# Tamron 150-600 Shootout via LensRentals.com



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 19, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/tamron-150-600-shootout-via-lensrentals-com/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/tamron-150-600-shootout-via-lensrentals-com/">Tweet</a></div>
Roger and Aaron over at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> have completed their resolution testing of a host of supertelephoto zoom lenses. The Sigma 50-500 OS and Canon 100-400 were the two big competitors to the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013956-REG/tamron_a011_c_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 150-600 VC</a>.</p>
<p>The Tamron is the least expensive of the bunch and held up very well against others in its class. While it’s not clearly the best resolving lens. The price, focal range & performance will be a big winner for a lot of people.</p>
<p><strong>Summary from LensRentals.com

</strong><em>“My summary would be that the selection between a Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 OS should be made on criteria other than MTF 50. There are some minor differences in resolution, but nothing that makes one clearly better than another. Price, weight, autofocus accuracy, effectiveness of vibration control, and a number of other factors (did I mention price?) are more important considerations when choosing among these lenses.</em></p>
<p><em>It’s pretty obvious that the Tamron has both 600mm range and the lowest price. These tests, and everything I see from photographers using the lens in the field, support that it’s of at least equal image quality. Some people will prefer the extra wide range of the Sigma, others the lighter weight of the Canon. But for a lot of people, the Tamron is going to be the best bang for the buck.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013956-REG/tamron_a011_c_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 150-600 VC at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><em> thanks Steve</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Marauder (Jan 19, 2014)

"One time I dropped my camera, the shutter went off when it hit, and it made a great macro of the bottom of a dandelion.)"

Still chuckling at that after reading the review! LMAO! Thanks for that review Roger! We've all been waiting for you to weigh in on this lens! Pretty impressive, especially for the price! Still waiting for more comprehensive AF testing, although there's been a few of those already posted too. Looking pretty impressive for the price! If its VC and AF performance is equally impressive, this might just make a nice supplement to my 100-400L for times when I want more reach!


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 19, 2014)

Seems like I'm gonna buy it.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 19, 2014)

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 19, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.
> 
> now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.



Not so good at 600mm wide open, but it gets a lot better at f/8. Not much has been said yet about the 500mm area.

And it's cheaper too.

Certainly not prime-like IQ, but it seems a very good package all in all. Very workable flaws, to say it in other words.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.
> 
> now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.



Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO. 

Still, the new lens delivers surprisingly good resolution performance for the focal length and cost.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.
> ...



I ask the same question. The centre MTF at 400mm is 945 and 710 at 600mm, and cropping at 400 would give a similar resolution to 600mm. However, there are reports that lowering the aperture to f/8-f/11 gives a significant increase in sharpness. A pity Roger didn't measure that. We'll have to wait for SLRgear, lenstip. photozone or TDP to deliver the goods.


----------



## iowapipe (Jan 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.
> ...



And that is the question I have also. I've put off buying a friend's 100-400 Canon lens because after comparing it to the 400mm 5.6 prime, I decided I really want the lens for the reach of 400mm. Not the flexibility of zoom. I have my 70-200 f4 IS that does well enough for me at this point in my learning curve. (yes, the f2.8 would be wonderful since many of my pics are low light... but the weight and cost both are a hindrance) 

My guess is that the IS of this Tamron may be enough to sway me since I'm not going to be setting up in a blind and waiting for wildlife to find me. I'll be traipsing around and trying to find a stump/limb/trunk/rock to be my brace. BUT, the 400mm Canon would be considerably lighter if I can get similar results from a crop. I bit the bullet this past summer and moved up to the 5Diii on a good deal and LOVE the FF experience. I don't want to spend money on a crop body right now, it would be better spent on good glass.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 19, 2014)

Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.



http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fqicai.fengniao.com%2F425%2F4259287_all.html


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 19, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.
> ...



Whatever that is, it triggered AVG for a web-based exploit.


----------



## RGF (Jan 19, 2014)

I know the review was about the Tamron 150-600 but too bad Roger did not include the Sigma 150-500 instead of the 50-500. More of a direct comparison.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

This was a brilliant move by Tamron. This thing is enticing buyers who don't even have a need for it, myself included.


----------



## candc (Jan 20, 2014)

Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

candc said:


> Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!



I can't tell if you were being sarcastic. Was anybody really thinking it would be a substitute for the 600 II? It's 1/12th the price. Anyway, other tests show significant sharpness gains if you stop down at 600mm, and by f/11 its just as good as at 400mm.


----------



## Steve (Jan 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO.



Decent things to think about. I would suppose that someone interested in this lens is probably using a crop body and the reduced resolution would most likely be better than the greater apparent noise you'd get from cropping from 400mm. Might be a different story on a 5DII/III or 6D. It would also make a big difference if stopping down improves resolving power at the long end to a significant degree.

Still, as good as a 100-400L with a little extra is going to be a great selling point to a lot of people.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 20, 2014)

Does anyone have an opinion as to how this Tamron 150-600 would fare against the comparable focal length(s) of the current Canon 100-400 paired with a Canon Extender EF 1.4x III on a 5D3?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

My suspicion is that when Canon announces an updated 100-400 it will handily beat the Tamron where the ranges overlap and that cropping it will come close to the tamron at 600.... But I'll bet that if/when an updated 400F5.6 comes out it will blow the works away for IQ....

One of the things I like about the Tamron is the zoom range... Two of the most popular L glass lenses are the 28-70 and the 70-200's... a 100-400 has an awful lot of overlap.... the 150-600 does not. I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500 and with the zoom range being reduced from 4X to 2.5X there could be a huge jump in IQ.


----------



## candc (Jan 20, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!
> ...



I know it seems to be a remarkable product for the price but I was hoping it would be better wide open at 600. My present 600mm option is the sigma 120-300 plus 2xiii which has adequate sharpness but the AF won't keep up with bif. I hope ths one can, if not it still seems to be a good travel and hiking long zoom.

p.s. I was being sarcastic.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> Does anyone have an opinion as to how this Tamron 150-600 would compare to the Canon 100-400 paired with a Canon Extender EF 1.4x III on a 5D3?



Well, for starters you're going to be forced down to f/8 with the Canon & extender. It'll also put the Tamron in front in terms of IQ except for maybe at 600mm. Plus, that Canon + Extender combo is just about twice the price of the Tamron lens lol.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

candc said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



Ya if you have the 120-300 2.8 that makes things tricky. I think that lens (+ext) vs. this Tamron is the big question for those looking to get into the super-tele range on a budget.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Jan 20, 2014)

> I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500...



+1


----------



## candc (Jan 20, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



When the new lens comes I will do a comparison and post for anyone that is interested.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Not so good at 600mm wide open, but it gets a lot better at f/8. Not much has been said yet about the 500mm area.



Roger did measure the 150-600 @ 500mm. The drop off in MTF wide open is very minimal compared to 600mm. I wonder if cropping @ 500mm would give better results than 600mm when wide open, especially when used on a crop body.


----------



## lescrane (Jan 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I didn't have problem, that review's been up there for a couple weeks. Try another browser, Im using Chrome.


----------



## lescrane (Jan 20, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Not so good at 600mm wide open, but it gets a lot better at f/8. Not much has been said yet about the 500mm area.
> ...



Looking at this chart of Roger's, it seems that 500mm is ok...the drop off hasn't hit rock bottom yet. Is that a correct conclusion?


----------



## markesc (Jan 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> My suspicion is that when Canon announces an updated 100-400 it will handily beat the Tamron where the ranges overlap and that cropping it will come close to the tamron at 600.... But I'll bet that if/when an updated 400F5.6 comes out it will blow the works away for IQ....
> 
> One of the things I like about the Tamron is the zoom range... Two of the most popular L glass lenses are the 28-70 and the 70-200's... a 100-400 has an awful lot of overlap.... the 150-600 does not. I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500 and with the zoom range being reduced from 4X to 2.5X there could be a huge jump in IQ.



+1

200-500 would be perfect!

Mine ships on Monday, and should be here by Wednesday! I've been very happy with my 75-300L, but more reach is needed and I'm not going to reward Canon for complacency. How many years have there been rumors about a 100-400 replacement? 

I look at the Tamron as a lens to get by with until this phantom mkII 100-400 arrives when were all 150 years old!

Will have four days off to test it out on the 5dmkiii and 70d ;D


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500 and with the zoom range being reduced from 4X to 2.5X there could be a huge jump in IQ.



Didn't they do a 200-400?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500 and with the zoom range being reduced from 4X to 2.5X there could be a huge jump in IQ.
> ...


Yes, but instead of a $12,000 fast lens, something slower and around $2000 would fill a nice hole in the lineup....


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 20, 2014)

Its a nice zoom range, but the problem with stopping down to f/11 at 600mm is that you will be at really high ISO when shooting in lower light to get a respectable shutter speed. In this case it will likely be better to shoot with a 400mm at f5.6 and crop in post. (Which arguably, this lens will allow you to do....)

AF performance may be a big deciding factor. It this lens can perform it may make up for IQ deficiencies. It's definitely an interesting lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> “My summary would be that the selection between a Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 OS should be made on criteria other than MTF 50. *There are some minor differences in resolution, but nothing that makes one clearly better than another*.


That sounds good ... looks like I'm gonna be selling my Sigma 150-500 OS and get this new Tammy within the next 30 days. Will request my ex-boss who is coming from Japan next month to get it for me.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 20, 2014)

I'd like to add 2 points:

A:
We'll know much more in a month, but it does seem that technically, the lens does:
0- about all the 100-400 does with unnoticeably different IQ
1- doesn't require knowing how to play the trombone, which I never got the hang of in almost a year of 100-400 use
2- costs 35 percent less
3- goes out 100mm further without bad IQ loss
4- goes out another 100mm with what could be unacceptable IQ loss in most situations (this is the thing we need tested; such as comparisons to 100-400+TC or cropping. I can tell you a 1.4 TC made my 100-400 unfun. I'd like to see the Tamron at 560mm versus the 100-400 with 1.4 TC)
5- Has 5x the warrantee period
6- Satisfies the little voice in even the Canon partisan's head that says, "Yeah, this'll show Canon it can't take us for granted."

This is speaking as a 100-400 owner until 12 hours ago, when a woman from Portland, OR bought mine on eBay for 120 percent the cost of the new Tamron I just ordered from B&H. But the other point...

B:
Canon may or may not be intending to re-do the 100-400 with a Mark II. But if precedent holds, that $1700 lens would be a $2499 lens at least in 2014... UNTIL Tamron punched them in the price stratification gut. IF there was an imminent lens launch coming from Canon, I think there's a guy at Canon USA who is crapping ceramics right now. And his boss's boss is wondering what the heck else Tamron is going to launch, ruining another high-margin market for them. 

This new lens is nice for those of us hoping to reach out and get a few wildlife shots we'd been missing, but it spells good old free market price inflection point competition for everyone else. 

OK, bonus point:
C:
The camera market has been throttled in the past couple of years with cell phone makers finally putting decent little cameras that meet 90 percent of everyman's needs. If you are a corporate strategist at any of the camera/lens companies in Japan, you react to this by pushing lenses. More lenses, different lenses, better lenses. You go and sell those lenses to people and you get higher margins than the undependable camera market gets. This is not a long-term strategy in terms of industrial capacity allocation, but it's a prudent one for a couple years if you can't predict what's going to happen in 18 months. Concurrent with this is a lowering of the camera body price points, as you want to get as many people as possible into your platform so you can, yes, sell more lenses. 

If what I formulated above is true, and the Canon folks are seeing it too, then you would see this future in 2014:
- A low-end camera would be launched with much of the functionality of the Rebel/70D (at least the video bits) to capture marketshare for future lens sales. This camera would be small, appealing to those who would otherwise forego an SLR for a phone. 
- It would be bundled with a pancake lens to make it feel like a P&S form factor. There's probably some Canon USA product manager who is still steaming because he wanted to introduce same 10 months ago, but the others feared he'd cannibalize their sales, trying to convince themselves that the market would turn around. (And now that he's been established as correct, they'll give this project to one of the minds that didn't have that vision because the company culture rewards respect of seniority). I'm guessing this camera is the one coming in February.
- The P&S is pretty much dying, but Canon will just consolidate the numerous offerings, doing less price stratification and doing more loading up of features (the ones not adding incremental production costs) into the low end.
- The arbitrary use of APS-C sensors as a market splitter between enthusiasts and pros, maintained largely through the discrimination in software/processor versions, will make even less sense now. Pros need crop sensors. Some enthusiasts would move to Canon for a full frame sensor. The entire hierarchy of camera features and names versus sensors will change. 
- The naming convention will employ three dimensions of variables: level of "pro-ness"; crop factor; and special feature (like we see sometimes with the appending character on a 1D body). 
- Unfortunately, we will see more regional differences, as Canon Japan attempts to exploit market differences by giving the indigenous executives more product and pricing power. Their hope will be that they can maximize margins by taking advantage of instances where, for instance, there remain pockets of high-margin P&S sales. This will largely take the form of certain products not being available in certain markets - those local executives fearing the destruction of a still-alive existing market. To end users, it will seem nonsensical, and there will be many complaints on the forums. 
- Canon will launch education and marketing efforts attempting to push a specific class of knowledge: those things you can do exclusively with slr lenses. You will see emphasis on subject isolation; super telephoto tips; focus capabilities unique to larger sensors; etc. They will de-emphasize issues that are common to iPhones and Rebels both. 
- A Canon lens competitor will attempt to launch an Android SLR, and it will test disastrously. They may launch it anyways. A variant of this may come to pass: one of the desperate Android tablet producers may purchase one of the lens companies. This would have already happened had the lens manufacturers not been based in Japan, where such things are quite difficult. 
- Canon will fall to the temptation to make its body-to-lens interface deliberately more opaque to third party lens makers. AF will be slower on non-brand lenses and there may even be a body introduced that isn't compatible with some key existing third party lenses. Canon will explore selling to third parties access to the API, but this will run into serious antitrust interest on the part of the US Department of Justice. 9 months later the Europeans would jump on that bandwagon too. 


All this from reading the entrails of a single Tamron lens launch. You heard it here first. -Tig





And you go around to the rumor sites and you tell them that 2014 is the upcoming "year of the lens." Heard it here first.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> I'd like to add 2 points:
> 
> A:
> We'll know much more in a month, but it does seem that technically, the lens does:
> ...


Welcome to CR ... now that is one heck of a loooong first post I've ever read on CR ... now could you please elaborate (oh God, no!), I did *not* mean elaborate, I meant, could you please *summarize*, what exactly it is that you want to tell us, coz I kinda lost you after the "crapp!ing ceramics" part ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 20, 2014)

The main take away is that the Canon 100-400 is still the lens to beat. I'd have liked to see something blow it away, but they all just try to match a very old lens design. I suspect that any Canon replacement for the 100-400 will cost a lot for a relatively small improvement. That's likely why we haven't seen one yet.
There does seem to be a lot of copy variation in the 100-400, mine is one of the newer ones, and is best at 400mm, which is where it gets used. I really would not look forward to the extra weight for a lens that is basically the same. I'm wondering how it compares at 560mm, which is my 100-400 with a TC.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to add 2 points:
> ...



I had to use the find tool to look up where the "ceramics" part was...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


What does the chart represent? sharpness?


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.

I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good 

I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


I see ... thanks


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2014)

Does anyone have a link to measured MTFs for the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC at 600mm? (Not the Canon published calculated ones).


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 20, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Roger and Aaron ... have completed their resolution testing of a host of supertelephoto zoom lenses.
> The Sigma 50-500 OS and Canon 100-400 were the two big competitors to the new Tamron 150-600 VC


Well... really impressing performance of the Tamron 150-600 VC.

As mentioned by others, of course as long as we have no impressions of AF and VC and the quality variation this is only half of the story. 
But I hope that this is enough pressure to Canon to release some new tele lenses, hopefully soon.

Having a 100-400L already, for me this is not so exiting, as I would not improve in IQ. 
But for others not having that reach...
I personally would still prefer the Canon, as it is lighter and smaller.
And thinking about the price of polarization and protection filter with 95 mm...


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Having a 100-400L already, for me this is not so exiting, as I would not improve in IQ.
> But for others not having that reach...



Well, you don't have it either, unless your specific copy of the 100-400 L goes up to 600mm


----------



## weixing (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


Hi,
The dark blue is horizontal resolution and the light blue is vertical resolution base on the test chart (red box scale area).

Have a nice day.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> The dark blue is horizontal resolution and the light blue is vertical resolution base on the test chart (red box scale area).
> 
> Have a nice day.



Thanks for solving the mystery! ;D

Could you also clarify if it's center resolution or an average or...?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

weixing said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Yippy! good news for me ... my ex-boss agreed to buy the lens from amazon Japan and bring it with him .... now I need to patiently wait till February 10th to hold the lens.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 20, 2014)

Welcome to CR ... now that is one heck of a loooong first post I've ever read on CR ... now could you please elaborate (oh God, no!), I did not mean elaborate, I meant, could you please summarize, what exactly it is that you want to tell us, coz I kinda lost you after the "crapp!ing ceramics" part ;D


Thanks, & sorry for the ramble. The gist:
The 150-600 lens appears to be a better lens for most people in the market for a low-end super-telephoto.
AND
This signifies a moment in the camera market where it makes sense for Canon to act strategically differently than it has acted over the past 10 years. Those strategy adaptations will lead to more power in the low end, lower prices and some pain-in-the-rear Canon policies (weird pricing and/or availability issues between countries) that would otherwise seem nonsensical. 

One additional thought & reason why I think this 150-600 lens signifies greater change:
Sigma and Tamron have plainly decided that the money is in the upscale market. That decision was probably made 3 years ago to produce the new lenses we're seeing coming out now. That means that there could be enormous additional disruption coming out by lens designers who have been beavering away since the Black Eyed Peas were on the charts.

Great time to start an interest in photography.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.
> 
> I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good
> 
> I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.



Here's my problem with that chart. Unless I'm doing the math wrong or not understanding what this chart means (certainly possible since it's in Chinese), the f/32 numbers are beating the diffraction limit, calling the entire thing into question.

From what I've seen of visual tests, it loses more contrast than detail at 600mm and f/6.3, and gains it back in huge steps from f/7.1 to f/8. That's probably okay for me as I would use this as a daylight airshow lens, and switch to my 70-200/2.8L IS II (with and without TCs) if the light got lower.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Having a 100-400L already, for me this is not so exiting, as I would not improve in IQ.
> ...


If you think, that I have to be that precise, then okay:
Having a 100-400L_ and a 1.4 TC _already...
... I am happy to _also having some extra f-stop down to 4.5 at the short and 5.6 at the long end_. 
Or almost compareable values at 560 mm with f8 (including TC)
;D ;D ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 20, 2014)

The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test: sample variation/consistency. That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.

If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to CR ... now that is one heck of a loooong first post I've ever read on CR ... now could you please elaborate (oh God, no!), I did not mean elaborate, I meant, could you please summarize, what exactly it is that you want to tell us, coz I kinda lost you after the "crapp!ing ceramics" part ;D
> ...


OK, that makes sense ... I hope Canon/Nikon lower their lens prices, but I doubt that very much. I use (and have used) lenses from the 3 big third party manufactures (Sigma, Tamron & Tokina ... also use a Rokinon/Samyang 24 T/S lens), but I personally feel that their earlier quality control issues and Canon/Nikon tactics of "camera firmware upgrades" (that mysteriously "change" the way the 3rd party lenses AF) may continue to haunt them for some more years to come ... I see its changing, albeit slowly, but meanwhile Canon/Nikon will continue to charge higher prices as long as possible.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test: sample variation/consistency. That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.
> 
> If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.



So far the 3 samples that Roger has are all centered well with very little sample variation according to his report. Looks like a good start for QC.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 20, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test: sample variation/consistency. That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.
> ...



That's encouraging. A lot of people will be looking at that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Here's my problem with that chart. Unless I'm doing the math wrong or not understanding what this chart means (certainly possible since it's in Chinese), the f/32 numbers are beating the diffraction limit, calling the entire thing into question.



+1


----------



## dufflover (Jan 21, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Ya if you have the 120-300 2.8 that makes things tricky. I think that lens (+ext) vs. this Tamron is the big question for those looking to get into the super-tele range on a budget.



Exactly my situation. I have your typical recommended lenses around this range (Sigma 120-300, 100-400, etc.) but what peaks my interest here is the performance at 600mm f/8 as I'm very realistic in not expecting a $1000 or even $1500 lens to do well 600mm wide open. Similar story with me too with the Sigma combo; it's "ok" but I hesitate to use it with the 2x a lot. So far it looks like the Tamron gives it a good fight, at a much cheaper to price boot and much lighter too!
Don't get me wrong my Sigma is probably not going anywhere regardless as it's a sharp 420mm f/4.5~5 (preferred aperture) with 1.4x TC. And that makes it hard because that means adding another telezoom to the collection lol. And in practice would only ever carry one on an outing.


----------



## HankMD (Jan 21, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Hmm...well, the text accompanying the 400mm chart explicitly states "center", whereas the 600mm chart does not say so. I'd ASSUME it's also at center. Maybe a thorough reading would give us more info. (But I am at work...)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 29, 2014)

A review that has such low quality shots comparing the products is not very confidence inspiring in the diligence of the testers/reviewers, so I'm disregarding this review.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 29, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> A review that has such low quality shots comparing the products is not very confidence inspiring in the diligence of the testers/reviewers, so I'm disregarding this review.



yeah well as if anyone cares.

the photographic world knows roger... but who knows you beside your mom?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 29, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > A review that has such low quality shots comparing the products is not very confidence inspiring in the diligence of the testers/reviewers, so I'm disregarding this review.
> ...



Please forgive me for trolling just this once  But given the kind of product images we're used to from sites like The-Digital-Picture.com, I think I'm a little spoiled perhaps ;D


----------



## markesc (Feb 5, 2014)

Mine arrived Jan 22nd!

First 3rd Party lens, and def very happy/no complaints for the money.

"A" lens is better than NO lens, so for now, Tamron gets my money, and I'll pickup whatever Canon sells in the future. I'm not sure who/and how people are making trillions of dollars off their wildlife photos to justify spending $12k for a 600 that's marginally better. A great review from a guy that owns both the 600 F4L II Canon and the Tamron:

http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/

A few examples, only the 2nd time taking the lens out, and my first lens beyond 300mm, shot on the lowly 70d, most are ISO 1600/F8-F11 is the sweet spot/AI Servo/Center Point focus. The Red Tail shots are barely cropped:


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 5, 2014)

markesc said:


> A great review from a guy that owns both the 600 F4L II Canon and the Tamron:
> 
> http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/



Actually I believe that's the version 1 600f4IS. 

From the article.


> I’ve been shooting the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS since 2008 and have thoroughly enjoyed it.



I'm not sure if he also owns a 600f4IS version 2, but in the context of the article it certainly seems like he's talking about version 1, which can be a significant difference depending on how picky you are.


----------



## markesc (Feb 5, 2014)

Meh, for us simple folk, this lens will work fine, and helps to keep things on the fiscally responsible route vs. use all money in savings on a hobby that I make little to no money off of, but can have the bragging rights of the Canon.

When Canon wants to sell a lens to us simple folk, I'll gladly consider. What they are saying now is:

You can buy the Carolla, OR you can buy the Porsche.





9VIII said:


> markesc said:
> 
> 
> > A great review from a guy that owns both the 600 F4L II Canon and the Tamron:
> ...


----------



## Somlu (Feb 5, 2014)

I have got my lens on 3rd Feb , just took a few shots . Though the AF speed is a little slow for the distance over 50ft , otherwise a fine lens . Obviously not as good as my 500 prime , but still quite good . Here is sample of a flying pigeon , not bad . A little sharpening and a very little exp correction is done.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 5, 2014)

I am interested in this lens, but want to see how it matched up at 600mm against
i) 300L f/2.8 IS I and II +2xTC
ii) 100-400L +1.4xTC (560mm, but close enough)

TDP, put this up on your lens IQ tool please!


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2014)

9VIII said:


> markesc said:
> 
> 
> > A great review from a guy that owns both the 600 F4L II Canon and the Tamron:
> ...


He definitely talks about version 1. Which by the way is so heavy that the idea of a slightly worse but much lighter and smaller Tamron zoom may seem quite attractive. Now, the crops do not seem impressive but it may be just me...


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 5, 2014)

There are a lot of financially or sensibly constrained punters out there looking for a sharp used prime capable of good performance with 1.4x and 2x TC.

I am thinking of the 300/2.8 IS to give 420 and 600, 400/4 DO to give 560 and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 to give 420 and 600 again. But all require stopping down 1 stop to get any reasonable performance at 600 ie 600/8.

As test results come through and IF it is really true that Tamron 600/8 performance is OK then it may become blindingly obvious that if you really want the 300-600 range the Tamron is the lens to get.

Tamron has placed the cat amongst the pigeons and good luck to them.


----------

