Tamron 150-600mm f/6.3

[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.

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 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.

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.

[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. [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.