# In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 20, 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/in-depth-review-tamron-150-600-f5-6-3-vc/"></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/in-depth-review-tamron-150-600-f5-6-3-vc/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://www.dustinabbott.net" target="_blank">Dustin Abbott</a> has sent us his in-depth review of <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’s brand new 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC</a> super telephoto zoom lens. This lens is receiving a lot of press for it’s range and killer price of $1069 USD.</p>
<p>Most everyone that is reviewing lens has been giving it very good reviews. No, it’s not going to perform as well as <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/973129-REG/canon_5176b002_ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon’s 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x</a>, but that lens costs about 10 times more!</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take</strong>

I get asked a lot about what lens to buy, and one of the most asked is what super telephoto zoom to buy. Since the announcement and reviews  of the <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 f/5-6.3 VC</a>, I have had a hard time recommending Canon’s long-in-the-tooth 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS. This is a great starting point for anyone wondering if or how they’d use the super telephoto focal lengths. Some people may find they sit in the 300mm range, others may find they never leave 600mm. If you spent a year with this Tamron, you may then have a better idea as to whether or not investing in one of the big Canon L’s is the right decision for your situation and pocketbook.</p>
<p>I think it’s very interesting watching Sigma and Tamron release lenses that are priced extremely competitively and give wonderful bang-for-the-buck performance. Your move Canon….</p>
<p><strong>Says Dustin

</strong><em>“I simply don’t have the budget to purchase many of the super-teles that cover this focal range, and furthermore, I don’t shoot this style of photography often enough to justify the expense even if I did.  But this lens hits a sweet spot for me.  It’s price is low enough to not only be affordable but also a small enough investment that you won’t feel like you have wasted your money if you aren’t shooting long distance every day.  So if you can’t afford a “super-tele”, how about an “ultra-tele” (that’s what Tamron is calling this lens segment)?  The preorder price in the United States is only $1069.  It is about $180 more here in Canada, but this lens represents such a tremendous value that I have had a serious conversation with a friend in the industry about how it is even possible for Tamron to make a profit at this price.  I personally wonder if they are not selling this lens at a loss to drive brand recognition.  It’s that good.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dustinabbott.net/2014/01/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review/" 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 f/5-6.3 VC at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TrabimanUK (Jan 20, 2014)

Cracking review! However, from my perspetive, I'm still interested in focussing on BIF when at 600mm. I'm not a birder, but if it is good for BIF, it'll be good for cheetah and other big cats running. 

Just need someone to review that and if it's as good as the rest of Dustin's review, I might well get one.


----------



## lescrane (Jan 20, 2014)

something wrong with Dustin's server...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

Great review!

Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!


----------



## PhilippP74 (Jan 20, 2014)

Slashdot -aehm canonrumored already 

I haven't read it completley when the server crashed, but so far it's been a very nice read. Thanks a lot Dustin for your efforts and I'm looking forward to finishing your review once the load on your server decreases a bit!


----------



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

I'm really sorry about the server issues. I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this. I've not had this kind of crash before.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 20, 2014)

Great review Dustin.

Looks like a winner. I already have one of the big primes, but I will be adding this as I find a zoom useful in some situations.


----------



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

The site is back up and running.


----------



## joshmurrah (Jan 20, 2014)

GREAT review, thanks greatly for the time taken to write it.


----------



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

TrabimanUK said:


> Cracking review! However, from my perspetive, I'm still interested in focussing on BIF when at 600mm. I'm not a birder, but if it is good for BIF, it'll be good for cheetah and other big cats running.
> 
> Just need someone to review that and if it's as good as the rest of Dustin's review, I might well get one.



Unfortunately BIF is hard to do this time of year where I live in Canada. There just aren't hardly any birds around! There also isn't any open water right now that might attract waterfowl. I'm afraid someone else will have to provide that kind of testing.


----------



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

Don Haines said:


> Great review!
> 
> Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!



I had to put a lot of time into this one, both because I believe it was important, but also because there wasn't other reviews out there to help build my knowledge base or fill in details. Looks like I should have also put some extra work into my server


----------



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

jthomson said:


> Great review Dustin.
> 
> Looks like a winner. I already have one of the big primes, but I will be adding this as I find a zoom useful in some situations.



I too like a mix of zooms and primes for different applications. I've never owned one of the big primes, but I have no doubt that shooting one would a great pleasure.


----------



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

joshmurrah said:


> GREAT review, thanks greatly for the time taken to write it.



You're welcome!


----------



## CTJohn (Jan 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Great review!
> 
> Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!


Yes, agree. Thanks Dustin!


----------



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

*Just a note to everyone: the site is demanding too many processes from the server, causing some outages (intermittently). My web designer is working with me to attack this, so if you can't get through, please try again later. We will solve this so you can all have a chance to see the review. I sincerely apologize for the issue. I'm getting a wee bit more traffic than usual today *


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks, Dustin.

My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens. Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties? Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires? I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade? Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?

I'd consider getting this lens, but not if it's going to "wear out" after 6 years. Does anyone out there have experience with Tamron service, especially on older lenses?

Thanks again for the great review.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 20, 2014)

One point I'd like to make.

My current "super telephoto" is the 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III. Together, these are 1,815g compared to the Tamron's 1,951g. I'm not sure that's really much difference.

I'm wondering how the VC works in regular 2-axis mode when tracking moving subjects. I use my Canon like this all the time and it works quite well. However, the specific implementation matters. Some lenses get jerky and jump around when tracking in 2-axis mode. I think I remember seeing this on the 18-270VC, which is why I'm wondering about it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> TrabimanUK said:
> 
> 
> > Cracking review! However, from my perspetive, I'm still interested in focussing on BIF when at 600mm. I'm not a birder, but if it is good for BIF, it'll be good for cheetah and other big cats running.
> ...


Funny you should say that.... I have a Snowy Owl hanging around and hope beyond all reasonable hope that by the time my lens (pre-ordered a month ago) arrives, that Snowy will still be around....

Even funnier, as I am waiting for a LONG!!! lens for birding, I was wandering around yesterday shooting Chickadees at 24mm.... yet I use them as justification for 600mm....


----------



## weixing (Jan 20, 2014)

Hi,
Thanks for the review... Look like I'm going to order one to replace my EF400mm F5.6L once it's available in my country. ;D

Have a nice day.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Great review!
> 
> Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!



+1

Good stuff! Especially because it's what we wanted to hear


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm really sorry about the server issues. I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this. I've not had this kind of crash before.


Its working now Dustin ... a fabulous review, really liked reading and watching it (twice already). 
About the lack of a lens pouch/bag with the purchase, I suppose that might be due to what you've said "I personally wonder if they are not selling this lens at a loss to drive brand recognition" ... quite possible, including a lens pouch/bag could've just made the "loss" a bit more unbearable for Tamron ;D ... jokes apart, I rally liked the review. My ex-boss is getting it for me from Japan ... so, I should be holding the lens by around the 10th February ... very excited to have bought the lens ... now I just need to wait patiently or perhaps read your review once more to calm my nerves. ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 20, 2014)

Justin, thanks for another excellent review! You were extra thorough this time and I had to laugh at all of the disclaimers and such, but it is truly bulletproof this time! For someone who doesn't shoot much wildlife, I thought you took some great shots, particularly the deer & bison photos. The only problem I can find with your review is that it's making me want to order one of these lenses! Keep up the great reviews and I have a feeling we'll be seeing you posting the in the bird and animal shot threads in the near future


----------



## Etienne (Jan 20, 2014)

Just read your entire review. Very detailed, very helfpful.
I don't use long telephoto often, so this might be just the trick for me.
One thing I don't like is the zoom and focus direction, and the focus near the camera body. I am so used to the ergonomics on my canon lenses, this will screw me up a bit. But, as you point out, that quality at THAT PRICE!


----------



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

Orangutan said:


> Thanks, Dustin.
> 
> My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens. Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties? Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires? I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade? Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?
> 
> ...



I'm sure you can understand that I have no way of answering that question. The lens has just come to the market, and I don't know how well it will hold its value or hold up after years of field work. I do know that I have both sold and bought used Tamrons, and I haven't had one fail on me yet. My Tamron 24-70 VC has been my most used lens over the past year and I have taken it into multiple countries and all kinds of different environments without a moment's hesitation from it. I'm feeling pretty good about that!

Still - how is having having a six year warranty a bad thing?


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jan 20, 2014)

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list. An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.


----------



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

Lee Jay said:


> One point I'd like to make.
> 
> My current "super telephoto" is the 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III. Together, these are 1,815g compared to the Tamron's 1,951g. I'm not sure that's really much difference.
> 
> I'm wondering how the VC works in regular 2-axis mode when tracking moving subjects. I use my Canon like this all the time and it works quite well. However, the specific implementation matters. Some lenses get jerky and jump around when tracking in 2-axis mode. I think I remember seeing this on the 18-270VC, which is why I'm wondering about it.



That's a good point, and why I said that I don't think that users of a 70-200 f/2.8 variant will find much of a weight difference. I had not issue with the VC during panning, but I didn't use it that way a lot. Most of the new generation IS systems automatically detect panning and turn off that axis.


----------



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

Don Haines said:


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



Lucky you! I've encountered one owl in the wild here, and had a great timing getting shots of it!! That was a winter ago, however, and I only had the 300mm reach of the 70-300L.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, Dustin.
> ...



Dustin, of course that question was not directed at you, personally, it was an expression of my doubts about the prospect of laying down $1000 for a lens that may have a brilliant youth, and then burn out before middle-age.

The question regarding Tamron's history and reputation was thrown open to anyone who had knowledge or experience.


----------



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

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Thanks for the review... Look like I'm going to order one to replace my EF400mm F5.6L once it's available in my country. ;D
> 
> Have a nice day.



No problem.



Albi86 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Great review!
> ...



That does help, doesn't it ;D


Rienzphotoz said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really sorry about the server issues. I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this. I've not had this kind of crash before.
> ...



I'm glad you are going to be able to get a copy. Enjoy! Your point about including the pouch/bag is certainly a valid one


----------



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

mackguyver said:


> Justin, thanks for another excellent review! You were extra thorough this time and I had to laugh at all of the disclaimers and such, but it is truly bulletproof this time! For someone who doesn't shoot much wildlife, I thought you took some great shots, particularly the deer & bison photos. The only problem I can find with your review is that it's making me want to order one of these lenses! Keep up the great reviews and I have a feeling we'll be seeing you posting the in the bird and animal shot threads in the near future



I've encountered a little "friendly fire" before, so I did my best to be thorough and balanced. I'm sure there will still be those that find fault.


----------



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

Etienne said:


> Just read your entire review. Very detailed, very helfpful.
> I don't use long telephoto often, so this might be just the trick for me.
> One thing I don't like is the zoom and focus direction, and the focus near the camera body. I am so used to the ergonomics on my canon lenses, this will screw me up a bit. But, as you point out, that quality at THAT PRICE!



I don't enjoy that trend, either, but my Canon 70-300L is setup the same way. Of that past six or seven lens reviews I've done, more were setup with the rings reversed than the "old way".



GmwDarkroom said:


> Excellent review.
> 
> I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list. An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.



That extra 200mm certainly makes a difference. I haven't really shot the lens on a crop much (other than the M :), but the reach on a 70D/7D would be amazing.


Orangutan said:


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



I understand completely. I personally feel that Tamron has built some great lenses in the last couple of years. It will be interesting if Roger does a breakdown on one of these lenses at some point and gives us so feedback on the guts and the way that they are put together.


----------



## lescrane (Jan 20, 2014)

Dustin,
I join everyone here in thanking you for the review. It provides a lot of good info and samples; taken together with Roger's bench testing, I think we have a good "picture".

As far as the large, expensive filter, I do use a UV at times, esp. when I'm at the beach, I'd rather wipe spray and sand off the filter than off the lens. So I did splurge for the B&W MRC filter for about 160.00. That and a new ball head will get me up to 1500.00 which is about how much I had "budgeted"..


----------



## bholliman (Jan 20, 2014)

Excellent review Dustin! I always appreciate your hand-on, photographers approach to reviews. 

I just had time for a quick read today during an abbreviated lunch hour, but will re-read tonight when I have more time.



> From Dustin's review: "I simply don’t have the budget to purchase many of the super-teles that cover this focal range, and furthermore, I don’t shoot this style of photography often enough to justify the expense even if I did."



This is why this lens is very interesting to me. For 98% of my normal shooting the 14mm-200mm lenses I own are fine. On the rare occasions I need something longer than 200mm, I use my 2x extender. However, I have been more interested in shooting wildlife recently and would like to have something longer - but can't realistically justify (to myself) spending $6K or $12k on lenses that I will seldom use. We are planning a 2-week trip to Alaska next summer, and I imagine I'll need all the reach I can get for some of the wildlife up there. This looks like a terrific, affordable option.


----------



## Fishnose (Jan 20, 2014)

[size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]


----------



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

lescrane said:


> Dustin,
> I join everyone here in thanking you for the review. It provides a lot of good info and samples; taken together with Roger's bench testing, I think we have a good "picture".
> 
> As far as the large, expensive filter, I do use a UV at times, esp. when I'm at the beach, I'd rather wipe spray and sand off the filter than off the lens. So I did splurge for the B&W MRC filter for about 160.00. That and a new ball head will get me up to 1500.00 which is about how much I had "budgeted"..



Nice. It's great to be able to get that extra gear and still be at your budgeted price. I'd like to think that this will affect Canon's pricing when it release updates to either the 400mm f/5.6 or the 100-400L, but it probably won't.



bholliman said:


> Excellent review Dustin! I always appreciate your hand-on, photographers approach to reviews.
> 
> I just had time for a quick read today during an abbreviated lunch hour, but will re-read tonight when I have more time.
> 
> ...



Yep. Looks like we are pretty much in the same boat. I even thought about an Alaskan cruise when I first heard of this lens!!



Fishnose said:


> [size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]



I don't personally get why third party options are so much slower to come to Nikon mounts. I guess we are fortunate that clearly the first engineering priority goes to Canon mounts. Still, I don't understand why Nikon mounts sometimes lag for months behind.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 20, 2014)

Fishnose said:


> [size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]



I would wait a bit. On a 36 MP sensor this lens might perform less admirably.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2014)

Dustin
I am comparing some of your bird photos with examples I've taken by downloading some of your crops. However, I don't know whether yours are 100%. For example, this one is 1024x1024 but I estimate from the full shot that it is about 1600x1600 in the original and has been reduced. Is this so?


----------



## lycan (Jan 20, 2014)

the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?


----------



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

AlanF said:


> Dustin
> I am comparing some of your bird photos with examples I've taken by downloading some of your crops. However, I don't know whether yours are 100%. For example, this one is 1024x1024 but I estimate from the full shot that it is about 1600x1600 in the original and has been reduced. Is this so?



Some of the crops vary in size, Alan. I'm working off memory, but your numbers seem about right. The problem is that the review as a post is 100MB+, so every extra bit adds more weight on the server and everyone's internet connection.


----------



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

lycan said:


> the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?



That's a 100% crop from a 600mm shot, wide open, in -20 weather. Pretty much worse case scenario. The lens is softer at 600mm than the rest of the focal range, to be sure. The good news is that it does sharpen up when stopped down.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 20, 2014)

Dustin, 

thanks for such good review! It was a great pleasure reading it!


----------



## Deeohuu (Jan 20, 2014)

It does not seem to be available in Canada yet. It's probably impatience, but it feels like we are the only country that haven't got any in stock. Does anyone have any information about Canadian availability?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 20, 2014)

lycan said:


> the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?



Looks to me like it has about 4 pixels of handshake-induced motion blur, up and to the left.


----------



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

Deeohuu said:


> It does not seem to be available in Canada yet. It's probably impatience, but it feels like we are the only country that haven't got any in stock. Does anyone have any information about Canadian availability?



It's shipping to dealers today (which is why I was able to go live with the review).


----------



## Xayvian (Jan 20, 2014)

Deeohuu said:


> It does not seem to be available in Canada yet. It's probably impatience, but it feels like we are the only country that haven't got any in stock. Does anyone have any information about Canadian availability?



I placed my order with Camera Canada a couple of weeks ago. I had to email them to find out when to expect it - they said mid-February.

If it is shipping to dealers today then maybe I should check with other retailers.


----------



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

Lee Jay said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?
> ...



That is entirely possible (in fact, likely). I got better results when I learned to up the shutter speed beyond what I normally have (I was shooting with a longer focal length than ever before). That was shot at 1/250th second in fairly extreme cold (well below zero Fahrenheit) at 600mm. In later outings I increased my shutter speed at longer lengths and saw more consistent results.

You can't engineer out human stupidity entirely


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 20, 2014)

still no access.... 

seems like reviews for this lens are in high demand.


----------



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

Lichtgestalt said:


> still no access....
> 
> seems like reviews for this lens are in high demand.



We are in the process of migrating to a new server to help. Outages are still intermittent during the process, but tend to be brief. Try back in a couple of minutes and you should get on. It may be slow, but it should be functional.


----------



## dhr90 (Jan 20, 2014)

Great review. Took a long time to load (10 minutes in and most photos have yet to load, gives me reason to read it again when issues are sorted though 

Just discovered the UK price: £949. Given my inability to afford a great white, and how infrequently I got beyond 200/300 this could definitely end up being my next purchase. May go along to the local shop sometime to see if/when they will have one to demo.


----------



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

Sorry again to everyone for the issues. Server migration is in process. The review is going somewhat viral, so there are a lot of people from a lot of places accessing it.


----------



## Roo (Jan 20, 2014)

Thanks for the great review Dustin  It looks like this would be a great option to replace my Sigma 150-500. I got to try the 600f4 with 1.4x teleconverter at the weekend - great lens but regardless of price, the lack of versatility killed it for me. I also noticed how much wind gusts affected the 600f4 with that massive lens hood.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 20, 2014)

Aaaand the 400f5.6 is safe (well, mine isn't going anywhere).
I have no doubt that it will be the better performer at 400mm, it weighs almost 1/3 less, and has an integrated hood! (I love that integrated hood.)
Honestly I would love to have both, but I'm looking to upgrade, where selling the 400f5.6 and getting one of these sounds more like an even trade than upgrading.

For the average person just looking for a nice long lens I would probably recommend the Tamron first though.


----------



## cliffwang (Jan 20, 2014)

Really enjoy reading the review. Great job Dustin.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


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



I've been lucky enough to catch juvenile great horned owls on some of my walks...


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...



We're all grateful for your efforts, and what I said wasn't meant as a criticism. It's a valuable piece of work you provided.

I'm attaching a version after 4 pixels of motion blur correction. If this is objectionable, let me know and I'll remove it. Either way, I'll remove it after a couple of weeks.


----------



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

Lee Jay said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



No problem at all. I intentionally didn't really edit anything so people could see what the lens itself could do without "intervention".


----------



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

*Just as an update for everyone that has had a frustrating experience trying to access the review. I am migrating to a new server with more dedicated processes. This will (hopefully) solve the problem. *


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 20, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> No problem at all. I intentionally didn't really edit anything so people could see what the lens itself could do without "intervention".



My only point was that this particular sample image is not representative of the optical performance of the lens due to handshake.


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 20, 2014)

Congrats on the very popular review! I wish I could read it haha but its not loading.


----------



## Marauder (Jan 20, 2014)

Brilliant review Dustin! Very thorough and very detailed. You've answered my main questions/concerns about this lens--can it match my 100-400L in resolution (YES--at least at 400 and still good at 600 when stopped down!) and will it auto-focus well. It's rather impressive that Tamron has been able to achieve so much at such a bargain price! As much as I'd love a 500 or 600 Canon, the new ones are way out of my league and even the old ones are a huge investment second-hand. And the 200-400 with 1.4 TC is also way beyond what I could possibly save in a reasonable time-frame. 

This lens seems like an amazing deal, and I think it will end up in my kit! Only reason I'm not ordering it now is because I already have the 100-400L and I'm still saving $'s for the 7D II when it releases, but this will be a great addition to my bag for SURE. Want one!!! I've been dying for a really thorough review that answered my questions. I know you didn't get to try BIF, but I suspect that it will be good for that, given the Servo testing you did already. I just hope Tamron doesn't begin cranking the price up once the thing is as popular as it's likely to get! As you said, their margins must not be great considering the low purchase price and the obvious quality of the lens! Amazing!

Thanks again for such a detailed, interesting and thorough review!!!


----------



## BoneDoc (Jan 20, 2014)

Great review Dustin. Made me want to get one if I were in the market. I think for a lot of us, it gives us a chance to get our feet wet and see whether birding or doing other wildlife photography is an interest we want to pursue.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> Congrats on the very popular review! I wish I could read it haha but its not loading.



Sorry about that. The transition to the host and servers is moving a little slowly (perfect storm of traffic right now - at least for a little guy for me. I'm hoping that somewhere within the next few hours everything will stabilize, but I have no guarantees.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

I was really excited about this lens and have put my 100-400L up for sale in anticipation of buying it. Now, I am very worried about the Tamron's performance at 600mm. Here are more of your crops at 600mm and f/6.3. For the first, I calculate the original to have been 1100x830 pixels, and the for the second, the duck's head, 1300x1300. Their quality has put me off the lens as I usually get very sharp images at those sizes. 

For comparison, I have shown a sparrow of similar original crop taken with an SX50 at 1200mm equivalent (it's not the best quality) and a shoveler duck's head I took a week or so ago with a 70D and 600mm lens.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 21, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Congrats on the very popular review! I wish I could read it haha but its not loading.
> ...



Sounds like you're next review you should get a load balancer & 3 or 4 VMs wherever you have it hosted at with more on standby. That or setup a good CDN for the images at least


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

Hopefully by tomorrow morning everything will be migrated and problems will be solved. Too many big images in the review, and too much traffic. Took us all a bit by surprise ;D


----------



## dufflover (Jan 21, 2014)

Thank you for the very informative review!

What I was looking for most and you tested (yay!) was the difference between 600mm wide open and stopped down, as it basically pits it against how I use my Sigma 120-300 OS w/ 2x TC and the fact I don't use it much with the IQ and AF hit should indicate how my results aren't that great with that combo (but bloody good with a 1.4x TC though). Anyway that bear crop was very promising and showed some great "crispness" coming back into the image at f/8.


----------



## HankMD (Jan 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Great review!
> 
> Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!



+1. 

And when the reviewer also happens to be a creative photographer we are treated to excellent samples.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I was really excited about this lens and have put my 100-400L up for sale in anticipation of buying it. Now, I am very worried about the Tamron's performance at 600mm. Here are more of your crops at 600mm and f/6.3. For the first, I calculate the original to have been 1100x830 pixels, and the for the second, the duck's head, 1300x1300. Their quality has put me off the lens as I usually get very sharp images at those sizes.
> 
> For comparison, I have shown a sparrow of similar original crop taken with an SX50 at 1200mm equivalent (it's not the best quality) and a shoveler duck's head I took a week or so ago with a 70D and 600mm lens.



Is that a $12,000 lens you're comparing this $1k lens to? Not exactly a fair comparison. Plus, your statement doesn't really make sense...how this guy performs at *600mm* should have no effect on you selling your 100-*400m*.


----------



## dufflover (Jan 21, 2014)

Well of the various forums I see it happening most on CR


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I was really excited about this lens and have put my 100-400L up for sale in anticipation of buying it. Now, I am very worried about the Tamron's performance at 600mm. Here are more of your crops at 600mm and f/6.3. For the first, I calculate the original to have been 1100x830 pixels, and the for the second, the duck's head, 1300x1300. Their quality has put me off the lens as I usually get very sharp images at those sizes.
> ...



I put up my lens for for sale in anticipation of buying this lens, which shows a positive attitude to the Tamron in advance and not scepticism. If you think the comparison with an expensive lens unfair, what do you think about a $300 SX50 giving better performance than the $1100 lens, with a whole camera for a third of the price?


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If you think the comparison with an expensive lens unfair, what do you think about a $300 SX50 giving better performance than the $1100 lens, with a whole camera for a third of the price?



This remains to be demonstrated.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you think the comparison with an expensive lens unfair, what do you think about a $300 SX50 giving better performance than the $1100 lens, with a whole camera for a third of the price?
> ...



Based on the crops of the birds shown in this review, it has been demonstrated - just look at them, they are unacceptable (to me, but maybe they are acceptable to you). But, if those photos are just very poor examples and the lens can do much better, then I will of course change my mind with enthusiasm and buy one.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


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


I don't see the review, because the site seems to be down for me. But I do see that the pictures you are comparing to are shot with much more favorable lighting than the pictures you don't like.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I was really excited about this lens and have put my 100-400L up for sale in anticipation of buying it. Now, I am very worried about the Tamron's performance at 600mm. Here are more of your crops at 600mm and f/6.3. For the first, I calculate the original to have been 1100x830 pixels, and the for the second, the duck's head, 1300x1300. Their quality has put me off the lens as I usually get very sharp images at those sizes.



how long do you take pictures? 

noticed that your images with the SX50 are taken in bright harsh sunlight as it seems.
the one crop from him you showed not. seems like a dull overcast day to me the image was taken.

im still unable to read his review. now i get a blank hoster page yesterday it was 404.
but i will have a look at the review if possible.

fact is, who compares this tamron lens to a 600 f4 has much to learn.
people with a signature as long as yours should know what they can expect for 1000$


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


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



As Dustin himself has plainly admitted, his inexperience with very long lenses and the cold did have an effect on the steadyness of his stance. If you bothered taking a look at other boards too, you could see lots of very good samples. Dustin is not the only one on the planet who has already had the lens for a while.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I was really excited about this lens and have put my 100-400L up for sale in anticipation of buying it. Now, I am very worried about the Tamron's performance at 600mm. Here are more of your crops at 600mm and f/6.3. For the first, I calculate the original to have been 1100x830 pixels, and the for the second, the duck's head, 1300x1300. Their quality has put me off the lens as I usually get very sharp images at those sizes.
> ...



I was comparing it "with" another lens and not "to". And, it was not a 600mm f/4. The duck's head taken with the Tamron was in perfectly good light and you can see that it is soft, irrespective of any comparison..


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


I have an SX-50. For what it is, it is insanely good and you can handhold it at the equivalent of 4800mm (50X optical Xoom plus 4x digital), it easily out resolves any lens I have on distant objects and it is very low cost. The autofocus is terrible, shutter lag is huge, and forget about having a burst rate..... I would not consider using it on a moving bird...

Everything has pluses and minuses..... There are no absolute answers...


----------



## Canon1 (Jan 21, 2014)

No offense Dustin, but...

Just kidding this time. Well thought out executed review. You did a great job putting this lens through some paces and the reader has a great sense of this lens after reading. Thank you for your efforts putting this review together for us!

It will be interesting to see how the AF compares with the 100-400L. It is certainly not lighting fast on this old canon, so if it is indeed better than that (and optically just as good) then a lot of people might make the upgrade. Even though 500-600mm gets soft it would still be icing on the cake. 

Canon will really need to give some reasons for people to get a replacement 100-400L (If it ever comes out) especially if it is north of $2,000 to $2,500.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

Don
You are absolutely right about the slow AF. If Canon is able to introduce dual-pixel technology to their superzooms it will be a complete game changer. The AF should then be some 5x faster and the SX50 successors will be in real competition with bargain-basement priced zoom supertele lenses.


----------



## candc (Jan 21, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



hi don,

i also pre ordered one but only a week ago. mine has not shipped and bhphoto now lists it as expected march 31, did yours ship?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

Good morning, everyone, we are up and running but still missing bits and pieces that did not survive the transition. Some of the galleries are affected because the the plugin didn't make the transition. We will be working through the day to rebuild the missing pieces, but on a plus note, the site does appear to be stable.


----------



## candc (Jan 21, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Good morning, everyone, we are up and running but still missing bits and pieces that did not survive the transition. Some of the galleries are affected because the the plugin didn't make the transition. We will be working through the day to rebuild the missing pieces, but on a plus note, the site does appear to be stable.



when i click on the url posted here or look up your website i am directed to domain.com?


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...




all i can see is your examples. i will build my opinion when i have seen the whole review.

and to what 600mm you compare it _with_... is that a secret?
if you make such comparisation it would only be logical to give out such infos. : 
no wonder people assume wrong things.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2014)

candc said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


Mine is coming from Camera Canada and has not shipped yet. No ETA yet...


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 21, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Good morning, everyone, we are up and running but still missing bits and pieces that did not survive the transition. Some of the galleries are affected because the the plugin didn't make the transition. We will be working through the day to rebuild the missing pieces, but on a plus note, the site does appear to be stable.



no your are not.... at least not in germany.

the link to your website that produced a 404 yesterday now shows a website: www.domain.com


----------



## AlanF (Jan 21, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...



It is a closely guarded secret. Unfortunately, the secret has become exposed: it is written _immediately_ under the photo (and under all my posts) that I have a 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC. The data are also in the exif of the photo that it was taken on a Canon 7D with 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC. 

I always download photos that I discuss and check their exifs for information. In turn, I always included the exifs on what I upload so anyone can find out what mine were taken on and with.


----------



## candc (Jan 21, 2014)

oh how true

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/rogers-law-of-new-product-introduction


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 21, 2014)

Great review Dustin! Thank you for sharing.


----------



## sanjosedave (Jan 21, 2014)

B&H updated in stock date to 3/31


----------



## candc (Jan 21, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> B&H updated in stock date to 3/31



that's for the nikon mount.

i spoke with someone there in the buying dept. they had a shipment come in and that went out in order of the pre-order list, they are expecting another shipment in by the end of the month but not sure of the quantity.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 21, 2014)

Dustin, thanks for doing the review. Looks like you put some effort into it.

Are the sample images cropped at 1:1, or are they downsampled? I notice they seem to be about half size. Would have been nice to see outdoor shots at full resolution and no cropping...to see where sharpness begins to fall off toward the borders...especially toward the long end. Also to see what the bokeh looks like. And most important of all (to me), how sharp is it at infinity focus at the long end?

It seems to me that with this lens, the main question would be, how sharp is it at 600mm? Did you compare it directly with anything else at or around 600mm (or even 500mm)? Like perhaps the Sigma 150-500? I notice Lensrentals compared it to the Sigma 50-500.

It appears the CA is low, so that's very good for Tamron. 

Did you happen to discuss (with Tamron) whether they are actually making money off this lens at its introductory price?

Btw, I had no problems viewing your review just now...I clicked on the link at the top of this thread...not sure if the rest of your site displays.


----------



## iowapipe (Jan 21, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Good morning, everyone, we are up and running but still missing bits and pieces that did not survive the transition. Some of the galleries are affected because the the plugin didn't make the transition. We will be working through the day to rebuild the missing pieces, but on a plus note, the site does appear to be stable.
> ...



Yep, still problems. It 'can' take up to 3 days for a new domain IP to propagate, but 24 hours should hit the vast majority. Although, not knowing what all you did for your change, it is possible there is a conflict or mistake yet in the records.


----------



## lescrane (Jan 21, 2014)

*ephotozine weighs in*

[/http://www.ephotozine.com/article... today) and out to take some very cold ducks.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Dustin, thanks for doing the review. Looks like you put some effort into it.
> 
> Are the sample images cropped at 1:1, or are they downsampled? I notice they seem to be about half size. Would have been nice to see outdoor shots at full resolution and no cropping...to see where sharpness begins to fall off toward the borders...especially toward the long end. Also to see what the bokeh looks like. And most important of all (to me), how sharp is it at infinity focus at the long end?
> 
> ...



The smaller images are crops, not downsized images, and are all within a few percentage points of 100%. 

The problem has been having TOO much content in the review (and too many people looking at it), so I was breaking servers. I moved well over 500GB of info in about half of yesterday before things went down. 
*
For everyone:* We have good stability now, but not all of my content made the transition, so the work is not done yet. The review is missing quite a few galleries, but the majority of the text and some samples are there.

I am not a web designer, so I am treading water here. Thanks to all of you who have been understanding during this transition. People from around the world are looking (which is great!) but my website is far from the enterprise level in design. So far this review is costing me money


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 21, 2014)

*Re: ephotozine weighs in*



lescrane said:


> [/http://www.ephotozine.com/article...ell, when the price in EU goes down, that is.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

*Re: ephotozine weighs in*



lescrane said:


> [/http://www.ephotozine.com/article...t charts since I don't do that kind of thing.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 21, 2014)

Other than perhaps the propagating for some countries, I think we have all the content back on line.


----------



## Marauder (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: ephotozine weighs in*



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> lescrane said:
> 
> 
> > [/http://www.ephotozine.com/article...his will be an awesome lens to add to my bag!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 22, 2014)

Anyone see the sudden price drop on the Sigma 150-500? Yea, someone feels threatened 

Somehow I doubt Canon will suddenly offer a rebate for the 100-400L, sadly. Unless they announce a new version next month or something. Hey, it could happen! Maybe. And I might win the lotto tomorrow. Which means I can afford that new 100-400L 8)


----------



## candc (Jan 22, 2014)

This lens is going to be in short supply and a big seller for a long time. It's appealing for two distinct types of photogs, those like the reviewer that don't primarily use the long lenses and those that do who want a packable alternative.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 22, 2014)

candc said:


> This lens is going to be in short supply and a big seller for a long time. It's appealing for two distinct types of photogs, those like the reviewer that don't primarily use the long lenses and those that do who want a packable alternative.



I think you are probably right. We saw the warning signs when it jumped to the top of the best selling charts in Japan. I think it will take several months before supply stabilizes. I won't be able to get one for myself (to own) for a while, although I will get another run with a loaner in February.

I find it encouraging that other reviewers are coming to similar conclusions with me. I think that will help those interested to feel more confident about moving ahead.


----------



## jthomson (Jan 22, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I find it encouraging that other reviewers are coming to similar conclusions with me. I think that will help those interested to feel more confident about moving ahead.



Ordered mine this morning. Big step up from my Sigma 150-500.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is going to be in short supply and a big seller for a long time. It's appealing for two distinct types of photogs, those like the reviewer that don't primarily use the long lenses and those that do who want a packable alternative.
> ...


I think it has a high probability of getting a price hike, especially *if* they are selling it at a loss for brand recognition ... seeing how popular this lens turned out to be, in such a short time, I wouldn't be surprised if they raise the price. My ex-boss (who is bringing the lens for me next month) just sent me an email saying that the seller on Amazon (Japan) has changed his shipping time from 1 to 3 months (earlier it was 1 to 2 weeks) ... so he is now looking for other sellers who can deliver before he leaves from Japan. :'(


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


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


My ex-boss just emailed me again a few minutes ago, saying that the price is now JPY 123800 (US$1188) with one week delivery ... earlier it was JPY 107,820 (US$ 1036), but they changed the delivery timing as 1 to 3 months.


----------



## Zv (Jan 22, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


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



That sucks but if your boss converted dollars to yen then he prob got a decent rate and the price is still pretty good. Prices are going up here, the sales tax is going up in April from 5 to 8%, get the lens while you can folks!


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 22, 2014)

In europe its stabilizing on 999£ / 1199€. I've seen someone reporting a 949£ price tag, that's a good price.

I'm sure it will go below 900£/1000€ after the first wave of orders have shipped.


----------



## Zv (Jan 22, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> In europe its stabilizing on 999£ / 1199€. I've seen someone reporting a 949£ price tag, that's a good price.
> 
> I'm sure it will go below 900£/1000€ after the first wave of orders have shipped.



It seems unfair for you guys paying in Euros. Big diff between $1000 and €1000.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 22, 2014)

Zv said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > In europe its stabilizing on 999£ / 1199€. I've seen someone reporting a 949£ price tag, that's a good price.
> ...



It's always like this 

Eventually prices tend to stabilize at around 600$ to 500€ change, or 1000$ to 900€. I also have to say that our prices are always inclusive of VAT and in most EU countries retailers must offer 2 years of warranty - disregarding whatever the manufacturer is offering them. 

So this is why I think this lens will soon sell for around 950€ street price.


----------



## photonius (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: More reviews appearing: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC*

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


----------



## MarcPool (Jan 22, 2014)

Official Retail price in the Netherlands is 1359,00 euro inc. 21% VAT. Web shops are already taking pre orders at 1099,00 euro inc. 21 VAT. 
Don't know if I am going to go for it, probably wait and see if prices drop a bit after a couple of months.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 22, 2014)

AlanF said:


> It is a closely guarded secret. Unfortunately, the secret has become exposed: it is written _immediately_ under the photo (and under all my posts) that I have a 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC. The data are also in the exif of the photo that it was taken on a Canon 7D with 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC.
> 
> I always download photos that I discuss and check their exifs for information. In turn, I always included the exifs on what I upload so anyone can find out what mine were taken on and with.



well then it´s not too hard to write that info instead to expect that others check every photos exif.... not? 

and from what is see in dustin´s review, you choose a bad example... to make a point?
there are cleary better images at 600mm that show the potential of this lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 22, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > It is a closely guarded secret. Unfortunately, the secret has become exposed: it is written _immediately_ under the photo (and under all my posts) that I have a 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC. The data are also in the exif of the photo that it was taken on a Canon 7D with 300mm f/2.8 and 2xTC.
> ...



You write nasty little comments like "how long do you take pictures?". You clearly like making points and getting personal, I don't like doing either. In common with most CR regulars, I try to look at all evidence objectively and weigh up what is in front of us. From what I have seen so far the Tamron 150-600 lens is excellent value for money and is better than the 100-400. It is not up to the primes but is a good alternative if you are not looking for the highest resolution. The ephotozine image at 600mm is OK but still somewhat soft. I might buy one because it does look like a very good lens, but will wait until the spring to see what Canon comes up with. I sold my 100-400 yesterday to make room for a new lens.


----------



## dpc (Jan 22, 2014)

Hi! I am an enthusiast who does a fair bit of birding and wildlife shooting. I am trying to optimize my longer range lens collection without breaking the bank. I have used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. I found it a great lens in many ways. However I had difficulty handholding it and getting decent shots (I am aware of upping the shutter speed, using a tripod or monopod - I would like a lens with good image stabilization). I know others find it quite handhold able but that is not my experience. I am presently using the 300mm f/4 L with the Extender EF 1.4x III and am quite happy with it. I would like something longer, however. I had the Sigma 150-500mm for a while. It took good pictures but was a bit soft on the long end where my interest lies. I know the Tamron 150-600mm is just out, is decently priced and has some positive reviews. Does anyone have any initial thoughts on whether the Tamron at the 600mm end would be reasonably comparable to the Canon 300mm f/4 L with the 1.4 extender and is the Canon extender usable on the Tamron and, if it is, what are the likely effects on sharpness? I shoot with both a 7D and 5D Mark II. Thanks for any advice you may have. I will wait for more reviews but would appreciate any thoughts with what we now know.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 22, 2014)

dpc said:


> Hi! I am an enthusiast who does a fair bit of birding and wildlife shooting. I am trying to optimize my longer range lens collection without breaking the bank. I have used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. I found it a great lens in many ways. However I had difficulty handholding it and getting decent shots (I am aware of upping the shutter speed, using a tripod or monopod - I would like a lens with good image stabilization). I know others find it quite handhold able but that is not my experience. I am presently using the 300mm f/4 L with the Extender EF 1.4x III and am quite happy with it. I would like something longer, however. I had the Sigma 150-500mm for a while. It took good pictures but was a bit soft on the long end where my interest lies. I know the Tamron 150-600mm is just out, is decently priced and has some positive reviews. Does anyone have any initial thoughts on whether the Tamron at the 600mm end would be reasonably comparable to the Canon 300mm f/4 L with the 1.4 extender and is the Canon extender usable on the Tamron and, if it is, what are the likely effects on sharpness? I shoot with both a 7D and 5D Mark II. Thanks for any advice you may have. I will wait for more reviews but would appreciate any thoughts with what we now know.



It's difficult to judge how good the lens is at 600mm from published images because few have been taken under optimal conditions. The published ones of birds are mainly at f/6.3 where the lens is softest. It does seem from the MTFs and good images, that at 400mm, the Tamron is close to the 100-400L, which means similar to or better than your 300 + 1.4xTCIII. It looks like that the Tamron at 600mm and f/8 - f/11 would give a significantly better image than the 400mm lens cropped.

The use of extenders is probably problematic. The Canon extender will narrow the maximum aperture to f/8 and your 7D would not autofocus. On a camera that will, such as the 5DIII, you would have to use f/11 - f/16 to get into the sharper regions at 600mm, drawing you into high iso and extenders aren't usually good unless the naked lens is very sharp.


----------



## iowapipe (Jan 22, 2014)

Very nicely done review, I appreciate the writing and tests. Being newer to photography than the regulars here I am just beginning to build my lens inventory. Fortunately I'm not game to have a lot, so I'm trying to be picky. 

I passed up a good deal on a very good copy of the 100-400 Canon this last August, because after looking at the 400 f/5.6 prime, I had decided I wanted the lens for the long end and not the range of zoom. (my 70-200 serves me very well around town) So it was then an easy decision in favor of the prime. I planned on holding off for a sale. Then the release of the Tamron was announced and I decided to hold off a bit more. 

Now I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the 400mm Canon f/5.6 to make my final decision. I sway towards the Canon because it's much lighter, but the reach of the Tamron and quite decent image quality might be the push that pulls the trigger for it. I am going to be walking around with either lens, possibly with a monopod, but most likely not. The weight won't bother me after I buy a proper strap like the Black Rapid or whatever.

Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6. I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400). Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted. Fingers crossed! 

And a note to everyone on here: many of you make the process of gaining useful knowledge much easier. Thank You! I'm a researcher by training and temperament both, so I don't mind the process of searching out useful material. This forum and site make it much easier thanks to many of you.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 22, 2014)

AlanF said:


> dpc said:
> 
> 
> > Hi! I am an enthusiast who does a fair bit of birding and wildlife shooting. I am trying to optimize my longer range lens collection without breaking the bank. I have used the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L. I found it a great lens in many ways. However I had difficulty handholding it and getting decent shots (I am aware of upping the shutter speed, using a tripod or monopod - I would like a lens with good image stabilization). I know others find it quite handhold able but that is not my experience. I am presently using the 300mm f/4 L with the Extender EF 1.4x III and am quite happy with it. I would like something longer, however. I had the Sigma 150-500mm for a while. It took good pictures but was a bit soft on the long end where my interest lies. I know the Tamron 150-600mm is just out, is decently priced and has some positive reviews. Does anyone have any initial thoughts on whether the Tamron at the 600mm end would be reasonably comparable to the Canon 300mm f/4 L with the 1.4 extender and is the Canon extender usable on the Tamron and, if it is, what are the likely effects on sharpness? I shoot with both a 7D and 5D Mark II. Thanks for any advice you may have. I will wait for more reviews but would appreciate any thoughts with what we now know.
> ...



Yea, from what I've read/seen it looks like at 400mm it's more or less on par with the Canon 100-400L, at 500mm it's still quite good, but then drops off quite a bit to 600mm. As Roger states on the LensRentals.com review, most people have been saying stopped down to f/8-f/11 towards the end of the zoom range things get a good bit better.

LensRentals.com review MTF chart:




Unfortunately the ePphotoZine.com review doesn't actually give numbers, but it at least shows general range. And their numbers wouldn't be exactly comparable to Roger's either, as they are probably using a somewhat different testing methodology & charts than he is, despite both of them using Imatest.
ePhotoZine.com review


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: More reviews appearing: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC*



photonius said:


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



Thanks for posting that.

Both the Tamron and 70-300L are tested on the same body by that site, and it looks like on the long end (600mm and 300mm respectively) they both perform similarly.

I'd say that's a massive win for the Tamron.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 22, 2014)

*Re: More reviews appearing: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC*



9VIII said:


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



Thanks, but someone else posted that link earlier. I'm just quoting it 

But yes, I agree, the Tamron looks pretty good, and a great value based on it's cost. Especially for those like me who wouldn't really use a BWL all that much, but certainly would use a super-telephoto if given the option of a reasonably priced one with acceptable performance.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 22, 2014)

Wow...at fraction of Canon 600mm f4, this Tammy will stir the pot for sure. Very interesting :


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 22, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Wow...at fraction of Canon 600mm f4, this Tammy will stir the pot for sure. Very interesting :



Some I agree, but the 600L is targeted at different people than this. Not that I wouldn't take the 600L if I was offered one, but it's not going to ever (I say that now...) be a primary focal length for me, although it'd be useful to have something with that amount of reach now and then for me.


----------



## HankMD (Jan 23, 2014)

iowapipe said:


> Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6. I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400). Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted. Fingers crossed!



Below comparison was posted a few days ago. The author was criticized for not removing the filter. He later re-did the images but some still think his EF 400mm f/5.6 is a sub-par copy, thus skewing the result in favor of the Tamron:
http://camahoy.com/2014/01/06/tamron-sp-150-600mm-vc-sp-usd-vs-canon-ef-400mm-f5-6l-usm/

Another study:
http://chewyenfook.smugmug.com/Photography/Tamro-150-600-VS-Canon-400mm/36134215_3P9q3W#!i=3030095385&k=Q6n39TN


----------



## iowapipe (Jan 23, 2014)

HankMD said:


> iowapipe said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6. I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400). Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted. Fingers crossed!
> ...



Thanks for the links.  The first I had seen, and I had thought maybe there were too many variables at work in such a quickly shot test. So I thought I had better wait for something a bit more rigorous and controlled. (tripod mounted, VC off, ... see what the lenses were capable of at their best) I, like some of his commenters, was surprised at the results. And compared to the posted pics in Dustin's report, I was skeptical of the difference in the camahoy posting. Maybe his 400mm lens was a bit off as some asked?

The second link I hadn't seen, thank you, and hopefully his autofocus problem was peculiar to him. So far, other reports haven't indicated his issue with problems on focus points other than the center point. Fortunately, I'm waiting until Spring is imminent before I make my decision. Right now, with the temps below zero, I'm not getting out much to shoot anyway. Nice weather near the end of March may change my level of patience a bit though. haha


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2014)

another awesome review dustin!

if those images are largely as they came out of camera then i'm going to say you missed mentioning the great colour rendering of the lens!

i'm definately gonna check it out when it hits the shelves...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 23, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> another awesome review dustin!
> 
> if those images are largely as they came out of camera then i'm going to say you missed mentioning the great colour rendering of the lens!
> 
> i'm definately gonna check it out when it hits the shelves...



I did mention it, but perhaps I didn't elaborate on it enough


----------



## wsgroves (Jan 24, 2014)

Thanks Dustin! Great review as always. I will probably pick up one of these at some point. =)

Scott


----------



## jthomson (Jan 24, 2014)

Another complimentary review with some good bird pictures.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvogeldagboek.nl%2Fnode%2F1336


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2014)

jthomson said:


> Another complimentary review with some good bird pictures.
> 
> http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvogeldagboek.nl%2Fnode%2F1336



Thanks so much for this review. His flickr site contains higher resolution photos (1600x1067) http://www.flickr.com/photos/transcontinenta

Just what I wanted to see - this guy really knows how to take bird photos and how to handle a 600mm. The lens looks very good to me. He says that it is similar to his 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC (I guess it must be the older version). I have taken some similar photos recently using the same camera (7D). I'll see if some are really comparable, reduce them to the same size as his and upload for comparisons.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> jthomson said:
> 
> 
> > Another complimentary review with some good bird pictures.
> ...



This guys gets his hands on Tamron gear very early. He had the very first shots I ever saw with the 24-70 VC. I think he has a similar arrangement with Tamron, but in Europe.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 24, 2014)

Here's a coyote "portrait" from the lens. It obviously has a B&W conversion and a light (white) vignette along the edges.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 24, 2014)

I have decided against uploading any comparisons. The photos on his flickr site at 600mm f/8 - f/11 really are very good. At f/6.3 some are a bit soft. If I didn't have the 300mm f/2.8 II I would definitely buy the Tamron. For what I photograph and the distances involved I use 600mm 99.9% of the time and never zoom out. If I was going on safari I'd be tempted to take the Tamron. I think the lens is remarkable value for the price and has very acceptable quality.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I have decided against uploading any comparisons. The photos on his flickr site at 600mm f/8 - f/11 really are very good. At f/6.3 some are a bit soft. If I didn't have the 300mm f/2.8 II I would definitely buy the Tamron. For what I photograph and the distances involved I use 600mm 99.9% of the time and never zoom out. If I was going on safari I'd be tempted to take the Tamron. I think the lens is remarkable value for the price and has very acceptable quality.


Alan, I think comparisons would be tough and given all the variables in outdoor testing and post-processing, it's hard to evaluate unless the comparisons are done side-by-side, as you've done in other posts. 

Also, I'm in the same boat with my 300 2.8 IS II & extenders. I really wish this lens would have been about 5 years ago when I started getting into wildlife photography, but I've always used primes beyond 200mm and I don't find them all that limiting. I can only think of a handful of times I wish I could have been able to zoom in or out because I couldn't get closer or further away from my subject.

For those without a 100-400, 300 4, 400 5.6, or the "big guns" in their kit already (like Justin), this lens is an awesome value I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to buy it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 24, 2014)

*To all of my Canadian friends on this site: I now have a coupon code posted on the review that will not only get you 5% off your preorder of the new Tamron, but also everything else at Amplis. It is stackable with other promotions and coupons as well.*


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 25, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> *To all of my Canadian friends on this site: I now have a coupon code posted on the review that will not only get you 5% off your preorder of the new Tamron, but also everything else at Amplis. It is stackable with other promotions and coupons as well.*



Sweet. Although won't help me with B&H here in the US


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 25, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > *To all of my Canadian friends on this site: I now have a coupon code posted on the review that will not only get you 5% off your preorder of the new Tamron, but also everything else at Amplis. It is stackable with other promotions and coupons as well.*
> ...



I am debating doing a B&H deal right now. They are willing to take me on, but it could endanger my Canadian connections, so I am in a bit of a quandary.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I have decided against uploading any comparisons. The photos on his flickr site at 600mm f/8 - f/11 really are very good. At f/6.3 some are a bit soft. If I didn't have the 300mm f/2.8 II I would definitely buy the Tamron. For what I photograph and the distances involved I use 600mm 99.9% of the time and never zoom out. If I was going on safari I'd be tempted to take the Tamron. I think the lens is remarkable value for the price and has very acceptable quality.
> ...


About the only way to do comparisons outdoors is to take a stuffed animal similar to what you would shoot, and use it for the target. That way you get repeatability, but this only works on static objects and does not test how well you can track an object...

I just got my 150-600 and I intend to try this, but right now it's snowing outside and blowing hard.... there are cookies baking in the oven and calling my name... I'll try the test tomorrow


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 25, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Huh, and here I was joking.... anyway, if it happens that's awesome, but I'm thinking I'll buy this once I get my tax refund and it's in stock and ready to ship after the pre-orders get satisfied.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 26, 2014)

HankMD said:


> iowapipe said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm just waiting to see a comparison to the Canon 400mm f/5.6. I'm guessing it will be sharper (since it is as compared to the 100-400). Though any discrepancy with color/contrast is quickly adjusted. Fingers crossed!
> ...



After looking at the new comparison shots again, I have doubts that the 400f5.6 in question here is "sub par", it does look better than the Tamron still, people probably just aren't looking hard enough. The Canon is definitely clearer and just a tad sharper, all things considered I'm sure both lenses are exceptional.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

Which would be sharper, this Tamron zoom (at 560mm), or a Canon 400 f/4L DO + 1.4TC at 560mm (either a ii or iii TC)? 

I know that particular Canon is supposed to be less contrasty because it's a "DO" but it's not supposed to be soft...it's supposed to be fairly high in resolution. The images I've seen from it, look extremely sharp to me...far sharper than the 100-400L. And none have lacked any contrast that I would want to add to.

Just debating whether to rent a 400 DO...they intrigue me. It weighs about the same as this Tamron...and is f/4 at 400mm, rather than f/5.6. I know it costs a lot more, but used (and refurb) prices have been known to dip down quite a bit below the full retail (might even get below $4k sometime). And it can be rented for 4 days for around $200.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Which would be sharper, this Tamron zoom (at 560mm), or a Canon 400 f/4L DO + 1.4TC at 560mm (either a ii or iii TC)?
> 
> I know that particular Canon is supposed to be less contrasty because it's a "DO" but it's not supposed to be soft...it's supposed to be fairly high in resolution. The images I've seen from it, look extremely sharp to me...far sharper than the 100-400L. And none have lacked any contrast that I would want to add to.
> 
> Just debating whether to rent a 400 DO...they intrigue me. It weighs about the same as this Tamron...and is f/4 at 400mm, rather than f/5.6. I know it costs a lot more, but used (and refurb) prices have been known to dip down quite a bit below the full retail (might even get below $4k sometime). And it can be rented for 4 days for around $200.



It gets a pretty scathing review by TDP http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-400mm-f-4.0-DO-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The image quality with 1.4x TC looks poor there.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Which would be sharper, this Tamron zoom (at 560mm), or a Canon 400 f/4L DO + 1.4TC at 560mm (either a ii or iii TC)?
> ...



I don't see the "scathing" part of the review. Also don't see a sample where it's combined with a TC.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Bryan usually writes about lenses in glowing praise. But this is what he writes about the 400/4 DO, quote:

"The apparent sharpness of this lens is not in direct relation to its price. The Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens is reasonably sharp at f/4 and very sharp when stopped down to f/5.6. But it is not as sharp as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS Lens (few lenses are). The 300mm f/2.8 L IS with a Canon 1.4x Extender attached (yielding a heavier but less expensive 420mm f/4 IS lens) is similar to the 400 in sharpness. The Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS L Lens is sharper as well (similarly priced but nearly twice as heavy). The much smaller, lighter, slower (max aperture) and far less expensive Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L Lens and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS Lens compete very well with the DO in sharpness at f/5.6 and are even sharper in the corners (and one of them is a zoom).

Contrast is the Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens' optical shortcoming - which also hurts the apparent sharpness performance. I found that most of my shots needed a healthy contrast boost in post-processing (or a positive in-camera contrast setting). I could easily tell which image was taken with the 400 DO when looking at comparative shots on a monitor. The 300 f/2.8 IS has much better contrast than the 400 DO. Even the Canon 100-400mm L has better contrast when the vignetting in the full frame corners at 400mm does not get in the way. Low contrast is my most-significant disapointment with the 400 DO - fortunately it is something that post-processing can help."

(Note the comparison with the 300mm f/2.8 is with the less sharp series I lens, which does not take 1.4xTC as well as the series II does).

And, here is a direct comparison of the 400mm DO with a 1.4xTC vs the 400mm f/5.6 at 560mm, with the DO stopped down to the same f/8 of the older lens. The 400mm f/5.6 is significantly sharper 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2014)

Bryan's chart for comparing lens sharpness is one of the best tools of its type I have seen. He invests a lot of time and effort in those, but it is certainly one of the most valuable resources on the net for adding a visual component to the raw numbers that most sites post.

There are a few exceptions where it seems like he may have not had a copy of the lens that performs as well as the mean, but for the most part it tells the story pretty well.


----------



## dcm (Jan 27, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ...
> 
> 
> GmwDarkroom said:
> ...



So what was your experience with the Tamron on the EOS M?


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Good point, but the 400 f/5.6 is a native f/8 lens with this combination...not something I can or would want to use. Also it doesn't have IS...

I'll grant you though, I still have yet to find really great samples done with the 400 DO, other than the few that have been posted on here. After looking at pbase.com a bit, most of the images were done with older Rebels and 20D's...not exactly a good measuring stick.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Good point, but the 400 f/5.6 is a native f/8 lens with this combination...not something I can or would want to use. Also it doesn't have IS...
> 
> I'll grant you though, I still have yet to find really great samples done with the 400 DO, other than the few that have been posted on here. After looking at pbase.com a bit, most of the images were done with older Rebels and 20D's...not exactly a good measuring stick.


Staying off topic here , I was a bit torn between the DO and the 300 2.8 IS II given their similar price, size, and weight, but went for the 300 because it's newer, sharper, takes TCs better, and has newer IS. IS was the main reason for my upgrade over the 400 5.6, so the latest generation IS was one of my biggest factors. I don't love the way it jumps in the 300 in mode 2, but it is amazing in practice, and mode 3 is mighty nice.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, but the 400 f/5.6 is a native f/8 lens with this combination...not something I can or would want to use. Also it doesn't have IS...
> ...



No doubt about that. If I were in your shoes I would have done the same. I already know how amazing the new 300 is, so I don't feel that much of a need to even try one (at least not to confirm how good it is...making use of it would be fun though). The more interesting and lesser known question for me though, is how good (or bad) is the older 400. I rented the older 500 f/4 in 2011, and was very disappointed with it...it was a lot less sharp at 500mm than even my Sigma 120-400 is at 400mm (although it is actually every bit as sharp as the Canon 100-400L, so it's no slouch). The 500 definitely had better color and contrast than my Sigma does at 400mm (not when it's wider than 200mm though...the Sigma is world class there), but the 500 was just plain soft. I suspect it was probably very worn out, maybe the focusing mechanism or attachments to those elements perhaps was not keeping them in critical alignment or something (I can only guess)...because I know even that older generation of the 500 f/4 was supposed to be quite sharp. The one I rented was not (even with manual live view focus with mirror lock on a tripod and very high shutter speeds).

As for this going "off topic", sorry about that...but I feel comparisons between other lenses in this range, is actually not that far off topic.

The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens. If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point). I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm. 

That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens. If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point). I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.
> 
> That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.


I'm with you on that one, and other than the 70-300L and 200-400 1.4x, it seems that nearly all of these lenses lose a lot of sharpness at their maximum focal length. I don't get that because the whole idea is to shoot at or near the max FL. Who buys a 150-600 to primarily shoot at 150-300? It seems like the lens designers would optimize for 400-600 at the expense of 150-400, but I'm sure that's neither easy nor cheap


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2014)

dcm said:


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



It's mostly about logistics. The M is so small that the balance is really weird, as is trying to operate the camera with such a small grip. It would be better on a monopod or tripod, obviously. As this pictures shows, it is very much a case of the "tail wagging the dog" ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens. If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point). I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.
> ...



Exactly...frankly I suspect it might not even be possible to produce a "super-telephoto" zoom lens that reaches or maintains maximum sharpness at its longest focal length. I don't even think the Canon 200-400 is at its best at 400mm, but I could be wrong. From what I recall of Canon's own MTF chart, it appeared the maximum sharpness was toward the wide end, but with the internal TC switched in. I might be remembering wrong...

I do wish Canon would produce a less costly line of lenses with an internal TC...


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 27, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


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



Is that a camera, or a rear lens cap on there?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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



Exactly. Pictures look fine, but logistics are pretty brutal.


----------



## dcm (Jan 27, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


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



Thanks for the photo. That's quite an extension from the tripod foot on the lens. Thought that might be the case, not really hand hold-able due to LiveView and the small body. A tripod or a shoulder mount like a BushHawk seem like the way to go with the M.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens. If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point). I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.
> ...



I dunno. I may want to often shoot in the 400+ FL, but right now my longest lens is the 135L, so I suspect I'd find myself shooting a lot from the 200+ with it. And after I eventually get the 70-200, I'll still probably be shooting more in the 200+, or more likely the 300+ when I do shoot with this Tamron. For me it's that (right now) I can't see myself shooting really any of these focal lengths all that regularly, or even if I do I somehow don't see myself spending $7K+ on the BWL lenses, with or without 1.4x/2x TCs. Not to say when I win the lotto I won't be buying myself the LensRentals Chess set, but other than that very fortuitous situation, for me at least, the BWL aren't something I'll be buying. 

This lens is really for the crowd that want's a flexible lens, fairly decent optical quality, at what's really an amazing price. Heck, if this were another $300-500 more it'd still be a good price for what you get, although obviously not as great of a deal. So me or people who want a cheap birding lens would find the fairly good (although not great) IQ worth the price. Not to say I don't want maximum IQ, but if you want maximum IQ this lens isn't targeting you anyway.


----------



## candc (Jan 28, 2014)

i wish mine would hurry up and get here so i could tell you what it is really like instead of what i think it will do. til then i can say that i have downloaded all the samples and read all the reviews. i agree with what Drizzt321 is saying but it also appeals to another crowd as a secondary lens, i have the sigma 120-300 sport which is amazingly sharp and heavy. its really good with the 1.4tc, 2x meh? from what i have seen its about the same as this new tamron at 600? i plan on getting the 600ii because i like to shoot that fl and its the best i have seen, are you going to go for a walk on the beach with the sigma 120-300 and the 600ii? this lens covers that whole range pretty well in a nice relatively light package no tc's no changing lenses


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 28, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Good points. Again, my point is that if you want to shoot at or below 400mm, there are other lenses better suited, weigh less, have faster aperture at those shorter focal lengths...and in some cases cost less, yet deliver equal or higher IQ to this Tamron.

If the longest focal length you have now is 135mm, I have to wonder if you need any kind of telephoto lens at all? Because if you needed one, you would already have one. Btw, the TC's work superbly on the 135 f/2...although with the 2x one mounted, I kind of wish for a way to attach a tripod ring.


----------



## CarlTN (Jan 28, 2014)

candc said:


> i wish mine would hurry up and get here so i could tell you what it is really like instead of what i think it will do. til then i can say that i have downloaded all the samples and read all the reviews. i agree with what Drizzt321 is saying but it also appeals to another crowd as a secondary lens, i have the sigma 120-300 sport which is amazingly sharp and heavy. its really good with the 1.4tc, 2x meh? from what i have seen its about the same as this new tamron at 600? i plan on getting the 600ii because i like to shoot that fl and its the best i have seen, are you going to go for a walk on the beach with the sigma 120-300 and the 600ii? this lens covers that whole range pretty well in a nice relatively light package no tc's no changing lenses



If you would let me borrow your Sigma 120-300, I would take it on however long of a walk you wish! I don't live on a beach or go on a vacation every 3 months...but I have lots of nice places near where I am to take wildlife photos.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 28, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



It's really a matter of money and priorities. Burning Man, great wine, or a new lens that's $2k+ (70-200 f/2.8 IS v2)? It's a lot easier to spend a few hundred $$ now than save it up for a single large purchase. At least for me. I have been slowly saving up for that, but I just gotta go ahead and stop buying wine or going out and eating so well. I have thought about getting a TC, and I suppose the 1.4x would be good for a lot of indoor shooting, but otherwise where I want more FL it's when I'm out on the beach trying to get the surfers or pelicans flying along the water, and 400mm is decent, but going out to 600mm would be even nicer.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 28, 2014)

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market. I'll certainly be adding one to my kit. And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it. I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop). But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000. How exactly is this not usable?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.
> 
> The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.
> 
> If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market. I'll certainly be adding one to my kit. And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it. I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop). But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000. How exactly is this not usable?


and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D


----------



## candc (Jan 29, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.
> 
> The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.
> 
> If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market. I'll certainly be adding one to my kit. And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it. I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop). But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000. How exactly is this not usable?



It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

candc said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.
> ...


Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm....


----------



## candc (Jan 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.
> ...



Don's shots look pretty good. What more do you want from a $1000 lens? to keep it in perspective, the 2 canon extenders will cost you about the same


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

candc said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


I'm deliberately playing with 600mm and F6.3 because that's supposed to be where the lens is worst.....


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Come spring, squirrel pictures are going to be high in my priority list.

That lens is looking mighty good. I have to wonder how 600mm on the Tamron actually compares with a crop off the 500f4ISII.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...


Shot with the 150-600.....


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2014)

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30
> 
> Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).


Jack's image appears sharper, but also, mine was shot handheld with a 60D at a slower shutter speed and deliberately at the softest spot of the lens.... and there are no AFMA adjustments on it. a good comparison would involve the same body taking the pictures at the same distance, with both lenses properly calibrated.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.


----------



## weixing (Jan 29, 2014)

Hi,


Don Haines said:


> The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...
> 
> I am surprised it went as well as it did.


 WOW... handheld Astrophotography on Orion Nebula... ;D

The IS must be quite good or you must be very steady... 4s at 600mm... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2014)

Don
Could you post some comparative bird shots at f/6.3, f/8 and f/11.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 29, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> Don Haines said:
> ...


To be fair, I tried about 20 shots, and this was the best...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2014)

Here's a couple of more shots:




King of the Road by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

This last one is a near wide open (f/7.1 - 1/3rd stop stop down) and 600mm shot using AF Servo (not the 6D's strongest suit) but it worked fine for my limited bird use. BTW, the squirrel shot on the last page was also using AF Servo, but he had stopped moving by the time I took the shot anyway, so I don't think it would be any different than using One Shot.




Show Off by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2014)

P.S. Note how narrow the DOF is on the goose shot when you consider this was 600mm, f/7.1, and I was about 25-30 feet away (roughly). The breast and the face is in focus where it is one the same plane, but the wings are very much out of the plane of focus. You can still get good separation even with this more narrow aperture zoom.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jan 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30
> 
> Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).


The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me. By 60D standards, of course. Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal. Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 29, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Darn, I couldn't remember if squirrels hibernate or not.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2014)

GmwDarkroom said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs
> ...



I am not arguing in favour of using stacked TCs - I am sure the 300/2.8 II plus the 2xTC at 600mm would give better results cropped than the stacked. Don't you think it amazing that two different threads on different subjects used a crop of the same bird at almost the exact same size?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2014)

AlanF said:


> GmwDarkroom said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I'm actually not surprised, as this is one of the few birds that I see with any kind of regularity in a Canadian winter.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 30, 2014)

Here's a fun shot that I've have post processed to give a faded look, but does give an idea of what a 150mm shot at f/8 might look like through the lens.




Did I Make this Mess? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2014)

For all of you birders, here is a pretty amazing review of the lens by a guy comparing it to the 600mm f/4L IS (original version):

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


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2014)

Here's another shot from me:




Bambi by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> For all of you birders, here is a pretty amazing review of the lens by a guy comparing it to the 600mm f/4L IS (original version):
> 
> http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/#prettyPhoto



The comparison images of the Red-Tailed Hawk have the bird occupying half the height of the frame. At that size, the image should be extremely sharp with fine details of the plumage visible. You can see that the head of the hawk from the Tamron is soft. All of the images I have seen at 600mm f/6.3 are soft to varying degrees, as you would expect from the measured MTF charts published by different reviewers. However, the lens gets significantly sharper at f/8-f/11 and the lens should be very sharp. So would someone please post some shots at f/8-f/11 so we can see what the lens is really capable of doing. How about it Don?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanF said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > For all of you birders, here is a pretty amazing review of the lens by a guy comparing it to the 600mm f/4L IS (original version):
> ...



Alan, I get what you are saying, but as Roger rightly pointed out in his comparison, it is the lighting and conditions that are going to make the biggest difference. I know what you want to see, but for many of us that have had the chance to use the lens, we simply don't have the kind of lighting conditions that are going to produce the most optimum photos. It's January, not exactly a month cherished by photographers around the world.

The takeaway for me is that here the lens was compared to a high end 600mm and wasn't trounced and that he got a great shot tracking with the lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 31, 2014)

P.S. I think the Snowy Owl shot is great. Wish I had taken it. I'm not a huge bird guy, but I really like owls.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> How many folks that are dissing the 150-600 own the 600 or have the ability to buy the 600 tomorrow with cash, I wonder?


My only diss on the lens is that they didn't release it many years ago before I bought and sold my 70-300 IS, 70-200 4IS+1.4xII, 400 5.6, and then bought 1.4xIII, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2xIII, and then 300mm 2.8 IS II. Now I have the same focal lengths covered at a FAR higher price. I'm very happy with my gear, and this would be a duplicate (albeit more convenient) lens for me, but it sure would have been nice if it had been around in 2008 or so


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jan 31, 2014)

The question is whether someone has the $12K -- plus the cost of support equipment -- to get the better quality. Most don't and I don't think that we're talking about some Bower/Vivitar/Pro Optic lens.

However I found this comment interesting and even a good selling point. A softer image is better than none at all:


> With the Tamron 150-600mm, I had complete freedom of movement and could track the owl easily as he flew past me. The key is that it can be hand-held.
> 
> In fact, had I been using the gimbal-mounted Canon 600mm instead of the hand-held Tamron, I’m really not sure that I would have captured that Snowy Owl shot.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

I am certainly not dissing the lens, and am thinking of buying one. What I want is for someone to show off the lens at its best with birds shot at f/8-f/11 where it looks from MTFs as if it could be really great.


----------



## Kiboko (Jan 31, 2014)

Most if not all the foregoing discussion centres around the softness beyond 400mm on a F/F body. Using the lens on a F/F camera, one's going to have to stop down to f8 or f11 to maximise sharpness beyond the 400mm focal length. I'm probably going to buy one, and currently have a 7D, (was waiting for a 7DII), and if I've any reservations after trying it will probably buy a 5DIII instead, - but in the meantime it seems to me that in using the 7D, I'll have an equivalent focal length of up to 960mm, the central sharpness inherent in a crop frame, and the ability to use the 150-400mm focal length equainting to 240-640mm. The softer long end may rarely be needed. What I really want to know now, (will find out next week), is how this lens will perform on a crop frame.


----------



## applecider (Jan 31, 2014)

I live in an area that rarely keeps snow. Most of the year I feel lucky to get a shutter speed of 1600 which I think is about the minimum for getting tack sharp shots of moving birds. Even the tweety birds are active enough to benefit from a high shutter speed. If you get the aperture to f8-11, the ISO often needs to be at least 2000, for me that is not 7D territory.

I'm going to wait to see some art Morris types try this lens to see how the whole package performs- autofocus low light etc.


----------



## iowapipe (Jan 31, 2014)

Thank you everyone who has braved the Winter temps and conditions to give us some excellent examples of what the lens can do. 

Based on the discussion by people who are experienced with long lenses, I've decided to pull the trigger on this lens as my first long lens. I know I'm down in the queue and will have to wait for the lens. But even if I don't receive it until March (when the weather warms and lets me get outside to begin using it), I'll have a lot more information from these forums by then. And if some drastic flaw rears it's head, I can cancel my order.

As Dustin, and a few others have pointed out, the compromises this lens makes don't have a dramatic impact on the long end as compared to high $$ competition. And I'm certainly not in a position to spend $3000 or more to buy even larger lenses that will yield 'similar' results. As 2 experienced reviewers have pointed out: 'better' lenses, with the tele-externders and cropping, yield similar results in the 500-600mm range. 

Thanks again for your work and dedication.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 31, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Kiboko said:
> 
> 
> > Most if not all the foregoing discussion centres around the softness beyond 400mm on a F/F body. Using the lens on a F/F camera, one's going to have to stop down to f8 or f11 to maximise sharpness beyond the 400mm focal length.
> ...



Dilbert.... Dilbert... Dilbert..... Don't you know that common sense and logic has no place in an emotional argument 

And seriously, is there ANY lens that is sharpest wide open?


----------



## naturephotographer (Jan 31, 2014)

Like most of us I was interested as soon as I saw the introduction of this lens on CR and dpreview. I searched for sample images and reviews. The images provided by Tamron looked promising and finally the first review came out from Frank Wong which was positive. I then waited to see the price and as soon as this was announced I ordered one from my local camera store.
I tried it out at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and their Raptor Free Flight program and was impressed with the results and have attached thumbnail (reduced resolution) full frame images plus cropped full resolution images to show the sharpness. These were all taken hand held with my Canon 5D Mk III at ISO 1600. The great horned owl closeup was at 600mm at f14, the bobcats at 600mm at f9 and the hummingbird wide open at 600mm and f6.3 and is a little soft compared to the others.



























I just registered to be able to show these photos so I am not sure how to add my equipment list automatically below my posts so here is a sampler.
Canon D30, D60, 1D Mk II, 20D, 5D Mk II, 7D, 5D Mk III, SL-1, 24-105 L, 70-200 L f2.8 IS, 100-400 L IS, 28 - 300 IS L, 70 - 300 IS, Tamron 150-600


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 31, 2014)

naturephotographer said:


> Like most of us I was interested as soon as I saw the introduction of this lens on CR and dpreview. I searched for sample images and reviews. The images provided by Tamron looked promising and finally the first review came out from Frank Wong which was positive. I then waited to see the price and as soon as this was announced I ordered one from my local camera store.
> I tried it out at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and their Raptor Free Flight program and was impressed with the results and have attached thumbnail (reduced resolution) full frame images plus cropped full resolution images to show the sharpness. These were all taken hand held with my Canon 5D Mk III at ISO 1600. The great horned owl closeup was at 600mm at f14, the bobcats at 600mm at f9 and the hummingbird wide open at 600mm and f6.3 and is a little soft compared to the others.
> 
> [ just registered to be able to show these photos so I am not sure how to add my equipment list automatically below my posts so here is a sampler.
> Canon D30, D60, 1D Mk II, 20D, 5D Mk II, 7D, 5D Mk III, SL-1, 24-105 L, 70-200 L f2.8 IS, 100-400 L IS, 28 - 300 IS L, 70 - 300 IS, Tamron 150-600


Wonderful pictures!
Welcome to the Forum....


----------



## Vern (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks nature photographer, and welcome to the forum. I have the canon 600II but like to backpack and it is too heavy when I'm also carrying a tent, food, etc…. I have been carrying the canon 300 2.8II w 1.4 and 2X TC's as my hiking wildlife combo. Your shots make this a more interesting option than I thought. This plus the 24-70 2.8II, 70-200 2.8II and the 24 TS II w a tripod and 5DMKIII might be a nice set of hiking gear. I need to add up the weights and think about size as well but I might just rent this lens to get some hands on experience. With the lower noise on the 5D III and 1Dx, I think I could often shoot at one stop down.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

naturephotographer said:


> Like most of us I was interested as soon as I saw the introduction of this lens on CR and dpreview. I searched for sample images and reviews. The images provided by Tamron looked promising and finally the first review came out from Frank Wong which was positive. I then waited to see the price and as soon as this was announced I ordered one from my local camera store.
> I tried it out at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and their Raptor Free Flight program and was impressed with the results and have attached thumbnail (reduced resolution) full frame images plus cropped full resolution images to show the sharpness. These were all taken hand held with my Canon 5D Mk III at ISO 1600. The great horned owl closeup was at 600mm at f14, the bobcats at 600mm at f9 and the hummingbird wide open at 600mm and f6.3 and is a little soft compared to the others.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you! Thank you! Just what I wanted to see. It is really very good stopped down.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Kiboko said:
> ...



Yes. For example, my 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III analysed by FoCal is sharpest wide open - see chart. The new big whites are often sharpest wide open. However, the Tamron when stopped down is giving the Canon a run for its money, which makes it very attractive. You have to pay a hell of a lot extra to get the sharpest at f/5.6.


----------



## naturephotographer (Jan 31, 2014)

Update,

I looked at my hummingbird photo I posted taken at 600mm f6.3 and found signs of motion blur so it is not the best sample to show what this lens can do. That one was taken at 1/160 sec which is just a little slow at least for me to hand hold this lens at 600mm.

Here is another one without motion blur at 600mm, f6.3 and 1/200 sec showing this lens is still rather sharp wide open.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2014)

That is impressive. What sharpening has been applied?


----------



## naturephotographer (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanF said:


> That is impressive. What sharpening has been applied?



I do not sharpen in-camera and because of the Nyquist (anti-aliasing) low pass spatial filter over the sensor, some sharpening is almost always required.

I used a small amount of sharpening in Photoshop with radius 1.5 and 75% using the "remove lens blur" tool.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Kiboko said:
> ...




As mentioned above, it seems like all of the Big Whites (at least MkII) fit that description.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon500f4is2/ff/tloader.htm




TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> For all of you birders, here is a pretty amazing review of the lens by a guy comparing it to the 600mm f/4L IS (original version):
> 
> http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/#prettyPhoto



That's just what I was looking for, a benchmark vs. a known lens.
The 400f5.6 with a 1.4xTC is probably still optically better (maybe with more CA, and yes, I also suspect it's better than the version 1 600f4IS), but the Tamron still has AF and it zooms. Again, I'll still keep my 400f5.6, it's an easy lens to love.


----------



## candc (Feb 1, 2014)

this is looking good! i am excited, mine shipped yesterday and will be her on tuesday. i plan on taking it on a back country snowshoeing trip into the bwca to get some winter wildlife pics. i will take this lens, the sigma 8-16, 18-35 and the 70d.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2014)

Having read lots of reviews and had several questions answered in this thread (thanks everybody), I have ordered the Tamron. The money I got for my 100-400 and Sigma 400 will more than pay for it. Even if it is not as good as the 300/2.8 II, I have some trips coming up when the advantages of the zoom and the lower weight will be important advantages. But, I am hopeful that stopped down it will rival the 300 + 2xTC.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2014)

There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?

There are also rumours that stocks to the big retailers are being withheld while Tamron sorts out the AF problem. Has anyone any knowledge of this?


----------



## iowapipe (Feb 2, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?
> 
> There are also rumours that stocks to the big retailers are being withheld while Tamron sorts out the AF problem. Has anyone any knowledge of this?



The only recent (stress, recent) reports I've read that are from 2 people who are very experienced both testify that; BIF tracking doesn't seem any worse than the Canon 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4xTC on it, and the other person said his take is that he had reasonably good success and doesn't seem any worse than the Sigma or his Canon 300mm with a 1.4xTC (he feels he needs to have more practice with the lens at the 500-600 range).

I imagine we are mostly reading the same 4 or 5 blogs out there, and there are a few vocal people who don't imagine it will be good enough. But they haven't used the lens yet.

Like you, I just placed my order after 'carefully' sifting though the many preliminary reports. I really aimed to focus on those people with demonstrated skill at long lenses.

But, there aren't a lot of people who have taken the lens out yet due to bad weather.


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 2, 2014)

AlanF said:


> There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?
> 
> There are also rumours that stocks to the big retailers are being withheld while Tamron sorts out the AF problem. Has anyone any knowledge of this?



These BIF images look very good.

http://jjbird.smugmug.com/Photography/Tamron-150600-Lens/i-SCF5vdP


----------



## AlanF (Feb 2, 2014)

Exactly about the choice of reviews. You have to know to handle a 600mm, and those who do know have produced some very good images. The lens has a five-year warranty, but I would prefer not to have to use it.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 2, 2014)

iowapipe said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are reports elsewhere that AF for BIF is problematic. Does anyone have experience of this?
> ...


I can safely say that BIF tracking on a 60D is "somewhat less than stellar".... but on the other hand, the same holds true for every other lens I have tried on the 60D... I should have bought a 7D.... Come on 7D2!!! The market is ready for you!!!


----------



## iowapipe (Feb 3, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Exactly about the choice of reviews. You have to know to handle a 600mm, and those who do know have produced some very good images. The lens has a five-year warranty, but I would prefer not to have to use it.



I just saw that someone pointed to an update on lenrentals blog referring to the 'possible' issue with AF, but when I followed the link it simply took me to the comparison review they did on the lens. I checked the most recent responses on the blog and didn't see anything pertinent either. This person claimed Tamron was aware of the AF, but hadn't run into it in their testing. But again, I didn't find that on the blog link he used, or on any new postings on the blog.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 3, 2014)

On the BIF information - I have seen the same person stirring this up on a lot of levels. They have interacted with me personally, on my website, on a Flickr group I watch, and even on my YouTube AF review. They are very vocal, but their observations don't seem to reconcile with what I've heard from most people (and I get at least a half dozen emails a day.)

I did a high contrast contrast, high sharpness, high key look with this bison portrait and am really pleased with the way it looks.




Bison Formal Portrait by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## slclick (Feb 3, 2014)

I thought I was done with Tammies but I think the pricepoint of this glass will let me take a chance on it. I'm not a birder by any means but have always desired longer glass for FF. Since the possibility for the 100-400 Mk2 is too ambiguous and waiting doesn't get you any images, I might spring for this and make an under 30 days decision.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 3, 2014)

For Europeans:

Amazon IT has it on preorder for 1099€. 

That's much better than Amazon DE (1199€), FR (1399€) and UK (1150£).


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2014)

iowapipe said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly about the choice of reviews. You have to know to handle a 600mm, and those who do know have produced some very good images. The lens has a five-year warranty, but I would prefer not to have to use it.
> ...


I'm still learning to use this lens, but it holds great promise... One downside is that it does have visible chromatic aberation, but on the plus side, lightroom has the lens profile and corrects it very well.

The autofocus has had some problems on my 60D. AF would not work on close objects... then I realized that the switch settins was 15Meters to infinity, not 15Meters to 0...(OOPS!!!)... after that it worked fine  It is very possible that some of the complaints are due to not knowing how to use the lens.... a 600MM lens takes a bit of time to learn how to use properly.

The IS seems to work quite well, so far most of my shots have been hand-held and no complaints. 

All in all, I am VERY happy with this lens and would recommend it.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 3, 2014)

I am looking forward to trying out this lens.

If you get a good copy I think it might be as good as 300/2.8 IS (and maybe IS2 on a good day) with converters AT 420 and 600 without the darned inconvenience/extra cost. To get a half decent 600 with the 300/2.8 IS you have to stop down to f8 anyway. 

The Tamron appears to be a very versatile and good value long lens which costs only a fraction of the price of a nice second hand 300/2.8 IS plus the two Canon converters.

It should also beat the Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS Sport plus converters on performance at 420 and 600.

It all depends on how much you want to use the 300-600 range.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> It is very possible that some of the complaints are due to not knowing how to use the lens.... a 600MM lens takes a bit of time to learn how to use properly.


Don, thanks for the info and +1 on your comment above. User error is so annoying when it comes to poor reviews. It reminds me of every time I've sold a fast lens on eBay. I get emails saying the lens won't focus, etc. I have a long list of tips on AFMA, using tripods, etc., etc., etc. and each time I've sent that, I hear nothing but receive a positive review a few days later 

Long lenses are challenging and little things like the focus limiter and AF & IS settings can make a big difference.

Happy to hear that this lens is looking so good and I hope you'll share some samples soon.

Also, I hope they are better than naturephotographer and Dustin's samples. Don't they realize that we want pictures of brick walls and test charts??? Real world samples, especially beautiful photos like the ones they are posting are so boring


----------



## lenstrack26 (Feb 3, 2014)

Has anyone seen any information regarding the possibility of adding a 1.4x or 2x extender to the Tamron? I guess some diminution of resolution would be expected plus a further reduction in aperture and loss of auto focusing, but it would still be interesting to know what the images looked like.


----------



## Roo (Feb 3, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> iowapipe said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Thanks for that info Don!! I am just waiting delivery of mine here but the distributor confirmed that it should be at the retailers next week  I will have a bit of time to practice with it before a very busy March...airshow, Grand Prix....


----------



## AlanF (Feb 3, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> I am looking forward to trying out this lens.
> 
> If you get a good copy I think it might be as good as 300/2.8 IS (and maybe IS2 on a good day) with converters AT 420 and 600 without the darned inconvenience/extra cost. To get a half decent 600 with the 300/2.8 IS you have to stop down to f8 anyway.


I'll give a comparison with the 300/2.8 II +TCs when my Tammie arrives after next weekend. I'll even show my favourite medieval brick chimney for Mac.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 4, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking forward to trying out this lens.
> ...



LOL! We'll be breathlessly waiting!


----------



## hemidesign (Feb 4, 2014)

Another good review and samples (in japanese) enjoy!

Btw, this samples are so SHARRPP!!! wow! 

http://forum.xitek.com/forum-viewthread-tid-1262048-extra--action-printable-page-1.html


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

A quick sharpness test....

The goal is to see what effect the F stop has on sharpness with the 150-600 when used at 600mm

All shot with a 60D from a distance of 20 feet and processed in lightroom. All images are with the Tamron 150-600 profile enabled and with chromatic aberration correction enabled.

The target is the fine print on the back of the packaging of a laser pointer... it was the smallest size printing that I could find lying around the house.

The first image has the colour balanced, sharpness slider at 0, noise reduction slider at 0

The second image has the sharpening slider at 80, noise reduction slider at 50, and blacks level at -50. There is a typo on the picture description.... The first bar is F6.3, not F5.6.

Obviously F8 or F11 is far sharper than F6.3 and it falls of by F16. With sharpening enabled, F11 appears slightly better than F8. When you consider that I could not see the pattern around the "danger" symbol when it was inches from my face, yet the lens could pick that up from across the house, this lens is great bang for the buck!....


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> A quick sharpness test....
> 
> The goal is to see what effect the F stop has on sharpness with the 150-600 when used at 600mm
> 
> ...





With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO! Nevertheless many thanks for your post.

But then I suspect Can/Nik, Tamron etc are optimising their optical designs to come out well in imatest reports at 30-40 ft and may not be all that sharp at distance.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO!



I agree. 

I intended to test it at about 100 feet, but it was -26C and windy outside... I am going to retry the test the next nice day that I am home.... I was thinking of a bird-sized target at 100 feet and then another target at around 300 feet, plus trying some additional F-stops....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect Don testing a 600 lens at 20 feet is a bit ridiculous - IMO!
> ...



Don, take heart  People love to criticize without much consideration for reality. Doing long range tests in Canada in January/February are difficult at best. You have an indoor limitation of how much space you have. Going outdoors introduces a lot of other factors. I appreciate seeing these results, and I seriously doubt that such a lens is optimized for short distance. FoCal recommends doing AFMA at 12meters for 600mm, and have a pretty scientific explanation for that.

I'm interested in seeing your further tests, but I reject the notion that your current test has no value.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



My hunting blind in the back yard is about 25 feet away from the bird feeders.... for me the test has great value...

But I also want to see what happens at medium and longer distances too  I learned from that first test that I need to check more F stops...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 4, 2014)

I'd be happy to do a longer range test in SoCal if someone wants to let me borrow a lens  Or when I end up getting this lens in the next few months I'd be happy to as well, although I imagine there will be plenty of examples by then.


----------



## dhr90 (Feb 4, 2014)

I'm still very much interested in this. But have yet to find the time to my local camera store to chat to an assistant about it and the price. 

When some of you mention about needing time to learn how to use a 600mm lens. Are you mainly referring to the desire/need for a tripod or monopod? The difficulty of handholding? Up to now the longest lens I have used has been 300mm. Just curious as to what I would be in for if I pull the trigger and buy it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 4, 2014)

dhr90 said:


> I'm still very much interested in this. But have yet to find the time to my local camera store to chat to an assistant about it and the price.
> 
> When some of you mention about needing time to learn how to use a 600mm lens. Are you mainly referring to the desire/need for a tripod or monopod? The difficulty of handholding? Up to now the longest lens I have used has been 300mm. Just curious as to what I would be in for if I pull the trigger and buy it.



There are few challenges. Motion blur is much more of an issue at 600mm than it is at 300mm, so despite the great image stabilization you have to learn to get your shutter speed up higher. Framing and tracking at that length requires a bit of retraining of the way you visualize.

There are other factors, but those are the biggies in my mind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

dhr90 said:


> When some of you mention about needing time to learn how to use a 600mm lens. Are you mainly referring to the desire/need for a tripod or monopod? The difficulty of handholding? Up to now the longest lens I have used has been 300mm. Just curious as to what I would be in for if I pull the trigger and buy it.



The angle of view is quite narrow at 600mm…it takes a bit of practice just to find the subject in the viewfinder. The zoom capability will help, but it takes time to zoom out and zoom in.


----------



## Lloyd (Feb 4, 2014)

dhr90 said:


> When some of you mention about needing time to learn how to use a 600mm lens. Are you mainly referring to the desire/need for a tripod or monopod? The difficulty of handholding? Up to now the longest lens I have used has been 300mm. Just curious as to what I would be in for if I pull the trigger and buy it.


I have been using an old 800mm, manual focus, no IS lens on my 5Diii and at a long distance a tiny vibration can cause the target to bounce around your viewfinder. Without autofocus or IS getting a sharp shot at a distant target is more akin to shooting a rifle at a distant target. This should be much less of an issue with the 150-600's auto focus and IS. Nevertheless, you see the guys with the modern 600mm and 800mm lenses being very methodical in maintaining a steady support for their lens even though they have advanced IS and can shoot at high shutter speed. Many of the reviews on the 150-600 which complain about some blurry shots appear to be written by those who don't appear to have a great deal of experience with long lenses. Therefore, I have a hard time discerning how much faith to put into these reports. It appeared to me that those who had more long lens experience were getting better results with the 150-600 than those with less experience with long lenses. The bottom line for me is that it sounded like a fun toy, so I recently bought the 150-600. I wanted something that I could carry around with me that would give me some reach. Having IS and autofocus will also be a luxury. Unfortunately, I have yet to really give it a go as it has been raining or dark by the time I can get free.

I would not worry too much about what you will be in for if you buy. When I first bought the 800mm, I googled what appears to be the term of art, "long lens technique," and found many articles that were of assistance.

I plan on keeping the 800mm not only for its extra reach, but because while it is challenging to use, it is also really satisfying when you are on a roll and even on moving targets get your keepers much higher than your discards. Hopefully, the 150-600 will be a great addition as well as being more hiking and air travel friendly than the 800mm.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



There's nothing ridiculous at all about your 20' test. As you point out, the 600mm is often used at 20 or so feet for small birds. And, in any case relative sharpness at different apertures won't change much with distance. Diffraction effects start coming in at about f/6.3 with your 60D compared with about f/11 on the new 5 and 1Ds, and so the sharpness should be better at f/11 and f/16 on them.


----------



## hemidesign (Feb 5, 2014)

Hey everybody.. another stunning shots with this amazing lens.. ENJOY! 8)

http://www.dchome.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1244589&extra=page%3D1&page=1


----------



## Lloyd (Feb 5, 2014)

I was able to get out for a few minutes after work with my 150-600. I took a series of photos of a lighthouse across the lake from me using a monopod at several f stops. I need to get used to using the lens on this monopod as I was having issues controlling a sideways twisting motion. I posted the shots at http://www.pbase.com/lebthree/tamron_150600mm_test&page=all. All the lighthouse and tower shots have no sharpening or noise reduction applied. For each of these shots I have the full frame 600mm original shot and a heavily cropped version. The last two photos in the series will give you an idea of the distances involved. I don't know how much faith I would put in these shots as the variation between them could just as well be due to lens movement on my monopod and fading light.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Feb 5, 2014)

The Tamoron 150-600 has serious AF problems in AI Servo mode, which vary depending on the Canon body that is used. To read some of these problems reported by actual owners, please see:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1270895/0

It would not focus properly on either my 7D or 1D MK IV, so I returned it for a refund.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> A quick sharpness test....
> 
> The goal is to see what effect the F stop has on sharpness with the 150-600 when used at 600mm
> 
> ...



Very nice comparison, but I wonder just how sharp it is at 100 or 200 feet distance? In my experience with telephoto prime and zoom lenses, both the lens itself becomes less sharp at longer distances...but also the AF accuracy diminishes at those distances that are either at, or close to, infinity. Why? Because the focusing elements need only move a micron or two to take things from being "tack sharp", to "soft"...even when focusing manually in live view.

I'm not even talking about atmospherics with the above, either...they enter in (especially in warmer weather), but they are easier to see than just some slight softness. They're "wavy"...

I don't shoot most of my bird images, and especially not any other wildlife at such a close distance (20 feet).


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 5, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them. In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change. The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.
> 
> The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.
> 
> If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market. I'll certainly be adding one to my kit. And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it. I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop). But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000. How exactly is this not usable?



I suppose it's usable for this amount of cropping.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > A quick sharpness test....
> ...


Agreed!

I've done the "hunting blind" test and I'd like to see what it looks like at "in the wild" distances... I probably won't get to try it today... it is snowing....


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 5, 2014)

Here's a 600mm shot, f/9, handheld from a vehicle shooting into a pack of coyotes:




Coyote @600mm by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 5, 2014)

For those wanting to see resolving at distance, here's an example of Arctic wolves. I want to preface this post by saying that I don't believe this represents optimum conditions for sharpness. I was shooting from a vehicle, with a serious temperature variation, and my shutter speed is only 1/250th here. The lighting situation was pretty challenging with the subject in shadow. Still, I think it demonstrates that focus was good (although this shot was stopped down to f/11). I was at least 150-200 feet away when shooting:


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 5, 2014)

Here is the crop of the subject from the shot above with a little more exposure added to it:


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 5, 2014)

If you are having autofocus problems on the 150-600, your problem might be camera configuration.

If you go into the camera setup menus, under Autofocus/Drive, there is an option for Lens drive when AF impossible... You can set it to "Continue focus search" or to "Stop focus search". If you set it to "Stop focus search" the lens will give up very easily and AF will not work well, particularly when going between near and distant focus. If you set it to "Continue focus search" it works far better.

(At least it does on a 60D)


----------



## candc (Feb 6, 2014)

Mine arrived yesterday and my initial impression is that It's well worth the money. It handles well and fits nicely on the 70d. Really big lenses dont match well with a smaller body like that but this one seems just right.The IQ is what I expected, really good to 400 and good to 600 same thing for the af. I think the sigma 120-300 with the canon tc's is still better but this lens is 1/2 the weight and less than 1/3rd the price (1/4th if you add the cost of the converters) if you are looking for a packable high quality long zoom with an attractive price then I don't see how you could do much better, I am very pleased so far.


----------



## Somlu (Feb 6, 2014)

I have got the lens 2 days back and am initially happy. Basically I don't expect an IQ equivalent to my 500 f4 . It is a very good lens for the budget. I opted for this because I am struggling with my old 100-400 over reach. Iq wise the new Tammy is almost as good as the 100-400 and the extra reach is welcome for a day to day use . The only thing I can complain is a little slower auto focus when it is focused on the other end. Ev en with flying birds I feel OK with the lens. This is an example of the flying rock pigeon with the exif data.... 

Canon EOS-1D X
06/02/2014 8:44:58 AM
Manual Exposure
1/2500
7.1
Evaluative Metering
ISO1000
TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD A011
600.0mm
RAW
Auto WB
AI Servo AF
Low-speed continuous shooting


----------



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

Somlu said:


> I have got the lens 2 days back and am initially happy. Basically I don't expect an IQ equivalent to my 500 f4 . It is a very good lens for the budget. I opted for this because I am struggling with my old 100-400 over reach. Iq wise the new Tammy is almost as good as the 100-400 and the extra reach is welcome for a day to day use . The only thing I can complain is a little slower auto focus when it is focused on the other end. Ev en with flying birds I feel OK with the lens. This is an example of the flying rock pigeon with the exif data....
> 
> Canon EOS-1D X
> 06/02/2014 8:44:58 AM
> ...



Great feedback and a nice shot.


----------



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

Here's a close-up of a boar's face. It has been processed, and purposefully slightly oversharpened to emphasize the bristle texture.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 7, 2014)

candc said:


> Mine arrived yesterday and my initial impression is that It's well worth the money. It handles well and fits nicely on the 70d. Really big lenses dont match well with a smaller body like that but this one seems just right.The IQ is what I expected, really good to 400 and good to 600 same thing for the af. I think the sigma 120-300 with the canon tc's is still better but this lens is 1/2 the weight and less than 1/3rd the price (1/4th if you add the cost of the converters) if you are looking for a packable high quality long zoom with an attractive price then I don't see how you could do much better, I am very pleased so far.



...are you saying that the Sigma 120-300 is better than the tamron at 600 ie 600/5.6 - or 600/8?

If so that surprises me because the photographylife tests of the Sigma at 600/5.6 were quite poor and only slightly better at 600/8.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 7, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Here's a close-up of a boar's face. It has been processed, and purposefully slightly oversharpened to emphasize the bristle texture.



May I enquire what was the focal length/aperture of that photo?


----------



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

Plainsman said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a close-up of a boar's face. It has been processed, and purposefully slightly oversharpened to emphasize the bristle texture.
> ...



Off the top of my head, I believe it was 329mm and f/8. DOF is still pretty narrow at that distance (about 15 feet).


----------



## canonrumorstony (Feb 8, 2014)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1270895/2

Just want to clarify what I have experienced with this lens using the AI Servo for BIF.
Canon 6D AI Servo Single center point focus works fine
Canon 70D AI Servo Single center point focus works fine
Canon 7D AI Servo does not work Note: The only way I have taken keeper BIF images with this lens is by using Single center point focus or center point expanded and constantly bumping focus.
Canon 1DM4 AI Servo does not work 
Canon 1DX AI Servo works fine.


----------



## candc (Feb 8, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Mine arrived yesterday and my initial impression is that It's well worth the money. It handles well and fits nicely on the 70d. Really big lenses dont match well with a smaller body like that but this one seems just right.The IQ is what I expected, really good to 400 and good to 600 same thing for the af. I think the sigma 120-300 with the canon tc's is still better but this lens is 1/2 the weight and less than 1/3rd the price (1/4th if you add the cost of the converters) if you are looking for a packable high quality long zoom with an attractive price then I don't see how you could do much better, I am very pleased so far.
> ...


----------



## candc (Feb 8, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Here's a close-up of a boar's face. It has been processed, and purposefully slightly oversharpened to emphasize the bristle texture.



That's a really nice shot, I always enjoy seeing your work, thanks for posting.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2014)

candc said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...




My benchmark is the 300mm f/2.8 II +TCs, and I'll compare it with the Tammy when I return on Monday and open my Tammy parcel, which was delivered yesterday. According to TDP, the Sigma with 1.4xTC at 420 stopped down to 5.6 looks as good as the Canon +1.4xTC at 420 and f/4, which is really very good. At 600mm with 2xTC, the Sigma has to be stopped down to f/11 to rival the Canon at f/5.6. If the Tammy at f/8 or f/11 at 600 is as good as the Canon at 600, I will be overjoyed. 

The Tammy is meant to be for me a lighter lens for travel and when I need a zoom. The Sigma with the TC weighs about 3.7 kg compared with 1.9 for the Tammy. And is not an alternative.

420 f/5.6 vs f/4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=6&API=3&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

600 f/11 vs f/5.6
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=844&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=5&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2


----------



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

AlanF said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...



Wow, that combo must be pretty hefty. The Tamron isn't particularly light, but is literally half the weight.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 11, 2014)

Here's another 600mm shot. This series is a bit softer because of the temperature variation phenomena I discussed in the review, but I love the compression effect on this Arctic Wolf from the long focal length:




The Silent Assassin by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Scimitar (Feb 12, 2014)

Just wondering if this hands on field trial (AF ISSUE) with the Tammy 150-600 was just a faulty sample piece. I hope so.
http://chewyenfook.smugmug.com/Photography/Tamro-150-600-VS-Canon-400mm/36134215_3P9q3W#!i=3030095385&k=Q6n39TN


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

Somlu said:


> I have got the lens 2 days back and am initially happy. Basically I don't expect an IQ equivalent to my 500 f4 . It is a very good lens for the budget. I opted for this because I am struggling with my old 100-400 over reach. Iq wise the new Tammy is almost as good as the 100-400 and the extra reach is welcome for a day to day use . The only thing I can complain is a little slower auto focus when it is focused on the other end. Ev en with flying birds I feel OK with the lens. This is an example of the flying rock pigeon with the exif data....
> 
> Canon EOS-1D X
> 06/02/2014 8:44:58 AM
> ...



Not a bad shot at all. But I wonder why you would pair the 1DX with this lens? If you need 600mm, it seems a big white, or a combo with a TC, would better serve the 1DX. Looks like the Tamron is in fine form, though.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It's supposed to snow here soon. One thing is certain....wildlife in snow, is almost always majestic. Of course we don't get snow every winter down here, so I guess it depends on one's perspective. For those of you who are Canadians, I guess snow does not seem all that majestic after a while. I think I would get depressed if I had to deal with snow all winter, or especially over half the year.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Here is the crop of the subject from the shot above with a little more exposure added to it:



Well done. The smirk on its face, makes it look like its feelings got hurt! Either that or it's cold...or it's slowly sniffing something out (perhaps a photographer?)...I can't tell.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Indeed, but that was not my point. If one buys a Ferrari, one does not put Enkei wheels on it...and then attempt a run to 200 mph.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Some people shoot wildlife only for fun or occasionally, so they would like a long lens but can't justify $12K for the 600/4 L.


----------



## Roo (Feb 14, 2014)

I picked up my copy today to replace my Sigma 150-500  I'll have to wait until tomorrow to test it out but my first impressions are

Like
Build quality is good
Switches have a positive feel
Zoom lock is nicer to use than Sigma
Focus limiter is a good inclusion
Zoom and Focus rings operate smoothly

Dislike
No 2 position VC (1 to allow panning)
No additional carry strap as per Sigma
No lens case
Sigma has a better tripod foot for holding.

I've added a couple of shots to compare the length against the Sigma. On the 5D3 its not that much bigger than the 60d/150-500 combo.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 14, 2014)

Amazon IT shipped mine today, although it still appears out of stock. I guess they're still catching up on preorders.

I should get it next week and put it to test in the weekend - with Scandinavian weather's collaboration.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 14, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



As much as I love my 400mm f2.8 IS II, I still couldn't figure out why the hood + case would cost $1300ish :

Maybe Neuro has the answer


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> As much as I love my 400mm f2.8 IS II, I still couldn't figure out why the hood + case would cost $1300ish :
> 
> Maybe Neuro has the answer



Well, I could launch into a discussion of supply and demand, and the higher retail cost of items produced in limited quantities (replacements for damaged/lost items only, with no real 'standalone' sales), the answer is probably quite simple.







That logo is just really darn expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

Roo said:


> No 2 position VC (1 to allow panning)



Does the Tamron 150-600 have automatic panning detection? I use 'mode 2 IS' quite frequently for birds, and it makes a difference.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I love my 400mm f2.8 IS II, I still couldn't figure out why the hood + case would cost $1300ish :
> ...



Of course


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > No 2 position VC (1 to allow panning)
> ...



I use Mode 3 IS on the Canon. The good thing about the Tammy is that there is no choice so it's never on the wrong setting.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Beyond that, the hoods are made out of carbon fiber, which isn't known to be cheap, but the suitcase, well that I can't explain. Also, be sure not to lose your lens cap because they don't give those away, either (for the old or new 600):


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



I seriously can't understand why the hood is as much as the case. The case...a bit overpriced perhaps, but I do understand why a high quality protective case can cost that much. Especially one custom engineered for a single lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> The case...a bit overpriced perhaps, but I do understand why a high quality protective case can cost that much. Especially one custom engineered for a single lens.



Well, sort of custom designed for a single case. Actually, the outer case is the same for the 400 II, 500 II, and 600 II, there's just a custom insert for each lens. Canon saved themselves some tooling costs with that move. That means with the 400 II and 500 II there's a fair bit of extra space - they incorporate a pair of 'holes' for the 1.4x and 2x TC's to use up that extra space in the cases for the 400 and 500, but not the 600.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes....indeed
Last time I checked, it wasn't dust proof ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Hmmmm, the new Tamron or the case and hood for the 400? Good thing those accessories come WITH the lens!!


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2014)

I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 14, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.



Personal choice, and fine for you if you don't want to adapt to that style when you change lenses.

Besides the horrible grammar an attitude towards the company & representatives, most of us seem to be fine adapting when switching lenses. I rented the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and it took me less than an hour to generally be used to it, and if I had used it regularly I'm sure I would have adapted as soon as I put the lens on.


----------



## Roo (Feb 14, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.



Over here locally made cars have indicator stalks on the right hand side of the steering column and I bought a euro car with the indicators on the left side but I've never driven down the street with the windscreen wipers unintentionally on because of it ( funny how they seem to say 'dumb guy, dumb guy, dumb guy' when you do that in the dry). Similarly, I've got the Tamron 17-50 and I can't say that the zoom ring going the opposite direction has ever caused me to miss a shot and I'm not expecting it to happen with this one either. It would be nice if it did rotate the same way as most ef mounts (don't forget Canon have push/pull zoom) but its very easy to adapt.

As for it being seriously flawed..

Is the product well built and work as intended? Yes. 
Does it allow you take good quality shots? Absolutely. 
Is it good value for money? Yes

So the product is not 'seriously flawed', maybe its just your expectations are. So while you continue to waste your time trolling Tamron, forums etc with your unrealistic expectations I'll be taking photos with my non flawed lens


----------



## candc (Feb 15, 2014)

I would like it if the zoom ring went the other way but I agree, its not that big of a deal. I normally set the zoom before I put my eye to the viewfinder anyway. When I visit au, I am the guy driving backwards on the roundabout with my windshield wipers on so if I can deal with the zoom ring direction then I think anyone can.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

Roo said:


> I picked up my copy today to replace my Sigma 150-500  I'll have to wait until tomorrow to test it out but my first impressions are
> 
> Like
> Build quality is good
> ...



Very interesting, I didn't realize the 150-500 didn't have a two mode IS. My Sigma 120-400 does have the two mode IS, and it also comes with a soft lens case. I believe they have the same tripod foot...and I agree it's very nice.


----------



## Surfwooder (Feb 17, 2014)

I've been shooting this lens for the last 21 days since I got the lens. I'm very satisfied with the lens itself, but I had a terrible finding a case for it. I finally found the Lowe pro case that fit. I also own the Tamron Sp 200-500mm, it came with a padded case. I was a little disappointed Think Tank does not have a case large enough for this lens. I did do a test shoot, with Tamron using a 1.4 Converter by Kenko, and a 2X by Tamron. On the 2X I lost AF, but had slow focus on the 1.4 extender. Actually, it what I expected on my 7D.


----------



## Somlu (Feb 17, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Somlu said:
> 
> 
> > I have got the lens 2 days back and am initially happy. Basically I don't expect an IQ equivalent to my 500 f4 . It is a very good lens for the budget. I opted for this because I am struggling with my old 100-400 over reach. Iq wise the new Tammy is almost as good as the 100-400 and the extra reach is welcome for a day to day use . The only thing I can complain is a little slower auto focus when it is focused on the other end. Ev en with flying birds I feel OK with the lens. This is an example of the flying rock pigeon with the exif data....
> ...



I normally use the 1dx with the 500 mk ii prime. Now this tamron is bought to serve the purpose of birding in the local park with my 5d mk iii for a lesser wt to carry .


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

Somlu said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Somlu said:
> ...



Ah, makes sense.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It works for me.


----------



## mpphoto (Feb 18, 2014)

Surfwooder said:


> I've been shooting this lens for the last 21 days since I got the lens. I'm very satisfied with the lens itself, but I had a terrible finding a case for it. I finally found the Lowe pro case that fit. I also own the Tamron Sp 200-500mm, it came with a padded case. I was a little disappointed Think Tank does not have a case large enough for this lens.



Which Lowepro case are you using, and are you storing the lens with the tripod collar on and the hood reversed? I'm looking for a case, and started a topic about it in another section of the forum.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 20, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users *me*, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.



I corrected your post 

BTW, I got mine today!

First of all, the build quality feels great to me. The feeling is certainly not inferior to my 24-70/4 L.

AI Servo on 5D3 works on ALL points, also the side ones. AF seems fine even now: 1h before dark, very grey day, shooting grey pidgeons. It's not as blazing fast as a f/4 or brighter L lens, but I would say that it should cut the cake.

I can't comment on tracking because of my (poor) skill. For me, like many others, this is the first 600mm experience.


----------



## Roo (Feb 20, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I din't need a 600mm lens and even if i did i would not consider the tamron lens, because tamron is not willing to equip their lenses in ef-version with matching zoomring anf focus ring rotation direction. As long as they make their lenses nikon style only Which causes lost shots for canon users *me*, i will not buy from them. I liked the optical quality of the tamron 17-50/2.8, but sold it after a few months for this reason and got the canon 17-55 instead. I also trll the tamron people at any tradeshow i visit, that their products are seriously flawed.
> ...



Agreed. I really enjoyed the lens first time out. It is no 600 f4 but it's still ideal for sports with the shots below taken on a very grey Melbourne day.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Roo said:


> Agreed. I really enjoyed the lens first time out. It is no 600 f4 but it's still ideal for sports with the shots below taken on a very grey Melbourne day.


Great shots, Roo.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. I really enjoyed the lens first time out. It is no 600 f4 but it's still ideal for sports with the shots below taken on a very grey Melbourne day.
> ...


+1


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



+1

@ Roo, On the second shot (of the lone batter) did you add any vignetting or is that the native vignetting that is inherent in the lens?


----------



## Roo (Feb 20, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> And think about what i wrote, every time you turn the zoom ring of your tammy 600 the wrong direction.



I do....everytime I need a good laugh  Happily the Tammy also has VC so I can laugh as much as I like without missing the shot ;D


----------



## Roo (Feb 20, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Thanks guys! The vignetting was added in lightroom along with some minor picture adjustments. The only sharpening that was done was on export for the screen.


----------



## cliffwang (Feb 20, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Enjoy your new lens and stay away from "correcting" my posts, otherwise i will have to chop your typing fingers off.
> And think about what i wrote, every time you turn the zoom ring of your tammy 600 the wrong direction.



LoL. I have no problem with the zoom ring direction of my Tomron 24-70 f/2.8 VC form the day one I got it. It's hard to believe people would make this simple mistake and cannot tell the differences between 150mm and 600mm.


----------



## candc (Feb 21, 2014)

there are a couple threads going on this lens here now. from what i have read it seems to me that pretty much everyone that is using the lens is generally pleased with it. anyone considering getting the lens should keep that in mind. first hand opinions of actual users are in my opinion more valuable than those comparing it on paper or in theory. i have been using it for a few weeks and wholeheartedly recommend it. the lens handles very well and will give you great results at the focal lengths and apertures that you will use it at. i am very pleased with the af accuracy, i have not had any problems with missed focus at all. I am really enjoying the new lens. here is one from yesterday. its from the mid focal length and about a 1/4 frame crop


----------



## justawriter (Feb 21, 2014)

Anyone know how long the backlog for the lens is? I ordered one a week ago from B&H and am trying not to be whiney about it. :'( On the plus side, I have decided to name it Tamronasaurus Rex. ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 21, 2014)

candc said:


> there are a couple threads going on this lens here now. from what i have read it seems to me that pretty much everyone that is using the lens is generally pleased with it. anyone considering getting the lens should keep that in mind. first hand opinions of actual users are in my opinion more valuable than those comparing it on paper or in theory. i have been using it for a few weeks and wholeheartedly recommend it. the lens handles very well and will give you great results at the focal lengths and apertures that you will use it at. i am very pleased with the af accuracy, i have not had any problems with missed focus at all. I am really enjoying the new lens. here is one from yesterday. its from the mid focal length and about a 1/4 frame crop



wow!

what body is that on?
did you do much PP clarity and sharpening?


----------



## HankMD (Feb 21, 2014)

candc said:


> there are a couple threads going on this lens here now. from what i have read it seems to me that pretty much everyone that is using the lens is generally pleased with it. anyone considering getting the lens should keep that in mind. first hand opinions of actual users are in my opinion more valuable than those comparing it on paper or in theory. i have been using it for a few weeks and wholeheartedly recommend it. the lens handles very well and will give you great results at the focal lengths and apertures that you will use it at. i am very pleased with the af accuracy, i have not had any problems with missed focus at all. I am really enjoying the new lens. here is one from yesterday. its from the mid focal length and about a 1/4 frame crop



Excellent capture and processing! Makes me wish mine would arrive sooner than "end of February or early March".


----------



## Roo (Feb 21, 2014)

candc said:


> there are a couple threads going on this lens here now. from what i have read it seems to me that pretty much everyone that is using the lens is generally pleased with it. anyone considering getting the lens should keep that in mind. first hand opinions of actual users are in my opinion more valuable than those comparing it on paper or in theory. i have been using it for a few weeks and wholeheartedly recommend it. the lens handles very well and will give you great results at the focal lengths and apertures that you will use it at. i am very pleased with the af accuracy, i have not had any problems with missed focus at all. I am really enjoying the new lens. here is one from yesterday. its from the mid focal length and about a 1/4 frame crop



Great shot


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 21, 2014)

justawriter said:


> Anyone know how long the backlog for the lens is? I ordered one a week ago from B&H and am trying not to be whiney about it. :'( On the plus side, I have decided to name it Tamronasaurus Rex. ;D



I think it has been called Big Ron but I wanted to call it Tankron. Tamrosaurus sounds good too


----------



## candc (Feb 21, 2014)

[/quote]

wow!

what body is that on?
did you do much PP clarity and sharpening?
[/quote]

that is taken on a 70d, its good on the 6d also but i mostly have been using it on the 70d. it gives you a lot of reach in a nice relatively small package. perfect for hiking. here are a couple more that i also posted on the other thread, one is 500mm the other is 600mm. the squirrel is dxo default conversion, the pheasant has some usm applied in dxo as well as some shadow boosting


----------



## lux (Feb 21, 2014)

Thanks for the sports photos. I'm trying to decide between a used 100-400 vs a new one of these. I would use it to take pictures of kids sports primarily but I do like to take pictures of eagles and other birds when they visit. I'd love to see more sports photos...football, soccer, rugby or any other field sports. I use a 6d center point focus.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

candc said:


> that is taken on a 70d, its good on the 6d also but i mostly have been using it on the 70d. it gives you a lot of reach in a nice relatively small package. perfect for hiking. here are a couple more that i also posted on the other thread, one is 500mm the other is 600mm. the squirrel is dxo default conversion, the pheasant has some usm applied in dxo as well as some shadow boosting


AWESOME! ... those are some of the best images I've seen from Tamron 150-600 VC, great sharpness and excellent bokeh. Thanks for sharing ... can't wait to get my hands on the Tammy.


----------



## Roo (Feb 25, 2014)

lux said:


> Thanks for the sports photos. I'm trying to decide between a used 100-400 vs a new one of these. I would use it to take pictures of kids sports primarily but I do like to take pictures of eagles and other birds when they visit. I'd love to see more sports photos...football, soccer, rugby or any other field sports. I use a 6d center point focus.



Welcome! I usually focus on the batsman's head in cricket so I tend to use the upper focus point rather than the centre. Over the next month mine will cop a solid workout - waterskiing, cricket finals, military airshow, f1 gp and hopefully some birding, so I'll more often than not use the centre point in those. So far I'm really happy with the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2014)

Roo said:


> Welcome! I usually focus on the batsman's head in cricket



Just like the fast bowlers.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

A colleague of mine, (a newbie in DSLR photography) needed some assistance to get the stuck filter on his EF-S 18-135 IS lens, so we went to the local Canon dealer (my office recently moved just 5 minutes walk from the Canon/Nikon/Tamron dealer ... me very happy) ... anyway, when we went to the store I was very surprised to find the Tamron 150-600 VC lens in display (apparently they've got 12 of them) ... usually in this country we receive new lenses a good 6 - 8 months after their release, so I was very pleasantly surprised to see this lens (also, this is an indication that this mighty Tammy is very popular even in this small country and that is the reason why the dealer here got them so quickly) ... anyway, the very customer friendly salesman (he's the one in the suit in the below pic) allowed me to play with the lens with his 5D MK III (unfortunately I was not carrying my camera, as it was meant to be a short visit to get the stuck filter off the lens ... so I don't have any sample images to compare).
Having played with the lens for about 10 minutes, these are my first impressions of Tamron 150-600 VC lens:
*1. *The AF, accuracy & speed are very very good (just as good as the EF 100-400 L IS)

*2. *Build quality is very poor in comparison to Canon EF 100-400 L IS (I don't think it will survive a fall) ... but considering its very low price and superb performance, I don't see how anyone can improve the build quality at that price point.

Unfortunately, the Tamron 150-600 VC lens price here (as usual) is very high i.e. US$ 1863 ... obviously I would not want to spend that kind of money on Tamron (despite its superb image quality, bcoz I am afraid that it may not last long due to its poor build quality) ... but ordering from USA at around US$ 1220 (1069+customs+shipping) sounds reasonable ... I was really excited about it for the past month or so, but after having held it in my hands, now I am in two minds :-\ ... my Sigma 150-500 OS has much better build quality then this Tammy and I know from my personal experience that lenses this big tend to get bumped into things very easily, so not sure if I want to spend US$ 1220 :-\ :-\ :-\

Anyway, here is an image made at the store with the Tamron 150-600 VC & Canon EF 100-400 L IS, next to each other ... compared to the Tammy the build quality of Canon is far superior. 

PS. Image below is made with a mobile phone, hence the great quality ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

wow!

what body is that on?
did you do much PP clarity and sharpening?
[/quote]

that is taken on a 70d, its good on the 6d also but i mostly have been using it on the 70d. it gives you a lot of reach in a nice relatively small package. perfect for hiking. here are a couple more that i also posted on the other thread, one is 500mm the other is 600mm. the squirrel is dxo default conversion, the pheasant has some usm applied in dxo as well as some shadow boosting
[/quote]

Nice work. So you prefer dxo to adobe?


----------



## Roo (Feb 25, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> *2. *Build quality is very poor in comparison to Canon EF 100-400 L IS (I don't think it will survive a fall) ... but considering its very low price and superb performance, I don't see how anyone can improve the build quality at that price point.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Tamron 150-600 VC lens price here (as usual) is very high i.e. US$ 1863 ... obviously I would not want to spend that kind of money on Tamron (despite its superb image quality, bcoz I am afraid that it may not last long due to its poor build quality) ... but ordering from USA at around US$ 1220 (1069+customs+shipping) sounds reasonable ... I was really excited about it for the past month or so, but after having held it in my hands, now I am in two minds :-\ ... my Sigma 150-500 OS has much better build quality then this Tammy and I know from my personal experience that lenses this big tend to get bumped into things very easily, so not sure if I want to spend US$ 1220 :-\ :-\ :-\



I'm a bit surprised at the build quality comment. I agree that the Canon 100-400 build quality is higher but then so is the price (50% higher here). However, I have owned the Sigma (sold it yesterday) and and had it side by side with the Tamron and I think the Tammy wins handsdown. Switches are recessed better into the barrel and feel more positive - the Sigma's always felt a bit loose and the white markings started wearing off them quickly. The barrel lock works better - no fiddling around with the zoom ring to lock it in place. The zoom ring itself is very smooth operating on the Tammy. The lens hood is also a nicer fit on the Tammy. The lens is plastic but it does feel solid.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 25, 2014)

I feel the build quality on the tamron is really good certainly better than the sigma big zooms with the old crinkle paint finish (yuck! I shudder just thinking about it), like i said before it feels like the 100 f2.8L IS on steroids
i do understand that most equate metal and heavy with good build quality but some of the more modern plastics 
are really excellent too and it keeps the weight down can you imagine how heavy it would be with a metal body?

I bet the canon replacement for the 100 to 400 has more weight saving plastic in it too


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

Roo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > *2. *Build quality is very poor in comparison to Canon EF 100-400 L IS (I don't think it will survive a fall) ... but considering its very low price and superb performance, I don't see how anyone can improve the build quality at that price point.
> ...


I cannot comment on your copy of the Sigma ... but I've owned the Sigma 50-500 (non-OS) and 2 Sigma 150-500 OS lenses (one for Canon and the other for Nikon) and all 3 of them had better build quality then the Tamron 150-600 VC I held today. Perhaps the all plastic construction makes it look weaker, so take my comments "with a pinch of salt", coz I only played with it for 10 minutes ... but those are my thoughts on Tamron 150-600 VC i.e. excellent AF & IQ, but poor build quality. Like I said before, this does make this lens any less, it is worth every single penny and more.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 25, 2014)

A lot of the "build quality" feeling is really subjective.

For example, I don't think my 24-70 f/4 L feels better than the Tamron. I also think that the new Sigma ART lenses have the highest subjective quality feeling after Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer full-metal lenses.


----------



## candc (Feb 26, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> wow!
> 
> what body is that on?
> did you do much PP clarity and sharpening?



that is taken on a 70d, its good on the 6d also but i mostly have been using it on the 70d. it gives you a lot of reach in a nice relatively small package. perfect for hiking. here are a couple more that i also posted on the other thread, one is 500mm the other is 600mm. the squirrel is dxo default conversion, the pheasant has some usm applied in dxo as well as some shadow boosting
[/quote]

Nice work. So you prefer dxo to adobe?
[/quote]

thanks, 
i do like dxo, i import with windows live photo gallery, then i open dpp, i use the quick check to go through rate and delete the photos i don't want, i like it because its super fast. then i will use dxo to convert the shots. lr seems cumbersome to me.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

candc said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > wow!
> ...



Nice work. So you prefer dxo to adobe?
[/quote]

thanks, 
i do like dxo, i import with windows live photo gallery, then i open dpp, i use the quick check to go through rate and delete the photos i don't want, i like it because its super fast. then i will use dxo to convert the shots. lr seems cumbersome to me.
[/quote]

Interesting. LR is good if you like the way they are in total control of the catalog and everything...I don't really like it, but I like the way it looks, the tools, the interface of it all when editing, etc. I may try DXO someday...I just don't like how they are biased against Canon in their tests, haha...


----------



## naturephotographer (Feb 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > No 2 position VC (1 to allow panning)
> ...



I was also curious about this so I contacted Tamron via their website and here is the response from Tamron USA:
------------------------------------- 

"Thank you for contacting Tamron. Unfortunately the lens does not have a specific mode for panning. Of course the VC will try to compensate for any movement when panning in any direction but not like it would on some Canon lenses. Actually I usually recommend turning VC off when panning the lens if you can; VC is beneficial for camera shake but it also makes focus lag just a bit.

If you have any questions please ask.

Kind regards,

Brian Marley
Customer Service Supervisor
Tamron USA, INC"


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 26, 2014)

naturephotographer said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



Well that's unfortunate. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks for posting, that's interesting to know.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 26, 2014)

My experience is that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II 4 stop IS is much, much better in mode 1 at freezing movement than is the Tammy. The shutter lag of the Tammy is, accordingly, less bothering, and I have found it negligible for big birds in flight. I use mode 3 for the Canon. At 600mm, I need 1/2000 for the Tammy _without_ IS or VC for it to be absolutely sharp 100% of the time.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> My experience is that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II 4 stop IS is much, much better in mode 1 at freezing movement than is the Tammy. The shutter lag of the Tammy is, accordingly, less bothering, and I have found it negligible for big birds in flight. I use mode 3 for the Canon. At 600mm, I need 1/2000 for the Tammy _without_ IS or VC for it to be absolutely sharp 100% of the time.



And what shutter speed do you prefer for the Canon with 2X TC in mode 3, for BIF? 1/1000? I've found that's not fast enough for small birds, but I guess that's not saying anything that's not obvious.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 27, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> A lot of the "build quality" feeling is really subjective.
> 
> For example, I don't think my 24-70 f/4 L feels better than the Tamron. I also think that the new Sigma ART lenses have the highest subjective quality feeling after Zeiss, Leica and Voigtländer full-metal lenses.


Absolutely, I totally agree that build quality is subjective. Like I said before, I am very impressed with its IQ and AF speed, but for my specific needs I am hesitant about Tammy's build quality.
Cheers


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > My experience is that the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II 4 stop IS is much, much better in mode 1 at freezing movement than is the Tammy. The shutter lag of the Tammy is, accordingly, less bothering, and I have found it negligible for big birds in flight. I use mode 3 for the Canon. At 600mm, I need 1/2000 for the Tammy _without_ IS or VC for it to be absolutely sharp 100% of the time.
> ...



Small birds are usually too fast for me at 600mm. Hovering birds of prey or lumbering heavyweights are what I can manage. And even for them the faster the better.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

AlanF said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Ok well you implied you didn't need 1/2000, so just wondered what speed you usually use.


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 27, 2014)

The Digital Picture has posted their initial test results.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9162


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> The Digital Picture has posted their initial test results.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9162



I have posted a series of links to different comparisons in the "Shallow review" thread


----------

