# TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Hitting Market



## jimmy kamballur (Dec 19, 2013)

Today ( 19-12-2013 ) Tamron Japan started shipment of TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD.Here some sample images
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/12/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd.html


----------



## photonius (Dec 21, 2013)

jimmy kamballur said:


> Today ( 19-12-2013 ) Tamron Japan started shipment of TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD.Here some sample images
> http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/12/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd.html




more stuff trickling in

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Freview.kakaku.com%2Freview%2FK0000605175%2FReviewCD%3D663207%2F


----------



## jimmy kamballur (Dec 22, 2013)

http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2013/12/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-63-di-vc-usd_22.html

more photos


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Dec 25, 2013)

1050$ is not much that´s for sure.... but how good is it.... :

http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=TM150600*&emailprice=t&sub=News&utm_term=Search&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Search&utm_source=rflaid41619


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 27, 2013)

B&H also has it for $1069. And here is a detailed 2 page review.

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category30/&usg=ALkJrhhoXjR9Vmw3c-nqHPEPhyJKz-MJKQ


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> B&H also has it for $1069. And here is a detailed 2 page review.
> 
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category30/&usg=ALkJrhhoXjR9Vmw3c-nqHPEPhyJKz-MJKQ


Wow, it's quite a bit bigger than I thought. I was thinking it would be more in line with their older zooms. It's heavy and has a reversed zoom ring, too. It's not looking quite as appealing as I first thought, but still looks like one helluva lens for the price for people without any tele/supertele lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> B&H also has it for $1069. And here is a detailed 2 page review.
> 
> http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1
> 
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trinitylumberton.org/category29/%26newwindow%3D1&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=ja&u=http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category30/&usg=ALkJrhhoXjR9Vmw3c-nqHPEPhyJKz-MJKQ



Thanks for those links. I already knew that the lens is of very similar size and nearly as heavy as the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 2xTC so I had decided already not to buy. I downloaded all the photos and compared them with shots I have taken with the 300mm+2xTC on the 5DIII at similar distances and the 100-400mm on the Canon 7D. OK, the Tamron isn't as good the expensive prime but it compares pretty well with the 100-400. So, it look likes the Tamron is an excellent buy for those who want cheap access for a reasonably good 600mm. The reviewer did seem to have difficulty in getting his technique right for hand holding.

If the lens were smaller or could be retracted like the 100-400, I would buy one for travel. So, its continuing the long wait for the 100-400mm II.


----------



## hoodlum (Dec 27, 2013)

AlanF said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > B&H also has it for $1069. And here is a detailed 2 page review.
> ...



The Canon f2.8ii + 2xTC is much heavier.

Canon 100-400mm 1.38kg
Tamron 150-600mm 1.95kg
Canon 300mm f2.8 ii + 2xTC 2.675kg

The Tamron when collapsed is the same length as the 400mm f5.6


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2013)

I wonder about the resolving power at distance and if the 400F5.6 will resolve more detail than the 150-600...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 28, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > hoodlum said:
> ...



Tamron when collapsed is 257.8 mm compared with 189 mm for the 100-400 mm.


----------



## HankMD (Dec 29, 2013)

Some nature images from the same site mentioned by hoodlum, paired with the 6D, showing the focal length extremes. Not sure if the lens is provided by Tamron or not.

http://www.trinitylumberton.org/category30/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 30, 2013)

hoodlum said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > hoodlum said:
> ...


 
Which is way too long to fit in any ordinary camera bag, and the reason I sold mine.

I had the Tamron 200-500, its big and difficult to balance, and poor image quality as well. I'll be looking at images from professional reviewers of lenses actually purchased in the market.


----------



## neotoma (Dec 30, 2013)

I'm an optimist. Preordered it at B&H to use with my new 70D. If IQ is better than the kit lenses then I'll be happy. Not thrilled about the combined heft but I'll deal with it.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2013)

neotoma said:


> I'm an optimist. Preordered it at B&H to use with my new 70D. If IQ is better than the kit lenses then I'll be happy. Not thrilled about the combined heft but I'll deal with it.


It is probably a good idea to preorder as I suspect that the initial demand for this lens will be huge.i suspect that the reason for the delayed launch outside of Japan is because sales there will take up all the existing stock.... 

Camera Canada has the lens on sale! A pre-order item on sale!


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neotoma said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an optimist. Preordered it at B&H to use with my new 70D. If IQ is better than the kit lenses then I'll be happy. Not thrilled about the combined heft but I'll deal with it.
> ...



I also got $100 off preordering through Aden Camera. There is more margin in Canada for discounting.

Here is an AF test @ 600mm with the 5Dmkiii. Looking pretty good to me.

Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD - 600mm auto focus speed test


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 6, 2014)

And here is the first comparison with the 400mm f5.6. Hopefully he can do some more comparisions but so far the Tamron seems to have the edge at 400mm wide open.

http://camahoy.com/2014/01/06/tamron-sp-150-600mm-vc-sp-usd-vs-canon-ef-400mm-f5-6l-usm/


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> And here is the first comparison with the 400mm f5.6. Hopefully he can do some more comparisions but so far the Tamron seems to have the edge at 400mm wide open.
> 
> http://camahoy.com/2014/01/06/tamron-sp-150-600mm-vc-sp-usd-vs-canon-ef-400mm-f5-6l-usm/


 This is starting to look like *THE!* lens of 2014... I bet they sell tons of them!


----------



## emag (Jan 6, 2014)

Hmmmmm......quite good, at least in these samples. Although it seems to translate signs into a language I can't understand......


----------



## cliffwang (Jan 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> This is starting to look like *THE!* lens of 2014... I bet they sell tons of them!



If the price is really about 1K. I will buy one.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 6, 2014)

emag said:


> Hmmmmm......quite good, at least in these samples. Although it seems to translate signs into a language I can't understand......



I think it's Swedish 

Anyway, samples do look SWEET.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 6, 2014)

My copy for review was shipped today. I should have it by Wednesday. There is moratorium on full reviews, and the first dibs on mine will be going to PhotoNews, but by the end of the month I should be able to share the full review. 

My contact at Tamron seems more pumped about this lens than any I've heard him mention before. He said this to me: "Our internal tests are showing the lens provides very sharp photos and every one - so far! - is very pleased with its performance."

I'm excited to get my hands on it!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> My copy for review was shipped today. I should have it by Wednesday. There is moratorium on full reviews, and the first dibs on mine will be going to PhotoNews, but by the end of the month I should be able to share the full review.
> 
> My contact at Tamron seems more pumped about this lens than any I've heard him mention before. He said this to me: "Our internal tests are showing the lens provides very sharp photos and every one - so far! - is very pleased with its performance."
> 
> I'm excited to get my hands on it!


Is the North American release date still set for January 19th?


----------



## Marauder (Jan 6, 2014)

Nice to see a side by side with a Canon L lens. Given that I'm interested in it equalling or bettering the 100-400L and this test shows it equalling the 400 5.6L (which is generally regarded as being sharper than the 100-400), these results are encouraging. Still waiting for more on AF performance. I'm hoping the issues Frank had with his copy are an anomaly as I'd love nothing better than to have a sharp and clear 600mm lens that doesn't cost me the equivalent to a small car!


----------



## Marauder (Jan 6, 2014)

Addendum, just saw Hoodlum's AF test on the first page. Pretty cool for stationary subjects! Looking more and more promising!


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jan 7, 2014)

I really want this lens to measure up...I own the Tamron 200-500 and am, to be honest, a bit disappointed with its image quality. The autofocus test looks promising (when I get a chance I am going to try the same thing with my 5DM3 and the 200-500...but what I really want to see is the image quality for the 150-600.


----------



## xylus (Jan 7, 2014)

Now its the most selling lens here in Japan.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 7, 2014)

Looking good. If we're lucky it just might start a budget telephoto war.


----------



## photonius (Jan 7, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> And here is the first comparison with the 400mm f5.6. Hopefully he can do some more comparisions but so far the Tamron seems to have the edge at 400mm wide open.
> 
> http://camahoy.com/2014/01/06/tamron-sp-150-600mm-vc-sp-usd-vs-canon-ef-400mm-f5-6l-usm/



the samples have now been retracted, see updated web site. The 400 L shots were obviously not the best, and with a filter. Still, the Tamron doesn't look too bad.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2014)

I've got it in hand right now. It is a beast. I intend to AFMA it before giving any kind of report on the IQ. I am also clearing just what kind of information I can share right now. There is a moratorium on reviews, but I probably will able to share some bits and pieces.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 7, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've got it in hand right now. It is a beast. I intend to AFMA it before giving any kind of report on the IQ. I am also clearing just what kind of information I can share right now. There is a moratorium on reviews, but I probably will able to share some bits and pieces.


I bet it's a beast and I look forward to reading whatever you're able to share.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2014)

photonius said:


> hoodlum said:
> 
> 
> > And here is the first comparison with the 400mm f5.6. Hopefully he can do some more comparisions but so far the Tamron seems to have the edge at 400mm wide open.
> ...


The 400L samples had obvious issues, I think he got called on it. 

The Tamron was a loaner from Tamron, and they only loan out the really good ones, no matter what they tell you. They'd be pretty stupid if they didn't select the best of the best for loaners. Then, they put them on a shelf and seem to be grabbing one at random, when they are actually all hand picked lenses.

That's why I'm waiting for professional reviewers who are careful in their setup and know what they are doing. I don't go for reviews using free loaners from Tamron, they need to be purchased at random from a store. I also want to see reviews from more than one expert. Even DXO buys or rents lenses, they don't test special ones supplied by the manufacturer. Experts will recognize problems with test lenses and redo the images or get them repaired before showing them to the public, their reputation is on the line.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm looking forward to the hand-on reviews of this lens and enough data points to give a good idea about copy variation.

I don't often need a lens longer than 200mm, but for those occasions I do, this would be an excellent choice if the IQ is as good or better than the Canon 100-400L. I've owned that lens before and was generally pleased with it, but it didn't get much use so I sold it to use the money on better shorter focal length lenses. Now that I'm generally satisfied with my 14-200mm lenses, adding a longer zoom makes sense. As much as I'd love to own a 300 or 400 2.8 IS, I don't shoot enough super tele to justify the cost. For around $1K this would be a nice option.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 400L samples had obvious issues, I think he got called on it.



The only "issue" was that he forgot he had a filter on the 400L and didn't on the Tamron. I don't think he got "called" on it. Someone pointed out the mistake and he corrected it. It's debatable how much an impact the filter would have, but give him credit for recognizing the issue and being straightforward about it.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Tamron was a loaner from Tamron, and they only loan out the really good ones, no matter what they tell you. They'd be pretty stupid if they didn't select the best of the best for loaners. Then, they put them on a shelf and seem to be grabbing one at random, when they are actually all hand picked lenses.



These statements are common on the internet, but I wonder if anyone has any actual, personal proof or experience with this. Or, if it's just something that gets repeated and since it sounds logical, people believe it. 

Trying to think it through logically. Let's say the lens comes from the in-country distributor. Do they really pull out 10 or 20 lenses from their stock and run a battery of tests on each one before loaning one out to a reviewer? Do they even have the necessary equipment to run these tests? And, do they have the personnel with the time and expertise to pre-test these lenses? Does anybody know this, or is this just conjecture?

And, while we're on the topic. It seems like Canon and Nikon would be more likely to do this than a third-party manufacturer if only because they'd be more likely to have the resources available for this kind of manipulation.

I would agree that testing a pre-production copy would be problematic, because it's a product that will never get into the consumer's hands and many times these pre-production copies are small runs that are indeed assembled and tested under more scrutiny than a production run lens. But if a distributor has, say 2,000 boxed production-run copies of a lens, what evidence is there that they are pre-testing these lenses. And, if you think they will go to that extent, wouldn't they also pre-test any lens they sell to a well-known review site?

Unless the reviewers hire a third-party to anonymously purchase a lens from a retailer, the exact same cherry-picking can occur. Is that the procedure followed by review sites? Somehow, I doubt it.

And, while we are thinking about this, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the in-country distributor to hand over a production-run, untested copy? The last thing they want is to sell 10,000 copies of a lens and have 8,000 returned because someone fudged the reviews. If I'm a local distributor and my company produces a product that turns out to be a turkey, I want to have that known as quickly as possible so I have more leverage to force the parent company to make it right. Cherry-picking a review sample just is not in my best interests. 

Now, I would say it's a good idea to wait until several reviewers have weighed in and frankly, I would want to wait until someone like Roger Cicala has a chance to run several dozen or several hundred copies through his system so they are thoroughly field-tested and any problems can be identified before buying. But I don't like blanket statements without any evidence to back them up. 

I'm a little surprised at how many people have already made up their minds about this lens before it has really hit the market. I strongly suspect that the reviews won't really matter. Those who are inclined to hate it will find reasons to do so, those who are inclined to love it will find reasons to do so.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 400L samples had obvious issues, I think he got called on it.
> ...



Well said. Nicely balanced approach, and one I strongly agree with. Even though I test equipment, I still like to read multiple reviews from different perspectives before I buy.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 7, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


If it really was a "cherry picked lens", wouldn't it be hand delivered on a silk pillow? Normal shipping is rough on equipment.... boxes get dropped and thrown all the time and that has to be hard on the alignment of all the components...


----------



## jthomson (Jan 8, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Now, I would say it's a good idea to wait until several reviewers have weighed in and frankly, I would want to wait until someone like Roger Cicala has a chance to run several dozen or several hundred copies through his system so they are thoroughly field-tested and any problems can be identified before buying. But I don't like blanket statements without any evidence to back them up.



Unfortunately Roger can't test the lens at 600mm which is where most people want to know how good it is.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 8, 2014)

jthomson said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I would say it's a good idea to wait until several reviewers have weighed in and frankly, I would want to wait until someone like Roger Cicala has a chance to run several dozen or several hundred copies through his system so they are thoroughly field-tested and any problems can be identified before buying. But I don't like blanket statements without any evidence to back them up.
> ...



Good point. But actually I was thinking more along the lines of their experience with repairs, consistency, reliability, etc. etc.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2014)

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.


----------



## emag (Jan 8, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?



Cuz it's too damn cold and crappy outside to do anything else 

I'm thinking (hoping?) this lens will pleasantly surprise.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2014)

emag said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?
> ...



It will


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 8, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.


It's already the number one selling lens in japan..... There is a lot of interest in this lens. that, plus the wait for release in the rest of the world, gives a great deal of speculation.


----------



## CTJohn (Jan 8, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Are you testing one?


----------



## zim (Jan 8, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Now that's just teasing !!!!
Looking forward to your review, do you know when/where it will be published first?

Regards


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2014)

zim said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > emag said:
> ...



They are keeping me on a tight leash with this one. I'll be able to go live somewhere near the end of the month, but that is seriously about as much as I'm allowed to say.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 8, 2014)

zim said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > emag said:
> ...


Yes Dustin, it's not nice to tease the less fortunate. 

As to why all the fuss. It looks like this lens may be better optically than a canon 100-400mmL and is about 2/3 the price. There hasn't been any real competition to the canon 100-400mm for way too long. If enough of the established testers give this a thumbs up I'll be getting one, tired of wating for an update of the 100-400.

Sigma should also be worried as none of their 400mm or 500mm zooms beat the 100-400mmL. Although Sigma could be eating canon's lunch with their 35mm and 50mm primes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.


My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.

I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 9, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.
> ...



I'm really surprised to hear about the Samyang, although I have heard that there was an early optical formula that wasn't nearly as good. How long ago was that? 

My copy (Rokinon) is shockingly sharp. I purchased the copy that I reviewed because I simply did not want to send it back. I know of many very, very skilled night and landscape photographers that use it over far more expensive options because it is just that good.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 9, 2014)

I got a response from LensRentals on their FB, said they'll get a lens or two and check it out and carry it if they thing it's good enough. Hopefully that means Roger will actually do his thing, although don't know if he can use the optical bench on a lens that long.


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 9, 2014)

Sucks being a poor college student; so much stuff I want but so little money! D=


----------



## amoore00357 (Jan 9, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Sucks being a poor college student; so much stuff I want but so little money! D=



I am right there with you on this one. That's why I hope this is the lens that can satisfy my need for the 400 5.6 prime.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 9, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.


Ya, I bought a 5D Mark II with results like that... 


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.


ditto, or I'll do my own tests
But I'm in no rush on this lens, appealing as it sounds optically, it is still a large and heavy bit of gear and I DO have a very good 100-400L for now.
Altho its resale value is likely to drop a fair bit over the next couple months if the new tammy is really good.
Hmmm, keep or sell? glass-gambling time...


----------



## markesc (Jan 9, 2014)

For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://qicai.fengniao.com/425/4259287_all.html&usg=ALkJrhi9Opw4pIXEaeojLFBCioNg_FpMvw


----------



## Hannes (Jan 9, 2014)

markesc said:


> For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):
> 
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://qicai.fengniao.com/425/4259287_all.html&usg=ALkJrhi9Opw4pIXEaeojLFBCioNg_FpMvw



My antivirus went bananas when I clicked your link, anyone else?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

Hannes said:


> markesc said:
> 
> 
> > For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):
> ...



No issues here… But then again, I'm using a Mac _and_ I'm behind a corporate firewall. The corporate firewall does block malicious sites with a notification (sometimes even the ad spaces on the CR home page get filtered)…no problem viewing the translated review (in Google's safe mode).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2014)

A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 9, 2014)

AlanF said:


> A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.



? 

There are 100% crops of swans and the model eye.

Anyway, I recall that the initial promotional images were shot at f/9.0 or so. Probably the sweet spot for the 600mm end is around there.


----------



## Artifex (Jan 9, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I personally am not very surprise however. Samyang lack good quality control on their lens. My first copy of the 14mm was unable to focus farther than 1m. I returned it and the second copy is absolutely stunning, with no defect whatsoever. For me, you should buy those kind of lens from trusted sources with good return policy and be patient.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Jan 9, 2014)

I hope this lens delivers... I know it's only $1000 and not sure what to expect from it, but I am really hoping for some good reviews. It will be a very good alternative for me since I don't have any telephoto lens beyond 200MM.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 10, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.
> ...



Sorry, I should have said informative 100% crops. There is precious little detail on the swan's face or neck that one can see to judge whether it resolves it. We need to be shown a bird with real plumage, not a blurred whitish.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 11, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I think you can download the TIFFs of the first promotional images. There was one with a bison. Fur should be even better that plumes to evaluate resolution.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 11, 2014)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo101/

Some bird pictures taken with the 150-600mm


----------



## Click (Jan 11, 2014)

Beautiful. Great pictures jthomson. 8) Well done.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 11, 2014)

Click said:


> Beautiful. Great pictures jthomson. 8) Well done.



Not my pictures, just someone with a similar name, on flickr using a 150-600mm.


----------



## hoodlum (Jan 11, 2014)

Here is another set of nice images from Flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/honzafotos/


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 15, 2014)

jthomson said:


> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo101/
> 
> Some bird pictures taken with the 150-600mm



Not bad!!


----------

