# Tamron 150 600 woes



## alexturton (Aug 2, 2014)

Bought a tamron 150 600 for my 5d3 and 60d. It has AFMA problems (-6 tele, +5 wide)

Sent it back for calibration. Came back worse (-15 tele, -5 wide). 

Gave up and I'm sending it back for refund. 

Anyone else had problems with this lens?


----------



## FEBS (Aug 2, 2014)

I don't have the tamron 150-600. But what's wrong with a afma of -6 to 5?
Or was the afma not consistent?


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 2, 2014)

no, no problems... and if the correction solved it i don´t know why the hell i would send it in... ???

sending in only the lens doesn´t help much.. it´s a camera + lens combination thing.


----------



## alexturton (Aug 2, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> no, no problems... and if the correction solved it i don´t know why the hell i would send it in... ???
> 
> sending in only the lens doesn´t help much.. it´s a camera + lens combination thing.



You can't correct for afma on 60d which makes for out of focus shots


----------



## Atonegro (Aug 2, 2014)

My eyes need -3 and -2.5, but when corrected, I can see pretty good.

When a lens needs AFMA it doesn't mean it is faulty.
If that was the case, I only had my MF-lenses left...even my 70-200 needs +2.


Send it in with your 60D, and AFMA your 5D after that.


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 2, 2014)

alexturton said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > no, no problems... and if the correction solved it i don´t know why the hell i would send it in... ???
> ...



How do you know it was off on the 60d? Just because it was off on the 5d means nothing. Lenses AND bodies both factor in on AFMA optimization.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> How do you know it was off on the 60d? Just because it was off on the 5d means nothing. Lenses AND bodies both factor in on AFMA optimization.



+1. I've had lenses needing >5 units on one body and none on another.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 3, 2014)

alexturton said:


> Bought a tamron 150 600 for my 5d3 and 60d. It has AFMA problems (-6 tele, +5 wide)
> 
> Sent it back for calibration. Came back worse (-15 tele, -5 wide).
> 
> ...



That's the unfortunate problem when buying a lens made by a 3rd party. Its not possible to tell if its the lens, the camera, or a combination of both. It puts lens makers in a tough spot.

With 7D's being priced so low, you might consider upgrading to one, then you will have AFMA.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 3, 2014)

Mine on the 5DIII is +3 at 150mm and -7 at 600mm. On the 70D it is 0 at 600mm. It beats me why you sent it back for -6 and +5. I have worse results for expensive Canon primes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 3, 2014)

alexturton said:


> Bought a tamron 150 600 for my 5d3 and 60d. It has AFMA problems (-6 tele, +5 wide)
> 
> Sent it back for calibration. Came back worse (-15 tele, -5 wide).
> 
> ...



At that state, if the images are sharp I would keep it.


----------



## philmoz (Aug 3, 2014)

No problems here, and have had excellent service from Tamron.

I sent mine to Tamron to investigate a servo AF issue on the 5DIII - they updated the firmware and must have calibrated the lens because it's perfect at 0 AFMA wide and tele. Before it was -5 (W) to +3 (T).

Phil.


----------



## alexturton (Aug 3, 2014)

I knew it was a problem because images were not in focus on my 60d. 

Yes, i could afma on 5d3 but I refuse to spend 1000£ on a lens that doesn't work on both my bodies. I have 9 lenses all of which are calibrated perfectly (no afma require at all) across both bodies.


----------



## Canon1 (Aug 3, 2014)

alexturton said:


> I have 9 lenses all of which are calibrated perfectly (no afma require at all) across both bodies.



What method of AFMA do you use? Out of 3 pro bodies and 11 L lenses I have never had a lens and body combo that did not require AFMA adjustment. I have also only seen a couple of lenses from other photogs over the years that did not require any afma adjustment. You must be the luckiest camera and lens buyer in the world to get perfectly calibrated lenses and bodies...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 3, 2014)

Both the Tamron 150-600mm and the Canon 100-400mm L are much better on FF than crop - see for example
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

And look how much worse the 100-400L is on the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Like the OP I have a 5DIII and I use the Tamron on that only - I wouldn't want to use the Tamron on a 60D if I had one (and I don't use it on the 70D).


----------



## alexturton (Aug 3, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> alexturton said:
> 
> 
> > I have 9 lenses all of which are calibrated perfectly (no afma require at all) across both bodies.
> ...



I use dot tune method. Plus I return any lens with any afma inconsistencies and get another copy


----------



## candc (Aug 3, 2014)

roger at lens rentals wrote a really informative article on the whole afma issue. simply put all lenses and cameras have some variation. lets just say +/- 5 arbitrary units for example. you can have anything from -10 to +10 using those 2 values so don't take the need for afma as meaning the lens is bad.

i really like the tamron and thinks its great on ff or a crop body. i mostly use it on the 70d and am very happy with what it produces. this squirrel is typical of what you can expect


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2014)

alexturton said:


> I use dot tune method.



Personally, I've tested the 'dot tune' method, and found it to be inconsistent. One good thing about it: you get your money's worth.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 4, 2014)

The likelihood of getting a perfect lens to match your body is slim at best.

Any gear in all industry needs to be calibrated correctly, just a fact of using high end gear thats designed to work for a large amount of bodies etc

Obviously its disappointing but not the end of the world, just sort it out.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 4, 2014)

alexturton said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > alexturton said:
> ...




LOL....then you better never buy a new camera body or you might have to buy new lenses again.

honestly that´s just nonsense what you do.

i have lenses that worked perfect on my 5D MK2.
when i bought the 5D Mk3 they needed some small correction.
on my second 5D MK 3, backup body i bought a few month later, they need different corrections.

AFMA and good.. that´s what it is for.

when you have a body with AFMA and one without.
send the lens AND the body that has no AFMA in for calibration.
then use AFMA on the other body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> alexturton said:
> 
> 
> > Plus I return any lens with any afma inconsistencies and get another copy
> ...



Not necessarily – it depends on what 'inconsistencies' means. Needing AFMA is fine, different values on different bodies is normal. But I test zoom lenses at both ends and 1-3 intermediate focal lengths, and if the intermediate FLs don't fall on the regression line between W and T, I'd call that an 'AFMA inconsistency' and return the lens or send it to Canon for service.


----------



## Leigh (Aug 4, 2014)

I tried one, and the AF was dismal on both of my 7D bodies, weather in IA-servo, or One-Shot.

"Hit & miss'--Mostly miss! Maybe I got a "bad" copy--Sent it back.

Leigh


----------



## Schafjan (Aug 4, 2014)

Have the Tamron for my 70D. No problems discovered. Subjects in focus are tack sharp.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 4, 2014)

Leigh said:


> I tried one, and the AF was dismal on both of my 7D bodies, weather in IA-servo, or One-Shot.
> 
> "Hit & miss'--Mostly miss! Maybe I got a "bad" copy--Sent it back.
> 
> Leigh



Focussing of my 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on my 7D was dismal (slow and inconsistent), which was the reason I sold it for a 70D, which focusses brilliantly with the Canon combo and and with the Tamron 150-600mm. Blame the camera and not the lens. Many of us have found this.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 4, 2014)

alexturton said:


> Bought a tamron 150 600 for my 5d3 and 60d. It has AFMA problems (-6 tele, +5 wide)
> 
> Sent it back for calibration. Came back worse (-15 tele, -5 wide).
> 
> ...



Took the chance to test some copies on a Tamron booth in a local shop in Frankfurt (Germany). I brought my 7D and 5D3 with me, my wife her Nikon D300S. With the Canon mount test copy + no AFMA, my 7D focused acceptably well, my 5D3 not (both in AI servo mode). Checking the test images later (mostly walking people), I could see that the full frame combo had a severe backfocus on the long end. The Nikon test combo did overall well. My wife bougth a copy which later at home displayed a massive backfocus, too, so we had to calibrate it with the Nikon.

I am a bit worried, not about a backfocus that can be easily corrected, but about general focus inconsistensies which can cause the loss of a wildlife shot that only comes once. I have a Tamron 24-70/2.8, too, which needed a huge AFMA with my 5D3 but still makes a lot of trouble (compared with Canon glass). So I am not yet convinced about getting a 150-600, even I'd love to have this great Tammy as a compact sidekick for my Canon 500 mm prime (+ shorter lenses).


----------



## Admin US West (Aug 4, 2014)

If the new 7D MK II and subsequent bodies have dual pixel technology with improved focusing technology over the 70D, the biggest benefactor may well be third party lenses. The 70D when used with live AF has been reported to focus very accurately even with difficult to focus 3rd party lenses.

Once Canon gets the tracking and other features working well in generation 2 of the dual pixel system, I'd be much more likely to go for a 3rd party lens.


----------



## mikio (Aug 12, 2014)

A third party lens is always a risk. Mine, for example has a perfect AFMA - 0 wide and 0 tele.
At first it had a famous bug on 5D mark III with AF focusing from near objects to far away.
I sent it to service and they had updated the lens firmware.
But now, I suddenly discovered another problem with the lens.
It works perfectly well with all AF points except a central one.
I mean, the same issue with unstable refocusing from a near by object (~3m) to a far away object (~30m) - now remains only if a single center AF point is selected.
How it is possible, I still can't understand.
A specially if all my other lenses work perfectly fine with the center point AF on this camera.


----------



## the blackfox (Aug 12, 2014)

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 12, 2014)

the blackfox said:


> i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
> i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .




The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?


----------



## dcm (Aug 12, 2014)

My copy arrived with significant back focus at 600 which was clearly visible in shots taken at MFD on my 6D with center focus point only. 

AFMA with FoCal resulted in -2 at 150, -10 at 600 which seems to have corrected the issue. Sharpness was best at f/8 or f/9, there was a big drop off at f/6.3. Other tests showed the focus consistency was above 99% at both ends, which is as good as my Canon L glass. 

It still occasionally hunts for focus in low light, low contrast situations which I expected - low being relative in this case.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

CR Backup Admin said:


> If the new 7D MK II and subsequent bodies have dual pixel technology with improved focusing technology over the 70D, the biggest benefactor may well be third party lenses. *The 70D when used with live AF *has been reported to focus very accurately even with difficult to focus 3rd party lenses.
> 
> Once Canon gets the tracking and other features working well in generation 2 of the dual pixel system, I'd be much more likely to go for a 3rd party lens.



If you mean live view with live AF then I can only partly agree. Yes that will be rue for all those with 'static' objects, but for sports or wildlife other AF features have to be introduced on the market to benefit from 3th party lenses. I think that Canon will always perform better with their own lenses.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> the blackfox said:
> 
> 
> > i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
> ...



They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 12, 2014)

the blackfox said:


> i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
> i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .






Stephen Melvin said:


> The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?





3kramd5 said:



> They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.



No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need? 

Remember, it's Sigma that has AF problems with nearly all of their lenses. Most Tamrons work fine.


----------



## weixing (Aug 12, 2014)

Hi,


Stephen Melvin said:


> the blackfox said:
> 
> 
> > i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
> ...


 No, Canon didn't give Tamron or any 3rd party lens manufacturer their EF mount information and protocol... they (3rd party lens manufacturer) reverse engineer it. Take a look at this article (although it's a very old article, but I think should still be true today):
http://kbsupport.cusa.canon.com/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1011&PARTITION_ID=1&secureFlag=false&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9820

Anyway, my Tamrons 150-600mm AF work quite well except that when in AI servo mode, I notice sometime it'll go out of focus momentary even if the subject is not moving... but have not try to reproduce the issue... will try when got some free time.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 12, 2014)

weixing said:


> Remember, it's Sigma that has AF problems with nearly all of their lenses. Most Tamrons work fine.


 No, Canon didn't give Tamron or any 3rd party lens manufacturer their EF mount information and protocol... they (3rd party lens manufacturer) reverse engineer it. Take a look at this article (although it's a very old article, but I think should still be true today):


Have a nice day.
[/quote]

Its still true today. The business about other manufacturers receiving Canons lens AF information is a old wives tale made up by someone long ago, and repeated without checking.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?



Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?





3kramd5 said:


> Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?



Yes. Canon and Nikon both use Tamron to build (generally low end) Canon-branded lenses.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?
> ...



Interesting, I didn't know that. 

Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 12, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.
> 
> Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.



Of course, you can often creatively work around such contracts. For example:

1. Use the information to build a testing rig for the Canon lenses that tests every single command, with emphasis on edge cases. This is needed for the contract anyway.

2. Use the test rig to validate a "lens" that behaves according to the reverse-engineered spec. Tweak until it passes. At that point, if your test rig is complete, so is your reverse-engineered specification document.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 12, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.
> ...



Even then, though, they may be using a procedure developed for say a Canon 18-55 to acceptance test their own design for a 150-600, which may not be appropriate.

Also, it depends on how a contract is written (and how faithful the company is to the contract). If I were a Canon lawyer, I would specifically preclude any sharing of Canon intellectual property and associated technology across the company. If I get a proprietary spec from a client, I can't copy it longhand into my notebook and then use it for other purposes, nor can I embed it in software and use it for other purposes (at least not legally).

Whatever the case, the third party glass designers aren't privy to the information required to match Canon's own designs and algorithms, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Old Sarge (Aug 12, 2014)

Stephen Melvin said:


> Stephen Melvin said:
> 
> 
> > No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?
> ...



And this can be verified....where?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 12, 2014)

One thing that's worth a mention is that Canon's mount is long out of patent protection. Contracts, of course, are a separate issue.

I wonder why I've never had an issue with a Tokina lens. I mean, other than the focus and zoom rings turning the wrong direction.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 12, 2014)

Another "reverse engineering" thing that bit me was the Nikon-Canon adapter I own and works perfectly on my Mk II. It has the chip on it for AF confirm.

It absolutely fails on my Mk III, to the point where I cannot use it at all.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm amazed that such sweeping decisions about if a lens is good or not is being based on 
DOT TUNE!

Seriously Dude. If your sellers found this out I bet they would stop selling to you, I know I would.

you really need to firstly do some good research on AFMA try start with the article neuro wrote on the digital picture

if your really want to go crazy with AFMA really the only option is Focal and still that needs to be setup correctly and the instructions need to be followed or you will make the lens worse.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 13, 2014)

With the exception of my cheapo Samyang 14mm 2.8, all my lenses are L and all need some afma. You are lucky I guess.

sek



alexturton said:


> I knew it was a problem because images were not in focus on my 60d.
> 
> Yes, i could afma on 5d3 but I refuse to spend 1000£ on a lens that doesn't work on both my bodies. I have 9 lenses all of which are calibrated perfectly (no afma require at all) across both bodies.


----------



## tat3406 (Aug 13, 2014)

Is that the focal length more longer, the higher percentage the lens need to AFMA?


----------



## dcm (Aug 13, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> Is that the focal length more longer, the higher percentage the lens need to AFMA?



I think its really about narrow depths of field, particularly near MFD, which faster apertures and/or longer focal lengths exacerbate. 

At 600mm on my Tamron 150-600, at 20 feet you have a DOF of 2" with f/11 and 1" with f/8 so it matters on long lenses even with small apertures. The 135L has a similar 2" depth of field at 10 feet with f/2. The 50L has a 2" depth of field at 5 feet with f/1.2. These are all about twice MFD.

Most kit lenses aren't that fast or that long so they tend to be acceptable without AFMA. But fast lenses and long telephotos can benefit from AFMA.


----------

