Tamron 150-600mm f/6.3

[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....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/f...amron-150.html

[Kayaker72]

Bryan has posted his IQ tests.

vs the 100-400L at:

• 400 mm f/5.6
• 400 mm f/8
• 500 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8
• 500 mm f/11 vs 560 mm f/11
• 600 mm f/8 vs 560 mm f/8
• 600 mm f/11 vs 600 mm f/11

And...just for fun:

• 200 mm f/5.6

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/R...mp=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