big and heavy in comparison and IQ wise I found them to be a wash. The Nikon feels very solid and well made and would last a lifetime. The Sigma is light and feels plasticy but held up well in the 2 years I owned it.
Out of the box the Sigma wasn't all that sharp and needs the dock to make it sing. After tuning with the dock it was very sharp end to end but it took some work to get it that way. I used it on the D500, D850, Z6, and the D5. Worked well on all of them.

Thanks for this - very good feedback

 

[Hermann]

I've got the Tamron. After finetuning it's sharp. No problems. I didn't use the dock, just finetuned the lens at the long end that I mostly use anyway. I only used the dock to get the latest firmware.

The main reason I got the Tamron over the Sigma was that Tamron makes a useful tripod collar for the lens, and the lens is - according to Tamron - at least somewhat weatherproof. They also offered an extended warranty over here, Sigma didn't. And importantly the zoom turns the right way for Nikon users. Muscle memory is a funny thing, it would have taken me quite a while to get used to the Sigma ...

 

[Pistnbroke]

I have two Tam 100-400. I previously had a tam 150-600 (Junk) and a Nik 200-500 ( great but heavy)
The Tamron is superb and equal to the Nikon for IQ . Its light and cheap grey ( e-infinity.com). You can get the tripod collar for the Nikon 70-200 for about $20 and it fits fine if you file the screw clamp hole out.
The tap in will work fine with old windows as I have an ancient laptop but you do need one. One of my lenses is all FFA neg ranging from - 11 to -4 and the other all +. Easy to get the figures you need with a D850 or nikon with auto fine tune ..20 min to get the 16 figure you need. For about $550 you cannot go wrong.

 

[Anjin San]

I have a Nikon 200-500 that I enjoy but sometimes want a shorter lens when birds are close.

Can't really comment on the difference between the two lenses…but if you routinely get close enough to waterfowl so that a 200mm lens is too long…dang you're good is all I can say. I've taken a lot of images of waterfowl and BIF…and have almost never been too close.

 

[Bill T]

Can't really comment on the difference between the two lenses…but if you routinely get close enough to waterfowl so that a 200mm lens is too long…dang you're good is all I can say. I've taken a lot of images of waterfowl and BIF…and have almost never been too close.

Laughing - well Neil maybe I should clarify that a little. I am happy with the 200-500 but on the D500 it does sometimes have more reach than I need. I also find it heavy to hand hold for long periods. Really was looking for something a little lighter in the 300-400 mm range so that is why I started looking at the Tamron and Sigma. Not often I get too close to birds but it has happened. I have a friend who is on the water early morning about 150 days a year and believe it or not the birds do get very accustomed to the boat and learn that it is no threat. The loon in my avatar was no more than 20 ft from the boat when I got the image with my Z6 and 70-200 F4 at about 180 mm.

 

[Bill T]

The tap in will work fine with old windows as I have an ancient laptop but you do need one. One of my lenses is all FFA neg ranging from - 11 to -4 and the other all +. Easy to get the figures you need with a D850 or nikon with auto fine tune ..20 min to get the 16 figure you need. For about $550 you cannot go wrong.

Thanks, yeah I am trying to get an old laptop to run Win 7 or 8 so I could use it with the Tamron console. If they would just update the Tamron software to make it more Mac OS compatible I would be fine.

 

[woodym1]

Hi folks - I shoot a D500 and Z6. Favourite subjects are waterfowl (more so than BIF). Often shoot from a boat. I have a Nikon 200-500 that I enjoy but sometimes want a shorter lens when birds are close. I have the Nikon 70-200 F4 and love it for a light sharp easy to manage lens, but sometimes would like a little more reach for the Z6. The 200-500 tends to live on the D500. Admittedly I find it a bit heavy to handhold in a boat but that is not a huge issue.

Interested in the Nikon 100-400 S Lens that is on the plan for 2021, but I fear that it will be in the $2500 US range (probably more than $3000 up here in Canada) which is more than I have to spend. So I have been looking hard at the Tamron / Sigma 100-400's. They seem close in IQ with early reviews giving the nod to the Tammy for focus tracking over the Sigma. But I have read anecdotally that the Sigma has improved focus tracking with firmware updates. Although most birds I shoot are fairly static, if a loon goes on a 300 yard take-off run I would like a lens that can track the action.

Just wondering about anyone with real life experience with these lenses. I did trip over a bit of a show stopper recently when I realized that Tamron software for the Tap-in Console does not work with Mac OS Catalina. Apparently Tamron Japan is blaming Apple for constant changes and not showing any motivation to update their lens software for the console. However the Sigma dock software appears to work with OS Catalina.

That last hiccup made me think that perhaps I better go Sigma. I am a dedicated Apple user and my old Windows PC's are 9-10 years old and past being upgradeable. I also do not want to spend $400 (or more) just to buy a Windows PC just to update lens firmware. I suppose Tamron could have a change of heart and eventually update their software to be compatible with Mac but ????

I just wonder if anyone has real life experience with the Tamron / Sigma 100-400 lenses. Sorry for the long ramble.

Bill: I do not about that tamron,I have the tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 and it is sharp sharp sharp

 

[jeffnles1]

Bill,
I know I'm a little late to the party. I can't comment on the Tamron lens since I don't own it. I don't do a lot of waterfowl but have included one below shot with the 100-400 a year or so back of some ring necks. Also one that I shot recently of a robber fly. The ring neck was on a D7200 body and the robber fly on a D500 body. Both images are fairly heavily cropped and sized down to upload to the forum.

I do have the Sigma 100-400 and it produces excellent results for me. As you already know at 400mm it is F6.3 instead of F5.6 on the Nikon 200-500. It isn't a showstopper but something to think about for wildlife at the edges of day/dark. My overall assessment of the 100-400 vs. my 200-500:
Sigma is sharp however I think at the long end when the subject is pretty far out
Nikon lens has a little more contrast (that's what I'd call it...). The images seem a little crisper especially where one color meets another.

I use both lenses. The advantages of the Sigma are weight, ease to handle in cramped quarters (i.e. shooting out a car window or while in my kayak). The images from the Sigma are more than "good enough". I have a number of 16X20 prints hanging on my office walls that were shot with it and they are fine. If you "pixel peep" and look at images 200X the Nikon seems to fare a little better.

Hope this helps. Maybe not the definitive answer but it is my experience with both lenses. Summary: I have both the 100-400 and the 200-500 and I use them both regularly. They have their place in my gear bag.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Bill T]

Hope this helps. Maybe not the definitive answer but it is my experience with both lenses. Summary: I have both the 100-400 and the 200-500 and I use them both regularly. They have their place in my gear bag.

Thanks Jeff - this feedback is useful. I like the 200-500 but it is a bit heavy and awkward sitting in a small boat. Also I want to complement it with something that works welling in the 200-400 range but is a little lighter to manage.