How do you go with the weight Thomas? I'd love either this or the sigma but the weight is what is holding me back. Have you tried the 11-20 mm yet?

This isn't an APS-C mount lens my friend. It's a full frame lens. Might want to keep that in mind.....

@@zacharydavis1137 We all know that

I just imagined trying to handhold a 15" Dob telescope. lol

Don't forget that it's a full frame lens, has image stabilization, is about as large as a medium kit lens, weighs about 300g, and has spectacular image quality.

@@NickAm01 30 Kg of lens ahaha

u have the Canon 50-1000 at least xd

@@sfdgrew354 More like Cannon xd

+1 In Europe, the Sigma is 1000 €, whereas the Tamron would come in at 1500 €. So while you lose a bit on the long end, the price diffference might place this as a straight competitor.

Check out Affirm. Pay over time

I hear ya, but worried about the aperture limitations in low light. Also, what does it cost?

@@alexnelson8 dude anything like 2.8 on the long end is going to cost around 10,000 USD

There's a progressive jump on price in tele lenses < 5.6 aperture at that length, basically it's your company paying for them.

Or 16.5mm to 750mm equivalent focal range considering the APSC 1.5x crop factor...

@@richardpcrowe True!

Especially AF with moving subjects and in low light

Absolutely!

There's plenty of videos on KZfaq.

Since it's an E lens it would project the image onto a similar sized section of the full frame sensor so I'm guessing it would work about the same.

@@JayWandersOut it’s full frame

If AF doesn’t work what is the point?

Bro I have one question can i use Sigma 150-600 on Sony a6400 without adopter ?????

@@sourabhmpatil No

@@akshirsamn but it's e mount lens ???

Oh yeah

There is a review on youtube that compare the 150-500 to the 200-600

@@HorusTheFalconX do you have a link? Thanks ☺️

@@eike.zender See Dustin Abbott's review

Just get this one. No brainer.

Thank you so much 😀

I agree with you. Sony must give us APSC shooters a Pro body camera with a modern BSI sensor.

Really, apsc bodies were designed to be compact for many,well known, reasons. If you want FF performance, perhaps it would make sense to head there?

@@robertcudlipp3426 Have you heard name of DSLR apsc models like Sony a77 or Nikon D500? You better to google them! Apsc cameras have always been a cheap option to give wildlife or sport shooters more reach. I hear you, the compact and light apsc is the majority usage because simply they can be cheaper but when Sony is charging 1400 for a6600! Man Sony a77 had same price which was phenomenal having front dial, joystick and a body just like the the pro ff a99! We have many apsc models in Sony but they all are so like each other! Canon will soon bring out their R7, then you will see what a major market is behind it! I hope Sony do it beforehand

@@robertcudlipp3426 BTW, I want a ff performance, but not a ff price, I also need the more reach given by the crop sensor, as you have heard in this review. The reason apsc cameras were produced was not so make them smaller than ff, a7c shows it, the reason was to be cheaper. And how can you have a compact package anyway when you want to put a big lens like this on your camera?

@@Greenepyon Exactly, and not only BSI but also a faster readout or even stacked sensor. Just imagine how crazy it is to get rid of the mechanical shutter? It's much more doable on a crop sensor. Sensor gets pricier but omitting the shutter will compensate the price . And we enjoy a 20fps or even 30fps, also get rid of the rolling shutter with the high speed readout sensor. Oh and the form factor! Why the hell apsc users dn't deserve to have simple things like front dial or joystick???

The Sigma is not full wheather sealed and the auto focus is not fast as this Tamron beast. If you don‘t need this the Sigma is a good choice .

@@markwuch8936 Fast autofocus is important. I must look at more tests. Maybe buy the old and very expensive 100-400 GM.

@@TVe200 what do you plan to shoot? I have shot softball and lacrosse with the sigma and my a6400. The af isn't fast enough for me w/the keeper rate being atrocious. If I'd use it for regular shoots (not sports) it would be fine b/c when it hits it's great, but I'm going to sell it and cover the rest of the cost to get the sony gm. Lmk if you have any questions.

@@markwuch8936 how do you know Sigma does not focus as fast as Tamron?

In Germany the 200-600 costs only about 15% more. It might be a consideration for those interested. But as you mention the weight: the 200-600 weights about 22,5% more. Not to talk about the ovarall size. In the end the streetprice should be less and it is great to see there are such good lenses out there for let's say, ambitious amateurs too.

One huge difference is that the Sony 200-600 has internal zoom. It makes a big difference as your lens will not extend, it is super butter smooth. I've handheld it at 600mm when taking a picture of a bird with my A7R3. Picture came out perfect in all respects. I will go with the Sony as I feel it is a much nicer lens overall, and it is painted white.

In my country 200-600 costs 100% more 😂

Dammit now you mentioned it I can't unsee it. :) Arthur pls fix.

No need to waste money on anything else for telephoto other than 200-600mm. I never regretted spending the extra $

Yep even with such great quality, I would still lean towards sigma 100-400 and use the extra money for a tripod or something.

@@JustAskThisDad Actually, I wanted the Sigma but had to get the Sony 70-350 for availability reasons at the time. Then I got to test both of them side by side photographing Quetzals in the highlands of Costa Rica in April and the Sony was significantly sharper at 350 than the Sigma at 400. So you get a bit less reach, but it was focusing better and was giving me a sharper image.

@@tylrwnzl Ooh nice to know. I have been eying them both for a while and was set on 100-400. Maybe I will have to try out the other one as well.

@@JustAskThisDad not sure if you made a decision yet. I was going through the same decision process. I decided on the Sigma for several reasons. Most importantly, when I compared image samples for both lenses, the Sigma consistently looked sharper. I didn't have first hand experience with both lenses, so that was the only comparison I could make. Other reasons for my decision include the Sigma is made in Japan, while the Sony is made in China. The Sigma has more elements, more groups, more blades for better bokeh, longer reach, is upward compatible with full frame (although you can buy the 70-300 Sony but lose another 50mm reach), and longer warranty. The Sony is better weather sealed, has a shorter minimum focus distance, and doesn't require a lens collar (well, I guess technically the Sigma doesn't as well, but for the size and weight, I wouldn't use it without one). If I had the extra money to spend, this Tamron would have definitely been a strong contender in my choices. I picked up the Sigma yesterday, and so far it is living up to all my expectations. Looking forward to really putting it though its paces when I get out photographing some surfers, which is my primary reason for getting the lens. Just thought I would pass along my thoughts in case you are still trying to decide what to go with.

It is lighter but whether or not it's significant would be up to the individual. The Tamon weighs in at 4lbs 3 oz and the Sony at 4lbs 10 oz. That's about a 10% difference. The Sony also sticks out more so it might feel heavier just because of that. The size difference, close focusing difference (Tamron is significantly better than the Sony 200 - 600) and the limit on frames per second at 15 (Tamron) are the main differences that I gathered from the reviews I've seen. This is definitely a compelling lens and may feel lighter because it's more compact - but like Arthur said - it is a beast. For someone like me who shoots wildlife - including close-ups of insects on flowers and plants - this is a very attractive lens that has a wider focal length which will also allow me to keep the lens on my camera for those wider shots.

@@dfusselman Ah, you're correct that it is only ~10% heavier, the number I had in my head was the weight of my Sony lens + body. With regards to the size difference, when the lens hood is on, the Sony 200-600 looks more like a small telescope, and I've had random people pass by and ask if I'm planning to take pictures of mars, etc (rightfully so). The Tamron looks very modestly sized, especially when it is not extended. I'm very curious now to try out both and see if handling the Tamron does indeed just feel slightly lighter, or if the size has a more significant effect Tamron: 209-283 x 93mm Sony: 318 x 111mm I've kind of mentally refused to accept that the Sony 200-600mm weighs just over 2L of water, considering how sore/tired I've gotten lugging that thing 8+ miles a few different occasions. I guess I don't carry my water around my neck or in my hands and point it out in front of me for extended periods of time, so that likely explains a lot :)

@@zuzusangry7129 I'm glad you mentioned your experiences with the 200 600. I shoot Panasonic M43 now and my Panny 100 - 400 is very comfortable at 2 and 1/4 lbs. With the two times crop factor it's a 200 - 800 full frame equivalent so it's fiercely strong. It does very well but I'm going to be trying a A7R4 soon and if I keep it I'll need to make a decision about what long lens to use, or just keep my GH5 for distant subjects.

Which adapter do you use? I tried the Tamron150600-V2 canon mount with a Sigma MC11 and the AF was totally unusable...

@@akshirsamn I have the A mount version and use it with the official Sony A to E mount adapter

I have the A6400 and 70-350 as well and think that the body/lens combo is a little unbalanced. At 4 pounds, I don't see using the Tamron on an A6400 without a monopod.

Yes! Just got it in yesterday. Excited about it.

@@ArthurR me too, it seems almost too good

I m planning to buy sigma 150-600 mm for my Sony apsc body. Please how is AF or sharpness ? I m bit confused on it with Tamron 150-500 mm. Please guide.

By then the babies would have hatched and migrated south for the winter maybe. Being on a kind of senior budget but fairly able bodies, I have able to sneak up on wildlife using soft footsteps for zoom. Doesn't help with low low light in a forest canopy or evenings when certain animals are on the move. Still looking for a compromise to hang on the trusty a6000 besides the 210 that I can actually afford.

Probably some bad copy with broken VC, with my copy I was able to shot @500mm(750mm eqv) with my a6600 even @1/30s. VC for photo is really good, but for video is too jerky to get good footage.

im sorry, but the Tamron is about double the price of the 70-350

Depends what u shoting, for birding its huge difference, much easier to fill the frame with subject. For example with 70-350 I were hunting for good picture of little tit bird for a week, and still wasn't satisfied with result, couldn't get close enough, with tammy I gone for a 30 minute walk and did plenty of good, tack sharp shots of this tiny bird. But there also its huge difference in size and weight, after a few hours walk with sony I didn't feel it much, while with tamron 2 hrs walk and my muscles where shaking because of exhaustion :D

It'll do a job in daylight.

I have the 70-350 for my A6400. It's a tad unbalanced, but I am sure not as unbalanced as this Tamron lens would be. I don't see using the Tamron on a body smaller than the A6600 without a monopod. Also, the 70-350 is sharp and focuses fast, but it goes to f/6.3 at 200mm. Like the Tamron, pretty dim.

This one will always be superior lens from image quality perspective. Due to shallow depth of field offered by 500mm. But handling will be an issue especially with apsc bodies.

The 70-350 focuses really quickly. I would think as long as you aren't trying to take shots from the opposite goal, 350mm can get you enough zoom. 500mm might be overkill and the lens may make it more difficult to align and focus in time for the shot. But at the end of the day, I bet the taproom 150-500 has the potential to produce the better picture, you just have to work (and pay more) for it

@@vaibhavpisal For birds and other wildlife photography we dream of an APS-C sensor in an A9 body. Nikon had the D500, Sony will probably never give us that. They are more conserned about vloggers.

What makes you not sell the 16-55? between the 17-70 and 16-55, which one do you enjoy better? pros and cons?

@@stefpix Thanks for the question. No good reason, really. I haven't had the Tamron that long and I was trying it out. But really I don't have any complaints about it so far. I like the OSS and the farther reach. It is a matter of time before I sell the Sony. For me there's something about staying all Sony. But I'm coming to my senses.

@@ric79demor54 yes. I have the 16-55 and I am selling the older Sony Zeiss 16-70, whose OSS may not be as good as the Tamron. The Tamron may be better for traveling. ALthough selling the 16-55 may be a loss. I use it for jobs. But it has no OSS, which for video is a handicap. Maybe if the Tamron goes 100 off at some point I will pull the trigger. Does the Tamron have any weather sealing?

why would it be so awesome for astro when there are 600 6.3 standardly

@@_systemd because of the focal length. At 750 on a crop sensor, it’s good reach without having to buy a telescope. The 6.3 wouldn’t bother me when I’m trying to image nebula. I do the same thing with my tamron 70-300.

The lens is full frame actually

The thing is, if you want a good low light telephoto lens for wildlife, you need around 8-12k$. If you cannot justify this purchase, you are stuck between this and 200-600. Tough life of wildlife photographers on a budget :D

It will focus well only if you have enough light, like sunny outdoors. In low light you will have to crank up ISO

Go the opposite direction :) effective max aperture technically gets wider when using full frame on APS-C. It would get smaller if you used APS-C on full frame uncorrected without a speed booster.