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.
Mark - Flickr
************************
Dave...thanks, I missed that.
Here is a hands-on review.
http://www.dustinabbott.net/2014/01/...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.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 01-20-2014 at 03:24 PM.
Stopping down helps most lenses. Some of the discussion around how much it will help is based on this graph:Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I wonder how accurate those data are, given the apparently minor effect of diffraction at f/32...
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
See my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dthrog00/
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.
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.Stopping down helps most lenses. Some of the discussion around how much it will help is based on this graph:
I wonder how accurate those data are, given the apparently minor effect of diffraction at f/32...
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.
Last edited by Kayaker72; 01-20-2014 at 10:46 PM.
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
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Great. I am glad someone here is going to take a look. Please post the results.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
Well, I'm considering one for my 1DX :-)
Has anybody already got one???
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.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.
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.
:-)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote