Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI IF VC USD (8 Viewers)

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron vs 400 5.6

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

To me this pic does not show near the same detail as mine does. I am not saying that the 400 5.6 is not the better combo. Lighting was not as good as my pic either, just saying that this in no way would sway me to sell my Tamron once the 7D2 arrives.

Here is a about a 50% crop of a bird shot at f8 at 1/200th SS. Bird was deep in the shade, although the twig in front of it was in bright sun. Could you do this with the 400 plus the 1.4? If so, please show me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15499519526/

And this shot of a wet bird. Less of a crop than the others but SS is 1/160th. Do people have shots with this detail with the Canon + 1.4 at such low shutter speeds that are handheld? Again, I am not saying that they don't exist, but I would love to see them.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15283924577/

 

[gandytron]

Surely the comparison of a prime lens against a zoom is not very valuable. One is an apple whilst the other be a pear!

The next discussions that will be interesting will be the ones comparing the Tammy with the two Sigma zooms, and with Canon's replacement for the 100-400 when it appears (discussions comparing the Tammy with Nikon's overpriced 80-400mm seem to have determined that the cost of the Nikon makes it a loser, at least for me).

One thing I do find a bit curious is that all these super telephotos are being launched, but there is only one 400mm f5.6 prime in existance, and it has been around for a long time but is still rated as a brilliant lens and is very popular. Why aren't Nikon, Sigma and Tamron launching a direct competitor with the advantage of image stabilisation?

I got my hands on the Tammy for the first time today, just a peruse in a shop - it was on a Nikon D5200 and seemed to be very responsive in terms of AF. The build quality was surprisingly good. Personally I'm going to wait to see how the Sigma "contemporary" compares once it is launched.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Comparison

Surely the comparison of a prime lens against a zoom is not very valuable. One is an apple whilst the other be a pear!

The next discussions that will be interesting will be the ones comparing the Tammy with the two Sigma zooms, and with Canon's replacement for the 100-400 when it appears (discussions comparing the Tammy with Nikon's overpriced 80-400mm seem to have determined that the cost of the Nikon makes it a loser, at least for me).

One thing I do find a bit curious is that all these super telephotos are being launched, but there is only one 400mm f5.6 prime in existance, and it has been around for a long time but is still rated as a brilliant lens and is very popular. Why aren't Nikon, Sigma and Tamron launching a direct competitor with the advantage of image stabilisation?

I got my hands on the Tammy for the first time today, just a peruse in a shop - it was on a Nikon D5200 and seemed to be very responsive in terms of AF. The build quality was surprisingly good. Personally I'm going to wait to see how the Sigma "contemporary" compares once it is launched.

Don't think I agree. We have what we have to compare to. A zoom that gets to 600mm and a prime plus a 1.4 converter. Those are the options until the Sigma's come out. The prime is f8 with the converter. The Tamron is sharper at f8 than f6.3 so it is a decent comparison. Both have advantages. One is faster at focusing, etc. I think that rather than saying you can't compare that people should post shots with the 400 5.6 plus converter and see how they compare to shots with the Tamron. Obviously there are not of the same bird and same situations. I have read many people say that that combo is better, but have seen very little evidence of it being true. Again I am not saying that it is not true, only that I have not seen it. As someone who owns the Tamron and also the 400 5.6 and who also preordered the 7dii on day 1 I am very interested in this issue.

 

[Zackiedawg]

Being one of the oddballs who have Sony/Minolta A-mount, I was able to use different lenses to compare the 150-600mm in Sony mount version. I shoot regularly with a 300mm F4 and 1.4x TC, and occasionally a 400mm F4.5 with a 1.4x TC borrowed from a friend. I've also had a few shots' go with a 600mm F4 prime, a 70-400mm Sony lens which is highly rated, and my prior Tamron 200-500mm lens, along with the obligatory Sigma Bigma 50-500mm. With all of that, I'd have to say the Tamron 150-600mm is right up there...especially when considering the 600mm end of the reach. The prime 600mm outdoes the Tamron 150-600mm at 600mm - but not by as much as I'd have expected - it mostly comes down to the extra usability at the wider apertures since that lens can go to F4 - and even with a 1.4x matched TC is still at F5.6. The 400mm F4.5 APO prime with 1.4x TC was I think a near-match with the 150-600mm lens - shooting both at F6.3 there is just a hair more detail in the finest areas with the 400mm prime, but at the same time slightly more purple-fringing sensitivity and CA, and that's with a dedicated, matched TC. I just can't arrive at any other conclusion for the moment that there is nothing that can quite match the Tamron 150-600mm, at least until we see how the Sigmas both do. Even then, the Tamron's combination of focal length flexibility, excellent IQ through the range, usability wide open and full tele, and lightness all mixed together, really make it one heck of a unique lens. Much of my shooting is, and will be, at 600mm F6.3, and I have no qualms about using the Tamron 150-600mm in that range, at least in the Sony version I'm using (not sure if differences might exist between the Sony mount version and the Canon/Nikon versions, considering there is no floating IS element needed that could cause minor differences in IQ).

 

[Winterdune]

Some people have argued that the Canon 400 prime, EVEN WHEN CROPPED to the equivalent of 600mm, is STILL sharper than the Tamron at full zoom: watch from about 4:15 in this review video where there are examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

Sean

 

[hosesbroadbill]

lousy review

Some people have argued that the Canon 400 prime, EVEN WHEN CROPPED to the equivalent of 600mm, is STILL sharper than the Tamron at full zoom: watch from about 4:15 in this review video where there are examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fmMG5jgDwk

Sean

Lousy review of the lens. i saw this when it first came out and think he did a remarkably bad job with the review. It was also before the firmware update came out so that may have effected the autofocus and sharpness as well. Does someone here have real world images with the Canon 400 plus converter or other combos from Nikon, etc. that can be compared?

 

[Roy C]

Attached are some action shots I took this afternoon with the 400/5.6 (so not cherry picked over months). The first four were all taken at ISO 4000 and I still did not get the shutter speed I really needed. They are also all cropped very heavily. No doubt our friend from across the pond could do a lot better but I am darned if I could nail this type of shot when I had the Tammy, even in better light. The last shot was at 560mm but only ISO 2000 so relatively good light for me lol. Obviously at these ISO's IQ will be somewhat lacking.
Don't get me wrong as I am not claiming these shots are that good but they are certainly better than I could achieve with the Tammy (even at 400mm).
At the end of the day I do not give a Monkeys what others think about both lenses and have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence people one way or the other but having used both lenses extensively (inc the canon at 560mm) I am just expressing my own opinion based on my experience.
p.s. that last shot taken at 560mm is around 18% of the full frame so this crop would represent a field of view of way over 1200mm I am sure (perhaps someone knows how to calculate this lol)

 

[hosesbroadbill]

to be clear?

Attached are some action shots I took this afternoon with the 400/5.6 (so not cherry picked over months). The first four were all taken at ISO 4000 and I still did not get the shutter speed I really needed. They are also all cropped very heavily. No doubt our friend from across the pond could do a lot better but I am darned if I could nail this type of shot when I had the Tammy, even in better light. The last shot was at 560mm but only ISO 2000 so relatively good light for me lol. Obviously at these ISO's IQ will be somewhat lacking.
Don't get me wrong as I am not claiming these shots are that good but they are certainly better than I could achieve with the Tammy (even at 400mm).
At the end of the day I do not give a Monkeys what others think about both lenses and have no interest whatsoever in trying to influence people one way or the other but having used both lenses extensively (inc the canon at 560mm) I am just expressing my own opinion based on my experience.
p.s. that last shot taken at 560mm is around 18% of the full frame so this crop would represent a field of view of way over 1200mm I am sure (perhaps someone knows how to calculate this lol)

Sorry I just don't understand one thing. Are all of these shots with the 400 5.6 plus the converter or just the last shot? That is the one you mentioned was at 560. The first flying goldfinch is really good.

I am looking for the best combo to take pics with good reach and portability at a reasonable price. If it is the Tamron than great. If it is the 400 5.6 plus converter than I buy a converter, if it is the Sigma then I have another option. I just have seen very few real world shots with the 400 plus converter but I have read many people say it is better. Once the 7dii comes out that becomes a viable option based on the ability to autofocus at f8.

 

[Roy C]

It was also before the firmware update came out so that may have effected the autofocus and sharpness as well.

Was that the update that your sworn blind was a myth and that your lens was perfect anyway so did not need any update

 

[Roy C]

Sorry I just don't understand one thing.

That does not surprise me that you do not understand it :-O
It was primarily aimed at other folk who might like to captured fast birds in flight, all I was saying is that I could never achieve that with the Tammy, even when I used it at 400mm, whereas the 400/5.6 is superb for BIF.
I am sure you would do a lot better given the better light you enjoy.

BTW It is folks that have not tried the Tammy that may find my experiences useful not the likes of you who has obviously already made your mind up.

 

[Roy C]

I am looking for the best combo to take pics with good reach and portability at a reasonable price. If it is the Tamron than great. If it is the 400 5.6 plus converter than I buy a converter, if it is the Sigma then I have another option. I just have seen very few real world shots with the 400 plus converter but I have read many people say it is better. Once the 7dii comes out that becomes a viable option based on the ability to autofocus at f8.

No one is disputing that the Tammy is best for you but that does not necessarily make it the best option for everyone !!
Almost any lens will perform well when you have good light and can get near to the birds but for folk that shoot in poor light and cannot get near to the target then just maybe something else will suit them better - seem like this has never occurred to you.
The same goes if you main interest is capturing fast(ish) birds in flight - I just could not advocate the Tammy in these circumstances.

Anyway that's enough of winding you up today

 

[Weekend Birder]

Just to show the detail you can get from a close bird with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x.

Range about 12ft, in poor light. ISO 800 only gave 1/500s at f8 - good job I had the lens resting on the hide window.

Is the Tammy sharper? This suggests it may be http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

Is the 400/5.6 + 1.4x quicker to AF on BIF? (with a camera that can AF at f8) - I suspect so.

Zoom + IS versus a lighter, smaller lens with snappier AF for BIF.

As always it's down to the individual user to decide what's best for him/her.

For me, as a birder first and photographer second, weight is important. I lug bins, scope and tripod out with me too, so I'm sticking with the Canon.

I can certainly see the attraction of the Tammy though.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron on Sony

No one is disputing that the Tammy is best for you but that does not necessarily make it the best option for everyone !!
Almost any lens will perform well when you have good light and can get near to the birds but for folk that shoot in poor light and cannot get near to the target then just maybe something else will suit them better - seem like this has never occurred to you.
The same goes if you main interest is capturing fast(ish) birds in flight - I just could not advocate the Tammy in these circumstances.

Anyway that's enough of winding you up today

Never said the Tammy was best for me. You should read what I wrote already and see if you can come to another conclusion. I do not own a 1.4 as I could not autofocus on my 70d with it so do not really know what results it gets. I do not own the Sigma. I do own the Tamron and asked that people show results that they get with the 400 5.6 plus converter so that I can and perhaps others as well make an educated decision. I will use what ever proves to be the best and most versatile of the bunch. For the record I have not made my mind up as I have not seen enough sample images with the 400 plus converter to make an educated decision. Especially low SS images to compare performance and advantages and disadvantages of having IS. With my 70d I do not have the option of using high ISO to get high shutter speed so the ability to get a sharp shot at lower (800ish) ISO and low shutter speed is very important to me.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Thanks

Just to show the detail you can get from a close bird with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x.

Range about 12m, in poor light. ISO 800 only gave 1/500s at f8 - good job I had the lens resting on the hide window.

Is the Tammy sharper? This suggests it may be http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

Is the 400/5.6 + 1.4x quicker to AF on BIF? (with a camera that can AF at f8) - I suspect so.

Zoom + IS versus a lighter, smaller lens with snappier AF for BIF.

As always it's down to the individual user to decide what's best for him/her.

For me, as a birder first and photographer second, weight is important. I lug bins, scope and tripod out with me too, so I'm sticking with the Canon.

I can certainly see the attraction of the Tammy though.

Thanks for the post. Could you tell me what camera you use for this? I am a birder as well. Also lug my Swarovski bins, Kowa scope and tripod and camera and Tamron and have no problem lugging it all all day long.

 

[Weekend Birder]

The same goes if you main interest is capturing fast(ish) birds in flight - I just could not advocate the Tammy in these circumstances.

I've seen several posts on forums from people who have had experience of both lenses say the same thing.

The Tammy is a versatile lens, but the 400/5.6 without a teleconverter is simply the best BIF lens in the world.

 

[Weekend Birder]

Thanks for the post. Could you tell me what camera you use for this? I am a birder as well. Also lug my Swarovski bins, Kowa scope and tripod and camera and Tamron and have no problem lugging it all all day long.

If I am using the 1.4x teleconverter, I use the humble Canon T2i (also known as the 550d). This gives me quite good AF at f8, despite the fact it is only supposed to focus at f5.6! Good enough for BIF in anything other than very poor light, although I mainly use it for long distance ground shots. In very poor light (and I really mean very poor light indeed) it will occasionally hunt for focus.

If I know I will be concentrating on BIF, I use a Canon 7d without a teleconverter.

Just a warning for anyone who wants to emulate this set up. I'm not sure if the Canon 600d or later versions are as good at autofocusing at f8 as the 550d, so that's the one to get.

The teleconverter I use is the Kenko 1.4x teleplus pro 300, although I've tried several different versions of Kenko 1.4x and got good AF capability with them all. I can't vouch for the Canon 1.4x though.

It seems you are stronger and fitter than I am - I really don't want to carry any more weight on my back!

 

[hosesbroadbill]

compromise

If I am using the 1.4x teleconverter, I use the humble Canon T2i (also known as the 550d). This gives me quite good AF at f8, despite the fact it is only supposed to focus at f5.6! Good enough for BIF in anything other than very poor light, although I mainly use it for long distance ground shots. In very poor light (and I really mean very poor light indeed) it will occasionally hunt for focus.

If I know I will be concentrating on BIF, I use a Canon 7d without a teleconverter.

Just a warning for anyone who wants to emulate this set up. I'm not sure if the Canon 600d or later versions are as good at autofocusing at f8 as the 550d, so that's the one to get.

The teleconverter I use is the Kenko 1.4x teleplus pro 300, although I've tried several different versions of Kenko 1.4x and got good AF capability with them all. I can't vouch for the Canon 1.4x though.

It seems you are stronger and fitter than I am - I really don't want to carry any more weight on my back!

I guess it is all a compromise and we all need to figure out what works best for us. I am not so strong or fit (or at least I did not think I was) at 5'10" and 175 pounds. :eat: I can also vouch for the 400 5.6 being great at BIF. But I am looking for the best all around performer while birding. To me there are distinct advantages with the extra reach and IS as well. Also disadvantages of extra weight and not as good at BIF. With the ability to autofocus at f8 of the 7dii this may all change.

Still would like to see more pics using a 300 or 400 plus converter. Would also prefer to see them in low shutter speed situations on a crop sensor but a full frame would be fine as well. Guess that may be hard to find as those with full frames may just up the ISO to get better shutter speed...

 

[Weekend Birder]

Still would like to see more pics using a 300 or 400 plus converter.

Here's a few more from my 550d and 400/5.6 + 1.4x. I've included a flight shot of a tern taken at about 50m, just to show the performance at medium range.

I do think these comparisons are of limited value, however. They take no account of differences in range, lighting etc. If you get close enough to a bird with either set up, you should get a good shot. As Roy C says, it is easy to cherry pick a few nice shots with either combo.

 

[Weekend Birder]

A long range shot too. A Yellow-legged Gull at 230m (!) - measured on Google Earth.

I don't want to hijack the Tammy thread with pics taken with a Canon lens though.

I would be interested in seeing some long range Tammy shots or BIFs.

 

[Weekend Birder]

I am not so strong or fit (or at least I did not think I was) at 5'10" and 175 pounds.

I'm 5'8" and 190 pounds. B Maybe I should go on a diet and get the Tammy.