Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI IF VC USD (1 Viewer)

Mad Scientist · Oct 9, 2014

Following on from the previous shots are two crops from yesterday of a starling noticing a wasp and moving after it. The first image is a little out of focus. The second is a bit better as the human/camera/lens combo ‘tunes into' the target.

Starling
Focal Distance 38 m
ISO 900
Focal Length 500 mm (35 mm equivalent: 1000 mm)
Aperture f/8.0
Shutter: 1/1600s

I practised on swallows before they disappeared south. One of my better (but far from perfect) shots is attached. Getting the autofocus point on a swallow long enough for focusing was difficult. Again, using a much broader set of autofocus points might have been better for this. It'll be next year before I can try for swallows again.

Swallows
Focal Distance 35 m
ISO 360
Focal Length 320 mm (35 mm equivalent: 640 mm)
Aperture f/6.3
Shutter: 1/1600s

Mad Scientist · Oct 9, 2014

And lastly, I've been mainly shooting seabirds. I know that's not what you're asking about, but bear with me, it's relevant.

With a blue sky background (oh, how I wish we had more of these) capturing these images doesn't present any big problems - see the attached image of the black headed gull.

When the background is the sea, however, autofocus becomes more of a problem. I've been using single point autofocus on the Nikon D7100 (recommended by The Black Fox) to try to stop the camera focusing on the wrong thing.

The second image of the black headed gull taken against a background of a grey sea was particularly difficult for me to get because it was so hard to get focused on the bird rather than the background.

And here's the relevant bit - I would say that this focus was harder for me to get than small passerines against a blue sky.

Black Headed Gull - Blue Background
Focal Distance 26 m
ISO 560
Focal Length 600 mm (35 mm equivalent: 1200 mm)
Aperture f/8.0
Shutter: 1/1250s

Black Headed Gull - Dull Background
Focal Distance 38 m
ISO 320
Focal Length 600 mm (35 mm equivalent: 1200 mm)
Aperture f/8.0
Shutter: 1/1600s

Hope the above info is of some help.

capdegat · Oct 9, 2014

Another question in reply to Seanofford is would you want pics of small birds ? Every shot I've ever taken of small flying birds tends to be liitle brown blobs! For me, generally only the bigger birds give me anything I want to keep.

Winterdune · Oct 9, 2014

Thanks for the experiment Mad Scientist. They are not bad but look soft to me. Softness compared to the 400 f5.6, even when you scale up the 400 to 600 equivalent, was the conclusion by (the inexplicably annoying) Tony Northrup on his review here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

Sean

Winterdune · Oct 9, 2014

capdegat said:
Another question in reply to Seanofford is would you want pics of small birds ? Every shot I've ever taken of small flying birds tends to be liitle brown blobs! For me, generally only the bigger birds give me anything I want to keep.

I live on the coast and like to take pics of flyover migrating passerines - not for artistic merit but as records of what I have seen (and often so that I can identify them!!).
Cheers
Sean

Mad Scientist · Oct 9, 2014

seanofford said:
Thanks for the experiment Mad Scientist. They are not bad but look soft to me. Softness compared to the 400 f5.6, even when you scale up the 400 to 600 equivalent, was the conclusion by (the inexplicably annoying) Tony Northrup on his review here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

Sean

Yes, I didn't mention sharpening. The photos I posted were all processed in lightroom with sharpening and noise reduction at 25, which I think are the default values.

I think most people's taste runs to a bit more sharpening, so I've posted one of the starling shots, progressively increasing the sharpening. I did the sharpening in GIMP, which is free imaging software.

I've increased sharpness but done nothing to any other parameter like noise reduction. There's scope for more sharpening, depending on individual taste.

Obviously, all the other photos I've posted would benefit from a bit more processing too, but at least you've seen what I got with the lens yesterday without much sharpening/processing.

Mad Scientist · Oct 9, 2014

And here's the black headed gull again. Before and after shots. The 'after' has the same amount of sharpening as the final starling shot above.

Zackiedawg · Oct 9, 2014

I still need to get a little more field time to get more in-flight shots, but this past weekend I snagged a few more. No passerines, but a mix of larger waders, an osprey, and a hummingbird at 600mm F6.3. I'm finding the lens plenty fast and accurate for tracking in flight, and plenty sharp and usable at full zoom and wide open.

hosesbroadbill · Oct 10, 2014

Small birds

Spent some time today trying to get better at shots of small birds. We had good winds to bring in migrants. No real flight so not able to try and get BIF but there was a nice selection of birds to be had on the barrier beaches. Here are some of the shots that I got. As usual all handheld and processed in DPP.

Golden-crowned Kingled - damn hard little birds to photograph

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15498451225/

White-throated Sparrow

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15311512179/in/photostream/

Palm Warbler

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15311719068/in/photostream/

Ruby-crowned Kinglet - again mega hard to get a sharp shot of one

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15311149420/in/photostream/

Northern Parula

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15497825475/in/photostream/

Comments and criticism always welcome.

Paul - Herts · Oct 11, 2014

They're all really good Hoses. A friend is hoping to get one to go with his Nikon - I am hoping to have a good look at it when he gets it

hosesbroadbill · Oct 12, 2014

Tamron

Paul - Herts said:
They're all really good Hoses. A friend is hoping to get one to go with his Nikon - I am hoping to have a good look at it when he gets it

What more do you need to know? There are a good couple thousand sample shots with this lens out there. Many sample shots have been posted here as well. I think the lens has nothing left to prove. If used properly and light is sufficient then I think it is the best bargain on the market.

Paul - Herts · Oct 12, 2014

hosesbroadbill said:
What more do you need to know?

What it's like in the hand for starters. I have already tried to get my hands on one to try out for a few days but no joy. I've got to be 100% sure before I go for it because if I do there will be no turning back from what will be a complete change of gear as I can't see any other way of financing it.

It took 11 years to decide to marry my wife - and this is a much more serious choice 3

Winterdune · Oct 12, 2014

Mad Scientist said:
Yes, I didn't mention sharpening. The photos I posted were all processed in lightroom with sharpening and noise reduction at 25, which I think are the default values.

I think most people's taste runs to a bit more sharpening, so I've posted one of the starling shots, progressively increasing the sharpening. I did the sharpening in GIMP, which is free imaging software.

I've increased sharpness but done nothing to any other parameter like noise reduction. There's scope for more sharpening, depending on individual taste.

Obviously, all the other photos I've posted would benefit from a bit more processing too, but at least you've seen what I got with the lens yesterday without much sharpening/processing.

I was really hoping that this lens would come close to my Canon 400 prime for AF speed and sharpness as then it would give me much more flexibility, but from what I have seen I don't think I will be buying it (as I would need to sell the Canon to do so). This reed bunting flew over my head this morning - cropped version and original - no pp or sharpening or anything. Sadly I have not seen anything close to this from the Tamron.

punta · Oct 12, 2014

Paul - Herts said:
What it's like in the hand for starters. I have already tried to get my hands on one to try out for a few days but no joy. I've got to be 100% sure before I go for it because if I do there will be no turning back from what will be a complete change of gear as I can't see any other way of financing it.

It took 11 years to decide to marry my wife - and this is a much more serious choice 3

My advice Paul - IS WAIT. Maybe not eleven years though :t:

The Sigma comes out soon and I reckon it will be a better lens as they have had the Tamron to look at and improve on hopefully.

the black fox · Oct 12, 2014

i,m hanging on for the sigma to ,tried the tamron on my 1d3 and putting it up against my 400mm f5.6 and a 1.4tc the canon combo won hands down .,however i think sigma having had the time to work on a response to the tamron are going to surprise us all .

hosesbroadbill · Oct 13, 2014

Waiting for?

the black fox said:
i,m hanging on for the sigma to ,tried the tamron on my 1d3 and putting it up against my 400mm f5.6 and a 1.4tc the canon combo won hands down .,however i think sigma having had the time to work on a response to the tamron are going to surprise us all .

All good points from everyone. At this point I would wait as well and see what both versions of the Sigma have to offer. If the sport is considerably better than the Tamron I would switch as well. Thing is that it would have to be really good a f6.3 to even begin to make up for the extra weight.

For what it is worth, the lens feels great to me. It is solid and fast. I will go up on a local hawk watch soon and get shots of BIF. On the right winds, thousands of passerines go by. I will post some results.

hosesbroadbill · Oct 13, 2014

More pics of small birds

Spent some more time this morning at the beach, Got some shots I am very happy with. I will be very eager to see if the Sigma sport can be hand held and produce these kind of results with my 70d or with the new 7dii when I get it.

A much more cooperative Golden-crowned Kinglet

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15519195381/in/photostream/

A juvenile White-crowned Sparrow

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15335343747/in/photostream/

A Palm Warbler

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15521712715/in/photostream/

And one more of the same Palm Warbler since it was nice enough to pose in a different way for me

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15518501181/in/photostream/

I would love to hear comments about these shots and how they would compare to shots taken with a 400 5.6 plus a 1.4 or with another similar set up.

Roy C · Oct 13, 2014

Hard to say how the two combo's compare without the same targets, light and shooting distance but attached is a heavily cropped (this is about 20% of the full frame) snap of a Egret taken with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc hand held on Saturday in a less than decent light, in fact the heavens opened shortly after I took this one.

hosesbroadbill · Oct 14, 2014

Tamron vs 400 5.6

Roy C said:
Hard to say how the two combo's compare without the same targets, light and shooting distance but attached is a heavily cropped (this is about 20% of the full frame) snap of a Egret taken with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc hand held on Saturday in a less than decent light, in fact the heavens opened shortly after I took this one.

Yeah this is not really a comparison. And to me does not show the same amount of detail as my shots do. But for a distant egret, heavily cropped in low light it is still very good. Does anyone have shots similar to the ones I posted of small song birds using the 400 5.6 + 1.4x. I would prefer to see these shots on a crop sensor, but since they won't auto focus with that then how about shots with a full frame? Even ones on the 1d3 to compare?

Roy C · Oct 14, 2014

hosesbroadbill said:
Yeah this is not really a comparison. And to me does not show the same amount of detail as my shots do. But for a distant egret, heavily cropped in low light it is still very good. Does anyone have shots similar to the ones I posted of small song birds using the 400 5.6 + 1.4x. I would prefer to see these shots on a crop sensor, but since they won't auto focus with that then how about shots with a full frame? Even ones on the 1d3 to compare?

All I can say is that I have now used the Tammy and the 400/5.6 + 1.4 x tc quite a lot so speaking from experience with both set-ups I think I got rid of the right one

.
The weight reduction is most noticeable and I am more than happy to shoot the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc hand held (even without IS) and wide open at f8 but with the Tammy I found it was best with a tripod at the long end and also need stopping down to at least f8 and even more to get the best out of it. I also found that the Tammy, more so than the 400/5.6 combo needed decent light which is something that is at a premium in the UK. I stick by my earlier assessment that the Tammy is OK in reasonable light providing you do not have to crop too much.
As an after thought I strongly suspect that the Sigma sport will be a better lens but then again it will cost more. BTW in the UK you can get a 400/5.6 for less than the Tammy so the Tammy is not the bargain that it is in the US.
With that I will once more de-subscribe to this thread and let you folk argue it out.

p.s. There will be a lot of happy 400/5.6 users once they get hold of a 7D2 and are able to AF at f8 :t:

EDIT: here is one taken with the 7D + 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc in live view AF. Taken in the usual UK dull weather and as is norm for me a biggish crop

Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI IF VC USD (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Paul Herts

Well-known member

Paul Herts

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Attachments

Well-known member

Occasional bird snapper

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread