Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 DI IF VC USD (5 Viewers)

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron vs 400 5.6

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.

I don't think it is hijacking at all. It is a comparison that I think is relevant to owners of all brands of cameras and probably something that all of us have considered. Prime plus extender or zoom to use while birding.

I also agree that while direct comparisons are not available, it is good to see what results people are getting with different lighting and set ups. Helps with the decision process.

Also agree that at close range a good shot should be had. What I am particularly interested in is how the IS is or is not an advantage. Does the extra weight of the Tamron offset it's IS. Do people have good low light shots with a prime plus extender that show excellent detail at very low shutter speeds? Can you at 560mm plus a crop shoot shots at 1/160th hand held and get no motion blur?

With regards to BIF with the 400 5.6, I do not see how that relates to the comparison. Granted the 400 5.6 is fantastic at BIF. Again, I own it. But if you are out birding and an opportunity arises, it is not as if you will have the time to take the extender off and shoot with just the 400. So it seems to me that either you are walking around with the 400, the 400 + 1.4 or something else like the Tamron. All have their pros and cons.

I have posted some of these before but here are a few shots I have of BIF with the Tamron. All hand held with IS off. And also a shot of a House Finch at 600mm with SS at 1/160th. Taken in heavy cloud cover just before it started to rain.

House Finch
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15228268118/

A Royal Tern in flight. f6.3

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15038294892/in/photostream/

A Cormorant in flight

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/14825811917/

A Common Tern in flight

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/14314171468/

A Kestrel that was a heavy crop

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/13694704734/in/photostream/

A Forsters Tern at close range that was moving really fast. Could not have gotten the whole bird without a zoom

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/15110570409/

I think the lens does just fine with BIF. Not saying it is as good and certainly not better than the 400mm, but still it is good. Keep in mind I am a total newb. Only process photos in DPP. Probably takes me 30 seconds to process a photo. I figure that I am better off working on my bushcraft than at processing pics. If I get close to the bird and keep a steady hand then there should be very little to do later on. I only apply basic sharpening to all photos. Change white balance on occasion and perhaps add or take away a little saturation plus some cropping. I leave the noise reduction on auto.

I will go out on the right wind to a local hawkwatch and try and get BIF of small birds as the pass by.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Bif

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.

Have any shots of a finch flying quickly that show the same amount of detail? I would prefer to see that than a shot once it has slowed down and was landing?

 

[Paul - Herts]

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.

What tc are you using? I have had very little success with the 400 f5.6 and a tc on my 70D even when using live view where it AF's very well. I have photographed little egret from a distance of 30m with no detail to speak of at all. One of the few shots that I have managed that I thought was acceptable was this one taken at Elmley using a Kenko DG plus pro manually focused:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43324529@N04/14305949548/

And I really struggle to see well enough through the viewfinder to focus as I find the light really drops off.

I'd love to know how Roy manages to get goldfinches in flight - I'm hopeless with big slow moving birds! Practice, practice, practice methinks.

Paul

 

[Weekend Birder]

What tc are you using?

It's a Kenko 1.4x teleplus pro 300.

I don't think the converter is the important factor with the 400/5.6 + 1.4x. I've used several Kenko versions with success. I think the camera is the key factor. I use the Canon 550d which autofocuses at f8, even though it isn't supposed to. Again I will say I don't think the later versions (600d, 650d etc) do this.

This means accepting the limitation of the 550d's 3.7 frames/sec. Having said that, the sensor is the same as the Canon 7d and the focusing system is very good. I usually take both the 550d and 7d out with me and use the 550d along with the teleconverter for long range use.

 

[MiguelM]

From what I've seen here, the photos taken with the Tamron by Hosesbroadbill and Micoli are much better (sharper and with more contrast) than everything I've seen here that was taken with 400mm f.6 plus tc 1.4x

 

[Hor Kee]

The 550D's center focus point works better with the Kenko compared to the 650D and other Canon DSLRs which have a dual-cross point center point that is extra sensitive to lenses of f/2.8 or faster. Guess its more 'primitive' focusing system allows for more precise focus when fooled to focus at f/8.

 

[Zackiedawg]

Just for sharing, here are some recent shots from my local Florida wetlands with the Tamron 150-600mm lens, which I'm enjoying.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron vs 400 5.6

From what I've seen here, the photos taken with the Tamron by Hosesbroadbill and Micoli are much better (sharper and with more contrast) than everything I've seen here that was taken with 400mm f.6 plus tc 1.4x

I tend to agree as well. But we must be missing something. Many experienced photographers swear by the other combo. It is why I keep asking for examples that I can see that show why that combo is better than the Tamron. And by the way my name is Isaac. Should have used that when created a user name.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Spoonbill

Just for sharing, here are some recent shots from my local Florida wetlands with the Tamron 150-600mm lens, which I'm enjoying.

Love the Spoonbill shot!

 

[Zackiedawg]

Thank you Isaac. They're so common down here, yet you can't help but keep shooting them because they're just beautiful birds. There was a large flock of 35-40 of them flying around at that time - I snapped a few of the ones that came down lower and closer for isolated shots. capturing the whole flock was impossible, but I tried to snap a few shots just to show that there were numerous birds. Note on that one shot, there's an ibis impostor flying along with them, hoping noone would notice he's not pink!

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Florida

Thank you Isaac. They're so common down here, yet you can't help but keep shooting them because they're just beautiful birds. There was a large flock of 35-40 of them flying around at that time - I snapped a few of the ones that came down lower and closer for isolated shots. capturing the whole flock was impossible, but I tried to snap a few shots just to show that there were numerous birds. Note on that one shot, there's an ibis impostor flying along with them, hoping noone would notice he's not pink!

Where in Florida are you? I am supposed to be there next month and would love to be somewhere where they are so common.

 

[Zackiedawg]

I'm in southeast Florida - Boca Raton, just a bit north of Ft. Lauderdale. They're much more common here in the winter, but are seen year-round. They tend to have historically been west-coast birds - more in the Ft. Myers side of Florida on the gulf, with a few strays over this way - but over the past 10 years our numbers have been growing significantly. This time of year, they're almost guaranteed at several area wetlands - and sometimes they'll come in by the dozens like they did this day. I also visited Sunday, and there were less of them as I passed by the same spot - maybe 5-6. But time of day matters too - they'll fly in and out as they go foraging, and have spots they like to go back to rest. If you're going to be anywhere in the southern part of the state, below Lake Okeechobee, you have a pretty good chance to see them. On the west coast of FL, check out Ding Darling in Sanibel, or Myakka River...on the east coast, Green Cay wetlands is the spot I took these, and farther north, Viera Wetlands is usually pretty good for them too.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Spoonbills

I'm in southeast Florida - Boca Raton, just a bit north of Ft. Lauderdale. They're much more common here in the winter, but are seen year-round. They tend to have historically been west-coast birds - more in the Ft. Myers side of Florida on the gulf, with a few strays over this way - but over the past 10 years our numbers have been growing significantly. This time of year, they're almost guaranteed at several area wetlands - and sometimes they'll come in by the dozens like they did this day. I also visited Sunday, and there were less of them as I passed by the same spot - maybe 5-6. But time of day matters too - they'll fly in and out as they go foraging, and have spots they like to go back to rest. If you're going to be anywhere in the southern part of the state, below Lake Okeechobee, you have a pretty good chance to see them. On the west coast of FL, check out Ding Darling in Sanibel, or Myakka River...on the east coast, Green Cay wetlands is the spot I took these, and farther north, Viera Wetlands is usually pretty good for them too.

I know Green Cay very well. My grandmother used to live in Delray Beach and I have been there many times. Thanks for the heads up. Have been to Viera as well a few times but not seen them there.

 

[Zackiedawg]

They've been appearing more and more at Green Cay the past 3-5 years. Used to be only winter, but the past two summers I've seen spoonies there all through the hot months. The past 3 weeks they've been there every time I've gone...with this Saturday being the day the big flock came in. Through the winter they should be fairly reliable to spot at Green Cay and also a few strays will usually be over at Wakodahatchee too. Viera tends to get them more in the winter only. Feel free to give me a heads-up when you're down this way - if it falls on a weekend when you go out birding, I'm usually there unless I'm out of town. I'll be in the Caribbean for the last week of October - back on Nov 3...and will be out at Green Cay & Wako most Saturdays.

 

[Winterdune]

Light is v good in Florida compared to the often miserable wet dark UK! We need a UK user of both setups to take and post some decent comparisons. Any takers?

Sean

 

[Weekend Birder]

With regards to BIF with the 400 5.6, I do not see how that relates to the comparison. Granted the 400 5.6 is fantastic at BIF. Again, I own it. But if you are out birding and an opportunity arises, it is not as if you will have the time to take the extender off and shoot with just the 400. So it seems to me that either you are walking around with the 400, the 400 + 1.4 or something else like the Tamron.

I use my 400 5.6 without the tc as my default set up. This means I am ready for a quick shot of opportunity for BIF and close birds. If I need to snap a distant wader, gull etc on the ground, I have my tc ready and it just takes a few secs to put on. If I'm worried about missing a shot, I may take a few at 400 before adding the tc, just in case. I try to get the best of both worlds this way.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Bif

I use my 400 5.6 without the tc as my default set up. This means I am ready for a quick shot of opportunity for BIF and close birds. If I need to snap a distant wader, gull etc on the ground, I have my tc ready and it just takes a few secs to put on. If I'm worried about missing a shot, I may take a few at 400 before adding the tc, just in case. I try to get the best of both worlds this way.

Again, it is about compromises. While the Tamron may not be as good at BIF, there are clear advantages to what you just described. You can take a shot at 400 as well to make sure you have something and in a split second zoom in and get a shot at 600 if needed. Or you can just take shots at say 200mm if a bird is close. In addition there are many times that a bird is either too close or too fast to switch and still get a shot. Or weather conditions can limit your ability to switch lenses.

 

[Weekend Birder]

True it's not perfect, it just works best for me. As I say I can understand the attraction of the Tammy.

 

[Zackiedawg]

I go back and forth between primes and zooms - I find I like both for different reasons and there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Before getting the 150-600, I had sold my 200-500mm zoom in January, and was shooting primes exclusively from January to September...I got by fine, and the faster lenses gave me some nice advantages being able to open up to F4 as needed in low light. At the same time, I definitely missed a few shots because of the fixed focal - or just didn't bother to try to get the shot because I knew I couldn't. Having the 150-600 and zooms again, I definitely enjoy the flexibility when out for weekly bird walks - it's a more useful overall lens because I might run into birds just 8-10 feet away then see a bird flying several hundred feet off, and be able to transition in fractions of a second from 150mm to 600mm and get both. That said, I'll still find times when I'm on a specific birding mission - and know I want or need the faster apertures or the key sharpness at a particular distance, where the primes will come out. For now, the Tamron will take over pretty much all my 'regular' weekly walks - when I'm just out for a 5-10 mile hike through the wetlands and forests to see what I find...having that flexibility is more important for me in those circumstances than max aperture. And yes, as Sean mentioned above, Florida's light is usually much brighter and much more abundant, so fast apertures aren't always even needed (though step into a cypress marsh or pine scrub forest and that sun gets blocked quite effectively, leaving you in the realm of wide open shooting at ISO3200 or more).

 

[Jaybrams]

I've been following this thread for some time. I purchased the Tammy and returned it a couple of weeks later. I loved the flexibility of the zoom, but otherwise had problems. I bought the lens to get more reach than I had with my 400/5.6. I wrote to Tamron about various focusing issues I had. Trying to helpful, Tamron wrote back the following:

"Thank you for contacting Tamron. I'm sorry about the issue you are having with your lens. If your lighting and contrast are good this lens should provide very nice shots even beyond the 400mm mark. With that said it can be a bit of a challenge to shoot at around 500 to 600mm as this is approximately where the lens aperture goes from F/5.6 to F/6.3. Your depth of field will certainly be much thinner at this focal length which adds to the challenge."

This confirmed my fears that I would always struggle with this lens at the longer end. So I shipped it back and have pre-ordered the 7D Mark II. I am planning to use my 400/5.6 and a 1.4x teleconverter to get to 560 (FF equivalent).

I do miss the zoom, but find I make better images with my 400. Whatever works best for each person is what they should use. I found that it seemed the Tamron representative was echoing my sentiments regarding the longer end of their lens.