# Review: Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC G2



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 11, 2016)

```
Photography Blog has completed their review of the recently announced and available Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC G2. It appears the new Tamron is an improvement over its predecessor.</p>
<blockquote><p>The second-generation Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 offers better image quality, more features, faster auto-focus and more effective image stabilisation than the 2013 version, but the price has increased significantly, so it’s not quite the out-and-out bargain that it once was.</p>
<p>The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 offers improved image quality with smooth bokeh and excellent sharpness, a very effective and versatile image stabilisation system, and a fast, quiet and reliable auto-focus system. Despite a modest increase in size and weight, Tamron’s optic is still smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite offering a bigger, more versatile focal range. <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f5_6_3_di_vc_usd_g2_review/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277358-REG/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 $1399 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 11, 2016)

I'm not particularly impressed with their sharpness test, they only take "edge" samples from the top-center of the frame.
I'd prefer "side" and "corner" samples. Oh well.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 12, 2016)

I'm hoping we will see some tests and reviews from more discriminating sites. DPReview and Digital Picture please.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 12, 2016)

don't care how good or not it is. Zoom ring turns the wrong way on their lenses with EF mount. Only suitable for Nikon. Until Tamron fixes that ... no way I consider one of their lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I'm hoping we will see some tests and reviews from more discriminating sites. DPReview and Digital Picture please.



TDP had already published the first comparative charts - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19055

The lens is not as good as the 100-400mm II at 400mm and 560mm. 

Remember that these are just measurements on just a single copy. Photography blog is one of the less reliable reviewers and it doesn't use consistent targets or even lighting between tests (natural light that varies on different real world targets) so it is difficult to compare lenses unlike TDP, which does very careful comparisons. First impressions from a variety of preliminary reports are that the G2 has improved construction but with little optical performance gain. If the older lens is anything to go by, there will be signigificant copy to copy variation. 

DPR used to rely on DxO for quantitative testing of lenses, but DxO stopped some while ago.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 12, 2016)

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.


----------



## monsieur_elegante (Oct 12, 2016)

A line from the Photography Blog review:

"The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 is a lot cheaper than the nearest Canon and Nikon alternatives, *while offering more reach than the similar Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 Contemporary zoom*"

Makes me wonder how much effort they actually put in for this article.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 12, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Lost me at f/5-6.3
> 
> I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.
> 
> ...



Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 12, 2016)

monsieur_elegante said:


> A line from the Photography Blog review:
> 
> "The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 is a lot cheaper than the nearest Canon and Nikon alternatives, *while offering more reach than the similar Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 Contemporary zoom*"
> 
> Makes me wonder how much effort they actually put in for this article.



They also described the aperture as being f/5.6 at 400 and 600mm. Doesn't inspire confidence does it?


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 12, 2016)

As an owner of G1 version, and 3 other Canon zooms, getting hung up on which way the zoom ring turns is causing you to miss a ton of fun and images. 

I was hoping the IQ would/might yet be a step better and I could upgrade. Based on what I see at TDP the IQ upgrade falls short of being upgrade worthy. Rats.

I have had a blast w/ G1, swapped w/ a friend for most the day for the Sigma Sport. The sigma cleary has an IQ advantage on the long end, and costs a bit more, and weighs considerable more, and wasn't available when I purchased the Tamzooka G1. And the IQ/cost differential is not worth it for me to upgrade. The weight, not a big deal for me.

What I would love to see is a 600 prime similar in cost as the 400 5.6. Even it didn't have IS. a 600 5.6 with excellent IQ would get my $$ pretty darn quick.


----------



## pknight (Oct 12, 2016)

The TDP review has me scratching my head. My G1 copy of this lens does much better than what they show there. That much CA in the center of the frame at f/8 suggests that they had a very bad copy of the lens, or something else was affecting the tests. More likely the former. There are some very sharp G2 images with the Tamron TC being posted on POTN.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 12, 2016)

pknight said:


> The TDP review has me scratching my head. My G1 copy of this lens does much better than what they show there. That much CA in the center of the frame at f/8 suggests that they had a very bad copy of the lens, or something else was affecting the tests. More likely the former. There are some very sharp G2 images with the Tamron TC being posted on POTN.



The copy variation in both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms is huge - you should always test them before buying. I have a stunningly good Sigma Contemporary but there are some bad ones being reviewed. I had a the original Tamron, which was quite good and better than the TDP site one. The Canon 100-400mm II seems to be very consistent in quality.

Posted images are often not of much use. If you fill the frame with the subject, which is usually done in these posts, an old bottle end will give a sharp-looking image.


----------



## AJ (Oct 12, 2016)

Looking at the sample pictures, I think bokeh has improved.
In all this lens seems positioned between the Sigma Contemporary and the Sport.
As for the resolution, it shouldn't be too much longer before Brian has then up on TDP.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Lost me at f/5-6.3
> ...



No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me. 

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.  

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. 

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one.  I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 13, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Where did f2.8 come from? My response was to your comment about f5-6.3 and how you don't want to change exposure with the change of aperture.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...



The very first thing I said was, "Lost me at f/5-f/6.3." Meaning those are all too dark for me.

I believe I also said I like a constant aperture ability throughout the zoom range. My 70-200 gives me this at f/2.8. I can stick my 2X III on it and get f/5.6 if I want... throughout the focal range.

I ain't here to argue. A man is free to choose what he wants. This lens loses me right out of the blocks with:

1. Variable aperture throughout the focal range.
2. The apertures are too dark for my tastes.
3. Having to possibly change my settings with every focal length change.

I wasn't knocking your response or cutting you down or belittling you, or the lens. I just don't like the lens. People are free to like what they like and not like what they don't like.

I'm positive I'd like you though. 

It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.

If you thought my response to your response was meant to be mean... you are terribly wrong about that. Heck, I even threw in a bunch of smileys hoping you knew that.

However, you saying it was just 2/3 of a stop and changing framing could fix that "But that's just me" in response to my remark about the lens was meant to be a little snarky wasn't it? Because you didn't understand why I said I didn't like the lens? A simple friendly question for me to clarify things would have avoided that snark.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 13, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



This got far to hot. 

You said the lens "lost me at f5-6.3", which I thought you were referring to the variable aperture, not the apertures themselves (2.8-4 or 4.5-5.6 etc) since your following sentence was about changing exposures while zooming. Which is why I responded with a comment about the 2/3 a stop of exposure difference. 

No feelings are hurt. Hope I cold shine some light on my perspective.


----------



## TheJock (Oct 13, 2016)

So now there’s talk of a new 5DsR as well as the 6DII, well like AvTvM; who won’t buy Tamron for his own reasons, I won’t buy another Canon product until the 200-600 Canon lens has been released.
Canon can’t go slipping announcements to coincide with an actual release just to try and save some customers, this is no longer a fair play and I’m p155ed off waiting, no more cash from me Canon, get your finger out!!!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Ryananthony said:
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 13, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...
> f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.
> ...
> I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.
> ...



i fully understand what you say and sympathize with it. light is paramount. aperture rulez!

but it's all about the money. 
and the size of front element and size of lens. 
and weight of lens. 
also, extenders are no free lunch. they eat light! a 400/2.8 with 2x extender turns into an 800 f/5.6 lens. 
pretty dark, man! 

but rejoice, there is good news! a constant f/2.8 SUPER tele zoom lens is waiting for you and the EF mount of your Canon mirroslappers.







on stock at amazon abd elsewhere. usd 25,999 with free shipping.
hope you got the wallet for it. and the bizeps!
yes, it can be handed down to sons and sons of sons. with an optional adapter they can easily convert it to a mobile missile launcher if and when needed.

lol, man! 

and: lenses are no hand-me down items. except as cup board decoration and rather substantial paperweight. canon ef lenses will only be usable with an adapter max 10 years from now when the last mirrorslapper is retired. much like canon fd glass in 1987. and 20 years from now nobody in their right mind will lug around big fat abd yet slow and dark lenses. for imaging those of us who are still alice then will use tiny nano lightfield cameras with some non-glass microlenses in them. or similar.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yeah, a 2.8 at that focal length is what I meant. : : : : :

Yeah, a 2.8 at that focal length is what I meant. : : : : :

An 800mm at f/5.6 is far better than a 150-600 with variable aperture and as dark as 6.3mm. I have no desire for 800mm, but if I did... I guess f/5.6 at that focal range wouldn't bother me. However, with 115 degree temps atmospheric conditions don't work for that.

I have a Tamron. I don't like this one in the post... for the very reasons I stated.

Keep slapping it AvTm. You'll never get no satisfaction.


----------



## Bobofango (Oct 13, 2016)

I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.

And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges. 

Obviously, you are going to sacrifice image quality and light by having greater versatility of zoom. I can think of many times where a prime would not have been able to get the shots i got by zooming out.

This is basically a middle of the range wildlife lens. Lens snobs can look elsewhere. Not everyone has $10,000 to spend....


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2016)

Bobofango said:


> I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.
> 
> And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges.
> 
> ...



Glad you like your lens. Saving up for my hobby is half the fun.


----------



## AJ (Oct 13, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Bobofango said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.
> ...


That's nice. I'm glad you're saving for the lens you want.

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.


----------



## dsut4392 (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.



That makes no sense to me. If the lens is already dark enough at f/6.3, why would a person need an ND filter on a 600mm lens? I can understand adding NDs to get a longer final exposure, while wanting an aperture that's still bright enough to compose with when fully open, but don't really see the practical use case for doing this with a tele lens. If you're using enough NDs to take you beyond the exposure you could get by stopping down to the minimum aperture, your viewfinder is going to be dark, period. And if you're not stopping down that far, with a slower lens you could just add a couple less stops of ND so you can still see through the viewfinder, and stop the lens down a couple more stops in final exposure. Are you trying to isolate one stationary white cat in the snow from a bunch of slowly moving white cats in the same plane of focus, where there are other stationary white cats that would come into focus if you stopped down a bit more?

Could you enlighten? Was your comment about using an ND filter a red herring, and you are really thinking about a PL? [to be clear, I am being slightly snarky but would genuinely like to know where you are coming from with the comment I quoted. I understand that this lens isn't for you, it just seems like some of your rationalisations as to why it's not for you are ...not rational ]


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

AJ said:


> But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.


+1


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

AJ said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Bobofango said:
> ...



I have not. I posted about the Tamron. You got the wrong guy, dude. I only responded to the hijackers. 

It ain't about you either. 

Just check your security cameras for thread monitoring a little closer before you jump to conclusions. 

You might want to get a hall pass from AvTvM first.

I posted what I thought about the lens in a very short and distinct post. Then got piled on. Now by you too.

What do you think about the new lens? Nothing to post? Nope. Stop hijacking.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.
> ...


 :


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

Getting back to topic:
We are talking about a budget telephoto lens and the cost of keeping the price down at that focal length is speed of the lens. For those who want faster, then is not the lens you are looking for.... try the F2.8 Sigzilla for $30,000... For those who want cheaper, try the V1 of the lens, a 75-300 with a 2X (non-Canon) teleconverter, or better yet, go get a superzoom P/S camera.

This lens fills a mid-price hole in the Canon lens lineup. It's competition is the V1 of the lens and the pair of Sigma 150-600's. So far, there is not a review worth reading on the lens and no pictures "out there" from regular users. I look forward to seeing a real comparison of the various options USING THE SAME BODY!!!! (Hey DPR, don't put comparisons of V1 with a 1DS and V2 with a 5DSr in your review) and some real world reviews from people like Dustin.

Many times in the past I have commented that "nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture" The same holds true for lens sharpness. The thing that I am most interested in with this lens is the Tap-In console and how you can AFMA the lens for different focal lengths and different distances. This is a HUGE! thing. This has the potential to leapfrog over everyone else for accuracy of focusing. We are talking about the accurate calibration of precision equipment as opposed to ballparking it. 

AF accuracy and repeatability is THE single most important factor in getting a good image. It will be good to see how this works in the real world. What kind of keeper rate will you get?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

dsut4392 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.
> ...



I don't mind the snark. A CP is only good if one is approx. 90 degrees to the sun. 

ND is like sunglasses and it doesn't matter where the sun is. F/stop does this does nothing about knocking down glare. An ND filter does. Higher f/stop just gives you an even darker lens when you slap on the ND. Your f/stop choice doesn't matter in the snow either. ND filter for the glare does.

Shooting birds in water makes ND filters very useful for knocking down glare.

A fast lens allows the ability to use the ND for waterfowl on glaring water or wildlife on glaring snow if you need it to knock down the glare.

Or, for me... an ND knocks down the glaring sun on the bright desert landscape or even on a filed of wheat or hay.

The darker the lens the slower the shutter speed has to be... unless one compensates with ISO.

I also don't like a variable aperture on lenses because I shoot in manual 99.9999% of the time.. Not at any price. Well, maybe the Tamron at $500. My personal preference. Don't care what others might want to live with.

Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)

Don't worry what others might say to you. We are talking about the Tamron and what we like, think, or don't like about it. That is completely on topic. Once again, I'm only responding to a question. I didn't initiate it. 

This thread is about anything having to do with the Tamron, not just what a few specifics others think it has to be about.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)
> 
> Don't worry what others might say to you. We are talking about the Tamron and what we like, think, or don't like about it. That is completely on topic. Once again, I'm only responding to a question. I didn't initiate it.
> 
> This thread is about anything having to do with the Tamron, not just what a few specifics others think it has to be about.


If you are going to hijack the thread, I might as well learn from it 

BTW, it wasn't your statement, it was all the others.... If the lens is too slow for your preferred way of shooting, then it is. Period... nuff said....

What I don't understand is the use of the ND filter. I agree that using it will knock down the glare, but won't it also knock down the subject? or are you talking about using a graduated ND filter?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)
> ...



Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.

I think my point was that if the lens goes to f/6.3 on the long end and I need to knock down the glare with an ND filter over water or for anything else I might want to shoot where there is a lot of glare, then the lens is a non-starter for me. For me.

I'd just rather have a faster lens.

I understand the price difference between this Tamron and an EF 400 f/2.8 IS II or the 600 f/4 and I know that is a huge consideration.

If I have a 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2 stop ND for glare over water, then I've got effectively a 400mm f/5.6 lens as far as light goes. However, it is still an f/2.8 as far as depth of field right? 

So yes, the filter will knock down the subject (duck or whatever bird), but I'll still be able to use the fast shutter I want because I am still only at f/5.6 with a 2 stop filter.

Glare is a particular problem for me as I must stand at the water's edge and there are no trees here above the water. None. The ponds and lakes are surrounded by rocks (not gravel) and I am not physically able to lay flat on them (to avoid some of the glare) and get back up due to bad shoulders and a bad set of knees.

F/2.8 gives me more versatility too should I head up into the mountains where there are trees and shade.

My original post was that the lens just isn't for me. That's all. I should have just ignored the arguments and the questions and not replied to anything at all. Nothing. I hate myself for allowing myself to get dragged into this sort of crap. It's my own fault. I don't owe anyone an explanation for why I want what I want or don't want. &%$# sake, I shouldn't even post anything.

The lens just isn't for me. I'm sure there will be many lover's of the Tamron 150-600. 

I have the 15-30 myself. It is a fine lens.

It will take me 4-5 years to save for what is for me. I'll be happy with it.

But yes, Don, this was for me: 


AJ said:


> That's nice. I'm glad you're saving for the lens you want.
> 
> But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.



And I guess I am still the hijacker. Sheesh. 

Glad to have you along.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.
> 
> I think my point was that if the lens goes to f/6.3 on the long end and I need to knock down the glare with an ND filter over water or for anything else I might want to shoot where there is a lot of glare, then the lens is a non-starter for me. For me.
> 
> ...


Personally, I like the range and price of the lens, and like you, wish it was faster.... but with the cost constraints accept it for what it is.

I also use an ND filter for shots on water, except mine is a 2 stop graduated ND filter.... I didn't even bother to get one sized for the Tamron as it is most definitely a slow lens and (at least for me) 2 stops is more than I can take....

Even a polarizing filter is going to knock down the light on this lens 

I have used the V1 150-600 a fair bit (wonderful lens) but the softness at 600mm unless you stop down to F9.2 is it's biggest disadvantage. The shot below was under almost perfect conditions but in order to keep the shutter speed up I had to go to ISO640 (pushing it a bit on a crop camera) and had to keep it to F8 where the lens is still a bit soft. Here's hoping that the V2 is better!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.
> ...



Beautiful bird. It will be soooo nice to get back to Florida in another year or so.

I am surprised at how soft the lens is at f/8 and have to wonder whether you got a bad copy. If V2 were this soft and I bought it... I think I'd be very disappointed. I'm very surprised at that softness. So here's hoping V2 is better for all those concerned.

I don't own a graduated filter and only have a 2 stop and 6 stop B+W ND. I do have the circular polarizers, but the birds never seem to line up with the sun like I need them to. 

Now that I'm up walking again I can start thinking about filters more.

Have a great day Don.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 14, 2016)

Don
Your Tammy is focussed correctly - the feet are nicely sharp - but it is failing on the higher resolution. My old lens was much sharper than that. iso640 isn't that high for a crop. You just have to test these Tammys and Sigmas before buying. The good ones can be very good but their are bad ones.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 14, 2016)

Don, CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?) and Alan - thanks for your contributions. I wasn't going to get a zoom anyway, but I am now quite convinced that I won't be getting a Tamron or anything slower than f/4. Soft at f/9? Wow! Is that not well past the point where diffraction starts softening the image on crop?

I guess I'll stick with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D for a while longer. Although I surely disliked not getting a good shot of that Pileated this week.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 14, 2016)

...so they gauge the sharpness by focussing on a bookshelf on the other side of the room......!!
..what a load of c--p.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 14, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Don, CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?) and Alan - thanks for your contributions. I wasn't going to get a zoom anyway, but I am now quite convinced that I won't be getting a Tamron or anything slower than f/4. Soft at f/9? Wow! Is that not well past the point where diffraction starts softening the image on crop?
> 
> I guess I'll stick with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D for a while longer. Although I surely disliked not getting a good shot of that Pileated this week.



The bluebird was a 1 to 1 crop of an image taken at F8 using a 7D2....and to make it even worse, for some strange reason I think the feathers are soft on the bird  That image should be about as bad as it gets with the Tamron.... Other targets seem to give me reasonable detail


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2016)

Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 15, 2016)

I always read that the Sigma 150-600 Sports is the sharpest lens of all 150-600's so far at the long end (Tamron's G2 not not yet included). But according to sources such as Bryan Carnathan's thorough TDP review the "Sports" is the Dark Lord of all those zooms. It's wide open aperture breaks down to f/6.3 at already about 320 mm, Tamron's G1 version adds another 100 mm (!!) to the faster f/5.6 area: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

So I wonder if the Sigma Sports only is a tad sharper on the long end because it is a bit more stopped down by production?

If I'd get myself one of those 150-600's, this open aperture vs. focal length curve would be a key parameter for my decision, because I often struggle with bad light conditions when I shoot e.g. birds. Another important one would be AF performance, because my subjects mostly move. I've tested the Tammy G1 a while with both my 7D and 5D3, when the G1 freshly came out. But I came to the result that I just would buy myself into another 3rd party lens' lousy AF performance frustration. So, if I needed an alternative for my Canon 500mm for lighter traveling gear, I'd definitely get a new Canon EF 100-400 II. Costs more but surely delivers much more in-focus shots, and this is what really counts in real life. I am not sure if the G2 performs so much better AF wise that I could accept it, maybe I'll test a copy.


----------



## ScottO (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm quite impressed with the improvements over the G1, maybe I just have a good copy but AF shows significant improvement. Image quality the long end is much improved as well. Fit and finish is better and I love the new Zoom lock. This is one of the first images before AFMA an extreme crop from a 5Dsr 600mm ISO 200 i/200sec F6.3
hand held.
No more than 30 seconds spent in camera raw and I think it's quite acceptable from a sharpness standpoint.


----------



## AJ (Oct 15, 2016)

Thanks Scott for posting an image from the new 150-600 G2. Would love to see more. Please keep 'em coming!


----------



## TheJock (Oct 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Getting back to topic:
> 
> This lens fills a mid-price hole in the Canon lens lineup. It's competition is the V1 of the lens and the pair of Sigma 150-600's. So far, there is not a review worth reading on the lens and no pictures "out there" from regular users. I look forward to seeing a real comparison of the various options USING THE SAME BODY!!!! (Hey DPR, don't put comparisons of V1 with a 1DS and V2 with a 5DSr in your review) and some real world reviews from people like Dustin.
> 
> ...


Don't know about you Don, but I'd love to see a side by side comparison of the new G2 against the Sigma Sport on the same body, preferably a 5DIII. Now THAT will be a nice review!!!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 16, 2016)

I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 16, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.



Wow - downsizing to be able to post degrades to the photos more than I expected.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.
> ...



The problem is the forum has a native 700 pixel in line limit, if you keep your image bigger than that then there has to be some additional resampling to make it fit. If viewers click on your image then they get it at native size in a new window/tab, then they see a much closer version of what you uploaded.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 16, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?


I think it is a AF problem. I had 4 helper points enabled on that shot and rather than pick the chest of the bird, where the central point was, it picked one of the helper spots where the top of the stick is. it could be that the feather pattern on the chest was poor to get AF from.....


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?
> ...



There is a comment on the dpr site from someone who had two bad copies of the Tamron 150-600mm that were hazy in the areas with fine details. 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58505868

Both your shots were in focus, as seen by sharp beaks and claws.


----------



## AJ (Oct 16, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Maybe camera shake, combined with strong cropping?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2016)

The first "proper" review is out by ePhotozine, who have good credibility in my book. 

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-g2-review-30082

The MTFs at 600mm in the centre look no better than for the Mk I

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

with the edges worse, especially for CA. The best resolution in the centre at 600mm is at f/11 on a 6D, rather than the previous f/8. 150mm looks better in the G2.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2016)

And, the ePhotozine is consistent with TDP, where the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on 5DS R is sharper at 560mm and both at f/8, especially at edges, where there is poor CA on the Tamron (worse at f/6.3).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2


----------



## AJ (Oct 17, 2016)

Thanks for the link Alan.
It's curious that, in the ephotozine analysis, the performance at 300 mm is quite a bit less than at 400 mm. 400 mm seems to be a sweet spot.
This is not shown in the TDP data
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


----------



## AJ (Oct 17, 2016)

So right now at TDP, it's hard to compare the G2 against the G1 because the tests were done with different camera bodies.
What's interesting, though, is comparing a lens against itself. For example, you can see that the Tamron G2 falls apart after 400 mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Stopping down helps, but does not raise resolution to the same levels seen at 300 mm.
The same is true for its predecessor.

The Sigma 150-600C, on the other hand, has more consistent performance across the focal length range:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
I'm still leaning towards the Sigma...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?)



Yeah. Is that really yours? :


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 17, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?)
> ...



You have a friendly and jovial look - good portrait!

Mine? Yup! If you look closely in the eye of the crow, you will see a house. In the house, you will see a window. In the window you will see a camera. That's me behind the camera. Ha ha.

Totally highjacked this thread...sorry, a little.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2016)

AJ said:


> So right now at TDP, it's hard to compare the G2 against the G1 because the tests were done with different camera bodies.
> What's interesting, though, is comparing a lens against itself. For example, you can see that the Tamron G2 falls apart after 400 mm.
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
> Stopping down helps, but does not raise resolution to the same levels seen at 300 mm.
> ...



You can compare indirectly on the TDP via a 3rd lens, e.g. compare the G2 with the 100-400mm II on the 5DS R

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

and then the Tamron Mk I with the 100-400mm II on the 1DS III.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Oh well, better than nothing.


----------



## AJ (Oct 17, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Oh well, better than nothing.


True!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 18, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.



Nice.  I think I've thrown away too many photos because I always expect the scales around the eyes to be in perfect focus with a 50% crop, but that's a personal problem I'm trying to get over.

You are right about the photo degradation when posting.


----------



## Plainsman (Oct 20, 2016)

AlanF said:


> And, the ePhotozine is consistent with TDP, where the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on 5DS R is sharper at 560mm and both at f/8, especially at edges, where there is poor CA on the Tamron (worse at f/6.3).
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2



This G2 is just a marketing stunt by Tamron.

Slightly better than the G1 they say - well allowing for the high variability (i.e. poor Chinese QA) of the production line product it is quite possible that a "good" G1 version will beat the G2 you get from your dealer. 

However I am looking forward to an upcoming improved Sigma Contemporary.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.

The one downside I see is that light transmission is better in the V1 lens (they added an element to the optical formula of the G2). Color rendering is completely different between the two lenses, too. Better bokeh on the G2. Handling is infinitely better in so many ways. 

It's a solid upgrade, but if someone is looking for a night and day improvement, they had better open their wallets and move to the one of the super teles.

The cougar is wide open - 600mm, f/6.3. The focus is not calibrated, as I met the Tamron rep and got the lenses right before going to shoot.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.
> 
> The one downside I see is that light transmission is better in the V1 lens (they added an element to the optical formula of the G2). Color rendering is completely different between the two lenses, too. Better bokeh on the G2. Handling is infinitely better in so many ways.
> 
> ...



Well! Sell me that G2!


----------



## AJ (Oct 20, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.
> ...


Yes that looks very encouraging!


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.
> 
> The one downside I see is that light transmission is better in the V1 lens (they added an element to the optical formula of the G2). Color rendering is completely different between the two lenses, too. Better bokeh on the G2. Handling is infinitely better in so many ways.
> 
> It's a solid upgrade, but if someone is looking for a night and day improvement, they had better open their wallets and move to the one of the super teles.



I have gotten my hands on one and it has not stopped raining since..... I so desperately want to try it outside!

The build feels much better than the V1, and the zoom lock works quite well... I really want the rain to stop so I can go outside and play!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.
> ...



Don't you hate when that happens! This is what often happens to me when I have a lens that I need to test for coma/astro. Build quality is very improved. I think it strikes a nice balance of build but without the weight penalty of the Sigma Sport.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > have gotten my hands on one and it has not stopped raining since..... I so desperately want to try it outside!
> ...


The geese in the rain: 1/125th second handheld, 600mm, ISO2500, F8, 7DII
The fall leaves in the rain: 1/40th second handheld, 600mm, ISO3200, F8, 7DII

The IS appears to work quite well for a 1/40th second shot at 600mm handheld to have come out ok....


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 22, 2016)

and I am still waiting to try it out on a sunny day....
deer in the rain: 1/250th second handheld, 600mm, ISO1600, F8, 7DII, 1 to 1 crop
Turkeys in the rain: 1/250th second handheld, 600mm, ISO1600, F8, 7DII, cropped to about 1/2 the image width

I suspect that the lens requires an AFMA adjustment.....


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> and I am still waiting to try it out on a sunny day....
> deer in the rain: 1/250th second handheld, 600mm, ISO1600, F8, 7DII, 1 to 1 crop
> Turkeys in the rain: 1/250th second handheld, 600mm, ISO1600, F8, 7DII, cropped to about 1/2 the image width
> 
> I suspect that the lens requires an AFMA adjustment.....


Judging by the focus on the rain, it is back focussing.


----------



## AJ (Nov 2, 2016)

TDP has just posted their complete review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-G2-Lens.aspx


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2016)

The more and more I read, the Sigma C is the best bang for your buck of all 3 150-600 variants, especially when you factor in CA and corner sharpness.


----------

