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.
Printable View
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.
....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.
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.
If you have seen one MTF chart.... http://www.tamron-usa.com/A011specia...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...
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.
http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/revi...nglish-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.
That's not very shocking...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...ezoom-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.
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