• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

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

capdegat

Well-known member
I still think the 400 f5.6 is a superb lens . I just didn't get on with 7d but may end up going back to mkii in which case I would get the 400 because of weight .I used a kenko extender and was very happy with the quality.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
please post shots

I still think the 400 f5.6 is a superb lens . I just didn't get on with 7d but may end up going back to mkii in which case I would get the 400 because of weight .I used a kenko extender and was very happy with the quality.

Could you please post some shots that you have taken with the 400 5.6 plus extender that match the shots that have been posted with Tamron.
 

capdegat

Well-known member
How about these ? All taken with 100d and kenko 1.4x .

I will probably be back at canon soon, not because of tamron quality but weight . I keep thinking i can carry heavier lenses but I can't . I've tried 4/3 but no good for me so they new 7d is temping with the 400 5.6.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0291.jpg
    IMG_0291.jpg
    315.4 KB · Views: 89
  • IMG_0860.jpg
    IMG_0860.jpg
    304.7 KB · Views: 93
  • IMG_0715.jpg
    IMG_0715.jpg
    214 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_0543.jpg
    IMG_0543.jpg
    236.1 KB · Views: 91

jimthomson

Well-known member
How about these ? All taken with 100d and kenko 1.4x .

I will probably be back at canon soon, not because of tamron quality but weight . I keep thinking i can carry heavier lenses but I can't . I've tried 4/3 but no good for me so they new 7d is temping with the 400 5.6.

Those will do. I like the feathers on the first one.

Personally, I didn't like the focus speed when using my 400mm and kenko 1.4x with my 500D . There was nothing wrong with the image quality.

I also tried the micro 4/3 and the 400mm on a 100D beats anything they have for birds in flight.

I like my tamron 150-600mm on my 5D3 for airplanes, where i find the zoom a great benifit, but for most birding i stick with my 400mm or 500mm primes.
 

capdegat

Well-known member
Don't forget that until new 7d, only ff canons focussed at f8. This makes all crop cameras much slower if they work at all.l much prefered 100d quality to 7d but it was focussing that made me change(amongst others).
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
vs. Tamron

How about these ? All taken with 100d and kenko 1.4x .

I will probably be back at canon soon, not because of tamron quality but weight . I keep thinking i can carry heavier lenses but I can't . I've tried 4/3 but no good for me so they new 7d is temping with the 400 5.6.

Not sure if it is the lighting or the distance to the subjects but I don't think that these pics show the same contrast, or feather detail as pics I have seen with the Tamron. I don't think they are as sharp either.The Bee Eater seems to be the sharpest of the bunch. Not trying to be rude, just trying to be detailed about what I see.

I should add that they certainly are no better than what the Tamron can produce. That along with the VC on the Tamron that allows shots at 600mm handheld with very low SS and the versatility of the zoom would not sway me to get a converter for the 400 5.6 that I own and to stop using the Tamron.

Have any BIF shots with the extender?
 
Last edited:

capdegat

Well-known member
I can only find a couple and these are heavy crops. If you're happy with tamron fine . I think it's a tie and for me weight is everything .
 

Attachments

  • WC1A0427.jpg
    WC1A0427.jpg
    265.6 KB · Views: 137
  • WC1A0118.jpg
    WC1A0118.jpg
    108.6 KB · Views: 131

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Bif

I can only find a couple and these are heavy crops. If you're happy with tamron fine . I think it's a tie and for me weight is everything .

Deta ils on the Oystercatcher are very nice. Especially for a big crop. Best example of the 400 5.6 plus extender that I have seen.

It is all a compromise. Tamron is heavier but I can deal with the weight (being so big and strong 3:) )

Also think the weight is worth it for the IS and zoom ability but can totally understand the weight being an issue and am in no way knocking the 400 5.6. Again I own it and love it. Just don't personally think it is as versatile as the Tamron. Don't own an extender either so can't speak personally to the difference. It is why I so want to see quality shots like your Oystercatcher with the combo.

I will go out tomorrow for the first time with my new 7dii and see how the combo works. Am going to a hawk watch so not sure how good any of the pics will be.
 

capdegat

Well-known member
I'm very interested in the outcome. I'm still worried from a personal point of view about mkii quality as I didn't like using mki above 400 iso. One thing on tamron is that you seem to use IS whereas I don't. I much prefer using faster shutter due to time lag as you hear the IS lock on. I certainly agree about zoom capability. Canon rumours say new 100-400 to be announced soon but again proba
bly too heavy for me.
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
Not sure if it is the lighting or the distance to the subjects but I don't think that these pics show the same contrast, or feather detail as pics I have seen with the Tamron.

The Tamron shots I have seen on this thread are mostly from Florida and the Canon shots mostly from the UK. That's the biggest difference - the light. We need someone from Florida and someone from the UK with both lenses to do some side by side testing. But distance is also an issue. Here is a shot with the Canon where I got a bit closer than I normally can in the UK: https://flic.kr/p/gBAYzt Bright (for the UK) October light...
 
Last edited:

capdegat

Well-known member
here are a couple from the tammy from deepest darkest lincs in the last few days.
 

Attachments

  • 014_5206.jpg
    014_5206.jpg
    159.5 KB · Views: 127
  • 014_5643.jpg
    014_5643.jpg
    520.1 KB · Views: 123

Tarsiger

Well-known member
Having watched this thread and checked other reviews/forums/flickr sites, considering my 'birder with a camera' modus operandi and a limited budget it seems that upgrading my old 40D to a 7D2 will gain me more than upgrading the 100-400 to the Tamron. Time to invest in getting closer rather than buying more reach!!
Russ
 
Last edited:

Winterdune

Well-known member
Having watched this thread and checked other reviews/forums/flickr sites, considering my 'birder with a camera' modus operandi and a limited budget it seems that upgrading my old 40D to a 7D2 will gain me more than upgrading the 100-400 to the Tamron. Time to invest in getting closer rather than buying more reach!!
Russ

That's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.
 

Paul - Herts

Paul Herts
That's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.

I did find a lens rental company based in Maidenhead that hire them for 3 days £51 plus another 24 for delivery and collection lensesforhire.co.uk

Thought I would wait until spring when the days are longer and can get my money's worth out of it.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Tamron shots

The Tamron shots I have seen on this thread are mostly from Florida and the Canon shots mostly from the UK. That's the biggest difference - the light. We need someone from Florida and someone from the UK with both lenses to do some side by side testing. But distance is also an issue. Here is a shot with the Canon where I got a bit closer than I normally can in the UK: https://flic.kr/p/gBAYzt Bright (for the UK) October light...

Have to disagree a bit. Think I have posted most of the shots on this thread and I am in New York. Not arguing that the light is better here than the UK, just saying that the lens works well in other places other than sunny Florida.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
1st Shots with the 7d ii and the Tamron

That's probably where I am too with the 400 f5.6... but I will still try and find a Tamron to do a real life comparison with, for both IQ and speed.

Finally got out to test out the 7dii and the Tamron. Went out during lunch to a local park and the sun was shining high in the sky so lighting was not ideal. Just a few notes for those of you that do not have the 7dii or who are thinking of getting it. The focus speed and accuracy are amazing. Not even in the same league as my 70d. The 10fps seem shooting a machine gun. Shutter is almost silent compared to the 70d. Camera is heavier so that is something for those with weight issues to consider. I love the switch that lets you quickly change focus points from say center point to zone, etc. Here are some of the shots that I got. Overall I am thrilled with the camera so far and feel it is a major upgrade from the 70d.

A Golden-crowned Kingled at about a 50% crop.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15520959878/in/photostream/

Another Golden-crowned Kingled

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15087047583/in/photostream/

Another Golden-crowned Kinglet that was about a 90% crop. Meaning this is only about 10% of the original picture.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15521074278/in/photostream/

And a Dark-eyed Junco.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15087232113/in/photostream/

All hand held and processed in DPP.
 

Gronk08

Well-known member
Having watched this thread and checked other reviews/forums/flickr sites, considering my 'birder with a camera' modus operandi and a limited budget it seems that upgrading my old 40D to a 7D2 will gain me more than upgrading the 100-400 to the Tamron. Time to invest in getting closer rather than buying more reach!!
Russ

I have a 40D and have just traded in my 400 for the Tammy, I have to say I more than happy with the trade up I have made. I have attached a couple of recent shots I have taken with the Tammy.
Don't get me wrong the 400 was a good lens and I got some great results, but the extra reach combined with the flexibility of the Tammy makes it a winner for me.
I also prefer a zoom for BIF shots being able to find the target with a low magnification and zooming in to get the final shot.

Tim.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8413.JPG
    IMG_8413.JPG
    296.3 KB · Views: 107
  • IMG_8520.JPG
    IMG_8520.JPG
    188.7 KB · Views: 124
  • IMG_8562.JPG
    IMG_8562.JPG
    283.4 KB · Views: 101

Winterdune

Well-known member
Have to disagree a bit. Think I have posted most of the shots on this thread and I am in New York. Not arguing that the light is better here than the UK, just saying that the lens works well in other places other than sunny Florida.

Yes sorry my mistake; you are slowly convincing me to take this lens as seriously as the 400 but I still worry about speed of focusing for LBJs in flight!
Sean
 

Winterdune

Well-known member
I also prefer a zoom for BIF shots being able to find the target with a low magnification and zooming in to get the final shot.

Tim.

Thanks Gronk. Do you shoot smaller birds in flight? How does the speed of focus on the tammy compare with the Canon 400 prime? That's now my only major concern about trading (apart from weight).

Ta
Sean
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top