Tamron 150-600mm f/6.3

[FastGass]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=8670

This is a very interesting lens! It has the same aperture/focal length as my beloved Minolta 600mm f/6.3 but with AF and IS, I don't think the image quality will be near as good as my prime but it will give a much better keeper rate and to be able to get images near impossible without it. The main thing for me is the compression and amount of background blur will be essentially the same as my lens.

I probably won't be selling my lens unless the IQ really surprises me.

Cheers,
John.

[conropl]

Does this mean you are buying one?

[FastGass]

If the IQ is surprisingly good I would definitely consider it. And I will still have a few bucks left over from selling my 600 for something else.


John.

[Dave Throgmartin]

My longest lens right now is 280mm (70-200 f/4 USM + 1.4x extender) so maybe beggars shouldn't be choosers? http://community.the-digital-picture.com/images/smilies/smile.png

I'd have to figure the Tamron would clean up over that combination's image quality like the 400 prime does.

I'll consider buying the lens if:

-- Image quality at 400mm and beyond is reasonable for the price. I'm not expecting Canon prime 400mm f/5.6 performance at 400mm, but I would like this lens at ~ 560mm (double pixels on subject) to be better than the 400mm f/5.6.
-- Autofocus is at least decent speed, given the ultrasonic motor I think this is likely to be ok. Again, I don't expect miracles here. If it can focus as well as the 70-200 with an extender I'd be ok. 55-250 focusing speed would not be acceptable to me.
-- I decide the weight is in the range I'm willing to carry, it's over 1.5 lbs heavier than 400mm f/5.6!

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

I think an affordable 600mm lens with AF and VC could be a great thing for many photographers. I do worry that 600mm is a gimmick, though - that too many optical compromises were made to bring a 600mm lens down to that price point.

It seems at least possible that at 600mm, a shot from the current 100-400L will have similar or better IQ. With Sigma's affordable xxx-500mm zoom lenses, the cropped 100-400L delivers better IQ.

[Lumens]

I think many of us, especially the outdoor photographers are looking forward to reviews and reports on this lens once it is out. I know I have been putting off the 100-400L due to cost and reviews I have read (it could use an update from what I have read) - at the low price point this lens will either sit or fly off the shelves once the word gets out. If it performs the price point will definitely move it.

I have noticed it comes with post-processing software "Free". I have not seen that kind of offer very often - it makes me wonder if post processing is required to overcome some limitations. I am sure we will see.

[DavidEccleston]

Here's some sample shots at http://blog.naver.com/sp_marketing/70179201020 . Click an image, then the little zoom button to get a more detailed view.

More: http://camerarumors.blogspot.ca/2013/11/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-sample_8.html

[Kayaker72]

This lens is starting to look interesting.....granted, I can see some flaws....but it may cross the "good enough" barrier. Definitely interested to see some reviews, especially Bryan's....I may be most interested in Canon's response.

Here is a link I saw on CR earlier (http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1) today....

[Dave Throgmartin]

... I do worry that 600mm is a gimmick, though - that too many optical compromises were made to bring a 600mm lens down to that price point. It seems at least possible that at 600mm, a shot from the current 100-400L will have similar or better IQ...

If at 600mm the image quality is equivocal to the cropped 100-400 I think there's a lot of people who would be satisified although they hoped for me. If image quality is outright worse despite 2.25x as many pixels then I think the lens would be a disappointment, especially if the difference is sizable.

3rd party makers have certainly come a long way in the past few years. This may be Tamron's shot -- show us a quality 600mm for a value level cost and much more business could come their way in the future for other lenses.

$1,069 is surely inexpensive for a 600mm lens, but is still a lot of money to many people. It will need to deliver performance, at least to some extent, if they are to sell a lot of them.

Dave

[Dave Throgmartin]

This lens is starting to look interesting.....granted, I can see some flaws....but it may cross the "good enough" barrier. Definitely interested to see some reviews, especially Bryan's....I may be most interested in Canon's response.

Here is a link I saw on CR earlier (http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1) today....

In this comparison the 150-600 soundly defeats the 300 f/2.8 L IS version 1. If that is true I think everyone will be ecstatic.

Dave

[FastGass]

I highly doubt that link, I just can't see a compromise lens outperforming a top of the line professional prime lens even with extenders.

John.

[Kayaker72]

....but...but...everything on the internet has to be true....


;)

This lens is intriguing me more and more. Here is my prediction. This lens will be surprisingly sharp for a 4x zoom out to 600 mm that costs $1,064. But it will primarily be sharp in the center and much softer at the edges, likely also soft mid-frame at 600 f/6.3. This could explain the photos in the links. The comparison images are of the center where the 2xTC hurts the 300 mm Mk I.

In a couple of weeks, we'll know more. But, what I am wrestling with is, if I am right, is that enough for me? And it will likely depend upon how soft. But I was considering a 300 mm Mk II with 1.4x and 2x TCs as a portable (kayakable) supertele. From what I see, this is about the same size and over a pound lighter (when you include the TC). Of course, I am losing aperture, but, it is also 1/6th the price.

[Joel Eade]

The test images of print look pretty good. The Tamron seems to have excellent contrast and center sharpness if you accept that the images are un-processed. The wildlife images from Yellowstone are much less impressive to me. Clicking on them and enlarging doesn't reveal detail anywhere near a prime lens, especially the Swan picture. Could it be poor technique? Sure, it could be. But, I wouldn't consider getting one until it's been in the hands of reputable reviewers for a while.

[Busted Knuckles]

If you have seen one MTF chart.... http://www.tamron-usa.com/A011special/en/lineup/a011/mtf/index.html

The MTF chart on the Tamaron web site looked pretty good?

Which might be the best and hand tuned (ya think?) vs. what comes off the end of the assembly line...

[Lumens]

I would suspect what comes off the assembly line will be close but not quite the quality of the Manufacturer's "Prime Example" test results. The tolerances on the assembly line I am sure will be created based on the Prime Example" of the manufacturer's desired outcome. I would expect similar results in the final product.

With that said though I am noticing on ALL the boards I read the "True Standard" for all lenses is the Canon "L" series of lenses. All third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) are compared to a compatible "L" series lens. The Tamron seems to come in a close second and Sigma third in respect from reviewers. So for me it does come down to cost.

In the 150-600 comparison the only similar Lens I know from Canon is the Canon 100-400 L zoom lens - any more reach goes to prime lenses in the Canon Series. All quite a bit more expensive than the Tamron. The 100 - 400 runs around $1600 compared to a rounded $1100 from the Tamron.

If I was a professional (My income depended on my equipment) then only the best can be accepted - I would purchase only the Canon "L" series, but with Tamron being a very close second choice to the "Standard" at $100's of dollars less it is a grand choice to be had. I will be taking a very close look. The question becomes "How much loss in IQ compared to a Canon 'L'?" and "Is that acceptable considering the amount of savings?". In short does the difference in IQ overcome the extra reach and cost savings.

The extra reach and cost are very desirable aspects of the new lens. I suspect for most hobbyists the difference in IQ from the "Assembly Line" product will prove to be the deciding factor in the decision.

[Kayaker72]

http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/

The website is slow to load, but what I can gather so far is that it is a good lens, but not up to par with the Canon 600 f/4 or Canon 500 f/4 + 1.4xTC.

Which is to be expected considering the price difference. Also, there is still a question as to if the review was a pre-production or production model tested.

[Dave Throgmartin]

http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/
...what I can gather so far is that it is a good lens, but not up to par with the Canon 600 f/4 or Canon 500 f/4 + 1.4xTC.


That's not very shocking...

On another note it is a bit disappointing to see this is a Chinese manufactured lens, that doesn't point to excellent QC. I was very interested in this lens at first, but my interest is fading.

If something seems too good to be true it probably is and $1,000 for a quality 600mm falls into that category. I found a guy who's taken some excellent shots with a Sigma 150-500 and the Tamron is likely to be better than that, but the odds of the Tamron being more valuable than the Canon 400 prime are looking doubtful. The Canon is shorter, but has really good IQ for the length, and top of the line autofocus.

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/

The website is slow to load, but what I can gather so far is that it is a good lens, but not up to par with the Canon 600 f/4 or Canon 500 f/4 + 1.4xTC.

Which is to be expected considering the price difference. Also, there is still a question as to if the review was a pre-production or production model tested.

It was loaned to him by Tamron HK, so even if it was a production lens, there's a good chance it was cherry-picked to provide an excellent copy for review.

[Kayaker72]

Optically seems equivalent to the 100-400L up to 400 mm. Pretty impressive considering the price. I'd still like to see reviews on AF, VC, etc. But the IQ does drop off at 600 mm. I assume that was at f/6.3. I wonder what it would be at f/8? Or 500 mm? How it compares to the 100-400L or 400 f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC or cropped?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

But, as an interim step before I can afford a big white lens, the Tamron is still at least a little tempting. I've gone from not caring at all about it to at least considering it a little. I'll wait for a few more hands one experiences from trusted sources.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Brant,

There is a graph that shows 500mm to have a value of ~ 800. So at 500mm you're basically getting the Sigma 50-500 (780) or Tamron 200-500 (795) performance at 400mm.

There was a quote from Roger in the comments as well, "JRM and Jesse, one thing that images online seem to demonstrate very well is the Tamron at 600mm and f/8 is much, much sharper than it is wide open. I regret not testing it there but literally by the time we finished the last images at 600mm they were waiting on us to lock up the building so I had to quit."

Based off that the 600mm performance stopped down I think will likely be good enough for most of the target buyers for the lens. It should be a good step up from the current Sigmas (50-500, 150-500) and Tamron 200-500 for sure.

I'd expect the Canon 400 f/5.6 prime lens at 400mm will likely be equivalent to the Tamron at 500mm with the 100-400 trailing slightly based off Roger's results. Maybe the 600mm capability of the Tamron puts it ahead of the Canon options (100-400, 400)?

But, those are for properly focused shots. How accurate will the autofocus be?

Either way this is a huge triumph for the photographer on a budget. Pretty good quality results at 500mm with VC and autofocus can now be had by the masses who only have to save up a little more than $1,000. This should put some pressure on Canon. I'd imagine this will eat some 100-400 sales and may limit Canon's ability to charge as of a high price for the 100-400 refresh (whenever it comes out) as they had wanted and has been estimated.

I might buy a real telephoto this year and am unsure if I'd get the Canon 400 prime or this new Tamron.

Dave

[M_Six]

Hopefully the Tamron 150-600 will get tested here at TDP. I'm thinking it's not worth the outlay over my 400 5.6 + 1.4x TC III combo. Especially since it seems the Tamron only gets sharp at f8. The one instance I think the Tamron will work better is at airshows where the image stab will aid with prop blur.

[Kayaker72]

Dave...thanks, I missed that.

Here is a hands-on review.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review/

I haven't yet read it all. But the parts that I did read seem to indicate that this is a great lens...for the price.

EDIT---the more I think about this, I think I am in a similar boat as Mark. Now that some real information is coming in, I am not sure this lens fits into my kit. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I'd probably think about it more. But a 25% drop in resolution from 400 mm to 600 mm. Is that really any better than the 100-400L with a 1.4x TC (560 mm)? I doubt it. Sure there is 2/3 stop of light gained. But, it seems that you have to stop down with the Tamron anyway. In looking at my kit, I could add a $400 item that can be used with other lenses and keep my kit smaller, lighter and more flexible.

Plus, I am looking to increase my IQ from the 100-400L. I am not looking for "similar too." If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I'd probably be more tempted as the 100-400L + a 1.4x TC is >$2,000 vs $1,067. So, I'll keep looking at the reviews and maybe I'll see something that changes my mind. And I hope, if nothing else, this puts enough pressure on Canon to update the 100-400L. Because I think what I'd really like is the refresh of that lens or the a 400 f/5.6 IS until I can afford a big white lens.

[neuroanatomist]

But, it seems that you have to stop down with the Tamron anyway.

Stopping down helps most lenses. Some of the discussion around how much it will help is based on this graph:

http://img2.fengniao.com/product/126/740/cecqljBpdkDI.jpg

I wonder how accurate those data are, given the apparently minor effect of diffraction at f/32...

[Dave Throgmartin]

Dave...thanks, I missed that.

Here is a hands-on review.

http://www.dustinabbott.net/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review/

I haven't yet read it all. But the parts that I did read seem to indicate that this is a great lens...for the price.

EDIT---the more I think about this, I think I am in a similar boat as Mark. Now that some real information is coming in, I am not sure this lens fits into my kit. If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I'd probably think about it more. But a 25% drop in resolution from 400 mm to 600 mm. Is that really any better than the 100-400L with a 1.4x TC (560 mm)? I doubt it. Sure there is 2/3 stop of light gained. But, it seems that you have to stop down with the Tamron anyway. In looking at my kit, I could add a $400 item that can be used with other lenses and keep my kit smaller, lighter and more flexible.

Plus, I am looking to increase my IQ from the 100-400L. I am not looking for "similar too." If I didn't already have the 100-400L, I'd probably be more tempted as the 100-400L + a 1.4x TC is >$2,000 vs $1,067. So, I'll keep looking at the reviews and maybe I'll see something that changes my mind. And I hope, if nothing else, this puts enough pressure on Canon to update the 100-400L. Because I think what I'd really like is the refresh of that lens or the a 400 f/5.6 IS until I can afford a big white lens.

I'd have to say the Tamron is likely more targeted at the 70D, 60D, and Rebel crowd. As you go up the class of camera scale most folks will opt for higher grade lenses. It's horses for courses as they say. Some 5D users may pick it, but I would expect there to be fewer of them that do. I can't imagine seeing a modern 1D with this lens.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

I'd have to say the Tamron is likely more targeted at the 70D, 60D, and Rebel crowd. As you go up the class of camera scale most folks will opt for higher grade lenses. It's horses for courses as they say. Some 5D users may pick it, but I would expect there to be fewer of them that do. I can't imagine seeing a modern 1D with this lens.

Dave

I think it provides an interesting alternative to the 100-400L, 400 f/5.6, and Sigma offerings. So there is a nice market there. The reviewer, Dustin Abbott, seems pretty enthralled with it and he typically shoots the 6D. It will get a lot of people that want reach that are on a budget. About the same time I bought my 100-400L, a friend bought the Sigma 150-500mm. He was having some fun with the fact that I paid more for less reach. But, in the end, I use my 100-400L all the time and he was pretty disappointed with the optics of the Sigma. Based on the data to date, I think the Tamron is better than that particular Sigma and like I said above, if I didn't already have the 100-400L, I'd definitely be considering it. But, in the end, I think I am in the market for better optics. Had the Tamron @ 500 mm/600mm with that 95 mm front element been similar to the 100-400L @ 400 mm with the 77 mm front element, I'd probably buy one. But that 25% hit is too much.



Stopping down helps most lenses. Some of the discussion around how much it will help is based on this graph:

http://img2.fengniao.com/product/126/740/cecqljBpdkDI.jpg

I wonder how accurate those data are, given the apparently minor effect of diffraction at f/32...

Exactly what I thought when I saw that graph. Diffraction on most FF cameras starts in at f/10 or so. How is this lens peaking at f/11 to f/16? So that is issue #1. Second issue, even if accurate, that is 2-3 stops of light lost from f/5.6 on the 100-400L. That is significant for moving subjects, such as BIF. Another way to look at it, one of the reasons I moved to the 5DIII was to get the 2 stops of light ISO noise advantage. The 1.6x crop factor applied to 400 mm is 640mm. So, I'd likely be better off with the 7D and 100-400L combo than the 5DIII Tamron combo in terms of both IQ, reach and shutter speed.

I bet there is a pretty good market for this lens. It is affordable and many will buy it for the "600 mm". But pragmatically speaking, it seem like there are better combos out there for me. Where the jury is still out, as Dave mentioned, are those with cropped sensor cameras may covet the 960 mm reach. And perhaps the center IQ will be worth it. It will be interesting to see as more reviews come in.

[Busted Knuckles]

I put in a pre-order and will test against my 70-200 w/ the 2x, my strategy is that they would be paying extra close attention to the 1st lenses out of the factory ? :) ?

Given the price, I am not expecting all that much. "deal price to deal price" there is a 2x or better difference, and you get 200mm extra reach.... hmmmm

Mike

[Kayaker72]

I put in a pre-order and will test against my 70-200 w/ the 2x, my strategy is that they would be paying extra close attention to the 1st lenses out of the factory ? :) ?

Given the price, I am not expecting all that much. "deal price to deal price" there is a 2x or better difference, and you get 200mm extra reach.... hmmmm

Mike

Great. I am glad someone here is going to take a look. Please post the results.

[Joel Eade]

A little more info on the Tamron 150-600 from Roger at lensrentals.com

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

[thekingb]

If the initial reviews are like Dustin's, I'm in for this lens. I've been trying to get to 600mm for a reasonable price for a long time.

[Kayaker72]

Another review http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

For comparison sake, here is the EFS 55-250 STM (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5-6-is-stm-lens-review-23765) from the same website.

[Colin500]

I'd have to say the Tamron is likely more targeted at the 70D, 60D, and Rebel crowd. As you go up the class of camera scale most folks will opt for higher grade lenses. It's horses for courses as they say. Some 5D users may pick it, but I would expect there to be fewer of them that do. I can't imagine seeing a modern 1D with this lens.

Well, I'm considering one for my 1DX :-)

Has anybody already got one???

[Sean Setters]

TDP is scheduled to get one of B&H's first shipments. But we don't have ours yet. :-(

[peety3]

Well, I'm considering one for my 1DX :-)

I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", and therefore I'm not considering one for my 1DXes. I'll pay the Canon premium (or the Zeiss premium, though not a "factor" in this particular range) and be a brand snob. ;)

[Sean Setters]

I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", and therefore I'm not considering one for my 1DXes. I'll pay the Canon premium (or the Zeiss premium, though not a "factor" in this particular range) and be a brand snob. ;)

Indeed, you do get what you pay for most of the time. However, there are instances where the lower cost item makes more sense than the higher priced one.

For example, I picked up a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 lens for use with my 5D III instead of picking up the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L II USM. Cost difference right now - $399.00 vs $2,234.00. In fact, I got the Rokinon while it was on sale, so I didn't even pay that much.

Why did I buy the Rokinon? Well, because I intended on only using the wide-angle lens for tripod mounted panoramas. And in that case, automatic aperture control and AF are unnecessary features to me. Also, while the Canon is much better wide open, both lenses are pretty much the same at f/8 - and that's exactly where I want to be (or narrower) when using my wide angle lens for panoramas.

The only halfway important differentiator for me was distortion. In that aspect, the Canon beats the pants off the Rokinon lens. That said, software can correct both lenses' distortion fairly well. In fact, I was surprised just how well my software was able to correct the Rokinon's distortion.

Therefore, it just didn't make sense to purchase the more expensive Canon lens. True, you may get what you pay for - but sometimes you don't need the incremental benefits that the more expensive lens has to offer. And then again, sometimes you do.

:-)

[Colin500]

I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", and therefore I'm not considering one for my 1DXes. I'll pay the Canon premium (or the Zeiss premium, though not a "factor" in this particular range) and be a brand snob. ;)
Super-tele is not one of my main use cases, in fact I haven't got anything beyond 200mm, so for me it's just a cheap possibility to play around with some focal lengths that are not my primary (or even secondary) interest... Otherwise I'm quite snobbish, too, all my AF lenses are Canon :-)

[Colin500]

Therefore, it just didn't make sense to purchase the more expensive Canon lens. True, you may get what you pay for - but sometimes you don't need the incremental benefits that the more expensive lens has to offer. And then again, sometimes you do.

Well said.

Btw, I have both the nifty fifty and the 50L, and use both, on a 1DX, depending on what's going on. (With the nifty fifty I can laugh it off when a kid happens to touch the lens.)

And I have been thinking about the Rokinon 14mm for a long time, but given that 35mm feels wide to me I don't want to invest in an expensive UWA before I'm sure it'll be of use.

[Sean Setters]

And don't get me wrong, I love my Canon lenses. But the stigma of 3rd party lenses being inferior is slowly being eroded. Look at what Sigma has done with their Global Vision Art lenses. And let's not forget, Zeiss is a third-party lens maker - and it's difficult to question the quality of their lenses.

In today's lens market it makes less sense to limit your choices to only OEM lenses.

[neuroanatomist]

And don't get me wrong, I love my Canon lenses. But the stigma of 3rd party lenses being inferior is slowly being eroded. Look at what Sigma has done with their Global Vision Art lenses. And let's not forget, Zeiss is a third-party lens maker - and it's difficult to question the quality of their lenses.

In today's lens market it makes less sense to limit your choices to only OEM lenses.

The fly in that ointment is future compatibility, particularly with AF systems. Doesn't matter for Zeiss, of course, and Sigma's Dock is a great solution. But what about Tamron and Tokina? Tamron was impacted not too long ago, several of their lenses including the popular 17-50/2.8 were found to activate the 8 off-center cross-type AF points of the 40D/50D/60D/7D as single-orientation lines instead of crosses. I don't know if that issue also affects the subsequent bodies that inherited those AF systems (70D/T4i/T5i). Canon acknowledged the problem, which affected some really old Canon lenses from which Tamron 'borrowed' the LensID code, but they didn't say they fixed it, AFAIK. They may not have seen a need, certainly not for Tamron's benefit.

[Sean Setters]

The fly in that ointment is future compatibility, particularly with AF systems. Doesn't matter for Zeiss, of course, and Sigma's Dock is a great solution. But what about Tamron and Tokina? Tamron was impacted not too long ago, several of their lenses including the popular 17-50/2.8 were found to activate the 8 off-center cross-type AF points of the 40D/50D/60D/7D as single-orientation lines instead of crosses. I don't know if that issue also affects the subsequent bodies that inherited those AF systems (70D/T4i/T5i). Canon acknowledged the problem, which affected some really old Canon lenses from which Tamron 'borrowed' the LensID code, but they didn't say they fixed it, AFAIK. They may not have seen a need, certainly not for Tamron's benefit.

True, there are still concerns regarding the purchase of specific third-party lenses. However, Sigma's USB Dock is a huge step in the right direction. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tamron jumping on that bandwagon in the future.

[neuroanatomist]

True, there are still concerns regarding the purchase of specific third-party lenses. However, Sigma's USB Dock is a huge step in the right direction. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tamron jumping on that bandwagon in the future.

That would be great! Is the Sigma Dock compatible with lenses released before the Dock itself?

[Sean Setters]

The Sigma Dock is only compatible with Global Vision Lenses - in other words, everything released after [and including] the 35mm f/1.4 Art lens.

[Joel Eade]

I would agree that many of the current 3rd party lenses are equal to or superior to Canon. image quality How well these will hold value long term is yet to be seen in most cases. The argument for purchasing Canon L lenses is that they do hold value very well especially when new versions are released. I have the 300/2.8L and the 500 f/4L. The current prices for used copies of these lenses is equal to or slightly more than I paid for them a few years ago. I don't know if the really good Sigma and Tamron will hold value as well long term. The much lower initial acquisition cost may offset those concerns for many folks.

[Joel Eade]

The super teles remain in their own category which is why I limited the scope to under 200mm focal length. With them the difference in photos is obvious which leaves the user to decide if the IQ gain is worth the price increase to them. I would guess this may be the case for the most part but.... I bought Version 1 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM in 2008 new for $1600 and sold it in 2012 for $1500. So I used that lens 4 years for $100.

I believe the main reason is that the newer version came out at $2299 and that immediately boosted the price of the used version 1 lenses. Same scenario for the super-tele lenses and the 24-70mm f/2.8L

[Joel Eade]

I wonder how this lens compares with the Canon 200-400mm?

http://www.lensauthority.com/sigma-200-500mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-apo-for-canon-1001119-9-5/

[Sean Setters]

I wonder how this lens compares with the Canon 200-400mm?

http://www.lensauthority.com/sigma-200-500mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-apo-for-canon-1001119-9-5/

If you buy it, just have it sent to us first. We'll test it out for you. ;-)

[Kayaker72]

For those keeping up with the data coming out on the Tamron 150-600, AlanF on CR has a pretty good thread (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0)going where he is going through analyzing his. Of particular note, on page 5 he published his FoCal Aperture Sharpness data.

I've become convinced that this lens is optically a good alternative as long as you are shooting f/8-f/11 at 600 mm. But I've seen a couple of references (here (http://chewyenfook.smugmug.com/Photography/Tamro-150-600-VS-Canon-400mm/36134215_3P9q3W#!i=3030095385&k=Q6n39TN) and in the comments here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/35175693@N07/12063108074/in/photolist-jnYzKY-jnWx2r-jnY7Ux-jnWwFg-jo26EL-jnYzCy-jnWxPi-jnWy6k-jnWymR-jnWxZt-jnWwEp-jnY79p-jnY6g2-jnWy3e-jnY7tx-jo26ru-jupK2t-jup15M-jYmy9o-jGnmC3-jupk9Z-juraWA-jusA6C-jGmatG-juUf74-jGiBct-jGiBNi-jGiJj4-jGjtvg-jGnqTY-jGk6s5-jGieKn-jGizH6-jGkgdX-jGjk9g-jQL6QS-jGktn7-jGkpGG-jGm4CU-jGm8bf-jGi4Xg-jGkjLQ-jGkYpY-jGm3qJ-jGi1EV-jGkWHw-jGm6WS-jZ6u7F-jGhPXc-jGkbqS-jGiGh8)) indicating that AF is likely an issue for BIF.

EDIT...just saw the link to DXO's review (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender) pop up.

[Busted Knuckles]

My wife called and let me know my lens showed up today - I will be playing/testing it on Saturday and post some shots, etc, etc.

[Kayaker72]

Great. I am excited to hear what you think.

[DavidEccleston]

Awesome. Can't wait to hear your report.

[Joel Eade]

EDIT...just saw the link to DXO's review (http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender) pop up.
They gave it a similar score to the Canon 100-400 on the 5D MKIII but not as good on the 7D.

The overall scores on a 5D MKIII

Tamron 150-600 17
Canon 200-400 f/4 24
Canon 600 f/4 II 26
Canon 300 f/2.8 II 32

[neuroanatomist]

The overall scores on a 5D MKIII

Tamron 150-600 17
Canon 200-400 f/4 24
Canon 600 f/4 II 26
Canon 300 f/2.8 II 32

The next time I'm shooting in a dimly lit warehouse with a camera that can't go over ISO 100, I'll keep those overall scores in mind. :p

For those who don't know, the DxOMark Lens Score is based mainly on performance in 150 lux illumination at 1/60 s and ISO 100, and is only slightly influenced by optically important things like sharpness, vignetting, distortion, and CA (or so I infer from comparing many of their measurements, because the don't actually say how their scores are determined, it's a 'black box' calculation). The 50mm f/1.8 II gets an overall score of 28 on the 5DIII (which makes sense in context, because at 1/60 s and ISO 100 in a dim warehouse or an hour before sunrise, I'd pick the f/1.8 lens over the f/4 lenses, too!).

Of course, with the Tamron lens you have the option of using it in a Nikon mount, and if you're relying on DxOMark Scores, you really should use the Nikon version. For example, with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (which Bryan suggests (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx) may be the best wide angle lens available), the Nikon mount version gets an overall score of 25 on the D800, whereas the Canon version gets only a 22 on the 5DIII…despite the 5DIII measurements showing higher sharpness and transmission, less distortion, and equal vignetting and CA. The D800 has higher dynamic range than the 5DIII at ISO 100, and that means the Nikon mount version of the same Zeiss lens gets a higher Score.

2153

Basically, I'd recommend ignoring DxOMark's Scores completely. You can get some useful information from their Measurements if you look at the details, but be careful there, too. For example, they initially stated that the 70-200/2.8L IS II was not quite as good as the MkI version of that lens…when they were called on it by pretty much everyone who'd used or tested both, they defended their tests and said 'no mistake' but later quietly fixed their measurements to show the MkII as better. Likewise, their measurements show that the 17-40L wide open is nearly as sharp in the corners as in the center, and that the corners of the 17-40 at f/4 are substantially sharper than the corners of the 16-35 II with the latter stopped down to f/5.6. Both of those are clearly wrong, as you can see from the ISO 12233 comparison (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3).

2154

[Joel Eade]

[QUOTE=neuroanatomist;87132]The next time I'm shooting in a dimly lit warehouse with a camera that can't go over ISO 100, I'll keep those overall scores in mind. :p[QUOTE]I didn't intend to assign any degree of validity or lack thereof to the composite scores and I appreciate your analysis of the methodology as I could never do that myself. I am very much a real world type.....shoot some pics and look at them would be my method of choice:)

[DavidEccleston]

Yeah, I'd looked at some scores DxO gave to my lenses to compared to that 150-600 result, on both 5DIII and 7D. I saw strange scores. I think maximum aperture ends up being the biggest indicator of score, ignoring anything else.

My 70-300L on a 7D scores a measly 13 (21 on 5D3). This lens is quite sharp, even wide open, but that poor f/5.6 aperture means DxO calls it near worthless. The 24-105L, has the same 13/21 scores, despite not being known as a super sharp lens, simply because it can score some marks at f/4. They have some tick marks in the 'Measurements' result graph. I'm going to assume that their overall score is some sort of average based on on their marked locations. This means the poor results you get at f/36 are dragging down the lens's score. The 300mm f/2.8L II gets nice scores at 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, and 8, an okay at 11, and poor at 30. Because the Tamron doesn't get any scores in the 2.8 / 4.0 range, it just gets okay to poor scores, and a bad overall score as a result. The 70-300L's score advantage looks like it's solely based on the f/4 and f/4.5 scores at the low-ender of the zoom range.

While I'm sure we'd all love a 600mm f/2.8 lens, few of us would want to carry it, or pay for it. If the 70-300L at 300mm is considered poor quality because it's got a f/5.6 aperture, and this Tamron has the same poor quality, then sign me up. I want one.

For the 150-600mm, the case where I'd expect to need 600mm would be dogs at the far end of the agility field, so roughly 100ft away. I'd expect the Tamron to not be as sharp as the 70-300L at the pixel level, but it would have 4x as many pixels on target to more than make up for it. Having to stop down to f/8 at 600mm isn't necessarily a bad thing either, as that results in a ~2ft DOF at 100ft away.

I see random results on flickr. Some very sharp shots at 600mm, wide open, and other people with unusably soft images. I don't know if this is sample variation between lenses, or user ability, or what. I can't wait to rule out the user side variables by hearing Bryan's take... This might be the first lens I test-drive via a rental.

[Busted Knuckles]

First 10 Frames & Impression (could only play at lunch)

Handling
1. It is a beast, I thought my 70-200 2.8 was big, w/ the lens hood @ 600 think bazooka ! :) (maybe this is the case for all 600mm)
2. Hand holding at 600 - better have 1/500 even with IS and absolutely no caffeine!
3. Image "jumps" with IS - seems proportional to focal length - same amount of jump at 200 as w/ the Canon 70-200 at 200.
4. Zoom ring is just short of 180 degrees rotation - darn long but then again so is the range.
5. Focusing and zoom rings move very nicely

Image Quality
1. 150-400 pretty darn good to very good
2. 600 center is pretty darn good, corners a wee bit soft and fringing, looks very fixable either in post or if lens info could be loaded into the camera (yea right)
Test subject was a black and white "one way sign" at 60 meters and put into the corners and center.
3. I have no issues w/ sharpness and contrast
4. Bokeh - ok the sticks and twigs look a little funky

Focus Speed etc
1. Not lightening fast, I would agree that BIF like a pheasant or grouse would be unsuccessful (then again finding them through the camera in flight would be tough too), but I wouldn't classify focus speed as slow unless you are going from relatively short to long and vice versa.
2. Out of the box it back focuses - micro adjust needed


I will be testing the image quality w/ the 70-200 and the 2x TC tomorrow and will post the pics.

First impression - a lot of bang for the buck.

[Sean Setters]

I talked with Bryan yesterday. He had spent the day shooting with the new Tammy and really enjoyed it. I think he'll have the review done in a couple of weeks (if not slightly sooner).

For a guy who has a closet full of Canon's super-telephoto lenses, he said something that surprised me - "This may be a lens that ends up in my personal collection. It's just fun to use and the focal range is really useful."

Keep in mind, though, he hadn't had a chance to examine the images yet. We'll just have to wait and see what his final impression is.

Considering the source, though, I thought that was quite a compliment.

[Busted Knuckles]

Definitely not a low light option

[Busted Knuckles]

Comparison pix. Rather than try to post small versions. I have uploaded a bunch to Flickr - the comparatives are 0,0,0 in sharpness, etc.

The pic 'Tam bird...' are center crops at 600 and

No real change from my initial impression. All in all, I stick w/ a lot of bang for the buck.

Take a look

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77760916@N05/

Oh yea - basic set up was 2 tripods with the lenses mounted and moved camera back and forth. Used live view w/10x for focusing.

FYI at 6000mm equivalent breathing causes vibrations, it was interesting to see all the giggling on both my old aluminum and new carbon fiber. I used magic lantern for the full EVF at 10x vs just a small box.

[Joel Eade]

The first reddish egret looks really nice....how far away was it?

[Busted Knuckles]

The white egret is almost exactly 1/3 of the frame from left to right (shot horizontal). The blue heron (not on the green mats) every so slightly less than 1/3 the frame - again all shot horizontal.

The blue heron was 40 ish meters and the egret closer to 50 would be my guess.

[M_Six]

Is that a Tamron 150-600 shown on Bryan's review of the Oben ballhead that was just posted? I hope there are IQ pics coming soon.:cool:

[Sean Setters]

Good eye! ;-)

You probably won't have to wait too long, assuming there aren't any anomalies with the lens. With that in mind, though, Bryan went through several Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VCs before he was satisfied with the results.


My first retail-purchased copy of this lens did not have it. After spending 10 hours or so completing image quality testing of my first copy of the 24-70 VC lens (on the ISO 12233 resolution chart), it became clear that the lens was not working properly at the longer focal lengths. Image quality was simply unacceptable at 70mm. Tamron confirmed that the results were not as they expected (and they wanted the lens back for analysis).

The second copy (again, retail-purchased) of this lens performed better optically, but it was still not perfect. The right side of the image, the portion of the image circle shown in the site's image quality tool, was softer than the left. This lens also had some AF problems. Multiple times we experienced unresponsive AF from this lens mounted to a Canon 1Ds Mark III. And the lens was not properly AF-calibrated for this Canon factory-calibrated camera.


I suspected that a decentering issue was causing the right-side softness problem and thought that this issue could be easily corrected by Tamron service. Tamron quickly returned the repaired lens, but ... it performed worse than before I sent it in.


Tamron sent me a shipping label and promptly performed another attempt at the repair. They may actually have replaced the lens as it was returned with a new serial number. We spent over a full week testing this lens model for the ISO 12233 chart image quality test alone, but persistence has paid off ... I think we have an as-good-as-it-gets copy in our hands now.

But with that said, I think he'll have the standardized results up on the site in the not-so-distant future. And a full review is planned (also should not very far off).

[conropl]

Comparison pix. Rather than try to post small versions. I have uploaded a bunch to Flickr - the comparatives are 0,0,0 in sharpness, etc.

The pic 'Tam bird...' are center crops at 600 and

No real change from my initial impression. All in all, I stick w/ a lot of bang for the buck.

Take a look

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77760916@N05/

Oh yea - basic set up was 2 tripods with the lenses mounted and moved camera back and forth. Used live view w/10x for focusing.



They look good. The egret at 1/3200 sec shutter speed looks really sharp, and the out of focus background looks nice.

[Kayaker72]

Thanks for the links Mike. So the two questions are, have you tried it on BIF yet? And how much do you like the lens?

[Busted Knuckles]

I haven't tried BIF as the morning I was shooting no F :).

I like the build, etc - the quality seem pretty darn good. When extended to 600 w/ the lens hood - wow it is a bazooka.

Image quality appears to be pretty darn good. Haven't had enough time to fiddle with the chromatic ab in the corners on how well that will clean up.

The other thing I want to try this coming weekend is on the APC sensor on my T3i.

[Joel Eade]

A brief hands on review with images

http://fouroaksphotography.blogspot.com/2014/02/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd.html

[Busted Knuckles]

A small update.

Tried to play between my T3i w/ the 70-200 + 2x TC vs. 5d3 w/ Tamron "real world shots" which I define for this exercise as the palm scrub behind my house.

Conclusion: real world comparisons are harder than they look. :). I need to say thank you to Brian a few more times.

There was a little more CA on w/ the T3i and the Tamron racked to 400. Sharpness/contrast were right there. One rig was $2500 and had a range of 70-400 f 2.8 to 5.6. The other was $1,100 range 150 -600 f 5.6 to 6.3. I am still going w/ the "lots of bang for the buck" When racked to 600 there was still a little CA in the corners and the lens was struggling with the pixel size in the corners on the t3i- center was very good.

Trying to get the 5d3 at 600 and the t3i in similar lighting conditions was unsuccessful (I was going w/ 1 tripod set up) for a real comparison - but I will still say w/ the lots of bang for the buck.

Haven't had a chance to test BIF - had one opportunity yesterday and the was at 150mm which isn't much of a test ( it did fine) as the reddish egret was flying away.

I will try again next weekend when I have hopefully more consistent weather/lighting and more time than a few moments between the chore list

[Joel Eade]

Another "in the field" review with images, including BIF.....looks very nice to me!

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html

[Kayaker72]

Bryan has posted his IQ tests.

vs the 100-400L at:


400 mm f/5.6 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0)
400 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2)
500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=2)
500 mm f/11 vs 560 mm f/11 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=4)
600 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=2)
600 mm f/11 vs 600 mm f/11 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=10&APIComp=4)


And...just for fun:

200 mm f/5.6 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2)


I have the Tamron close to or beating the Canon in each comparison. This could be a great lens to photograph loons from a kayak....

[Jayson]

I have been reading on Fred Miranda that it has some issues with AI Servo in the 500mm to 600mm range. One Shot it is crisp, but they are having issues tracking at that length. It would be interesting to see if this is an anomaly in a couple lenses or if it is a problem.

The image quality looks great for the price! I might even consider dropping my 300mm f/4L IS for this lens.

[NFLD Stephen]

Try comparing the tammy at 600 f6.3 and 600 f8: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

I was wondering if the image quality would improve at 600 if you stopped down a bit. Not sure if it just me, but to my eye it looks like the centre is sharper at f8, but the mid-frame and corner appears better at f6.3. I was not expecting that....

Stephen

[Joel Eade]

It does look very good for the price. It looks good compared to the 400mm f/5.6 prime lens as well but of course the 600mm f/4 prime is much better (costs more than 10 times as much too!) I expect they will sell in large numbers.

[Kayaker72]

I have been reading on Fred Miranda that it has some issues with AI Servo in the 500mm to 600mm range. One Shot it is crisp, but they are having issues tracking at that length. It would be interesting to see if this is an anomaly in a couple lenses or if it is a problem.

The image quality looks great for the price! I might even consider dropping my 300mm f/4L IS for this lens.

I can see the AF being an issue. Once you are passed the focal length where it goes from f/5.6 to f/6.3, all but your center point AF won't work. I tried the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC on Tuesday (f/8). Generally impressed that the AF was as good as it was, but there was definitely an impact.

Unless I decide to chase GBH's in rookeries in April/May, I won't need a tele until June. So hopefully Canon will release something like a 400 f/5.6 IS or the 100-400 L II. But if not, the Tamron is really looking tempting.

[neuroanatomist]

I can see the AF being an issue. Once you are passed the focal length where it goes from f/5.6 to f/6.3, all but your center point AF won't work.

Nope, the AF system will work as with an f/5.6 lens, because the lens lies to the camera and says it's f/5.6 even though it's really f/6.3.

[Kayaker72]

Nope, the AF system will work as with an f/5.6 lens, because the lens lies to the camera and says it's f/5.6 even though it's really f/6.3.
So with the Tamron all the AF points will work after the lens is f/6.3, or just the center point? I was thinking it may just be the center point (with the assistance of the points surrounding the center).

Edit...just reread your post and I think that is exactly what you are confirming. Interesting. So, are the issues we are hearing about with AF from ~500(410?)-600 mm isn't due to being reduced to the center point on 5DIII/1DX. It is due to less light hitting the AF points but the camera still using those AF points?

Edit #2: I think I was having an idiotic moment with this post. Fortunately, I didn't operate any heavy machinery yesterday.

[neuroanatomist]

Edit...just reread your post and I think that is exactly what you are confirming. Interesting. So, are the issues we are hearing about with AF from ~500(410?)-600 mm isn't due to being reduced to the center point on 5DIII/1DX. It is due to less light hitting the AF points but the camera still using those AF points?

Yes, they'll all work. With your 5DIII, an f/5.6 lens and 1.4x TC, only the center point (and 4 expansion points) are active because that's how the camera is programmed to behave with an f/8 lens. If you tape the three pins specific to the TC contacts, you'll find that the camera ignores the TC, thinks there's an f/5.6 lens attached, and you'll get all 61 points with the center 21 being cross type. Same idea with the f/6.3, but no tape required because the lens is doing it's own masking.

As you say, the AF points don't work as well with the narrower aperture - it's not so much the amount of light, because they don't work as well even in full sun, it's more that the narrower aperture doesn't provide as large a physical spread of light (to drive the phase difference) from a given point. When you look at an AF sensor, the f/2.8 lines are more widely spaced than the f/5.6 lines - that's the wider baseline that provides greter accuracy, but also requires a wider aperture to spread the light sufficiently.

[Busted Knuckles]

Just went through Bryan's comparisons, even looked at the 400mm options on the APC center for the similar field of view. My experience is exactly inline w/ these comparisons. I will stay w/ my conclusion that this is a lot of bang for buck.

I need to get the micro adjustment on the auto focus right. Just haven't had time to fiddle with it.

[Kayaker72]

And the review is out:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

All in all, seems like a very nice option.