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

[TNarc]

Your version of events is not so accurate but lets agree to disagree. Since this is on birdforum and about a lens, I will keep my responses to that.

When I got my lens back, I never said it was sharper. Said it acquired focus quicker. Never even mentioned sharper IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ WHAT I WROTE:t:.

As to the focus limiter, I stand by what I said. When set to full it does not focus well on far away objects, especially in AI servo. It is far more responsive when set to 15m to infinity. The pro that I referred to picked up the camera for about 30 seconds, tried to take a few shots and it did not work. I mentioned he shoots Nikon and Leica and really did not know which button to use when back focusing. Did not use him to prove a point at all. I watched him try and focus on the stop sign and it not obtain focus. It was not that it did not beep, but that it remained very blurry. When I tried again, it worked much better with the limiter set to 15m +. I also think that in AI servo that my limited experience with shoot stationary birds was that areas of more contrast that it was slower to focus than when shoot in one shot. But again that was with very limited experience.

And again we are talking about the performance of a lens, not my ability to process shots. White in a bill of a coot is not the lenses fault, it is mine. Blacks in a Wood Duck are not the lenses fault either. Clearly I made a mistake when shooting the pic and did not fix it in post. I do not even own lightroom or photshop. Only do basic corrections with Canon DigitalProfessional.

To me there are no comparisons with the Coot shots. Yours is not in focus and very soft. Mine is sharp. Not a debatable thing. Again we are discussing the performance of a lens, not your idea of what a record shot is. Does the lens produce sharp shots? For me it is all about how easy it is to carry and to use while birding. While I understand that the shots with a 7 or 10 times more expensive lens will be better, they are not so much better. Which is what makes this a great all around lens for so many.

Well I guess you won, Roy C threw his toys out of the cot as the brits say, and turned tail and ran. What a blowhard that guy is, very rude and opinionated as well as full of himself, don't imagine he has too many friends as nobody would put up with his self-righteous attitude for long.

I think you are spot on in your evaluation of this lens and your opinion is well appreciated by many that follow this thread to affirm that this lens is as good as its rumored to be, even Roy C has to admit in his own convoluted way that the lens is pretty good although he tries to find fault in it at every turn, nevertheless he bought one and I think he will keep it cause its blows the doors off of any of those big whites he worships, its lighter, more flexible, and just as sharp for all intents and purposes according to the "real" controlled tests that "thedigitalpicture.com does.

Have to admit though, this thread has died since Roy C isn't around extolling his opinions, flawed as they may be.

 

[hosesbroadbill]

Tamron

Well I guess you won, Roy C threw his toys out of the cot as the brits say, and turned tail and ran. What a blowhard that guy is, very rude and opinionated as well as full of himself, don't imagine he has too many friends as nobody would put up with his self-righteous attitude for long.

I think you are spot on in your evaluation of this lens and your opinion is well appreciated by many that follow this thread to affirm that this lens is as good as its rumored to be, even Roy C has to admit in his own convoluted way that the lens is pretty good although he tries to find fault in it at every turn, nevertheless he bought one and I think he will keep it cause its blows the doors off of any of those big whites he worships, its lighter, more flexible, and just as sharp for all intents and purposes according to the "real" controlled tests that "thedigitalpicture.com does.

Have to admit though, this thread has died since Roy C isn't around extolling his opinions, flawed as they may be.

What is odd is that he kept arguing against himself that the lens is not sharper than a way more expensive lens. Thing is that nobody said it was. But it is lighter, more versatile and way cheaper. All a major plus for me. I was looking at shots taken with the $12,000 600mm f4 and they are amazing. Tamron is not that quality, but at 1/10th the price it is to me the best alternative on the market. Here are a few shots I got a couple days ago with the lens pulled back that I would not have been able to hand hold nor zoom in with a much larger setup.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/14685176315/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/14498486169/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/120553232@N02/14704945033/in/photostream/

I am very happy with these results. Also not so sure what else needs to be said about the lens that has not been said already. It is light, versatile and very sharp when in good light. All that for $1,069 US is to me the best bargain arouond.

 

[stevo]

The tamron 150-600mm is okay for happy snappers out there who treat a dslr like a point and shoot,then think they can rescue anything in either lightroom or photoshop.i for one won't be buying it it's a slow lens not the full 600mm and sharpest at 400mm okay for duckpond shots i suppose.

Steve.

 

[micloi]

The tamron 150-600mm is okay for happy snappers out there who treat a dslr like a point and shoot,then think they can rescue anything in either lightroom or photoshop.i for one won't be buying it it's a slow lens not the full 600mm and sharpest at 400mm okay for duckpond shots i suppose.

Steve.

:h?:

 

[GYRob]

I know personalities clash as they do in every forum but Roy c did indeed along with other's show what this lens can do and hopefully he will again join in the Tamron debate .

All this info and pic's is great for helping people make a bit more of an informed choice .

Rob.

 

[stevegg]

Roy, you are so adamant about the white lens quality, although I see no real difference between the 300 L and the Tammy at 400, or 600, certainly not enough to justify double the weight and 3 times the price.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

I wish this was a useful resource for people looking to make decisions about lenses. Unfortunately people take stances that they then try to find evidence to support. The post I have quoted states that there is little difference between the Tamron and the 300 f 2.8L. I have spent some time checking this information. What it compares is the old 300 f2.8 at f8 with a 2x TC against the Tamron and they are not to dissimilar.

If you then use the same website and compare the current 300 f2.8L and TC at both f6.3 and f8 the Canon is significantly better.

This is not to say that the Tamron isn't a great value lens, but it illustrates the difficulty with these sort of threads.

Best Wishes

Steve

 

[TNarc]

:h?:

Nice to hear from Roy's relatives, the fun is starting again. I guess I need a better monitor because I certainly see very little difference if any between the big white photos on flicker and the Tamron's. Here's the closest big white plus extender in price to the Tamron, everyone's exclaiming how good the 300mm Canon handles extenders and how its a better alternative to the Tamron, well I certainly don't see it that way according to this comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[Paul - Herts]

Nice to hear from Roy's relatives, the fun is starting again. I guess I need a better monitor because I certainly see very little difference if any between the big white photos on flicker and the Tamron's. Here's the closest big white plus extender in price to the Tamron, everyone's exclaiming how good the 300mm Canon handles extenders and how its a better alternative to the Tamron, well I certainly don't see it that way according to this comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

That link is for a comparison between the Tamron and a Canon 300mm f4 with extender not the f2.8 which is where people are saying the difference can be seen and hence the difference in price - yes, I have read your post but I don't think you have read the content of the thread thoroughly. I use the 300 f4 and am very happy with it, however I don't use it with a 2x extender and rarely use it with 1.4x (I own one of the Kenko tc's) as I do believe that they degrade image on this lens as most who own it will agree, although when I have used the 1.4x for near subjects I have found the image quality to be very good.

I haven't gone anywhere near the Tamron so can't say whether the image quality is better or not and won't wade into that argument

Your comment about Roy and micloi being relatives is odd to say the least. If you had been following the posts and threads on the Tamron since its release you would know that the 2 of them have very different opinions

 

[stevegg]

QED!

Steve

 

[micloi]

Nice to hear from Roy's relatives

Cousin Roy? ...

 

[njlarsen]

As someone who is mostly looking in from the outside: I felt this thread gradually got unnecessarily harsh. In my opinion, that was a gradual build up from both sides, not something where one person/side can be given sole blame.

Niels

 

[the black fox]

Cousin Roy? ...

I hope cousin Roy likes ouzo ,3


Back on track ,there is totally no need for this kind of rhetoric on here ,I totally trust Roy.c appraisal of the lens ,in fact I would say he has praised it up not the other way round .
You simply can not come on to a forum and spout about how fantastic your new lens is and then admit that you do not own the software to process the shots properly, it's like buying a Ferrari driving it a 30mph on flat tires and then saying how good it is .

Your opinion or review of this lens can only be based on the results that are produced ,based on what I have seen from bill I wouldn't buy one ,based on Roy.c results I would. and yes I have actually used one albeit for a day .

All that's been achieved so far with this thread has now gone out of the window
Thanks yanks 8-P

 

[hampers]

I hope cousin Roy likes ouzo ,3


Back on track ,there is totally no need for this kind of rhetoric on here ,I totally trust Roy.c appraisal of the lens ,in fact I would say he has praised it up not the other way round .
You simply can not come on to a forum and spout about how fantastic your new lens is and then admit that you do not own the software to process the shots properly, it's like buying a Ferrari driving it a 30mph on flat tires and then saying how good it is .

Your opinion or review of this lens can only be based on the results that are produced ,based on what I have seen from bill I wouldn't buy one ,based on Roy.c results I would. and yes I have actually used one albeit for a day .

All that's been achieved so far with this thread has now gone out of the window
Thanks yanks 8-P

Very well said. The thread has in the main been objective with contributions from people with varying experience and abilities. Roy has put across a good argument for the lens whilst also pointing out that it does not come upto the 'whites' standard and demonstrated that good results are possible given the right conditions. I'd be interested to understand how people will use this lens outside the good light period in the UK given that it operates best when stopped down. Which one would not expect given the cost differences. This lens seems to be pitched at a level where people can get the 'reach' with some limitations in quality. Everyone is equally entitled to their opinions and to express them of this lens. There will be people who love it and those that don't. The Canon 100-400 is an example of the 'whites' that is loved or hated and there are good copies and soft copies, I'm sure this applies to this lens also.

Roy has over time provided much valuable advice and help to people on this forum and in this thread. To launch a personal attack on someone giving a balanced and objective view of his opinion is un-necessary and totally devalues the thread. I for one appreciate his opinions, trust his advice and value his input. Have a look at his website and see the quality on there with lower end whites using innovative ways of focussing with extenders and this proves testament to his skills.

Phil

 

[Roy C]

Very well said. The thread has in the main been objective with contributions from people with varying experience and abilities. Roy has put across a good argument for the lens whilst also pointing out that it does not come upto the 'whites' standard and demonstrated that good results are possible given the right conditions. I'd be interested to understand how people will use this lens outside the good light period in the UK given that it operates best when stopped down. Which one would not expect given the cost differences. This lens seems to be pitched at a level where people can get the 'reach' with some limitations in quality. Everyone is equally entitled to their opinions and to express them of this lens. There will be people who love it and those that don't. The Canon 100-400 is an example of the 'whites' that is loved or hated and there are good copies and soft copies, I'm sure this applies to this lens also.

Roy has over time provided much valuable advice and help to people on this forum and in this thread. To launch a personal attack on someone giving a balanced and objective view of his opinion is un-necessary and totally devalues the thread. I for one appreciate his opinions, trust his advice and value his input. Have a look at his website and see the quality on there with lower end whites using innovative ways of focussing with extenders and this proves testament to his skills.

Phil

Hi Phil, I unsubscribed from this thread like I said I would in my last post and have not been back on again since then, this morning I made a post on another thread and saw you had posted so had a gander as you always make sense. Thanks for your support:t: (and yours Jeff) I have still not looked back at any other post since my last one but can only image what some of our friends had to say!!!. Criticism from competent photographers is fine by me but anything from talentless morons is like water off a ducks back and only to be expected!
BTW I am still playing around with this lens, in the garden with controlled conditions and shooting from relativity short distances it is doing fine but I will reserve final judgement for when I can get down to the estuary/burrows and start snapping a few distant waders in far from ideal light.
I will now unsubscribe from this thread once again as the comments from some of our friends across the pond does not interest me one iota (is that how you spell it!).
Thanks again Phil and Jeff.
P.S. I will leave with a few of my latest efforts with the lens so our friends can pull them to pieces lol

 

[hampers]

Cheers Roy, my last look at this thread also.

Phil

 

[hosesbroadbill]

To sum up

I will try and sum up my opinion of this lens and what tests have concluded.

It is sharper at 600mm than the 300f4 with 2x.
It is sharper than the 100-400L
It is almost as good than the 400L 5.6 plus 1.4x (only good for those who want manual focus or those with full frame cameras that can autofocus to f8.

All this for only $1,069 US is quite an accomplishment as far as I am concerned for a lens that also zooms out to 600mm (or something near there). All 3 of those lenses are extremely popular and well reviewed lenses.

It is not as good as any of the Canon lenses that are 5 or 7 times more expensive. Not sure why anyone ever even compares it to them as they are not in the same league or price point.

To me it is the best, affordable alternative to get me to 600mm to get quality shots while out birding. Often times the 400mm L 5.6 was just not long enough for me to get shots of the birds I am trying to get. I have no thoughts that this is better than $7,000 to $12,000 lenses. The flexibility of a zoom is nice to have as well.

Clearly the results gotten will be better in the hands of those that have more experience in shooting and processing.

I should add that opinions on what people want out of their pictures and what results are acceptable to them will vary as well. So for me this lens is a joy to use and to hopefully learn with. Others may think of it as a glorified point and shoot lens. Decision will be up to you to decide if it fits your needs.

 

[jimthomson]

I will try and sum up my opinion of this lens and what tests have concluded.

It is sharper at 600mm than the 300f4 with 2x.
It is sharper than the 100-400L
It is almost as good than the 400L 5.6 plus 1.4x (only good for those who want manual focus or those with full frame cameras that can autofocus to f8.

All this for only $1,069 US is quite an accomplishment as far as I am concerned for a lens that also zooms out to 600mm (or something near there). All 3 of those lenses are extremely popular and well reviewed lenses.

Actually nobody uses a 300f4 with 2x. It won't autofocus on anything but a full frame camera and the 300f4 takes a bid hit IQ-wise with the 2x converter.

The comparison that was being made was to the 300f2.8 IS either the model 1 or model 2 which do play well with the new 2x III converter. Either of those lenses will give better results than the Tamron at 600.

 

[KC Foggin]

It is not as good as any of the Canon lenses that are 5 or 7 times more expensive. Not sure why anyone ever even compares it to them as they are not in the same league or price point.]

Good point!

 

[stevegg]

I will try and sum up my opinion of this lens and what tests have concluded.

It is sharper at 600mm than the 300f4 with 2x.
It is sharper than the 100-400L
It is almost as good than the 400L 5.6 plus 1.4x (only good for those who want manual focus or those with full frame cameras that can autofocus to f8.

It is not as good as any of the Canon lenses that are 5 or 7 times more expensive. Not sure why anyone ever even compares it to them as they are not in the same league or price point.

Thank you for posting what is, I believe, a much more balanced view of this lens. I don't think there are any exaggerated claims being made in your post and the formal tests support your conclusions.

I don't think this is far away from what Roy C was saying in fact.

Some of the opinion got coloured by Roy's 'robust' critique of posted images and some of the exaggerated claims being made from other posters.

Best Wishes

Steve

 

[hosesbroadbill]

300 x 2

Actually nobody uses a 300f4 with 2x. It won't autofocus on anything but a full frame camera and the 300f4 takes a bid hit IQ-wise with the 2x converter.

The comparison that was being made was to the 300f2.8 IS either the model 1 or model 2 which do play well with the new 2x III converter. Either of those lenses will give better results than the Tamron at 600.

I understand that is the comparison being made, just not sure why. The 300f4 is more expensive than the Tamron, but in the same "range". But with a 2x it has worse IQ than the Tamron. So if looking for the extra distance the Tamron is the better lens.

If going up to a 300 2.8 version i with the 2x it seems the IQ takes a hit but is still better than the Tamron. I would hope it would be for what it costs. Of course you lose the flexibility of the zoom but gain IQ.

The version ii us better for sure, but again for almost $8,000 US with converter we are talking about apples and oranges. The mere fact that you have to go to something that expensive to get better IQ than the Tamron is a testament to how good the Tamron is in its pricepoint.

I think that is all that anyone has been trying to say.