# DxO Review of the Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2014)

It's up: 
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender

Their conclusion:
"If Tamron built this lens to outperform the Sigma offering then they succeeded with full frame cameras. The gain in performance over their rival’s offering is less noticeable on the APS-C cameras. Despite that, the image quality is a slight improvement over the Sigma. Given the longer range and similar price, it’s a pretty impressive achievement. 

The Tamron even outperforms the pricier Canon lens on the full frame Canon EOS 5D Mk III though it’s less convincing when compared with the Canon EOS 7D. There’s likely too little in it to switch but for first-time buyers the new Tamron is attractive proposition."

It looks like it has very low CA, low distortion, and nice sharpness until 600mm when (as we've seen from the initial reports) it needs to be stopped down to f/8. It doesn't blow away the competition in IQ, but given the price and focal range, it's an excellent lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2014)

As usual, the rating is one dimensional. Too bad they don't have some photographers rating the lenses for ALL the reasonably important things to photographers. They seem to stick to sharpness and a couple of other parameters. We don't even know if it will autofocus, from their reviews, it could be a manual focus only lens.

"Aimed at wildlife, bird and action photographers" So, how does it do with AF speed in bright and low light/ Does it work with the camera tracking systems. Can you hand hold it while tracking a BIF like the 100-400L? Did they test it on wildlife, bird, and action photography? That would be useful to know how it performs. How can they give it a score without knowing or trying these things??

A person could read their review and run out to buy one only to find it would not work well for his application.

Fortunately, there are professional and competent reviewers who look at all the aspects and don't try to use a secret formula to put a number on the lens.
DXO could be so much more if they were open about their ratings and stated what they did not include in their scores, like ability to autofocus in both phase detect or liveview modes.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2014)

I agree but still find their measurements interesting, even if they are limited in their scope and their scores and such are just bizarre at times. It's a nice, free, resource to get another perspective on lenses, but I would never advise anyone to base their purchases purely on DxO's "reviews".


----------



## josephandrews222 (Feb 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As usual, the rating is one dimensional. Too bad they don't have some photographers rating the lenses for ALL the reasonably important things to photographers. They seem to stick to sharpness and a couple of other parameters. We don't even know if it will autofocus, from their reviews, it could be a manual focus only lens.
> 
> "Aimed at wildlife, bird and action photographers" So, how does it do with AF speed in bright and low light/ Does it work with the camera tracking systems. Can you hand hold it while tracking a BIF like the 100-400L? Did they test it on wildlife, bird, and action photography? That would be useful to know how it performs. How can they give it a score without knowing or trying these things??
> 
> ...



I am not sure I understand your criticism of DXO. Am I right that their scores only refer to image quality? It seems to me that you are asking more of them than they offer.

I own the Tamron 200-500 and look forward to additional opinions on the totality of the lens (you've made that point, too)...but DXO doesn't do that, right?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 12, 2014)

josephandrews222 said:


> Am I right that their scores only refer to image quality?



Nope ... No one knows how DXO arrives at its scores. Check out the recent DXO bashing thread that was pretty active for the past few days


----------



## sdsr (Feb 12, 2014)

josephandrews222 said:


> I am not sure I understand your criticism of DXO. Am I right that their scores only refer to image quality? It seems to me that you are asking more of them than they offer.



I think I know what you mean, but image quality in the abstract doesn't matter: if it doesn't focus fast and/or accurately (I've no idea whether it does or not) in the sort of conditions for which such a lens is likely to be used, then the image quality, much of the time, won't be any good at all.


----------



## nomad85 (Feb 12, 2014)

If you want reviews that cover more on the practical side, while keeping true to testing objectively, I would recommend http://www.lenstip.com/ . They include AF accuracy and speed, and provide their own opinion when needed. (but alas they have not yet tested the Tamron).


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 12, 2014)

DXO: "......softer across the frame at 600 than the Sigma 150-500 is at 500..."

That's a disappointment since my experience of the Sigma at 500 was not good.

Being realistic at this price you really can't expect the Tamron @ 600 to be even close to the 100-400 @ 400. That's the difference - the Canon is sharp at the top end but the Tamron ain't. Ah well just have to wait for the new 100-400 and use a TC to get 560 assuming by then Canon can give us a crop camera with f8 AF capability. That maybe is asking a lot.

But then DXO might have tested a sub-par copy........


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2014)

josephandrews222 said:


> Am I right that their scores only refer to image quality?



No, their Lens Score refers to how well the camera used for testing with that lens performs in 150 lux with a 1/60 s exposure at ISO 100. Do you think that the 50mm f/1.8 II delivers better image quality than the 600mm f/4L IS II? By reasonable objective measures, no way. But if I was going to shoot in a dimly lit warehouse (which is what 150 lux illumination translates to in the real world) and my camera was locked on ISO 100 with no ability to go higher, an f/1.8 lens would be a better choice than an f/4 lens. That's what the DxOMark Lens Score means.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

One day, hopefully, people will understand that DxO tests are lab-based. No more, no less. Whatever test conditions you pick, it means compromising on something else. Always. They chose their test conditions and all we can do, as an (hopefully) intelligent audience, is keeping them in mind when we read the outcome.

Now please some of the detractors, design a lab-based BIF test. Of course the lab must be as big as a forest to be realistic, but with tightly-controlled lighting conditions everywhere. Oh, and it has to be reproducible of course, so you'd better think of how to convince the bird to keep flying back and forth the same path and at the same speed over and over again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Oh, and it has to be reproducible of course, so you'd better think of how to convince the bird to keep flying back and forth the same path and at the same speed over and over again.



That's already been figured out.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> DXO: "......softer across the frame at 600 than the Sigma 150-500 is at 500..."
> 
> That's a disappointment since my experience of the Sigma at 500 was not good.
> 
> ...



Did you read:
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

"Against the Canon, the Tamron is, surprisingly, slightly sharper between the 150-300mm focal lengths, though there’s not much in it at 400mm – the Canon is sharper centrally though the Tamron has the slightly better uniformity across the field. However, the Canon has heavier vignetting at 400mm and noticeably more lateral chromatic aberration in the corners.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

Too simple, it hardly flies like a real bird.

I was also thinking that BIF, like other photography applications, besides the gear depends on personal skills. So to avoid this variable, camera and lens have to be mounted on a robot arm that follows the bird emulating at least 3 different skill levels: always on, most of the time, struggling to follow. And it has to shake to test the VC in the same conditions.


----------



## lycan (Feb 12, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> DXO: "......softer across the frame at 600 than the Sigma 150-500 is at 500..."
> 
> That's a disappointment since my experience of the Sigma at 500 was not good.
> 
> ...



DXO:
"
Against the Canon, the Tamron is, surprisingly, slightly sharper between the 150-300mm focal lengths, though there’s not much in it at 400mm – the Canon is sharper centrally though the Tamron has the slightly better uniformity across the field. However, the Canon has heavier vignetting at 400mm and noticeably more lateral chromatic aberration in the corners.
The Tamron even outperforms the pricier Canon lens on the full frame Canon EOS 5D Mk III though it’s less convincing when compared with the Canon EOS 7D."


They say Tamron is better..... 100-400mm with TC is no way sharper than this tamron

And yes, AF performs well and it is accurate in good light. Not as accurate in low light, as any other lens

http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks for the link, lycan. Impressive series of pictures, even those at 600mm wide open.


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As usual, the rating is one dimensional. Too bad they don't have some photographers rating the lenses for ALL the reasonably important things to photographers. They seem to stick to sharpness and a couple of other parameters. We don't even know if it will autofocus, from their reviews, it could be a manual focus only lens.



To add to this point for the benefit of the original inquirer one has to ask what the variance is as well, as was pointed out by Roger Cicala a couple years back: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout. As illustrated in the article, the only clear winner was one of the Zeiss lenses and the other "differences" in single numbers given were mostly swamped by variance (though the other Zeiss appeared to average a tad worse than all other lenses).

I do enjoy posts by the lensrentals kin--they seem to accept lens tests as a potentially useful tool, but recognize that what matters are the needs of the photographers. They test multiple units when reporting about lenses. They do their best to provide helpful tips and dispel misconceptions. They willingly share their methodology. And unlike DxO they don't take themselves and their (queue Boris and Natasha) "zeekret methodz" so ridiculously seriously. Sometimes a little humility goes a long way.

And speaking of that good humor of theirs, Happy Valentines, everyone! http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/we-love-lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

The point about variance is well taken. However, Lensrentals actually analysed two copies each of the Tammy and the 100-400.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

They found identical MTFs for the Tammy and Canon at 400mm and f/5.6. It's clear that they are close to being indistinguishable from more than one different testers.


----------



## scottburgess (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The point about variance is well taken. However, Lensrentals actually analysed two copies each of the Tammy and the 100-400.



Ahh! Thanks, Alan, I didn't even think to look for comparison tests there when writing the post.


----------



## lescrane (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The point about variance is well taken. However, Lensrentals actually analysed two copies each of the Tammy and the 100-400.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout
> 
> They found identical MTFs for the Tammy and Canon at 400mm and f/5.6. It's clear that they are close to being indistinguishable from more than one different testers.



agreed. we've had a few 'objective' tests now and there seems to be a consensus that the differences between these lenses, within their respective ranges is miniscule. 

The Dxo summary says that if you already have the Canon 100-400L, don't go out and buy the Tamron if you are looking for an improvement in IQ. you won't find it. But you will find more range, and if you are getting into this range for the first time, a lower price.

There are also a lot of other considerations like focusing and handling. I have had some issues wthe Tamron focusing that were due to some custom settings I had wrong. Still, it can be challenging to focus moving subjects in some conditions. However, the 100-400 L I once owned was not exactly stellar either. In fact, I had to return it twice to Canon for problem with the focusing motor. It didn't cost me $$ but it was a p.i.a. I don't know how the Tamron will hold up, but I think a 6 year warranty is worth some peace of mind. Years ago, lens warranties were meaningless. Then they added autofocus, IS, etc and you have electro-mechanical issues that will crop up(no pun intended).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Now please some of the detractors, design a lab-based BIF test. Of course the lab must be as big as a forest to be realistic, but with tightly-controlled lighting conditions everywhere. Oh, and it has to be reproducible of course, so you'd better think of how to convince the bird to keep flying back and forth the same path and at the same speed over and over again.


They can measure AF speed, tracking ability, and if it works with live view, all in a lab. 
I've run a lab that produced reports for NASA, and they are tough to please. We used Standardized approved test methods though. DXO invents their own that no one else uses.


----------



## woodenshoe (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: DxO Review of the Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon - EOS 7D vs EOS 5D*

This test is very timely for me, as I have just received my copy of this lens, and I am about to leave on a trip that will include photographing wildlife. I am lucky enough to own both a 7D and a 5D III. I assumed I would bring the 7D to use with this lens, but the tests seem to show that would be the wrong choice.

For this question, assume the lens is at 600mm and f8, and the subject would nicely fill the frame (no additional cropping in post) on the 7D. Do these tests show that if I used the 5D III instead, and then cropped the image to be the same size as from the 7D, that the 5D III image would have more resolution and better detail?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

*Re: DxO Review of the Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon - EOS 7D vs EOS 5D*



woodenshoe said:


> This test is very timely for me, as I have just received my copy of this lens, and I am about to leave on a trip that will include photographing wildlife. I am lucky enough to own both a 7D and a 5D III. I assumed I would bring the 7D to use with this lens, but the tests seem to show that would be the wrong choice.
> 
> For this question, assume the lens is at 600mm and f8, and the subject would nicely fill the frame (no additional cropping in post) on the 7D. Do these tests show that if I used the 5D III instead, and then cropped the image to be the same size as from the 7D, that the 5D III image would have more resolution and better detail?



I have the 5DIII and 70D, having sold the 7D, and have experience of the Tamron on the 5DIII and 70D. My decision is to use the 5DIII - it works very well with the Tamron in terms of AF and image quality. Even with the sharper 300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC III, the 5DIII in general, but not always, outperformed the 7D and the 5DIII AF is just so much better in consistency.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

I did one test: the brick wall! Trinity College's Tudor brick chimney. The 70D and the 5DIII were on a tripod for this test, both at f/8 and 600mm with the Tamron. From top to bottom; 70D scaled down to 1200x800; 5DIII scaled down to 1200x800; 100% crop from centre of the full-sized 70D; very bottom, the centre from the full-sized 5DIII upscaled by 1.5x. If you crop the centre 200x200 the 70D is slightly better, but the image is too small anyway to be of any use. 

Both lenses were AFMAd 3xtimes, Dilbert. 

I think the 5DIII image is better. But, it's only one example under one set of conditions.


----------

