[GYRob]

Originally Posted by Paul - Herts

now updated to say he had a Kenko UV filter on the 400 which softened the image

Well that now makes sence .
Rob.

[punta]

Some bird photos taken withthis lens and a 70D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo...h/11740763463/

[MiguelM]

Originally Posted by punta

Some bird photos taken withthis lens and a 70D
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo...h/11740763463/

I like it a lot. The photo of the spoonbills doesn't look that it was taken with a $1,069 600mm lenses... but it was:)

[punta]

Looking pretty bloody fantastic at that price isn't it

[Paul - Herts]

I like the look of the shots of the small bird at ISO 3200 - my 40D would have looked like those at 800! And to think they were shot at near 600mm is good. He does say that he had to pp to bring out colour and contrast on the spoonbills but looking good for the price

[Weekend Birder]

Looks pretty good at f6.3 - you would probably gain a little sharpness by stopping down to f8 too.

[Zackiedawg]

It seems quite a no-brainer for me to upgrade to this lens, being a current Tamron 200-500mm user. I bought my 200-500 new in 2008, and it's been a great lens for the price. I like having one long zoom alongside dedicated primes - there are times when the convenience of the zoom is just nice to have, rather than being stuck with 300mm 400mm, or 500mm...so though my primes often get more use, I still find myself pulling out the old 200-500 every few weeks.

I bought that 200-500mm lens for about $850 5 years ago. I can now get a lens that adds 50mm on the wide end, 100mm on the long end, better coatings, moisture resistant construction, USD focus motor rather than the old screw drive version I have, focus limiter switch on the body, AF/MF switch on the body, and it all practically fits in the same footprint as the older lens...and all that has only gone up in price over 5 years by $200. Wow!

I'm selling my 200-500, and putting the money towards the 150-600mm - look forward to trying out this lens. If it's as good as my 200-500 with the upgraded and updated features and the extra reach, it will already be worth it - hopefully it will be even better. I will definitely be able to provide sunny-day samples when I get the lens, as I live in Florida, and we have plenty of sunshine days.

[dacol]

Originally Posted by hksfrank

... i am frank wong from it.wyswig.com ...

Hi Frank! Thanks for the great review, very informative.

[Paul - Herts]

There is a translated from Japanese review here which has some interesting things to say but I did really struggle with the language

http://translate.google.com/translat...59287_all.html

[jimthomson]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo101

Here is someone posting bird pictures to Flickr using the tamron 150-600.

[the black fox]

Originally Posted by jimthomson

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo101

Here is someone posting bird pictures to Flickr using the tamron 150-600.

just been through all his shots so far on there with the tammy ,and it looks like this lens will kick start a revolution .cannot fault any shots with it and if its sharper stopped down its going to be even better .
need to see some b.i.f shots with it now ,as its often what you don't see is what something is incapable of ?.
but so far on the watch this space list

[Degu123]

Looks like a great lens! Just waiting for the UK price to be released!

[lmans66]

Originally Posted by the black fox

just been through all his shots so far on there with the tammy ,and it looks like this lens will kick start a revolution .cannot fault any shots with it and if its sharper stopped down its going to be even better .
need to see some b.i.f shots with it now ,as its often what you don't see is what something is incapable of ?.
but so far on the watch this space list

The way some of these pics are coming out, it is almost a no brainer to opt for this lens. I would like to see some BIF and I would like to see this field tested with birds at a 'normal range'..

For instance, some of the birds in the last link I saw were 'banded' birds and who knows how friendly and upclose one could get to those birds, making just about any lens a fantastic looking lens.

So, the jury is still out but wow, it is surely leaning towards this lens. Perhaps it is up to all of us to just get one and try it out for ourselves to be truly convinced... jim

[Roy C]

I have now seen loads of shots from the Tammy and while I do not think it will be up to a bare 400/5.6 (or 100-400) it looks as if it will be every bit as good at 600mm, if not better, than either of the two Canon when they have a 1.4x tc on them (56O/f8) especially when the Tammy is stopped down to the same f8.
In a weeks time the lens is released in the States and then we should see some meaningful reviews. Still no news about the UK release yet though

[chris129]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I have now seen loads of shots from the Tammy and while I do not think it will be up to a bare 400/5.6 (or 100-400) it looks as if it will be every bit as good at 600mm, if not better, than either of the two Canon when they have a 1.4x tc on them (56O/f8) especially when the Tammy is stopped down to the same f8.
In a weeks time the lens is released in the States and then we should see some meaningful reviews. Still no news about the UK release yet though

That was my assessment as well that it would be at least as good if not better than a 400 5.6L + 1.4 TC for IQ and probably focus a lot better as well. There are a lot of terrific bird shots using the 400 combo and the combo has been championed by some very good wildlife photographers.

Someone said at DPReview.com that if it seems to good to be true. Which is usually correct, but the new Tamron 150-600 may be one of the rare instances where the axiom doesn't hold. I'm really looking forward to finding out. The only question is what do we do with our Canon 400 5.6's if the axiom doesn't hold. It's not going to help the resale values any.

[hoodlum]

Here are nice images from Flickr. Bokeh is looking good as well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/honzafotos/

[MiguelM]

the tests I've seen suggest it is sharper @400m than the 400mm f/5.6 and 100-400mm. I'm sure that this Tamron will be sharper by a long margin both canons with a 1.4x

[chris129]

I sure hope it's going to be a rule breaker. I'd like to see more 70D examples though. Won't be long now until there are more side by side tests than you can shake a stick at. I hope this wakes up Canon who hasn't done anything in the affordable/carryable 400+ category for way too long.

I've ordered a set of 95 mm step down rings so I can fit 77 and 67 mm hoods. Someone suggested that you don't need such a large hood if you have a crop sensor and it would be good if it's possible to tone down the length at bit.

[Zackiedawg]

If I get my lens by the end of the month as hoped for, I will definitely have BIF examples - I shoot a TON of BIFs, and it's one of the very first things I'll be doing with this lens is heading out to the wetlands for still and flying birds.

[Paul - Herts]

A few more examples, if it does work this well ...

http://www.vogeldagboek.nl/

[Paul - Herts]

an update of ye olde signposte test, twixt 400 f5.6 and 150-600 on 5D mkiii AND 70D. This test is particularly pertinent to collectors of signpost photographs and shows how the actions of these constantly moving creatures can be frozen in time

http://camahoy.com/2014/01/13/finall...non-400-f5-6l/

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Paul - Herts

an update of ye olde signposte test, twixt 400 f5.6 and 150-600 on 5D mkiii AND 70D. This test is particularly pertinent to collectors of signpost photographs and shows how the actions of these constantly moving creatures can be frozen in time

http://camahoy.com/2014/01/13/finall...non-400-f5-6l/

This test is absolutely useless, first time he said the 400/5.6 had a UV filter on it and in the last test he is saying that he manually focused the 400/5.6 because there was something wrong with it.
I have had a couple of 400/5.6 and the lens is a million times better than this guy makes it out to be.

[Paul - Herts]

Totally agree with you Roy, that's why I poked fun at it.

The post above that with the link to the Dutch site is more interesting but as the photos are of a fixed size it's a limited point of view again, really need to see the 100% view to judge sharpness.

[MiguelM]

Honest question: can a lens be superior than other on static objects but be inferior on moving ones?( sharpness wise, not AF speed and accuracy)

[chris129]

Originally Posted by Roy C

This test is absolutely useless, first time he said the 400/5.6 had a UV filter on it and in the last test he is saying that he manually focused the 400/5.6 because there was something wrong with it.
I have had a couple of 400/5.6 and the lens is a million times better than this guy makes it out to be.

I have to agree with you. No way a 150-600 F6.3 zoom trumps the 400 5.6L for sharpness and contrast as the sign photos shows. This particular 400 must have hit the floor somewhere along the line. I'll be happy if the new Tamron competes with the Canon 400 with a 1.4X TC at F8 and 560 mm. Which is how I plan to test the Tamron against the Canon when it arrives.