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

[MiguelM]

Looks better to me than any other combination of lens or lens+tc in the range of 400-600mm under 5300 pounds...

 

[Roy C]

Looks better to me than any other combination of lens or lens+tc in the range of 400-600mm under 5300 pounds...

I have yet to see anything from the Tammy that comes up to a 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc let alone a used 300/2.8 IS at 420mm or 600mm.

 

[MiguelM]

I have yet to see anything from the Tammy that comes up to a 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc let alone a used 300/2.8 IS at 420mm or 600mm.

Well show me the difference between the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc, because I can say the opposite "I have yet tosee anything from the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc that comes up to the Tammy"

"used 300/2.8 IS at 420mm or 600mm". Used... I was referring to new equipment....

 

[DRodrigues]

What about video use?

Any test on video on this lens?
Also, is there any technical issue that limits Tamron to release a Sony E-mount?
For bird photo I use an astro-telescope but would be interested in this lens for video...
Ducks are usually too fast moving to keep focus correct and, after testing a Sony 18-200 on my NEX5, I conclude I need more magnification for video... This lens released in E-mount would full fill my video needs...o

 

[Roy C]

Well show me the difference between the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc, because I can say the opposite "I have yet tosee anything from the 400/5.6 + 1.4x tc that comes up to the Tammy"

I have to say that just about every shot I have seen from the Tammy (and I have now seen many thousands on four or five forums as well as on Flickr) I would delete in an instance as being Too soft and lacking in fine detail, especially those shot at 600mm. I guess we all have different ideas of IQ and sharpness and if you think the long end shots from the Tammy are OK then that is great but so far I have seen nothing that would make me choose it over a lens like the Canon 400/5.6 (which I do not have BTW).
What you will find with lenses like the Tammy is that they are OK if you can get the bird big in the frame but if you have to do much cropping then they will be nowhere near as good as a lens like the 400/5.6 IMHO.
Attached are a couple of near 100% crops from the 400/5.6 and the Robin is with a 1.4x tc and also cropped a fair bit.
I have not seen anything from the Tammy yet that would crop up this much and yield the detail that the 400/5.6 gives - maybe you have!

 

[Paul - Herts]

How the hell did you manage to retrieve so much detail on those shots Roy? I admit that I am nowhere near to being an expert at PP but I feel all of those images would top my best shots except a very few where the bird was almost full-frame!

I have taken shots of Godwit from closer and in better light with my 40D/300 f4 which wouldn't touch that - maybe I should have moved up to the 7D and 400 5.6 a long time ago!

Gotta admit, although I have seen shots from the Tamron that I would like to have taken I'm not convinced it is the best solution for birding, the real advantage it has is being a zoom lens but looking at Roy's shots the 400 is considerably sharper

 

[Roy C]

How the hell did you manage to retrieve so much detail on those shots Roy? I admit that I am nowhere near to being an expert at PP but I feel all of those images would top my best shots except a very few where the bird was almost full-frame!

I have taken shots of Godwit from closer and in better light with my 40D/300 f4 which wouldn't touch that - maybe I should have moved up to the 7D and 400 5.6 a long time ago!

Gotta admit, although I have seen shots from the Tamron that I would like to have taken I'm not convinced it is the best solution for birding, the real advantage it has is being a zoom lens but looking at Roy's shots the 400 is considerably sharper

Both those big crops were taken with the 40D Paul. The Robin was taken on the 7D by using live view AF which is not restricted to f5.6 .

 

[Paul - Herts]

Both those big crops were taken with the 40D Paul. The Robin was taken on the 7D by using live view AF which is not restricted to f5.6 .

I'll throw in the towel now then :C

Edit: sorry, just fed up. Was off out this afternoon but it's like night outside already and raining again

 

[Roy C]

Edit: sorry, just fed up. Was off out this afternoon but it's like night outside already and raining again

LOL, I know what you mean Paul, I have not been out since Christmas :C

 

[capdegat]

Much as I would like this lens to be good - at the moment I agree with Roy.
Here is one taken last week with 400 + tc on a 100d . Not a heavy crop but I don't think it's too bad.

 

[Paul - Herts]

Much as I would like this lens to be good - at the moment I agree with Roy.
Here is one taken last week with 400 + tc on a 100d . Not a heavy crop but I don't think it's too bad.

I really like it. Was that taken tripod mounted or hand held? There's no CA that I can see, is it a mkii extender or mkiii that you have

There is just a dearth of anything of similar quality with the Tamron. One thing that has really stood out for me with the Tamron is the noise in images - they all seem really grainy??

 

[chris129]

I never been able to do as well with my 400 5.6 + Tamron non-reporting 1.4 Tc as I have with the bare lens. And that's on a 30D, 550D and 70D. It hunts quite a lot but is usable. I couldn't get it to work at all on a borrowed 7D but that's another story. It's hard for me to get anything decent at 560 mm without a tripod. One of the champion bird photographers using the Tamron 1.4 on the 400/5.6 who has a tons of posts and followers on DPreview is Daniella. She hasn't posted for a number of years now.

 

[capdegat]

Hand held with kenko 1.4 .I'll upset Roy by saying that I think this sensor is better than his beloved 7d, obviuosly other things suffer but preferable to me.

 

[micloi]

I have to say that just about every shot I have seen from the Tammy (and I have now seen many thousands on four or five forums as well as on Flickr) I would delete in an instance as being Too soft and lacking in fine detail, especially those shot at 600mm.

How many of these ones would you delete?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12106232755/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12110723745/
http://10squaredcorp.com/photos/jm_finch.jpg

There are many more and these show what the lens can resolve, rather than what photographers with no experience or that shoot in bad conditions can upload on the web...

You can agree to disagree with all the happy buyers of the 150-600 but that does not make it a terrible lens. Might be worse than the 400mm+1.4 or not but it has stabilisation, is a zoom lens and it auto-focuses on every camera body so that should be worth something :t:

Just my 2p

 

[Roy C]

Hand held with kenko 1.4 .I'll upset Roy by saying that I think this sensor is better than his beloved 7d, obviuosly other things suffer but preferable to me.

Not sure what you are on about but I have not even got a 7D (nor a 400/5.6 lens) . These day I shoot with a 5D3.

 

[Paul - Herts]

Hand held with kenko 1.4 .I'll upset Roy by saying that I think this sensor is better than his beloved 7d, obviuosly other things suffer but preferable to me.

Just had a look at it on your Flickr page and it holds up very well. Given that the Tamron used it at the 600mm end would equate to circa 570mm over shorter distances as it is a zoom, then the Canon with an extender would be shooting at the same length roughly and looks, to me, to be much sharper!

Cheers for that Les. Found your photostream very interesting, some cracking shots and lots of different cameras!

Paul

 

[Paul - Herts]

How many of these ones would you delete?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12106232755/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12110723745/
http://10squaredcorp.com/photos/jm_finch.jpg

There are many more and these show what the lens can resolve, rather than what photographers with no experience or that shoot in bad conditions can upload on the web...

You can agree to disagree with all the happy buyers of the 150-600 but that does not make it a terrible lens. Might be worse than the 400mm+1.4 or not but it has stabilisation, is a zoom lens and it auto-focuses on every camera body so that should be worth something :t:

Just my 2p

And straight back to square 1!

:eek!:

 

[ramfan]

Hi Micloi

Thanks for the linkys above. These plus what you yourself have posted really show what this lens can resolve. I am sure some will continue to bang-on about BIF but in terms of pure resolution the images you have pointed to are really impressive. For me, the combination of stabilisation and relatively low weight for such a long FL lens makes this very tempting. The AF speed for BIF is a combination of many factors anyway.

I look forward to, hopefully, seeing such great images from Nikon users in due course.

 

[Roy C]

How many of these ones would you delete?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12106232755/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/with/12110723745/
http://10squaredcorp.com/photos/jm_finch.jpg

There are many more and these show what the lens can resolve, rather than what photographers with no experience or that shoot in bad conditions can upload on the web...

You can agree to disagree with all the happy buyers of the 150-600 but that does not make it a terrible lens. Might be worse than the 400mm+1.4 or not but it has stabilisation, is a zoom lens and it auto-focuses on every camera body so that should be worth something :t:

Just my 2p

I do not disagree with anyone nor have I said that it is a Terrrible lens, I am just expressing my opinion. Please show me where I have said it is a terrible lens before making wild accusation like that!!!

I have seen all of those shots over on POTN (I have seen every single image put on on both those threads on POTN inc the links to the flickr sites and all those over on Fred Miranda! I have also seen all the shots you have put up on various forums) and most that are are any good were just about full frame and a lot were not shot at 600mm which is what I was saying earlier on.

IQ can be very subjective and I will say the same to you as to other Folk, if you are happy with the lens then that's great,but I repeat that I have seen nothing yet that gets me in the least bit interested in the Lens which is a shame as I would love 600mm with VC and coming in at under 2KG. I will agree that a large number of the samples put up thus far seem to have been taking by Photographers with little or no experience in shooting with long lenses.

BTW one of the links you have just put a link to was by Gabe over at POTN who said 'if you're at 600mm on a crop AND your subject is still only filling like 1/3 of the frame, there isn't much room to crop without IQ degradation' Which is more or less what I have been saying if you care to read my post #205

 

[micloi]

I have to say that just about every shot I have seen from the Tammy (and I have now seen many thousands on four or five forums as well as on Flickr) I would delete in an instance as being Too soft and lacking in fine detail, especially those shot at 600mm.

Would only make such a comment for a lens that I deemed to be terrible.

Anyway, do not want to start an argument, just wanted to show other forum members that there are good shots out there and let them make up their own mind.

That's my last post on this subject, will only post again if there are any photos I would like to share :t: