Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI IF VC USD (2 Viewers)

[Roy C]

I would have to respectfully disagree on your assessment of the canon 100-400 test being faulty, if you go to the comparisons and check out the Tamron 150-600 against the canon 400 mm prime, it compares quite favorably with that lens as well, the same can be done with all the canon lenses so to argue that the 100-400 is somehow not representative of accurate testing can not be justified.

There's not much in it when comparing the canon 400mm prime to the tamron at the same settings.

I would not argue about the 100-400 as I have never used one (or any other zoom lens for birds as I have always preferred primes) but was only pointing out what loads of 100-400 users have said about the TDP comparison shots for this lens.

I have not got any long lenses for bird photography at the moment but as far as IQ goes when compared against a lens like the Canon 400/5.6 (which is both lighter and cheaper than the Tammy in the UK) I would say that the Canon, even when used with a 1.4x tc, is massively better in the corners and better in the mid frame than the Tammy, especially if you look at the fine vertical lines which would represent fine detail on a bird.
Maybe other folk see it different and it could be my old eyes playing trick on me :eek!:
Attached are the TDP compaisons for :
a) Canon 400/5.6 +1.4x tc v Tammy at 600mm - The Canon is wide open but both at f8 for comparison.
b) Canon 400/5.6 +2x tc (800mm) v Tammy at 600/f8

At the end of the day it does not matter a jot to me what lens folk use as long as they enjoy it.

 

[TNarc]

I would not argue about the 100-400 as I have never used one (or any other zoom lens for birds as I have always preferred primes) but was only pointing out what loads of 100-400 users have said about the TDP comparison shots for this lens.

I have not got any long lenses for bird photography at the moment but as far as IQ goes when compared against a lens like the Canon 400/5.6 (which is both lighter and cheaper than the Tammy in the UK) I would say that the Canon, even when used with a 1.4x tc, is massively better in the corners and better in the mid frame than the Tammy, especially if you look at the fine vertical lines which would represent fine detail on a bird.
Maybe other folk see it different and it could be my old eyes playing trick on me :eek!:
Attached are the TDP compaisons for :
a) Canon 400/5.6 +1.4x tc v Tammy at 600mm - The Canon is wide open but both at f8 for comparison.
b) Canon 400/5.6 +2x tc (800mm) v Tammy at 600/f8

At the end of the day it does not matter a jot to me what lens folk use as long as they enjoy it.

I agree wholeheartedly Roy, I'm using a Tamron 70-300 at the moment as my longest lens since I sold my 300 2.8 and am enjoying it thoroughly until the 150-600 comes out in a nikon mount.

Here's a couple of picks from the Tamron 70-300, both at 300 mm with slight smart sharpening in photoshop

 

[Roy C]

I agree wholeheartedly Roy, I'm using a Tamron 70-300 at the moment as my longest lens since I sold my 300 2.8 and am enjoying it thoroughly until the 150-600 comes out in a nikon mount.

Here's a couple of picks from the Tamron 70-300, both at 300 mm with slight smart sharpening in photoshop

Lovely subjects for sure but they are a tad soft for my liking I am afraid.

While we are at it I will put up a few taken with the 400/5.6 when I had one - all hand held and big crops. I admit they are not up to the 300/2.8 + tc combo that I had but not too bad for such a cheap and light weight lens IMHO.

 

[TNarc]

Lovely subjects for sure but they are a tad soft for my liking I am afraid.

While we are at it I will put up a few taken with the 400/5.6 when I had one - all hand held and big crops. I admit they are not up to the 300/2.8 + tc combo that I had but not too bad for such a cheap and light weight lens IMHO.

I didn't say the Tamron 70-300 was sharp, of course its not sharp enough for you Roy, I should have expected such a response from you as testified by how many people you have run off this forum in the last 23 pages. I'm sure that there will never be anything that matches what you do or any lens that is acceptable for you, excepting of course the expensive primes possibly, but some of us just like to enjoy ourselves like you had suggested a few posts back. Sorry for offending your sensibilities with such "soft" pictures.

 

[chris129]

I would not argue about the 100-400 as I have never used one (or any other zoom lens for birds as I have always preferred primes) but was only pointing out what loads of 100-400 users have said about the TDP comparison shots for this lens.

I have not got any long lenses for bird photography at the moment but as far as IQ goes when compared against a lens like the Canon 400/5.6 (which is both lighter and cheaper than the Tammy in the UK) I would say that the Canon, even when used with a 1.4x tc, is massively better in the corners and better in the mid frame than the Tammy, especially if you look at the fine vertical lines which would represent fine detail on a bird.
Maybe other folk see it different and it could be my old eyes playing trick on me :eek!:
Attached are the TDP compaisons for :
a) Canon 400/5.6 +1.4x tc v Tammy at 600mm - The Canon is wide open but both at f8 for comparison.
b) Canon 400/5.6 +2x tc (800mm) v Tammy at 600/f8

At the end of the day it does not matter a jot to me what lens folk use as long as they enjoy it.

I don't know about the edges but I couldn't tell the difference between the Canon 5.6L +1.4TC and the Tamron at 600. Both at f8. Maybe, I'll try shooting a test image instead of my neighbor's smart meter.

 

[Roy C]

I'm sure that there will never be anything that matches what you do or any lens that is acceptable for you, excepting of course the expensive primes possibly

Well the shots I posted in my last post were with a second hand 400/5.6 costing a lot less than the 150-600 so if you call that an expensive prime then that's fair enough. As far as my photographic abilities goes I am the first to admit that I am very average (about a 5/10 compared to the good bird shooters I would say) I will say that I have never been fully satisfied with any shot I have taken and am always looking to improve.
Just for you here is a snap taken with the Canon SX50 superzoom at 1000mm (FF=) and hand held just to prove again that I do not always use expensive primes.
For info my last three birding lenses have been: 400/5.6 (£700) SX50 superzoom (£239) and a 600mm astro telescope (£290 used as a prime lens with the 7D) hardly in the big white primes league I would have thought!

p.s. I may even pick-up a Tammy 150-600 if it ever becomes available in the UK just to see what all the fuss is about

 

[fogboundturtle]

Tell me again how this lens is not sharp Roy ?

This was shot open wide.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fogboundturtle/14160907262/

 

[MiguelM]

Tell me again how this lens is not sharp Roy ?

This was shot open wide.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fogboundturtle/14160907262/

very good!

Also, check this one:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66682425@N02/13338418825/

 

[fogboundturtle]

Well the shots I posted in my last post were with a second hand 400/5.6 costing a lot less than the 150-600 so if you call that an expensive prime then that's fair enough. As far as my photographic abilities goes I am the first to admit that I am very average (about a 5/10 compared to the good bird shooters I would say) I will say that I have never been fully satisfied with any shot I have taken and am always looking to improve.
Just for you here is a snap taken with the Canon SX50 superzoom at 1000mm (FF=) and hand held just to prove again that I do not always use expensive primes.
For info my last three birding lenses have been: 400/5.6 (£700) SX50 superzoom (£239) and a 600mm astro telescope (£290 used as a prime lens with the 7D) hardly in the big white primes league I would have thought!

p.s. I may even pick-up a Tammy 150-600 if it ever becomes available in the UK just to see what all the fuss is about

For a guy who talks so much trash about others photographic work, this picture you have posted certainly isn't better than any P&S camera can do.

It's nice to see you are more humble about your work, I just wish you return the favor to others. Prime will always be better than zoom. There is always a trade off. I choose range over speed. I have experience enough to deal with the slow speed aspect.

 

[TNarc]

For a guy who talks so much trash about others photographic work, this picture you have posted certainly isn't better than any P&S camera can do.

It's nice to see you are more humble about your work, I just wish you return the favor to others. Prime will always be better than zoom. There is always a trade off. I choose range over speed. I have experience enough to deal with the slow speed aspect.

Here here FogboundTurtle well said, great shot WOW that baby is pretty darn sharp by my eye, I can hardly wait for the nikon mount to come out.

 

[micloi]

Nikon mount should be out this week

 

[Nick Leech]

Wish they would get some more Canon mount ones in stock in the UK. I have had mine on back-order from Amazon since the beginning of April!

Some great photos being posted taken with the Tammy. I certainly don't expect it to be as good as a Canon 500mm f4 or a Canon 600mm f4, but for the money, the Tammy seems superb!

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron Sharpness

For a guy who talks so much trash about others photographic work, this picture you have posted certainly isn't better than any P&S camera can do.

It's nice to see you are more humble about your work, I just wish you return the favor to others. Prime will always be better than zoom. There is always a trade off. I choose range over speed. I have experience enough to deal with the slow speed aspect.

So I was one of the people that Roy criticized and you what, he was right. He said my shot of a Red-headed Woodpecker was woefully over sharpened. I went back and fixed it and the pic is much better now. I am not sure what the fuss is about. The shots of the Osprey are not super sharp either (and not made with this lens I might add). Nothing wrong with being honest as far as I am concerned. People need to lighten up a bit and take criticism constructively and not defensively. The shots of the hummingbird and the nuthatch are much sharper than the Osprey. They are very good examples of what this lens can do. I am extremely happy with my purchase and think I have gotten many very sharp images with this lens. Some that are sharper than what I got with my 400mm 5.6, Here is a link to my flickr account. Everything past the Bufflehead is with the Tamron except a few of the flight shots of the Martin and 1 of the Ptarmigan (those are with the 400mm 5.6). Criticism is always welcome with me and in fact is preferred. I am a newbie and have much to learn...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/with/13976933947

 

[punta]

So I was one of the people that Roy criticized and you what, he was right. He said my shot of a Red-headed Woodpecker was woefully over sharpened. I went back and fixed it and the pic is much better now. I am not sure what the fuss is about. The shots of the Osprey are not super sharp either (and not made with this lens I might add). Nothing wrong with being honest as far as I am concerned. People need to lighten up a bit and take criticism constructively and not defensively. The shots of the hummingbird and the nuthatch are much sharper than the Osprey. They are very good examples of what this lens can do. I am extremely happy with my purchase and think I have gotten many very sharp images with this lens. Some that are sharper than what I got with my 400mm 5.6, Here is a link to my flickr account. Everything past the Bufflehead is with the Tamron except a few of the flight shots of the Martin and 1 of the Ptarmigan (those are with the 400mm 5.6). Criticism is always welcome with me and in fact is preferred. I am a newbie and have much to learn...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/with/13976933947

Well said that man :t:

 

[chris129]

Nikon mount should be out this week

Good. It will be nice to hear from the Nikon bird photographers.

 

[Roy C]

For all the UK folk wanting this lens I have been advised that a new consignment of Canon fit ones are due to be delivered to the retailers today. Just thought you might like to know.(I ordered one yesterday and it is due for delivery within the next few days). For what it is worth I will post my verdict on the lens ASAP.

 

[punta]

For all the UK folk wanting this lens I have been advised that a new consignment of Canon fit ones are due to be delivered to the retailers today. Just thought you might like to know.(I ordered one yesterday and it is due for delivery within the next few days). For what it is worth I will post my verdict on the lens ASAP.

I had a sneaky feeling that you would bite the bullet and get one, just to see what all the fuss is about I suppose

I will very much look forward to your thoughts Roy :t:

 

[Hor Kee]

Same here. Would like to see if your experience in comparing it with a 400mm 5.6 matches mine or otherwise.

 

[MiguelM]

Great photos there hosesbroadbill. Honestly I can't see any inferiority in terms of picture quality between the Tamron and Canon's 400mm F5.6..

Maybe the crappy photos we see are from people that don't know how to use the zoom properly because it is harder to do so. Maybe we see better pictures taken with the prime because it is easier to use and faster to learn.

As time goes by we are seeing more and more good pictures taken with the Tamron.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

picture quality

Great photos there hosesbroadbill. Honestly I can't see any inferiority in terms of picture quality between the Tamron and Canon's 400mm F5.6..

Maybe the crappy photos we see are from people that don't know how to use the zoom properly because it is harder to do so. Maybe we see better pictures taken with the prime because it is easier to use and faster to learn.

As time goes by we are seeing more and more good pictures taken with the Tamron.

Thanks for the kind words. I agree about image quality. A good shot with the Tamron, even at 600mm looks as sharp or sharper than the Canon 400mm to me. In the hands of the right person I think this lens is quite capable of great image quality. And for the record, I am not saying I am the right person (you should see how many shots I delete). I am a birder first, who has an interest in photographing birds. Basically I take pics as the opportunity arises while birding.