Supertelephoto zoom lenses are useful for a wide range of genres, including everything from sports and wildlife to landscapes. There are a lot of options out there, and this excellent video review takes a look at four of them, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sport, Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS, Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, and Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD.
Coming to you from Tom Calton, this awesome video comparison looks at four supertelephoto zoom lenses, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sport, Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS, Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS, and Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD. Whereas a decade ago, such lenses were rarer and offered significantly less image quality than higher-level professional options, the last few years have seen an explosion in affordable zooms that feature highly impressive image quality and performance, making them legitimate professional devices that do not cost the stratospheric prices of comparable primes. And with the advanced high-ISO and autofocus capabilities of modern bodies, those narrower apertures aren't the hindrance they used to be. Check out the video above for Calton's full thoughts on each lens.
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".
Exactly! Enough is enough...with you being such a super telephoto snob. Yes, we get it, you're a wildlife photographer with real expensive gear...blah blah blah. You whine and complain the same thing on each of these articles.
"The best" is in reference to the lenses being compared. Not, to the lenses ever made. smh
It's almost like you're compensating. You've spent so much on gear, god forbid, a cheap alternative can equal (enough) or best the shit you put out. Give your elitist insecurity nonsense a rest already.
Why do you think I have real expensive gear? What made you think that? Did you just ASSume?
I buy old, heavily used gear at bargain prices off of classified ads and eBay. Almost all of the bodies and lenses I own are discontinued models that have been heavily used for years before I buy them, and I get them for a small fraction of the original price. My friends have great gear - they are always buying the latest and greatest (literally). Yet there I am shooting alongside of them with my old beat up discontinued bodies and lenses.
And yet some buffoon on the internet thinks that I have spent "so much on gear" and have "real expensive gear" ..... and I have no idea why he would think such a thing, because I have never said that I have spent a lot, nor claimed to have such gear. Sheesh! Some people!
Pretty funny to be complaining about an article like this in the way that you did when the lenses you use are "old, beat up, and discontinued." Discontinued being the key word there, because I'd bet a pretty penny they don't stack up to modern lenses.
Also, as Eddie said, the "best" is among the lenses being compared here. Not every superzoom lens ever made. English is tricky, I know, it truly is a difficult language.
Yeah, my only complaint with any of these articles is the wording that Alex uses in the titles. If he would only say, "Which manufacturer makes the best economy superzoom?" or, "Which of these lenses is the best?" Anything to clarify that he doesn't mean the best lens, but rather the best among those being discussed. And yet he doesn't use any such clarification. That's what bothers me so much - not the articles themselves, but rather the wording of the titles ... and also the repetition. I do believe this is the third article that he has published in the last month, on exactly the same topic.
jizzzuuuus, soooo much drama for nothing. can you guys actually get past the useless bickering and talk about these lenses so these comments can actually be useful ?!
I'm sorry, Pedro, but I am not really interested in these lenses. But I am very interested in the wording that the author uses when he creates a title. Semantics are just as interesting to me as photography is.
If you are wanting discussion about the lenses, then maybe you can start commenting about them, instead of complaining about other people's comments.
Matt Williams, whose comment is below, provides some insightful discussion about the lenses that are covered in this article. I suggest reading that if you want some useful information about the lenses.
i was shocked by this : "I'm sorry, Pedro, but I am not really interested in these lenses."
hehe
--- "Why do you think I have real expensive gear?"
Hmmm, one of your lenses retailed for about 10K+. Yes, I get it, you probably bought it used so no need for you to sound like a broken record.
--- "That's what bothers me so much - not the articles themselves, but rather the wording of the titles ... and also the repetition."
Then, skip it. Does your scrollbar not work? No need to feel so compelled to read every single article.
I will skip an article when I want to skip it. I will comment on an article when I want to do so. I get to decide what to skip, what to read, and what to comment on. That is my decision to make, not yours. You decide for you. I decide for me. Get it?
I have not used the Sonys mentioned here, but I have used the Tamron and Sigma lenses.
I have always been a huge fan of Tamron's lenses, which I used quite a lot before I switched from Nikon DSLR to Nikon Z (I had the 35/1.4 SP, 85/1.8 SP, 100-400 VC, 150-600 G2, and 15-30 G2.)
The Tamron 85/1.8 SP was better than the Nikkor 85/1.8G and Sony 85/1.8 and its rendering reminded me a lot of the Zeiss Batis lenses - I sold it after trying the Nikon Z 85/1.8 which is one of the best 85mm lenses I have ever used. Similarly, the 35/1.4 SP is one of the sharpest 35mm lenses I've ever used.
So I have a soft spot for Tamron's lenses. The Tamron 100-500 is an excellent lens and I'd easily take it over the Sigma due to size and weight alone, but part of that is because the Sigma is really just older DSLR design with a permanent adapter.
Between the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 (for DSLRs), there isn't really much in it for me between the two - both are stellar. The same goes for the Tamron 100-400 and Sigma 100-400. I think Tamron's VC is a bit better than Sigma's OS, maybe about a stop at best. But as far as the lenses' optical quality, there really isn't much in it - buy whichever fits your kit the best, which feels the best in your hand, etc.
I tried several Tamron and Sigma 150-600 lenses as well as the Sony 200-600.
After picking up the Sony, there's no way that you'd want a Tamron or Sigma. Better balance and better optically. Only a little more money, too.
That's not to say that the Sony is perfect. I hate the foot and ended up getting an aftermarket tripod foot.
Also "had" to buy a larger camera backpack and a new sling :-)
Probably Canon
Your semi-sexual jokes, if that's what they were meant to be, really detract from the main content of this video, if you know what I mean.
CLICK BAIT. Absolutely hate it when an article is written just to say GO WATCH A VIDEO. I clicked to READ, not to watch, and, sometimes/frequently a person is in a place where they cannot watch.
I am in agreement with you. I refuse to ever watch a video via clicking on a link here on Fstoppers. I already frequent YouTube, and subscribe to dozens of photography channels. The last think I need or want is someone telling me what to go watch on YouTube. As if I can't figure that out on my own. Sheesh!
That's what Alex Cooke's articles is. It's not articles, it's just linking to videos on YouTube. Just check his "articles", it's the same thing over and over. Can't call that journalism.