# Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

Unpacked my Tamron this morning. Basically, it handled just as predicted by the lensrental data and the other good data published. It focussed fast at 400mm and below, and a bit sluggish at 600 on both a 5DIII and 70D. The IQ performance at 400mm and below was at about the same as the 100-400L, which I have sold.

Now for the test that I have wanted to see: how does it compare at 600mm vs the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 2xTCIII. I AFMAd it on a 5DIII and took a couple of shots of an iso 12233 chart. The chart was illuminated by only a halogen lamp. Images from both lenses were treated the same way for processing from raw. The Tamron was set for f/6.3 at 1/400s iso 2500, and the 300x2 at f/5.6 at 1/500. For the pair in the next post, both were at f/8 and 1/250. These are 100% crops, which need downloading for comparison.

Here are the Tammy at/f6.3 (Top) and the Canon at f/5.6 (Bottom)


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

At f/8, Tammy at Top and Canon at Bottom.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

Finally, low resolution of the whole frame from each, Tammy on top as before. I was pretty close to the target, at about 8m. You can see that there is significant focus breathing with the Tammy at this close distant.

All in all, I am very, very impressed with the Tammy, and will be taking it on an extended visit to China next month for its convenience in both weight and size, as well as the zoom. It will be my standard travel lens for nature trips abroad.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 10, 2014)

Thanks for the test! 

However, if you want to measure optical performance on its own, it's always better to MF via live view


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Thanks for the test!
> 
> However, if you want to measure optical performance on its own, it's always better to MF via live view



And focus bracket, picking the sharpest images from each lens for comparison.

Adding my thanks, Alan - great info!


----------



## jrda2 (Feb 10, 2014)

Thanks for posting


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 10, 2014)

More valuable information. I know you were really diligent in trying to gather information before you pulled the trigger, so I'm glad that you are initially pleased with the lens.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 10, 2014)

so the difference in crop resolution is from focus breathing..... that´s quiet a bit.

how compares that on longer distances?


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 10, 2014)

Thanks for posting.
Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500. 
A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> so the difference in crop resolution is from focus breathing..... that´s quiet a bit.
> 
> how compares that on longer distances?


Lensrentals did proper testing of the MTFs of the Tammy with its rivals. They found that at longer distances the lens is a true 600mm.

By the way, I measured the relative aperture IQ using FoCal and found it to be sharpest at f/9 - f/11 on the 5DIII, at 600mm. f/8 is very close but sharpness drops off at 7.1 and much more so at f/6.3, consistent with all published data. On the 70D, maximum sharpness is reached by f/8 and doesn't change to about f/16. The lens performs well on the 70D but I will use the 5DIII as it easier to achieve better hand holding results by going to higher iso at f/8.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Thanks for posting.
> Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500.
> A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
> I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.



The lensrental measurements showed that the Tammy and the 100-400 are very close at 400mm. And I found the same. I have done the actual comparison of the Tammy at 400 and 600mm on the iso 12233 charts. The 400 shows far worse detail than at 600mm. The up sampled 100-400 image will in no way match the Tammy at 600mm. I bought the 300/2.8 II + TCs because the 100-400 didn't give me the resolution I wanted. The Tammy is a big leap forward - not as good as the 300 combo, but it gets much closer than the 100-400 did.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 10, 2014)

Comparing shots shown, I found the real focal length to be 504mm (I had to resize the canon lens shot to 84% to show same target size ) on this shooting distance. (If the 300mm+2x is real 600mm)


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The lensrental measurements showed that the Tammy and the 100-400 are very close at 400mm. And I found the same. I have done the actual comparison of the Tammy at 400 and 600mm on the iso 12233 charts. The 400 shows far worse detail than at 600mm. The up sampled 100-400 image will in no way match the Tammy at 600mm. I bought the 300/2.8 II + TCs because the 100-400 didn't give me the resolution I wanted. The Tammy is a big leap forward - not as good as the 300 combo, but it gets much closer than the 100-400 did.



I have both the 100-400 and the 300mm mk2 and I find the 100-400mm to be much closer to the 300mm + 2x than your results. 
I guess an upsampled tammy 400mm shot will show same or more details than tammy on 600mm wide open.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Comparing shots shown, I found the real focal length to be 504mm (I had to resize the canon lens shot to 84% to show same target size ) on this shooting distance. (If the 300mm+2x is real 600mm)



Oops - I made a stupid mistake. On checking the exifs I found the Tammy was set to 552mm, not 600. So, the breathing is not as bad as it seemed.

When the light gets better here, I'll take some more comparisons at the correct setting and lower iso.

Perhaps you have a bad copy of the 300mm if your 100-400mm is close to it?


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 10, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Oops - I made a stupid mistake. On checking the exifs I found the Tammy was set to 552mm, not 600. So, the breathing is not as bad as it seemed.
> 
> When the light gets better here, I'll take some more comparisons at the correct setting and lower iso.
> 
> Perhaps you have a bad copy of the 300mm if your 100-400mm is close to it?



Ok- looking forward to your results with lower iso. Hope you will upsample a 400mm shot as well.
And: No, my 300mm is very, very sharp. (upgraded from mk1 for comparison). And my 100-400mm is not close to it, but closer than yout tammy @600mm. Maybe your 100-400mm was a bad copy?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 10, 2014)

You could do a comparison. Print off the iso chart (you can find it on the internet) on A4 or US paper, and photograph it at a distance to give the same size image as I posted. Then photograph it with your 100-400 at the same distance and upsample it at 1.5x and compare.

I was only joking about your 300 being a bad copy - the lens is phenomenal.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanF said:


> You could do a comparison. Print off the iso chart (you can find it on the internet) on A4 or US paper, and photograph it at a distance to give the same size image as I posted. Then photograph it with your 100-400 at the same distance and upsample it at 1.5x and compare.
> 
> I was only joking about your 300 being a bad copy - the lens is phenomenal.


In that case I need to copy your exact distance, camera, camerasettings and PP settings as well. 
Also shooting at 2500 iso is meaningless if you are looking for details at 100% crops.
And printouts for test purpose? I dont find that to be suitable for high res comparisons.

Anyway, here is a 100% crop from my 100-400mm. raw file opened in fastone (no sharpening):


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 11, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Thanks for posting.
> Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500.
> A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
> I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.



when the tamy is a s good as the 100-400 until 400mm?
you think the 200mm more doesn´t add anything? unlikely i say.

from what i read the tamron nearly touches excellent levels at f8 @600mm?


----------



## lux (Feb 11, 2014)

Has anyone tried using the tammy to take pictures of field sports? I'd love to know how it was compared to the 100-400 or the 300 2.8 in a real life scenario.


----------



## candc (Feb 11, 2014)

thanks for the comparison alan, just the fact that there are comparisons being made says a lot for the tamron. something that cannot be overstated is the bargain price and how well it fits into a pack!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > You could do a comparison. Print off the iso chart (you can find it on the internet) on A4 or US paper, and photograph it at a distance to give the same size image as I posted. Then photograph it with your 100-400 at the same distance and upsample it at 1.5x and compare.
> ...



OK, use your set up and conditions and post a 100% crop from your 600mm combo and an upsampled one from your 100-400.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks AlanF. 

How do you find the AF for bird tracking (I know you shoot critters)? AF on Tamron lenses has been questionable in the past so it would be great if they have sorted this out in this lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

Hi Alan,

Thanks for sharing the images ... from whatever I read/saw so far, I am very impressed with the Tamron ... the fact that people are actually comparing it with lenses that cost far more, speaks volumes for the Tamron which costs just a little over $1000 ... looks like the third party manufacturers (especially Sigma & Tamron) have really stepped up their game. After the announcement of this Tamron lens, Nikon has recently dropped the price of their newest 80-400 VR II lens by $400.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



We know the Tammy is very good at [email protected] And also very good at 400mm wide open. Question is, Whats best: upsampled 400mm wide open vs 600mm wide open. Please show us! 
I cant see a comparison between my lenses (upsampled 100-400 vs 300mk2 +2xtc) can contribute anything. What I am saying is that my [email protected] f5.6 looks much sharper than your tammy @600mm f6.3 examples.
I agree the Tammy looks great at F8. But for me, f8 is not very useful. 
However, if tammy @ 600f6.3 gives more details in a 100%crop than an upsampled tammy 400f6.3, it start to be very intersting. Hope you can make the comparison!


----------



## TrabimanUK (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanF,

thanks for the images. I am now seriously tempted to get this lens instead of the 100-400 for the extra range at the lower price, as the image quality looks (for my needs) pretty damn good.

thanks again


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 11, 2014)

i try to buy it but amazon germany don´t have it.

two weeks ago there were a few resellers on amazon who offered the tamron. 
but since sunday there is none.

all other resellers i trust have it on backorder. 

i knew we should not have sold our family camera shop last year.
but i guess i would not get it faster then anyway.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Alan,
> ...


I hope so ... it'll be good for all of us ... but again we've been hearing about the 10-400 L rumoros for a veeeeeeeeery long time, with no end in sight


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i try to buy it but amazon germany don´t have it.
> 
> two weeks ago there were a few resellers on amazon who offered the tamron.
> but since sunday there is none.
> ...


This lens seems to fly off the shelves real fast ... I tried ordering it though my ex-boss, but between the time he added the lens to the cart and hit check-out, all the 16 lenses that were in stock (at the time of adding to cart) were sold out. Now the next available date is between 30 to 90 days 
The excellent quality vs its very low price seems to have made it a big hit.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Feb 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I wonder if this will push its price up?



by the way.... i noticed the nikon and sony mount is 200 euro more @ amazon.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 11, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i try to buy it but amazon germany don´t have it.
> 
> two weeks ago there were a few resellers on amazon who offered the tamron.
> but since sunday there is none.
> ...



Ha! I preordered mine a few days ago when Amazon Italy went crazy and had it for 1099€


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Lichtgestalt said:
> ...


I hope not.


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 11, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Thanks for sharing the images ... from whatever I read/saw so far, I am very impressed with the Tamron ... the fact that people are actually comparing it with lenses that cost far more, speaks volumes for the Tamron which costs just a little over $1000 ... looks like the third party manufacturers (especially Sigma & Tamron) have really stepped up their game. After the announcement of this Tamron lens, Nikon has recently dropped the price of their newest 80-400 VR II lens by $400.



I reckon that Sigma will drop the price of their 120-300/2.8 as well in due course.

Also second hand prices of Can/Nik 300/2.8 IS/VR should take a hit.

May even affect the pricing of a new 100-400/5.6 if it ever gets born. That would be good! It would serve Canon right for p*****g everybody off by keeping shtum about it.

Looking forward to see a photozone or photographylife detailed review of this great Tamron.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks Alan,

@ f8 and smaller, Tammy shows better IQ in 600mm. This is good news for those want long zoom & shooting at slower shutter speed. 

I'm no expert in BIF photography. Last time I tried, my shutter speed was in 1/2000ish.

F8 + 1/2000ish = ??? IQ


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 11, 2014)

I don't think the price of brand-name 300/2.8, the new 100-400 or the Sigma are going down.

Reading the reports, it seems that AI Servo on this lens only works well with newer cameras (i.e. 70D, 6D, 5D3, 1Dx) and, maybe except for the 1Dx, only with the central points. 

It's not clear at this point if it is a hardware (camera) or software (lens firmware) problem. We all hope that it is the second, especially if it is the reason why availability in Europe seems zero as of yet.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

The rain stopped and the sun appeared so I could go into the garden and do more systematic tests as requested.

These are not ultra accurate tests as done by TDP, but field tests. I set the 5DIII to iso 640, which is my standard for bird photography and often used by many of us as a compromise between noise and shutter speed. I deliberately choose the iso_12233 chart to be further away than used by TDP so the fine lines of the centre ring are just on the verge of being resolved - that way you can see more clearly the resolving power of a lens.

All are 100% crops. The raw files were downloaded into PS, which sharpens them all by 25 units. There is no noise suppression.

The first pair are at 400mm, f/5.6 at the top and f/8 in the middle. The fine outer circle lines cannot be resolved because they are at the Nyqvist limit - they don't span two pixels. No amount of upsampling will resolve them, and the bottom frame is the f/8 image upsampled to 600mm dimensions by x 1.5. 

The lens is very sharp at 400mm, but it can't reach the levels of its performance at 600mm for resolution, as will be seen later.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

Here are 500mm at f/6.3 (Top) and f/8 (bottom). The outer fine lines of the central circle can just be resolved as we have crossed the Nyqvist limit.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 11, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Thanks Alan,
> 
> @ f8 and smaller, Tammy shows better IQ in 600mm. This is good news for those want long zoom & shooting at slower shutter speed.
> 
> ...



LOL. Exactly. 

And AF?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

At 600mm the lines are well resolved at both f/5.6 (top) and f/8 (middle). The f/8 is a much better image. At the bottom is 600mm from the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III at f/5.6.

The difference between the Tammy at f/8 and the Canon at f/5.6 is not night and day, as claimed. And, the 400mm up sampled is not as good as the Tammy at f/6.3.

The focus was much quicker in use today with the limter set to 15-infinity and in good light. The problem with autofocus on older Canons is the fault of Canon as I have problems with their own lenses on the 7D, but not the 70D or 5DIII.


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 11, 2014)

Charts and real world are two different things but it kinda looks to me like the 300 2.8 with 2x turns in a bit better resolution the the Tammy at 600. But, the cost of the Canon is about 6x the Tammy. Tough call.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 11, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> Charts and real world are two different things but it kinda looks to me like the 300 2.8 with 2x turns in a bit better resolution the the Tammy at 600. But, the cost of the Canon is about 6x the Tammy. Tough call.


Alan, thank you for the excellent tests and I agree with JPAZ that Canon combo does resolve better, but only when truly pixel peeping. For the money, the Tamron is a fantastic lens, and if the IS, AF, and durability is decent, it's an absolute steal over the Canon combo that we both own. I won't be selling my 300 f/2.8 IS II anytime, but I could see myself using the Tamron for travel, for situations where the 300 simply isn't practical, and anytime the advantages of having zoom would outweigh the Canon combo.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Thanks Alan,
> 
> @ f8 and smaller, Tammy shows better IQ in 600mm. This is good news for those want long zoom & shooting at slower shutter speed.
> 
> ...



I hear you brother! 

The f/8 or narrower makes it a deal breaker for me. I typically shoot birds in a well wooded area. The foliage makes it difficult for me to keep ISOs under control with the f/5.6 aperture. It's all very well shooting in bright daylight but for the shooting I do, I'm yearning for f/4 or faster lenses ... f/8 just won't cut it even with the high ISO performance of the 5D3/6D


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > Charts and real world are two different things but it kinda looks to me like the 300 2.8 with 2x turns in a bit better resolution the the Tammy at 600. But, the cost of the Canon is about 6x the Tammy. Tough call.
> ...



The Canon combo does, of course, have the edge, and I love it. But, as you say, the Tammy is going to be my travel lens, and that is not damning it with faint praise - it is a very good lens indeed, and easier to tote around.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks for showing, also for the 400mm upscaled 
For me the tammy looks not good at 400mmf5.6. The Canon 100-400mm is clearly better here than your tammy results.
According to DPR the [email protected] has about same sharpness as 300mm [email protected] as shown here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
And this correspond to my findings.

So I'm still not convinced that the tammy will be worth an upgrade from 100-400mm as my travel lens.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Thanks for showing, also for the 400mm upscaled
> For me the tammy looks not good at 400mmf5.6. The Canon 100-400mm is clearly better here than your tammy results.
> According to DPR the [email protected] has about same sharpness as 300mm [email protected] as shown here:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> ...



1. You wrote when I asked you to compare my photos for with your own: "In that case I need to copy your exact distance, camera, camerasettings and PP settings as well." and "And printouts for test purpose? I dont find that to be suitable for high res comparisons."
You are therefore contradicting yourself as you have done precisely what you said shouldn't be done. Your manipulations by downscaling I think are meaningless.
2. You have also written: "I guess an upsampled tammy 400mm shot will show same or more details than tammy on 600mm wide open." The images I have posted show that your guess is wrong.

The only valid comparison for you to do is to compare your 100-400L directly with a Tamron under the same conditions, as you indicated. Lensrentals has done precisely that with two good copies of their 100-400 and two copies of the Tamron. They have virtually the same resolution measured by very careful Imatests. 

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

If you don't believe them, well that is your decision.

Added note: You edited your post after mine was first written, removing an uploaded image, and your original post is in my reply above. You have removed what I criticised. Do I now take it that you have withdrawn: "_Based on this I downscaled your C600f56 to 400mm (66.67%) to give a similar output as expected from 100-400mm. Then I upscaled the result by 45% to simulate an upscaled 100-400mm.
In this case the 100-400mm clearly outperform the tammy at 600 f6.3. 
See enclosed image. "
_


----------



## lycan (Feb 11, 2014)

Another review:

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

not MTF charts or any kind of lab stuff. In the field review, and the photos are simply amazing. Don't forget it's $1000 worth of 600mm..


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 11, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Added note: You edited your post after mine was first written, removing an uploaded image, and your original post is in my reply above. You have removed what I criticised. Do I now take it that you have withdrawn: "_Based on this I downscaled your C600f56 to 400mm (66.67%) to give a similar output as expected from 100-400mm. Then I upscaled the result by 45% to simulate an upscaled 100-400mm.
> In this case the 100-400mm clearly outperform the tammy at 600 f6.3.
> See enclosed image. "
> _


If you look at the timestamps you will see I removed the line and image before you or anyone else responded.
Because I saw my own wrong scaling example after posting. Also the image didnt showed up as expected (half was cutted away). So yes you can take it as a withdrawn. 
I have no interest in a fight. I am like others and you, also interested in the tammy as an upgrade for the 100-400mm. And I do believe the tests that show the tammy to be very good wide open at 400mm. And mediocre at [email protected] But your test image of the tammy @ 400mm f56 is really bad compared to my 100-400mm.
So it must be that 1. you copy is not good at 400mm f56 or 2. You did something wrong during the test.
However the 400f8 looks good, and this was the one you upscaled. Comparing this image With the T600f63 is a bit difficult because the different lightning. The left side is clearly sharper on the upscaled image, otherwise the tammy looks a bit better, but none of them are acceptable.
I hope I have time to do a comparison between my 100-400 and 300mm +2x tomorrow, and see if that can make us any wiser.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> Charts and real world are two different things but it kinda looks to me like the 300 2.8 with 2x turns in a bit better resolution the the Tammy at 600. But, the cost of the Canon is about 6x the Tammy. Tough call.



Only a tough call if you don't need f/2.8 @ 300mm.  If you don't, then it's an easy call...Tammy all the way. If you do, well, then it's still an easy call: You get the 300 f/2.8!


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Alan,
> ...



Owning a 600mm f/4 lens myself, I can tell you that you are often limited by too-thin DOF than you might expect. At 600mm, an f/4 aperture results in VERY THIN DOF. Quite often too thin. Unless you are photographing particularly large birds (which seems unlikely in a wooded area), even if you owned a 600mm f/4 lens you will find yourself somewhere between f/5.6 to f/8 often enough anyway. It does help having f/4 as an option, and when you really get down to the wire (near sunset in a wooded area) then you open up and deal with the DOF issues regardless.

But having an f/4 lens does not necessarily mean you are always shooting at f/4.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Thanks for showing, also for the 400mm upscaled
> For me the tammy looks not good at 400mmf5.6. The Canon 100-400mm is clearly better here than your tammy results.
> According to DPR the [email protected] has about same sharpness as 300mm [email protected] as shown here:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> ...



I rented a 300/2.8 L II in 2012, before I purchased a 600mm f/4 L II myself. In my own conclusions, the 300/2.8 II + 2x TC III was on par with the 100-400mm @ 400/5.6. In some cases, however, it still offered better IQ, because ultimately the quality of background blur is dependent upon ENTRANCE PUPIL size and shape. No matter how you slice it, the entrance pupil of a 600mm lens is always going to be larger than a 400mm lens, at all aperture settings, which means smoother boke. To me, the quality of the background blur is a critical factor to bird photography...smoother, cleaner background blur has no replacement. The 300/2.8 II + 2x always produced better boke, which put it at a higher rank than my 100-400mm lens.

It is also important to point out that artificial lens tests using test charts can never show you such a thing...the difference in boke quality. If your comparing lenses, it is important to make sure you take in all the information. Alan's artificial tests are wonderful, but they shouldn't be the sole source of information that you use to make the decision between a 300/2.8 and the 150-600. There ARE other factors to consider *in addition to* test chart samples. 

(As a side note, I'd be willing to bet that the CA on the 150-600 is worse than the CA on the 300/2.8 II + 2x TC III, which can also be a factor. I remember there being practically ZERO CA on the 300+2x combo when I tested it...in many of the samples of the 150-600 I've seen, CA (both transverse and longitudinal) can be a problem on the Tamron even center frame.)


----------



## candc (Feb 11, 2014)

the only complaints i have are that i think the tripod foot is too small, you can only carry it with 2 or 3 fingers and you have to lock it all the time or it will extend.
other than that i think its great and does exactly what i got it for. it gives you great reach in a zoom, especially on a crop body. it is better stopped down to f/8 and will give you very good results at 500 and 600, here are 2 shots of our favorite subject at those focal lengths


----------



## candc (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> JPAZ said:
> 
> 
> > Charts and real world are two different things but it kinda looks to me like the 300 2.8 with 2x turns in a bit better resolution the the Tammy at 600. But, the cost of the Canon is about 6x the Tammy. Tough call.
> ...



that's a great point, i don't have the 300ii but i have the sigma 120-300 sport. i don't see myself using that lens with the 2x extender anymore but rather using it for what its best at and designed for, 120-300 f/2.8


----------



## Scimitar (Feb 12, 2014)

This guy did some hands on on the Tammy 150-600. 
http://chewyenfook.smugmug.com/Photography/Tamro-150-600-VS-Canon-400mm/36134215_3P9q3W#!i=3030095385&k=Q6n39TN


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 12, 2014)

has anyone compared or is able to compare this new tammy @600 vs the canon 300 f4L IS +2x TC mk3
i think it would be interesting


----------



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

jrista said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Ha ... I didn't think about that ... Thanks Jon!

I do my birding with the 100-400 right now and being limited to 400mm and f/5.6, I've not run into any serious DOF concerns - that will sure change with a supertele as you quite rightly point out above. The 100-400 isn't the sharpest of lenses and combined with super high ISOs, my pictures turn out too soft and lacking detail - I usually blame high ISOs for the lack of detail and noise and hence my cringing for a faster lens. 

I've used the 600 only a few times but that was for shooting shore birds in reasonable light so I could stop down happily without any concern over the ISO. 

Jon, a large section of the buyers of the Tammy will end up using them on the APS-C cameras where diffraction sets in real early - sometimes as soon as f/6.3. If you were to stop down to f/11, how much do you think the images will suffer in sharpness?


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2014)

J.R. said:


> a large section of the buyers of the Tammy will end up using them on the APS-C cameras where diffraction sets in real early - sometimes as soon as f/6.3. If you were to stop down to f/11, how much do you think the images will suffer in sharpness?


I did that test several days ago....
Here are the unprocessed bit-level crops for the Tamron 150-600 at various Fstops using a 60D

F11 is ever so slightly better than F8


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2014)

candc said:


> the only complaints i have are that i think the tripod foot is too small, you can only carry it with 2 or 3 fingers and you have to lock it all the time or it will extend.
> other than that i think its great and does exactly what i got it for. it gives you great reach in a zoom, especially on a crop body. it is better stopped down to f/8 and will give you very good results at 500 and 600, here are 2 shots of our favorite subject at those focal lengths


Is that all you bought the lens for? Squirrels?


----------



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

Don Haines said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > a large section of the buyers of the Tammy will end up using them on the APS-C cameras where diffraction sets in real early - sometimes as soon as f/6.3. If you were to stop down to f/11, how much do you think the images will suffer in sharpness?
> ...



Indeed they look better. I'm now tempted to try one when it becomes available in India. 

BTW, I'm yet to see your cat photos with this lens


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 12, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...


Funny you should say that..... Pixel peeping, 600mm, F9, with a 60D....


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

J.R. said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Aye, I always used the 100-400 at f/7.1 once I realized it was softish at f/5.6 and f/6.3. With a 7D, that really exacerbated issues with noise. Having the option of f/4 is certainly helpful for that. Keep in mind, you can get the 500/4 L II at a pretty significant discount to the 600mm f/4, and still have the option of using it at 700/5.6 and 1000/8 if you need to. It's a great middle-ground option when you can't afford the extra $2000+ for the 600mm.




J.R. said:


> I've used the 600 only a few times but that was for shooting shore birds in reasonable light so I could stop down happily without any concern over the ISO.



I'd say the 600mm is the best lens on earth for shorebirds. At low perspectives (i.e. laying on the sand of a beach, lens on a ground-level pod of some kind) gets you the most exquisite background blur you'll ever see. The 500mm will do much the same, if you need the cost savings, but the 600mm can't be beat for shorebird work.



J.R. said:


> Jon, a large section of the buyers of the Tammy will end up using them on the APS-C cameras where diffraction sets in real early - sometimes as soon as f/6.3. If you were to stop down to f/11, how much do you think the images will suffer in sharpness?



This is the diffraction myth. Diffraction is diffraction, it is the same regardless of the sensor. The difference in pixel size simply means your imaging the lesser effects of diffraction sooner, but that does not make the effect worse. Diffraction is purely optical, so whether you are using a FF sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a small 4/3rds sensor with even tinier pixels, you should really NEVER worry about diffraction.

Read this:
http://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/

So, technically speaking, stopping down to f/11 is stopping down to f/11...the ultimate result on IQ in reach-limmited scenarios (same lens, different cameras, same subject distance) is roughly the same regardless of FF vs. APS-C (technically, APS-C would actually have the edge, barring blurring from other factors...i.e. the 7D has a stronger low pass filter than the 5D III, which mitigates _some _of the benefit of having smaller pixels, but not entirely.) Smaller pixels will always give you a cropping advantage, and the more you stop down, the returns offered by those smaller pixels simply diminish until they offer no benefit over larger pixels (but at no point would smaller pixel EVER be "worse" than larger pixels from the standpoint of diffraction...noise is another matter.)


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 12, 2014)

candc said:


> the only complaints i have are that i think the tripod foot is too small, you can only carry it with 2 or 3 fingers and you have to lock it all the time or it will extend.
> other than that i think its great and does exactly what i got it for. it gives you great reach in a zoom, especially on a crop body. it is better stopped down to f/8 and will give you very good results at 500 and 600, here are 2 shots of our favorite subject at those focal lengths



Those are great looking shots candc.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 12, 2014)

Thanks for this comparison... It is certainly one I was very interested in seeing... I would love the 300 f/2.8, especially because most of my wildlife shots are in dimly lit conditions, and with a TC it has good IQ also. But the price is a little out of my reach... The tamron is a tempting solution, but still not won over by it... hmmmm, Well done Tamron, you have given a lot us pause to think!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2014)

lycan said:


> Another review:
> 
> http://www.sumeetmoghe.com/2014/02/field-testing-bigron-aka-tamron-150.html
> 
> not MTF charts or any kind of lab stuff. In the field review, and the photos are simply amazing. Don't forget it's $1000 worth of 600mm..


Thanks for the link - amazing photos! If I didn't own the 300 + 2x already, those photos alone would sell me on this lens. Wow!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Another review:
> ...



Yes those are nice photos.

*And thanks to AlanF for posting the test shots!* I would prefer to see the chart larger still somehow, to better show differences. The Tamron obviously is not close to the Canon combo in the outer 40% of the image, but it seems relatively close in the middle 60%, so that's really saying something for the Tamron. 

However, from looking at the-digital-picture crops and comparisons (I spent some time doing it...and not just with a couple of lenses), I think it's safe to say that...the 300 f/2.8 ii, is really hampered by the 2x iii TC, compared to what it can do by itself at 300mm (from the perspective of resolution on the sensor alone...not when taking magnifying subjects at a long distance into account). I don't think there is another lens in the world that is sharper, regardless of focal length. 

If you look at the crops in the test and compare the 300 + 2xTC iii, with the 200-400 with its internal TC switched in, the 200-400 and the 600 + 2xTC iii combo, are very...very close, even to the periphery. So that's saying something for the 200-400, as well.

Neither is all that close to the 600 f/4 ii, but both seem to be tons better than the old 600 f/4 (at least going by the sample shots). Yet the 600 f/4 ii, is also not all that close to the 300...at its native 300. The 500 f/4 ii, seems similar to the 600. 

Makes me wonder what the future holds for Canon...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Read this:
> http://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/
> So, technically speaking, stopping down to f/11 is stopping down to f/11...the ultimate result on IQ in reach-limmited scenarios (same lens, different cameras, same subject distance) is roughly the same regardless of FF vs. APS-C (technically, APS-C would actually have the edge, barring blurring from other factors...i.e. the 7D has a stronger low pass filter than the 5D III, which mitigates _some _of the benefit of having smaller pixels, but not entirely.) Smaller pixels will always give you a cropping advantage, and the more you stop down, the returns offered by those smaller pixels simply diminish until they offer no benefit over larger pixels (but at no point would smaller pixel EVER be "worse" than larger pixels from the standpoint of diffraction...noise is another matter.)



Jon
Beautiful webpage - thanks for the link. The so-called diffraction limit isn't a hard barrier but lowers resolution slowly as the aperture is narrowed through it. To reinforce and paraphrase what you have elegantly argued, at wide apertures, the crop sensor of the same number of megapixels as FF gives better resolution than full-frame because the pixels are 1.6x1.6 times smaller. But, when the disk of light caused by diffraction is larger than the pixels, the size of the disk limits resolution and the crop loses its resolution advantage.


----------



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

jrista said:


> This is the diffraction myth. Diffraction is diffraction, it is the same regardless of the sensor. The difference in pixel size simply means your imaging the lesser effects of diffraction sooner, but that does not make the effect worse. Diffraction is purely optical, so whether you are using a FF sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a small 4/3rds sensor with even tinier pixels, you should really NEVER worry about diffraction.
> 
> Read this:
> http://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/
> ...



Thanks for the link. Pretty good points. 

I ran across this post by Roger Cicala at lensrentals blog. He comes up with roughly similar findings using narrow apertures on a D800 - 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/overcoming-my-fentekaphobia


----------



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

AlanF said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Read this:
> ...



That is a good succinct summary ... Thanks Alan


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

Here are the relative aperture sharpness plots from FoCal for the Tamron at 600mm on the 70D (Top) and 5DIII (Bottom). You can see the 70D, if anything, retains its sharpness with aperture better! I did the 5DIII measurements 3 times and got optimal values of f/9/, f/10 and f/11. Keep between f/8 and f/14 for maximum sharpness.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Another review:
> ...



+1 - Those are some amazing, amazing photos and the guy has a great writing style. One of the best practical reviews that I have read on the lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


That's a lot of very useful info Jon ... thanks for sharing.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Here are the relative aperture sharpness plots from FoCal for the Tamron at 600mm on the 70D (Top) and 5DIII (Bottom). You can see the 70D, if anything, retains its sharpness with aperture better! I did the 5DIII measurements 3 times and got optimal values of f/9/, f/10 and f/11. Keep between f/8 and f/14 for maximum sharpness.



You know, I've noticed that with my 7D and FoCal. There sometimes seems to be a jitter, where as FoCal moves through the apertures, it doesn't exhibit the kind of smooth curve you would expect. If I retest a few times, then it will usually get back to normal, and finally produce the smooth curve I'm looking for. I don't know why that happens...always bugged me about FoCal.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2014)

Alan, as you move beyond the test charts and such, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the more subjective comparisons between the Tamron & Canon combo - things like AF speed, color, contrast, bokeh, and general handling of the lenses. 

Also, I just realized that the Canon has a huge advantage in polarizer use. I'm sure you can find a big one for the Tamron, but you certainly can't adjust it like you can with the drop in CPL on the Canon.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> I hope I have time to do a comparison between my 100-400 and 300mm +2x tomorrow, and see if that can make us any wiser.



Download the following image and look at full screen (1920x1080).
You see four 100% center crops: 
Top: from 7D iso 200 (My test shots from today)
Bottom: from 5d3 iso 640. (Alans crops)
Top left: Canon 300 f2.8 IS MK2 + 2xTCIII wide open.
Top right: Canon 100-400mm @400mmf56 and upscaled to 600mm.
Bottom left: Canon 300mm f2.8 is mk2 + 2x TCIII wide open
Bottom left: Tammy @600mm f6.3

Can an upscaled (to 600mm) 100-400mm wide open shot give same details as the Tammy?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

Superficially, your upscaled credit card from the 100-400 (x1.5) looks as good as the image from the 300 f/2.8 II plus 2xTC III. That is because you look at the thick black lines etc that dominate. But, look at the elements with fine detail. I have cropped the ACE sections from the image from the 300+2xTC and the (100-400)x1.5, which have fine detail on the black background. You can see that the fine detail is lost in the upscaled 100-400. (Download to see clearly).


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I have time to do a comparison between my 100-400 and 300mm +2x tomorrow, and see if that can make us any wiser.
> ...



Um, simple answer is, NO! Your upscaled 400mm sample is soft all over. You can CLEARLY see it in the text, in the gray watermark, in the ACE logo, in the black box with text in it. There is absolutely no question, the upscaled 400mm shot doesn't compare to the 600mm shot. 

There isn't any way to slice this such that a 400mm lens could win, not when the Tamron resolves as well as it does at 600mm. If the Tammy was particularly BAD, then maybe, but the Tammy is NOT bad...it's quite good for it's relative position in the broader scope of DSLR lenses. At non-diffraction limited apertures like f/5.6 and f/6.3, even the EF 400mm f/2.8 L isn't going to outdo the Tamron. At this point, thanks to the Tamron's good resolving power, it all boils down to pixels on subject. For the same sensor used at the same distance to subject, longer focal lengths will always produce sharper results than upscaled shorter focal lengths. No way around that.

The only way the 400mm could compare to any 600mm, when they all offer decent resolving power, is when you normalize framing, rather than maintaining subject distance. If you move the 400mm setup closer such that the credit card fills the frame in exactly the same way as a more distant 600mm, then your putting the same number of pixels on subject. If the two lenses offer similar resolving power, the results should be largely indiscernible. But if you can get closer with a 400mm, you wouldn't need a 600mm...so it kind of defeats the point of the argument. In reach-limited scenarios, more optical magnification is pretty much always going to be better unless the longer lens is of radically poor design or uses particularly poor quality glass.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Superficially, your upscaled credit card from the 100-400 (x1.5) looks as good as the image from the 300 f/2.8 II plus 2xTC III.


What?!! 
Did you look at the image in full view? If you cant see the day/night difference between the 300mm +2xtc and 100-400 upscaled, then you really need some glasses or a new monitor.... 
But thats not what I want to show. My question is: is the upscaled 100-400 as good as a tammy can be at 600mm wide open? 
I would never replace my 300mm+2x combo with tammy. But can the tammy replace my 100-400mm as a travel lighter/smaller package? For me, it looks like the tammy only gives better results than an upscaled 100-400mm if you shoot at f8. And thats a turn off for me.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...


I do not deny that the upscaled 100-400mm is soft all over. Compared to the excellent 300mm+2x combo it is bad. But is it more soft than the tammy wide open as shown in the lower right side? 

A very sharp quality lens can outresolve a lens with longer FL. Of course it can! Or do you say that a sharp 590mm never can outresolve a soft 600mm lens? And if thats possible, is it any magic limit where this is not possible anymore? 
Have you tried digiscoping with a cheap telescope (800mm) and compared the results with a 600mm? What do you think resolves best?

You may be surprised but my 300mm+2xTCIII @F6.3 upscaled to 700mm outresolves my 500mm is mk1 + 1.4xIII. (Using my 7D)


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

Upscaling doesn't outresolve anything (not even the original image) because the new pixels are created by interpolation and not by resolution. Software can't create detail. It can guess it, it can sharpen to fake it, etc.

So your question is rather: can a good upscaling software produce better results than a soft longer lens? Yes, maybe, to a certain extent depending on how bad the longer lens is. And it is quite apparent that the Tamron is not that bad at all.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

DxO rates the Tammy better than the 100-400 in the range where they overlap:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



I don't believe it is valid to compare the upper and lower left. Two entirely different scenarios. You can only compare results when the results are produced under identical circumstances. This is made clear by the fact that the Top Left is CLEARLY sharper than the Top Right, and both of those examples were shot under the same circumstances. You cannot dismiss the clear advantage of the Top Left Tammy because the Lower Right Tammy is an entirely different setup...the Lower samples are comparable to each other, but not to the Upper samples. 



Pit123 said:


> A very sharp quality lens can outresolve a lens with longer FL. Of course it can! Or do you say that a sharp 590mm never can outresolve a soft 600mm lens? And if thats possible, is it any magic limit where this is not possible anymore?



If the 600mm lens had really bad optics, yes, a 590mm lens could outresolve it. I actually said as much. But that isn't the case. Both the Tammy 150-600 and Canon 100-400 have good optics. Neither of them are bad, they are on par with each other, the Tammy actually has the edge. So no matter how you slice it, the 400mm lens isn't going to be outresolving the 600mm lens. 

Lets assume that 600mm had worse optics than the 400mm lens. The difference in focal length is 150%, however when it comes to magnification, a 600mm lens enlarges subjects 2.25x more than a 400mm lens. The difference in magnification is the square of the ratio beetween the focal lengths. That means that, for a 600mm lens to perform WORSE than a 400mm lens thats been cropped and upsampled...it would have to perform SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Such a circumstance is highly unlikely.



Pit123 said:


> Have you tried digiscoping with a cheap telescope (800mm) and compared the results with a 600mm? What do you think resolves best?



Your comparing dissimilar lens designs now. A spotting scope is designed for optical use. Field curvature, spherical aberration and other optical aberrations are usually not corrected, or corrected to a far lesser degree than with photographic lenses. 

I'm assuming we are comparing similar lens designs...to be precise, photographic lens designs. To be even more explicit, Canon EF mount lens designs, although the same rules would apply if you compared Nikon brand and offbrand lenses for the Nikon F mount, etc. 

We aren't talking about digiscoping. Were talking about DSLR camera lenses. Mathematically, a 600mm lens puts 2.25x as many pixels on subject as a 400mm lens. Your 600mm lens would have to be so bad as to completely counteract that 2.25x magnification advantage to produce worse results than an upsampled 400mm lens. The chances of that occurring are very low, especially in the increasingly competitive marketplace that exists for DSLR lenses. 



Pit123 said:


> You may be surprised but my 300mm+2xTCIII @F6.3 upscaled to 700mm outresolves my 500mm is mk1 + 1.4xIII. (Using my 7D)



I'd need to see evidence of that. You claim the EF 100-400mm outresolves the Tammy 150-600mm, when it clearly does not. Either your 500mm lens needs tuning to recenter a misaligned element, or your 1.4x TC does.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> DxO rates the Tammy better than the 100-400 in the range where they overlap:


For bird/wildlife photo, I would look at other criterias than dxomark when rating a lens.

100-400 is clearly sharper in center wide open at 400mm. And is able to give really quality sharpness (green)
Tamron is not. And it is quite soft at 600mm, even stopped down to f8. A deal breaker for me.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > DxO rates the Tammy better than the 100-400 in the range where they overlap:
> ...



You have to weigh all these factors in the face of the 600mm lens' 2.25x greater magnification, though. Even if the Tammy isn't as sharp wide open at 600mm as the Canon is at 400mm, the difference is clearly NOT enough to overcome the increase in magnification. When your goal is to improve your reach, magnification is everything. Magnification accounts for the vast majority of the IQ increase, because it results in more pixels on subject.

The Tammy would have to be deep red in all of those maps in order for it to perform worse than the upscaled 400mm...but it isn't red...it's yellow-green in most cases, and and even orange in one case. The evenness of those maps indicate that the 600mm has a pretty flat field and a fairly normal response center to corner. That's actually a good trait...means you know the lens will perform roughly the same midframe or even towards the edge as it does in the center. It also means that applying sharpening in post (a super easy way to increase acutance) will affect most of the frame in the same way...with the Canon, the center will end up oversharpened while the midframe and edge get sharpened the way they need to (which, as it turns out, is generally the case...I used the 100-400 for years before I purchased the 600mm f/4 II.)

When it comes to differences in focal length, magnification is the primary difference. All other differences are secondary unless they are particularly severe. This is the danger that relying solely upon DXO-type lens tests and measurements to compare lenses poses. There is a LOT more to a lens than how they compare on DXO (or any artificial lens test for that matter...DPR's test results aren't any different...they would tell you the same thing, and it would be just as incorrect.)


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Superficially, your upscaled credit card from the 100-400 (x1.5) looks as good as the image from the 300 f/2.8 II plus 2xTC III.
> ...



You have deliberately edited my post to make it look as if was saying the opposite of what I did. Here is my full post:


AlanF said:


> Superficially, your upscaled credit card from the 100-400 (x1.5) looks as good as the image from the 300 f/2.8 II plus 2xTC III. That is because you look at the thick black lines etc that dominate. But, look at the elements with fine detail. I have cropped the ACE sections from the image from the 300+2xTC and the (100-400)x1.5, which have fine detail on the black background. You can see that the fine detail is lost in the upscaled 100-400. (Download to see clearly).


 
Is that an honest thing to do?


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit, I am afraid you are confusing sharpness (in terms of subjective contrast perception), resolving power and acutance.

Acutance and contrast are the easiest to increase in post processing. Virtually not an issue at all, besides spending a bit more time in LR.

The resolving power is what you can't make up, and the reason why upscaling an image is pointless unless you're going to print it bigger than you should and you merely need the pixels. You want a lens that resolves detail so that then you can bring it out. The Tamron does that.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

jrista said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For the same sensor used at the same distance to subject, longer focal lengths will always produce sharper results than upscaled shorter focal lengths. No way around that.
> ...


 
I found the high desnity sensor on 7d are able to pull out more details from the 300mm combo than the 500mm combo. I did the same test with my 1d4, but got the opposite results. Because it has a lesser demanding sensor (lower pixel density), hence the 500mm combo resolved better.

I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080. 
Short distance:


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

Long distance:


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Sorry if I offend you. 
Your first comment (the one I quoted) was so amazing that I didnt really read the rest, or didnt see your point 
And I never intend to claim an upscaled 400mm to be comparable to the canon 300mm +2x. If you looked at the image in full screen you should immediately see the BIIG difference. But you obviously did not, hence my comment.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Alan, as you move beyond the test charts and such, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the more subjective comparisons between the Tamron & Canon combo - things like AF speed, color, contrast, bokeh, and general handling of the lenses.
> 
> Also, I just realized that the Canon has a huge advantage in polarizer use. I'm sure you can find a big one for the Tamron, but you certainly can't adjust it like you can with the drop in CPL on the Canon.



Mac
The 300mm f/2.8 II is generally considered to be one of, if not the, finest lenses available. It is optically as good as you can get and built like a lightweight tank with phenomenal AF. It is going to remain the main lens for me when I travel in the UK for bird photography. It is so good that something 80% as good will be good enough to give stunning results. And that is where the a tamron stands. The Tamron is easier to handle being 1 to 1.5 lb lighter, depending on TCs, and very nicely balanced. It is also smaller and fits into a smaller bag, as well as being more versatile. So, it will be my travel lens, and it will give great results and bring much pleasure to many.

I hope soon to use it in real action rather than charts.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



Of course I saw the full image - I posted some crops from it and surely it must be obvious to anyone that to crop you have to download the JPEG, open it in PS or LR etc.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 12, 2014)

the 300mm f2.8 is yours for 6000-6500 euro.

people should be happy that they can get the quality the tamron offers for 1100 euro.
i don´t get why some people in some forums try to bash the tamron.

all reviews says the tamron is as good as the 100-400mm.

but of course some people who never touched the tamron can tell that this is not true.
maybe 100-400mm owners who can´t stand the facts?

as always i believe people with first hand experience not some pixelpeeper on forums.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 12, 2014)

> You have to weigh all these factors in the face of the 600mm lens' 2.25x greater magnification, though. Even if the Tammy isn't as sharp wide open at 600mm as the Canon is at 400mm, the difference is clearly NOT enough to overcome the increase in magnification. When your goal is to improve your reach, magnification is everything. Magnification accounts for the vast majority of the IQ increase, because it results in more pixels on subject.



suprisingly that´s hard to understand for some photogs.

i too know a few who think upsampling creates more DETAILS.
must be CSI and all this crap who makes them believe that.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. Resolving power is resolving power. A 500mm lens resolves more detail than a 300mm lens, because it's resolving it at a higher magnification, plain and simple. It magnifies your subject 2.78x more. That is even more than the difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens. Additionally, the 2x TC introduces more of it's own optical aberrations than the 1.4x TC. There is no way that the 300mm + 2x will ever outresolve the 500mm + 1.4x. Just plain aint going to happen.



Pit123 said:


> I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.
> Short distance:



I'm not really sure what your saying about the distances. Were they at the exact same distance, or was the 600mm combo closer? If you normalized framing, then the comparison is invalidated, as the 600mm combo would effectively be putting the same number of pixels on subject...when the 600mm combo used at the same distance should be putting fewer pixels on subject. Either way, your own example shows the 500mm+1.4x is sharper than 300mm+2x. The 700mm combo is pretty crisp, you can clearly see the effect of the 2x TC on the 600mm combo.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> > You have to weigh all these factors in the face of the 600mm lens' 2.25x greater magnification, though. Even if the Tammy isn't as sharp wide open at 600mm as the Canon is at 400mm, the difference is clearly NOT enough to overcome the increase in magnification. When your goal is to improve your reach, magnification is everything. Magnification accounts for the vast majority of the IQ increase, because it results in more pixels on subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah...LOL, damnable CSI and all their magical video zooming and resolution fabrication crap.  It's like that device from Blade Runner that allowed him to extrapolate content from within that one room by extracting detail out of tiny reflections and what not...the Infinite Resolution Device. Oh, but were it true!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2014)

The series III Canon extenders will not physically fit onto the Tammy - not that I would really want to use a TC on it. You will have to use a 3rd party TC.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. Resolving power is resolving power. A 500mm lens resolves more detail than a 300mm lens, because it's resolving it at a higher magnification, plain and simple. It magnifies your subject 2.78x more. That is even more than the difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens. Additionally, the 2x TC introduces more of it's own optical aberrations than the 1.4x TC. There is no way that the 300mm + 2x will ever outresolve the 500mm + 1.4x. Just plain aint going to happen.


The difference in magnification between 600mm and 700mm is 1.16x.
So I have to upsample the image by 1.16x to give the same image. The same effect as putting a 1.16x TC on it. How you translate this to 2.78x more magnification is just simple stupid.
How much magnification gives a 1.4x tc?
How much more magnification gives a 18mp 1.6 crop camera vs a 18mp FF.
And how can you claim the magnification between 400 and 600 to be more than 2x?.
It is 1.5x. Nothing more, nothing less.
I just ask since you don’t seem to understand what we talk about here.



Pit123 said:


> I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.
> Short distance:





jrista said:


> I'm not really sure what your saying about the distances. Were they at the exact same distance, or was the 600mm combo closer? If you normalized framing, then the comparison is invalidated, as the 600mm combo would effectively be putting the same number of pixels on subject...when the 600mm combo used at the same distance should be putting fewer pixels on subject. Either way, your own example shows the 500mm+1.4x is sharper than 300mm+2x. The 700mm combo is pretty crisp, you can clearly see the effect of the 2x TC on the 600mm combo.



Read again. The first example image was taken from approx 10 meters, The other example was taken from 943 meter (about 3000 feet). Would it make sense to change the distance depending on lens used if I try to demonstrate the effect of upscaling a very sharp lens vs a lens with more FL? No, Of course not. I said I can upscale the 300mm+2x combo to show similar (or even better details than the 500mm+1.4x combo). 
I guess you had to ask because you cant believe your own eyes here. 

Did I say that the upscaling will add details compared to original image? Of course not. 
But its much easier to compare lenses with different lens mm when the one is upsampled to the other lens mm. Or you can downsample the other. But downsampling will loose details. Upscaling will remain the details already there.

How can you clearly see the effect of the 2x? Explain? What you can see is the effect of the upscaling.
But even after upscaling, the 300mm+2x, shows at least similar details, especially in the long range image.
But also on the hair detail in the short range.

I have both lenses, and have compared them a lot. 

And now back original question: Is it possible that a sharp 100-400mm centercrop upscaled by 1.5x can match a confirmed soft Tamron @ 600mmf63. Im quite sure its a closer match than many people here seems to believe. 
If anyone read this as bashing the Tamron, then they have a problem I think.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. Resolving power is resolving power. *A 500mm lens resolves more detail than a 300mm lens, because it's resolving it at a higher magnification, plain and simple. It magnifies your subject 2.78x more.* That is even more than the difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens. Additionally, the 2x TC introduces more of it's own optical aberrations than the 1.4x TC. There is no way that the 300mm + 2x will ever outresolve the 500mm + 1.4x. Just plain aint going to happen.
> ...


You should follow your own advice about reading again… : I bolded the relevant part to make it a little easier for you.

The 2.78x mag in context was comparing 500mm vs. 300mm. (500mm ÷ 300mm)2 = 2.78x magnification. The linear magnification (1.67x) is squared - maybe your still images have only one dimension, most people's have two. 




jrista said:


> It's like that device from Blade Runner that allowed him to extrapolate content from within that one room by extracting detail out of tiny reflections...


That sounds a lot like the MIT camera that can take pictures around corners by recording the reflections of light off surfaces that normally aren't considered reflective.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Why are you introducing the 300mm vs 500mm? I talked about 600mm vs 700mm?
Why introduce lens mm I didnt show and then talk about the "magnification" between these. 

And regarding magnification:
Why do I have to upscale the 600mm by only 1.16x (16%) to get the same "reach" from the 600 as the 700mm?
With your theory, I would have to upscale by 1.36x, and that is just confused rubbish.
There is no point to think magnification as number of pixels in this scenario.

Just think at the image as one simple rectangel. Increase the size ( or diagonal) by 16%, and then you have the difference between 600 and 700mm. Exactly the magnification as putting a 1.16x TC on.


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but that's completely illogical. Resolving power is resolving power. A 500mm lens resolves more detail than a 300mm lens, because it's resolving it at a higher magnification, plain and simple. It magnifies your subject 2.78x more. That is even more than the difference between a 400mm and 600mm lens. Additionally, the 2x TC introduces more of it's own optical aberrations than the 1.4x TC. There is no way that the 300mm + 2x will ever outresolve the 500mm + 1.4x. Just plain aint going to happen.
> ...



LOL! I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about!  There is a very simple mathematical formula that proves it. 

Sorry, but 1.5x is the ratio of focal lengths. The ratio of magnification is the ratio of focal lengths SQUARED!!!! You have to SQUARE the ratio of focal lengths, because lenses resolve in *two* dimensions!


```
(600mm/400mm)^2 = 1.5^2 = 2.25
```

The FoV is 1.5x smaller in _both _the horizontal and vertical...meaning 600mm FoV covers 2.25x less total area than the 400mm lens, but that 2.25x less total area is enlarged to fill the same sensor area....it has 2.25x GREATER MAGNIFICATION!

As for 2.78x, that was the ratio of area between 500mm and 300mm:


```
[code](500mm/300mm)^2 = 1.67^2 = 2.7889
```

So a 500mm lens magnifies it's subjects about 2.8x more than a 300mm lens! That's a pretty significant difference. 

BTW, MAGNIFICATION is the factor we want here, rather than the simple ratio of focal lengths, because the number of pixels on subject is relevant in those _same two dimensions_. You enlarge the subject both horizontally and vertically _relative _to the sensor frame. That means you *put more pixels* on any given area of subject detail in both the horizontal and vertical.



Pit123 said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.
> ...



Sorry, but there is absolutely NO way that either one of those sample credit card photos was taken from 3000 feet away. That is the better part of a mile. Neither of those lenses has that kind of resolving power. Not even REMOTELY close to that kind of resolving power. LOL I don't know what your smoking, but you need to double check your facts. Like you need to double-check your understanding of what magnification is and why it matters.

Three thousand feet...and it somehow resolved just as good as something photographed from about 33 feet away? HAH! Bullsh*t!! Bull. Sh*t.



Pit123 said:


> Did I say that the upscaling will add details compared to original image? Of course not.
> But its much easier to compare lenses with different lens mm when the one is upsampled to the other lens mm. Or you can downsample the other. But downsampling will loose details. Upscaling will remain the details already there.
> 
> How can you clearly see the effect of the 2x? Explain? What you can see is the effect of the upscaling.
> ...



You are comparing different results taken under entirely different circumstances. Scientifically, that is invalid. You can only compare results taken under the same circumstances. You trying to compare your credit card samples to AlanF's chart samples is invalid. You can't make any kind of reasonable comparison between those two disparate data sets. 

You can only legitimately compare YOUR OWN two samples, or Alan's TWO samples, but you cannot cross-compare them. Using only your two samples, you yourself have proved that the Tamron is markedly sharper than the upsampled Canon 100-400mm. MARKEDLY. I mean, plain as day, I could probably cut my fingers on the razor-sharp text in the Tamron sample, and sooth my bleeding fingers on the Canon sample, kind of difference here. If you can't see that, then you might want to get your eyes checked, because you are either exceptionally nearsighted, or particularly farsighted.

If you want to compare the Tamron with the 300/2.8 + 2x, then you need to do that test yourself with the exact same credit card, under the same lighting conditions, with the card at the same angle, imaging the same region of the card, so the results can all be DIRECTLY compared. Since you have not done that, then we really can't know what the relative difference between all three lenses is. We don't have a single complete data set that covers all three lenses tested under identical circumstances. 



Pit123 said:


> And now back original question: Is it possible that a sharp 100-400mm centercrop upscaled by 1.5x can match a confirmed soft Tamron @ 600mmf63. Im quite sure its a closer match than many people here seems to believe.
> If anyone read this as bashing the Tamron, then they have a problem I think.



First fact your getting wrong: The Tamron is NOT "confirmed soft". It is tested (not sure why, I need to check with Alan about those results) "softer than" a 300mm f/2.8 L II PRIME. But that does not mean it is confirmed soft in general. Relative vs. absolute. Important distinction there. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, the Tamron is softer than the 300/2.8. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, according to your own results (!!!) the Tamron is sharper than the 100-400. Your own samples of the credit card PROVE that the Tamron is relatively sharper than the Canon.

Oh, and it's still a magnification ratio, i.e. a resolving power difference, of 2.25x. Your missing a VERY fundamental optical concept here that conforms to a very simple mathematical formula:


```
(LongerFL/ShorterFL)^2 = MagRatio
```


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2014)

Tamron soft Pit123? That is unfounded, unsubstantiated drivel. Here are the acutance tests done by DxO. The first is the Tamron at 400mm f/5.6 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is just as sharp in the centre of the field and its sharpness extends more to the edges. This is not just a one-off result, lensrental measurements are in exact agreement.

The second (bottom) is the Tamron at 600mm f/8 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is as sharp at 600mm as the Canon is at 400 at the centre, and it is much better at the edges.


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Tamron soft Pit123? That is unfounded, unsubstantiated drivel. Here are the acutance tests done by DxO. The first is the Tamron at 400mm f/5.6 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is just as sharp in the centre of the field and its sharpness extends more to the edges. This is not just a one-off result, lensrental measurements are in exact agreement.
> 
> The second (bottom) is the Tamron at 600mm f/8 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is as sharp at 600mm as the Canon is at 400 at the centre, and it is much better at the edges.



This makes so much more sense. Which beggs the question, where in the world did he get the previous DxO measurement diagrams that showed the Tamron was so bad? Something really smells like rotten fish here...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> This makes so much more sense. Which beggs the question, where in the world did he get the previous DxO measurement diagrams that showed the Tamron was so bad? Something really smells like rotten fish here...


Those were for the 7D, these are the 5DIII.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2014)

Both the 100-400 and the Tammy are much worse on the 7D than on the 5DIII, as shown by DxO. I was surprised how much better my 100-400 became when I upgraded to the 5DIII. It's the old story - crop sensors need sharp lenses. If the Tammy is considered as "confirmed soft" at 600mm on the 7D, then I am afraid the 100-400 is also "confirmed soft" as well. 

The Tammy wins on the 5DIII

see: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-5D-Mk-III-Good-overall-IQ

On the 7D it is much closer.

see: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-vs.-Sigma-150-500mm-f5-6.3-APO-DG-OS-HSM-vs.-Canon-EF100-400mm-f4.5-5.6L-IS-mounted-Canon-EOS-7D

"_The same three lenses tested on the Canon EOS 7D reveal similarly that the Tamron is the better performer overall_."


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If the Tammy is considered as "confirmed soft" at 600mm on the 7D, then I am afraid the 100-400 is also "confirmed soft" as well.


And the Zeiss Otus 55mm is "confirmed soft" on the 7D as well, LOL:


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2014)

Jon
I see you have a 5DIII or 7DII on your buy list to replace your 7D. Your 600mm is so sharp that it doesn't take the crop hit, but the 100-400 does. I forked out on the 300mm f/2.8 because my 100-400 wasn't sharp enough on the 7D, and there was a huge leap in resolution with the 300/2.8 + 2xTC. Have you tried the 5DIII? It won't be as good for your astro-photography as the 7D but for nature photography its better IQ with colour shading and noise handling compensates for the loss of reach. I'll be using the Tammy with the 5DIII and not the 70D.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.
> ...



Can you read at all? : 



Pit123 said:


> I give you two examples: one from short distance (10meters), the other 948 meters from subject (according Google maps). Download and show in full size 1920x1080.



Obvious not, so why do I bother…



jrista said:


> You are comparing different results taken under entirely different circumstances. Scientifically, that is invalid. You can only compare results taken under the same circumstances. You trying to compare your credit card samples to AlanF's chart samples is invalid. You can't make any kind of reasonable comparison between those two disparate data sets.
> You can only legitimately compare YOUR OWN two samples, or Alan's TWO samples, but you cannot cross-compare them. Using only your two samples, you yourself have proved that the Tamron is markedly sharper than the upsampled Canon 100-400mm. MARKEDLY. I mean, plain as day, I could probably cut my fingers on the razor-sharp text in the Tamron sample, and sooth my bleeding fingers on the Canon sample, kind of difference here. If you can't see that, then you might want to get your eyes checked, because you are either exceptionally nearsighted, or particularly farsighted.
> 
> If you want to compare the Tamron with the 300/2.8 + 2x, then you need to do that test yourself with the exact same credit card, under the same lighting conditions, with the card at the same angle, imaging the same region of the card, so the results can all be DIRECTLY compared. Since you have not done that, then we really can't know what the relative difference between all three lenses is. We don't have a single complete data set that covers all three lenses tested under identical circumstances.


We had one common setup: the canon300mm + 2xtc combo.
Alan invited me to test the same combo against the upscaled 100-400mm to show how it compared to the 300mm combo.
Just for an indication to see if they are far apart or not. Nothing more. 
And have I concluded anywhere that the upscaled 100-400mm gives more details than the Tammy? 
Have you the Tammy? Can you contribute for anything here at all?


Maybe you can tell me how much more magnification 7d will give than your 1dx on a subject shooting from same distance with same lens mm?
According to your theory, the 7d has 2.56x more magnification than 1dx. 
Wow! So you need a 2,56x tc do compensate for the lack of reach? Do you? 



Pit123 said:


> And now back original question: Is it possible that a sharp 100-400mm centercrop upscaled by 1.5x can match a confirmed soft Tamron @ 600mmf63. Im quite sure its a closer match than many people here seems to believe.
> If anyone read this as bashing the Tamron, then they have a problem I think.





jrista said:


> First fact your getting wrong: The Tamron is NOT "confirmed soft". It is tested (not sure why, I need to check with Alan about those results) "softer than" a 300mm f/2.8 L II PRIME. But that does not mean it is confirmed soft in general. Relative vs. absolute. Important distinction there. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, the Tamron is softer than the 300/2.8. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, according to your own results (!!!) the Tamron is sharper than the 100-400. Your own samples of the credit card PROVE that the Tamron is relatively sharper than the Canon.



Again, you have problem withe the Reading: The Tammy is confirmed *soft @ 600mmf6.3*. Also compared to any L tele from Canon including 100-400mm. Especial on a high pixel sensor. Even the cheap 55-250mm is much sharper than the Tammy at the longest end. From edge to edge. 

Do you deny that? And please read again before you try to prove otherwise: *Soft @600mm wide open*. 
Maybe not so soft that a sharp [email protected] center crop can be upscaled and show same details. But I GUESS its not far off. 
I would love to replace my 100-400mm with a Tammy if someone could show me that it gives me valuable more details on the subject shooting at f6.3.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Tamron soft Pit123? That is unfounded, unsubstantiated drivel. Here are the acutance tests done by DxO. The first is the Tamron at 400mm f/5.6 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is just as sharp in the centre of the field and its sharpness extends more to the edges. This is not just a one-off result, lensrental measurements are in exact agreement.
> 
> The second (bottom) is the Tamron at 600mm f/8 vs the 100-400 at 400 f/5.6. The Tamron is as sharp at 600mm as the Canon is at 400 at the centre, and it is much better at the edges.



SOFT WIDE OPEN AT 600mm. Do I need to repeat myself 100 times!!


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 13, 2014)

Pit, is there any supernatural being that ordered you to hijack this thread and divulge endless nonsense? You've been given both theoretical and mathematical explanations, what are you after at this point? What do you want to hear? I, for one, would like to go back OT.


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Jon
> I see you have a 5DIII or 7DII on your buy list to replace your 7D. Your 600mm is so sharp that it doesn't take the crop hit, but the 100-400 does. I forked out on the 300mm f/2.8 because my 100-400 wasn't sharp enough on the 7D, and there was a huge leap in resolution with the 300/2.8 + 2xTC. Have you tried the 5DIII? It won't be as good for your astro-photography as the 7D but for nature photography its better IQ with colour shading and noise handling compensates for the loss of reach. I'll be using the Tammy with the 5DIII and not the 70D.



I have indeed tried the 5D III, a local wildlife photographer was kind enough to let me try his out on a few occasions when we randomly met up out in the wild. I've been very impressed with it.

I am pretty doubtful I'll be buying the 7D II, even if it hits the streets with every feature I expect. I do landscapes as well, and I also do astrophotography. The 5D III is better for both of the latter, and as you have said, it isn't quite as demanding on the optics. I am still very interested in seeing how the 7D II pans out, and I don't doubt it would kick the crap out of the 5D III in resolving power...but if it is anything like the 7D, it will definitely require more meticulous technique in order to extract the same kind of IQ.

Someone also brought up one aspect of the 7D that I have noticed and very much don't like: It has a "waxy" sheen to it's images. I honestly don't know why...AA filter? Weaker CFA? Both? Whatever it is, it is a particularly frustrating aspect of the 7D, especially at higher ISO settings. I am a little bummed to be dropping back to 6fps, but the 5D III has so much more dynamic range at higher ISO settings that there really isn't any contest. Even if the 7D II lands with 28ke- to 30ke- FWC, that is still less than HALF the FWC of the 5D III. I find myself working at ISO 1600 and up more and more often these days, even with the 600/4 II.

So yeah, I guess I should probably edit my signature and get rid of the 7D II. The 5D III is just a far more versatile, more capable camera. Plus, I can mitigate the reach difference with a 2x TC and f/8 AF if I really need it, so there really isn't any loss in the number of pixels I can put on my subjects.


----------



## jrista (Feb 13, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You are comparing different results taken under entirely different circumstances. Scientifically, that is invalid. You can only compare results taken under the same circumstances. You trying to compare your credit card samples to AlanF's chart samples is invalid. You can't make any kind of reasonable comparison between those two disparate data sets.
> ...



Well, you seem to sort of get it now. To determine the difference in pixels per area (magnification factor for sensors) between the 1D X and the 7D, you need to factor in pixel pitch, rather than crop factor. Crop factor is a constant based on total area of each sensor. Since FF and APS-C always have the same total areas regardless of pixel pitch, using crop factor is insufficient to determine the REAL magnification difference that smaller pixels can offer.

In the case of the 1D X, you have 6.95µm pixels, or an area of 6.95^2µm: 48.3µm^2. The 7D has 4.3µm pixels, or an area of 4.3^2µm: 18.49µm^2. Again, because were working in two dimensions here, it's not a linear scale, you can fit 48.3/18.5 7D pixels into one 1D X pixel. That comes out to 2.61x 7D pixels per 1D X pixel. You would need a 2.6x TC in in order to completely normalize the crop difference between the 7D and 1D X, all else being equal.

I mean, seriously...this isn't complicated stuff. It's rather basic geometry: *Two *dimensions. All pixels have two dimensions. You can't compute a simple scalar linear difference between pixel pitch (a ONE dimensional measure) or focal lengths (again, a ONE dimensional measure) and assume "that's it!". Images are resolved in two dimensions, across the horizontal and vertical height of the sensor. Regardless of whether you reduce FoV or reduce pixel size, its all still in two dimensions. So, you have to square whatever scalar measure your working with in order to determine the real two-dimensional difference.



Pit123 said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > And now back original question: Is it possible that a sharp 100-400mm centercrop upscaled by 1.5x can match a confirmed soft Tamron @ 600mmf63. Im quite sure its a closer match than many people here seems to believe.
> ...



You could show yourself. Just rent the lens for a couple days, and compare. It is doubtful that the softness of the Tammy @ 600/6.3 is going to be enough to make it worse than the Canon @ 400/5.6. You just keep ignoring the fact that the Tammy is magnifying the subject so much more. You would have to have a SIGNIFICANT loss in resolving power at f/6.3 in order to completely obliterate that 2.25x greater resolving power.

You should really go look up a few things on optics and lenses. You keep using scalar (one dimensional) differences in lenses to compare them. A longer lens reduces the angular field of view. I assume you do know what area is (width * height). A 400mm lens has a 4.1°x2.73° AoV (relative to a FF 36x24mm sensor frame). A 600mm lens has a 2.73°x1.816° AoV (again, relative to FF frame). If we just take those angles as width and height dimensions, we have 4.1 * 2.73 and 2.73 * 1.816, or 11.193 and 4.958. If we divide 11.193 by 4.958, what do we get? We get 2.25756!! The area of a 600mm lens is 2.26 times SMALLER than the 400mm lens. In other words, the 600mm lens sees a 2.26x smaller region of your subject than the 400mm lens. However, the 600mm lens is projecting that smaller angle of view onto the exact same 36x24mm sensor area. That means its smaller region is being enlarged more...THAT is magnification.

The difference between a 600mm lens and a 400mm lens is a 2.26x magnification factor. The 600mm lens would have to be 2.27x softer in order for it to produce worse results than the upsampled 400mm frame.

Personally, I doubt that the 600mm is that soft at f/6.3. It isn't as sharp as humanly possible at f/6.3, but it would need to be pretty bad in order to be WORSE than an upsampled 400mm lens (which, BTW, is not resolving perfect detail at f/5.6 itself, which means our 600mm lens would have to be 3x worse at least at f/6.3 in order for it to be softer than an upsampled 400mm.)


----------



## Draco3D (Feb 13, 2014)

The difference in length is only 1.5x,but you get more than 1.5x pixels on the subject.If you dont belive others,try to shoot something with 600mm,then from same spot with 300,crop out the same object(card,whatever)and see how much MP the image is.It will be more than 2x.Just tried out,from same spot,at 18mm the object is 0,5MP,at ~36mm(2x) 1,9mp(nearly 4x).Just a 1min "test",but thats what others talking about when saying magnification/pixels on subject.
The Tamron is softer at 600mm,but not that much.If it's that soft,then why don't upscale the Tamron from 400mm(little better than the C100-400)i don't think Tamron made it 600mm just for the number.

I think what worth a look is where the Tamron lose the wide open sharpness between 500-600mm.From lensrental test,its pretty sharp at 500mm(sharper than 50-500 at 400mm)


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 13, 2014)

jrista said:


> Well, you seem to sort of get it now. To determine the difference in pixels per area (magnification factor for sensors) between the 1D X and the 7D, you need to factor in pixel pitch, rather than crop factor. Crop factor is a constant based on total area of each sensor. Since FF and APS-C always have the same total areas regardless of pixel pitch, using crop factor is insufficient to determine the REAL magnification difference that smaller pixels can offer.
> 
> In the case of the 1D X, you have 6.95µm pixels, or an area of 6.95^2µm: 48.3µm^2. The 7D has 4.3µm pixels, or an area of 4.3^2µm: 18.49µm^2. Again, because were working in two dimensions here, it's not a linear scale, you can fit 48.3/18.5 7D pixels into one 1D X pixel. That comes out to 2.61x 7D pixels per 1D X pixel. You would need a 2.6x TC in in order to completely normalize the crop difference between the 7D and 1D X, all else being equal.
> 
> I mean, seriously...this isn't complicated stuff. It's rather basic geometry: *Two *dimensions. All pixels have two dimensions. You can't compute a simple scalar linear difference between pixel pitch (a ONE dimensional measure) or focal lengths (again, a ONE dimensional measure) and assume "that's it!". Images are resolved in two dimensions, across the horizontal and vertical height of the sensor. Regardless of whether you reduce FoV or reduce pixel size, its all still in two dimensions. So, you have to square whatever scalar measure your working with in order to determine the real two-dimensional difference.


Well, its obvious too complicated for you! 

1dx=FF =18 MP, 7D=1.6 crop= 18MB
So the only and simple difference between them is the 1,6x crop factor. In this case you don’t even need to calculate the pixel pitch on each.( Because they have the same mp) Hence if you put a 1.6x TC on the 1dx you will have the same amount of pixels on the subject as the 7D. You claim 2.6x TC. That means you are so way off. Sorry man!
Another example: 7D vs 5DIII
According to your calculation you have to put a 2.1x TC on the 5d3 to compensate for the extra pixel density on 7D.
That is also far off. I think many people can confirm that the correct number is a 1.45x TC.
Come on guys! If you don't have the balls and confirm this, I am lost!
Just compare 100% crops from the 5d3 with a lens + 1,4 tc and a 7d with same lens. They will show almost the exact same magnification. Please confirm (if you have the balls), so I once and for all can say that his magnification “math” is wrong!


----------



## ifp (Feb 13, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> Have you the Tammy? Can you contribute for anything here at all?



You said it. You don't own it, and you've rejected the postings that are contrary to your opinions from owners of the lens.



jrista said:


> In the case of the 1D X, you have 6.95µm pixels, or an area of 6.95^2µm: 48.3µm^2. The 7D has 4.3µm pixels, or an area of 4.3^2µm: 18.49µm^2. Again, because were working in two dimensions here, it's not a linear scale, you can fit 48.3/18.5 7D pixels into one 1D X pixel. That comes out to 2.61x 7D pixels per 1D X pixel. You would need a 2.6x TC in in order to completely normalize the crop difference between the 7D and 1D X, all else being equal.



Wouldn't that be a sqrt(2.6)x teleconverter? Every teleconverter I've seen lists their focal length multiplier, meaning a 2x teleconverter puts 4x the pixels on a target.

Back to the topic, I'm interested in AI Servo performance of the Tamron. I really want to try to get a hold of this lens for a trip in March, but I'm a bit concerned by the varying stories I've read regarding AF in servo mode. I have a 6d so for it center point is really all that matters. I would like to purchase a 5d3 eventually though, so if the lens is not going to behave well for other AF points (I've read it's fine and I've read it's useless except for the center point) that's a bit of useful data to consider.


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you seem to sort of get it now. To determine the difference in pixels per area (magnification factor for sensors) between the 1D X and the 7D, you need to factor in pixel pitch, rather than crop factor. Crop factor is a constant based on total area of each sensor. Since FF and APS-C always have the same total areas regardless of pixel pitch, using crop factor is insufficient to determine the REAL magnification difference that smaller pixels can offer.
> ...



If I have the balls, eh? LOL

Math is math. It doesn't lie. 

Now, you've changed things up a bit here, by throwing the 5D III into the mix. You've also switched from a 2x TC to a 1.4x TC!! The 5D III pixel pitch is 6.25µm, vs. the 1D X 6.95µm. That means the magnification difference between the 5D III and 7D will be different than the magnification difference between the 1D X and 7D. So, what do you want...a test with the 1D X and a 2x TC or a test with the 5D III and a 1.4x TC? You can't keep mixing and matching things. 

In the case of the 5D III. The scaling difference is 6.25^2/4.3^2, or 2.11. A 5D III with a 1.4x TC and a 7D, with the same lens, will produce roughly identical results. The 5D III technically needs a 1.5x TC, however in reality the 7D has a slightly strong AA filter. So in the end we can call it even. A cropped 5D III w/ 1.5x TC and a 7D using the same lens to image the same subject from the same distance will resolve the same amount of detail per pixel when viewed at 100%. That's what the math says. This isn't a crop factor thing. Framing doesn't matter a wit. You could assume both sensors are infinitely large if you wanted to, because "crop factor" has nothing to do with resolved detail at 100%. All that matters is the difference in pixel size.

Here is a picture that demonstrates this concept in two dimensions, with the math broken down on a per-area basis for 7D vs. 5D III pixels:







Were not just talking pure math anymore. Here it is spelled out in literal geometric terms that are TO SCALE. The orange represents a 7D pixel (it is exactly 430x430 pixels in size). The blue represents a 5D III pixel (it is exactly 625x625 pixels in size). I've drawn two orange lines extending out from the lower right corner of the 7D pixel to show where the neighboring 7D pixels would lie on the actual sensor die. The area of those three blue boxes, now, represents the portions of EXTRA 7D pixels that will be resolving detail at a finer level than the single 5D III pixel. The total area of those three blue boxes is 20.5725µm. The total area of one single 7D pixel is 18.49µm. That means a total of 1.113 more 7D pixels *in addition to* the full pixel shown in orange, are being used to resolve detail that falls into the area of a SINGLE pixel in the 5D III. If you add the 1 pixel for the orange, and the 1.113 additional pixels, you have 2.113. The 7D resolves 2.113x more detail than than the 5D III in reach-limited scenarios. 

This 2.113x pixels is basically the same thing as increased lens magnification. You would need a lens that produces a similar magnification difference. That comes down to *sqrt(pixelRatio) * focalLength*. If you have a 400mm lens on the 7D, you would need a 581mm focal length on the 5D III (_sqrt(2.113) * 400_). Break that down to actual lenses, you need a 600mm lens on a 5D III to compare to a 400mm lens on a 7D. In the case of the 1D X, you need a sqrt(2.61) * 400, or 646mm lens to compare to a 400mm lens on a 7D.

In full color, mathematics and geometry, all spelled out for you. This isn't some kind of joke. It isn't a misunderstanding. This isn't just pure abstract theory. This is how it works. If you really need me to, I can produce a diagram showing the geometry for different focal lengths, and prove why a 600mm lens enlarges subjects by 2.25x vs. a 400mm lens. It's all the same general stuff.

Just to make absolutely certain we are on exactly the same page, this is the case when two different cameras are used with the same lens, _*at the same distance*_. That is not the same as shooting the same subject with the same lens and different cameras with *the same framing*. In the same framing case, the only thing that matters is total pixels. The 5D III will win hands down over the 7D every single time because it has more pixels. In the case of the 1D X vs. 7D, there wouldn't be much difference, with the exception of the 7D's strong AA filter which will cause it to be softer.


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

ifp said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you the Tammy? Can you contribute for anything here at all?
> ...



You are correct. That should actually read:

"That comes out to 2.61x 7D pixels per 1D X pixel. You would need a 1.6x TC in in order to completely normalize the crop difference between the 7D and 1D X, all else being equal."


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> ifp said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...


Nice. I see you change your mind. You now admit to not have use a 2.6x tc to compensate, as you said before,, but a 1.6x. 
If I have a 1dx and want the same pixels on the subject as the 7d, I have two choices. Put a 1,6x TC on the lens or upscale the image by 1.6x. When talk about upscaling you always talk about upscaling in both direction. Everything is upscaled 1.6x. Ok? Same with lenses. If I want a 400mm to act as a 600mm I put a 1.5x TC on it. Normally an upscaled image will not be as good as putting a tc on, or having a longer FL. But sometimes it does. And that not a claim for me that I can upscale the C400mm to give same IQ as the soft tammy @6.3. Its a question and a guess..Thats it!.
And now I'm out. 
Thanks!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2014)

_Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal, the rest is poetry, imagination._
Max Planck

Here are the experiments. The centre crops (100%) from the iso-12233 chart taken by the Tamron 150-600mm, at 400, 500 and 600mm at f/6.3 and f/8. This lens is as sharp as the 100-400L at 400mm. A picture is worth a 1000 words for seeing how the fine lines are increasingly resolved at increasing focal length.


----------



## jrda2 (Feb 14, 2014)

How does the autofocus of the Tamron compare to the Canon 300mm/2.8 II with 2xTCIII?


----------



## jrista (Feb 14, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ifp said:
> ...



First off, my bad. It was a _typo_. _Not a change of mind._ But still, my bad.

Second, your still not understanding. Things are *magnified *2.61x. The LENS FOCAL LENGTH, and ONLY the lens focal length, is _scaled _by 1.6! It's the same deal in the end. If you square 1.615 (the actual focal ratio), what do you get? 2.61! The 7D resolves 2.61x more detail than the 1D X. To compensate for that difference, you need a focal length 1.6x as long. A 646mm lens results in 2.61x more 1D X pixels falling on the same subject area as a 400mm lens on the 7D. Don't get too caught up on the simple and scalar ratio of focal lengths...that doesn't tell you enough about the actual differences involved. 

The difference in focal length is linear (1.615x), the difference in magnification is squared (2.61x). The value that really matters, from a detail perspective, is the magnification factor. If you use a 400mm lens on both a 1D X and a 7D, the 7D will resolve 2.61x MORE DETAIL. It sounds like a lot. It really IS a lot! 

If you still don't believe me, maybe you will believe a well-known professional in the field of bird photography:

Size Does Matter; The Power of the Square of the Focal Length

[quote author=Art Morris]"In the original “The Art of Bird Photography” I wrote something to this effect: the size of the bird in the frame is not a factor of the focal length but rather a factor of the square of the focal length. In other words, if you go from a 400mm lens to an 800 mm lens, the bird will be *four times bigger in the frame* _(not twice as big)_. "[/quote]

The focal ratio between 800mm and 400mm is 2x, but the subject is enlarged in the frame by 4x! Subject size in the frame is related to the SQUARE of the Focal Ratio, it is not a linear relationship. You can clearly see that in Art's animated image of the bird...one was taken at 700mm, the other at 1120mm. The square of that ratio, 1120/700^2 or 1.6^2 is, yup, you've got it, 2.6x! The animated bird jumped in size in the frame by 2.6x, not by 1.6x. You can even download the animated image and do some area measurements yourself if you want. Draw a box around the bird when it's smaller, draw a box around the bird when it's larger, and compare the areas.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



The focal ratio between 800mm and 400mm is 2x, but the subject is enlarged in the frame by 4x! Subject size in the frame is related to the SQUARE of the Focal Ratio, it is not a linear relationship. You can clearly see that in Art's animated image of the bird...one was taken at 700mm, the other at 1120mm. The square of that ratio, 1120/700^2 or 1.6^2 is, yup, you've got it, 2.6x! The animated bird jumped in size in the frame by 2.6x, not by 1.6x. You can even download the animated image and do some area measurements yourself if you want. Draw a box around the bird when it's smaller, draw a box around the bird when it's larger, and compare the areas.
[/quote]

WOW! If you really believe that double the focal length will enlarge the subject by 4x, then I have lost all respect for your skills! Sorry man! 
It will enlarge the subject by 2x of course, nothing more, nothing less. Do you even own a camera? Or a lens?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pit123 said:
> ...



WOW! If you really believe that double the focal length will enlarge the subject by 4x, then I have lost all respect for your skills! Sorry man! 
It will enlarge the subject by 2x of course, nothing more, nothing less. Do you even own a camera? Or a lens?
[/quote]

Of course it does, the subject becomes twice as wide and twice as tall, that makes it cover four times the area it did before. You are forgetting you are going from a one dimensional measurement to a two dimensional representation of the subject. If it was a three dimensional model it would be doubled again for depth.

Here is a diagram, the image is a 3 x 2 format image, the blue square a subject, the green square is what happens if you either double the focal length or halve your subject distance, both edges are double the blue squares edges in length, the green square covers four times the area the blue square does.

Time to eat some humble pie


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 15, 2014)

pit123 said:


> Do you even own a camera? Or a lens?



lol.. i guess you don´t.


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Of course it does, the subject becomes twice as wide and twice as tall, that makes it cover four times the area it did before. You are forgetting you are going from a one dimensional measurement to a two dimensional representation of the subject. If it was a three dimensional model it would be doubled again for depth.

Here is a diagram, the image is a 3 x 2 format image, the blue square a subject, the green square is what happens if you either double the focal length or halve your subject distance, both edges are double the blue squares edges in length, the green square covers four times the area the blue square does.

Time to eat some humble pie 
[/quote]
LOL
Lets say the subject is an arrow that goes from lower left corner to upper right corner on the blue area. How much bigger will the subject (arrow) be on the green area? Tell me!!! Obvious you cant. Exactly twice the length. So that gives me 2x magnification. Not?
What is wrong with you guys? Really!


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 15, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> pit123 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even own a camera? Or a lens?
> ...


Based on?


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> WOW! If you really believe that double the focal length will enlarge the subject by 4x, then I have lost all respect for your skills! Sorry man!
> It will enlarge the subject by 2x of course, nothing more, nothing less. Do you even own a camera? Or a lens?



LOL

Well, to be quite frank, I'm not really concerned by the loss of your "respect." I guess I honestly care more about truth and facts than the respect of someone who refuses to acknowledge both when their hit in the face by them.

This is not complicated stuff. It is really basic geometry. YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS STUFF from your high school level math classes! Your still thinking one-dimensionally, as in "An 800mm lens is twice the length of a 400mm lens." Yes, that's true, an 800mm lens is just twice the length of a 400mm lens. But it has 1/4 the FoV!!! Project that 1/4 size FoV onto the same physical sensor area that a 400mm lens projects its 1/1 size FoV onto, and you've enlarged your subject four-fold. 

Here is another pretty picture:















Hopefully these three diagrams will completely demonstrate the concept. The first shows the 35mm full frames that a 400mm (orange), 600mm (green) and 800mm (blue) lens produce. It also shows how those three frames appear when magnified to the same size (i.e. the sensor size). The 800mm frame has a 1:4 size ratio relative to the 400mm frame which, for the purposes of this debate, has a 1:1 size ratio. You can clearly see that the prairie dog is much more than twice as large in the frame in the magnified 800mm image...it is four times as large. To put it in different terms, the prairie dog is about 25% of the frame in the 400mm image, but it is 100% of the frame in the 800mm image. A factor of four difference. 

The second diagram demonstrates the one dimensional linear relationship between lens focal lengths. The 400mm and 800mm lenses have a 1:2 ratio relationship, since a 400mm diagonal AoV is 6°11', where as an 800mm diagonal AoV is 3°05'.

The third diagram plainly lays out WHY an 800mm lens enlarges the subject four fold: *You can fit four 800mm frames into a single 400mm frame!!* Full-frame scaling is two dimensional, not one dimensional like angle of view. You have to account for both dimensions when determining the difference in total detail on your subject. An 800mm lens may only have 1/2 the AoV, but it resolves 4x as much detail.

If this doesn't clear the problem up for you, then nothing will. This is about as plain and obvious as I can possibly make it. This is very basic, high school level geometry. It should be very obvious.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

Pit123 said:


> LOL
> Lets say the subject is an arrow that goes from lower left corner to upper right corner on the blue area. How much bigger will the subject (arrow) be on the green area? Tell me!!! Obvious you cant. Exactly twice the length. So that gives me 2x magnification. Not?
> What is wrong with you guys? Really!



Oh wow, you are not getting this at all. the arrow is two dimensional, if you double the length you double the width, if you do that then the arrow covers four times the area. See below, the yellow arrow is a scaled copy of the red arrow, it is twice as long, it covers four times the *area*. When you are measuring magnification of a two dimensional object you have to consider the area it occupies.

As an aside, pixel density has absolutely nothing to do with magnification, nothing, zero, nada. Initially magnification refers to how big the subject is on the sensor compared to its actual size in real life, subsequently it refers to the reproduction ratio, how big is it on screen or in print compared to how big it is in real life, neither of these have anything to do with pixel density.


----------



## dcm (Feb 15, 2014)

This discussion seems to be about the term magnification and whether it is a 1 or 2 dimensional concept. Did anybody look up the definition of magnification? This might be helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> As an aside, pixel density has absolutely nothing to do with magnification, nothing, zero, nada. Initially magnification refers to how big the subject is on the sensor compared to its actual size in real life, subsequently it refers to the reproduction ratio, how big is it on screen or in print compared to how big it is in real life, neither of these have anything to do with pixel density.



That is one meaning of magnification in one context. There are multiple contexts within which the term magnification is valid. The magnification you've defined is optical magnification, but not the same kind of magnification we've been talking about so far. For your definition, "magnification" of the lens would be something like 0.15x, where an object a hundred feet away that may be five feet tall is reproduced at 12mm in size on the sensor. This is the kind of magnification that is sometimes published with lens specifications. That is indeed a valid definition of magnification, but it comes with a specific context.

The magnification that we've been talking about so far is _relative _magnification in terms of subject size to frame size. It doesn't really matter how big it is in real life in this context. In this context, magnification is referring to the change in relative subject size with a change in resolving power. The change in resolving power can either come from an increase or reduction in focal length, or an increase or reduction in pixel size. Either way, the subject is either magnified or reduced RELATIVE to some chosen reference point. Technically speaking, one need not necessarily involve a frame size...the frame could be infinite. The detail on the subject increases either way...the final images, when observed at 100% size, result in the subject imaged with an increased focal length or smaller pixels will be larger (this, magnified.)

Both definitions of magnification are valid. They just have different contexts within which they are valid. 



dcm said:


> This discussion seems to be about the term magnification and whether it is a 1 or 2 dimensional concept. Did anybody look up the definition of magnification? This might be helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification



See my response above.


----------



## redfield (Feb 15, 2014)

"Linear or transverse magnification — For real images, such as images projected on a screen, size means a linear dimension (measured, for example, in millimeters or inches)."

It's pretty clear that in this case magnification is linear ... 8)


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

redfield said:


> "Linear or transverse magnification — For real images, such as images projected on a screen, size means a linear dimension (measured, for example, in millimeters or inches)."
> 
> It's pretty clear that in this case magnification is linear ... 8)



Perhaps people are assuming different contexts. Your talking about a linear change in angular size. I don't dispute the definition of that. 

I'm talking about a change in area, "total size", because it is the change in subject size relative to the AREA of the sensor that results in an increase in detail. Not a 2x increase in detail, a 4x increase in detail. In my previous example, the 400mm lens resolves the prairie dog at about 25% of the frame. The 800mm lens resolves the prairie dog at 100% of the frame. That is a 2x change in angular size, but a 4x change in total subject size (width and height).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

dcm said:


> This discussion seems to be about the term magnification and whether it is a 1 or 2 dimensional concept. Did anybody look up the definition of magnification? This might be helpful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification



1:1 in macro shooting means the subject is the same size in every dimension in real life as it is on the sensor, 1:2 means it is 1/2 the size on each dimension, so the subject takes 1/4 the area it did in 1:1.  Link.

This continues as the ratios get to normal sized shooting, shoot a 6' tall person that takes 1" of linear sensor real estate from their toes to their head and they are reproduced at 1:72, but they take 5184 times less sensor real estate. The magnification is 1:72, the area is 1/5184, enlarge the image by 72 on each edge and the paper is 5184 times bigger, it becomes life sized.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

jrista said:


> The magnification that we've been talking about so far is _relative _magnification in terms of subject size to frame size. It doesn't really matter how big it is in real life in this context. In this context, magnification is referring to the change in relative subject size with a change in resolving power. The change in resolving power can either come from an increase or reduction in focal length, or an increase or reduction in pixel size. Either way, the subject is either magnified or reduced RELATIVE to some chosen reference point. Technically speaking, one need not necessarily involve a frame size...the frame could be infinite. The detail on the subject increases either way...the final images, when observed at 100% size, result in the subject imaged with an increased focal length or smaller pixels will be larger (this, magnified.)
> 
> Both definitions of magnification are valid. They just have different contexts within which they are valid.



If you enlarge a square more than another square you are changing the relative magnification. If you say my smaller square is as good scaled up as your bigger square we are not talking magnification, we are talking IQ. 

The lens produces the magnification, pixels do not. If you are saying, we consider two different sized things as equal then again, that is not a question of magnification, it is a case of proving the two things are equal, I have proven to myself, and many others, the smaller thing is nowhere near as good as the bigger thing so the entire premise of the discussion is flawed.

All pixels are not equal, for a variety of reasons, it does not further the cause of anything to keep persisting in the crusade that they are. 

The latest super tele comparisons are cropping. People are finding that cropping is a viable alternative to TC's and lesser quality longer lenses, something I have been saying against the grain for years. Straight pixels on the subject, the "pixels on duck" meme would have no rebutal for a 400 f2,8 IS MkII getting a sharper shot when cropped as a Tamron 150-600 shot at 600, but I'd bet a lot of money that it would.

Pixel density is a totally spurious, discredited, and fallacious argument. Pixel quality is, and always has been, king.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > The magnification that we've been talking about so far is _relative _magnification in terms of subject size to frame size. It doesn't really matter how big it is in real life in this context. In this context, magnification is referring to the change in relative subject size with a change in resolving power. The change in resolving power can either come from an increase or reduction in focal length, or an increase or reduction in pixel size. Either way, the subject is either magnified or reduced RELATIVE to some chosen reference point. Technically speaking, one need not necessarily involve a frame size...the frame could be infinite. The detail on the subject increases either way...the final images, when observed at 100% size, result in the subject imaged with an increased focal length or smaller pixels will be larger (this, magnified.)
> ...



When you throw non-equal pixel quality into the mix, I totally agree. I think I stated a few times before "all else being equal", but you are indeed correct, smaller pixels are generally NOT equal.

In which case, I totally agree, a 600mm lens on bigger pixels trounces a 400mm lens on smaller pixels cropped. 

(I was trying to keep noise out of the discussion though, as that would have just complicated the whole deal...however, seeing as I think the magnification vs. area argument is pretty much settled now, bring on the noise! ) 

Speaking of bigger pixels and less noise...it seems PhaseOne and Hassy finally did it. They put out new MF backs with Sony 50mp 44x33mm MF sensors, that still have 14 stops of photographic dynamic range...plus the increase in signal DR thanks to the larger pixels (which I think are around 5.3-5.5 microns...not as large as a 5D III or 1D X, but larger than any APS-C sensor, and certainly larger than the D800 pixels.) What I would give to have that kind of sensor with a 10fps frame rate, ISO up to 25600, and Canon's 61pt AF sensor!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2014)

I wasn't just thinking noise, I was thinking much better technique, a bigger magnification needs more support to have the same camera shake (even on the best tripods), any system aberrations are magnified more, AF becomes more critical etc etc.

The crop factor or additional magnification of smaller pixels compared to bigger ones entails at least the linear factor improvements in everything, AF, aberrations, noise, shutter speed, support etc etc.

I believe, very strongly, that is why the 1Dx has been so wholeheartedly embraced over the 1.3 crop 1D MkIV, a camera that was pretty much universally loved by everybody and had that all important sports "crop factor", even when the 1D MkIV has a much higher pixel density.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2014)

My first bird photos with the Tammy! Here is the very first shot taken. 5DIII, f/8 iso640, and 600mm, a greylag goose at Fowlmere in Cambridgeshire. 

The AF is very reproducible (A1 servo), much, much better than the 100-400L on 7D and better than on the 5DIII. The full-frame of the goose is reduced to 1200x800. The head is 100% crop.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2014)

Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn't just thinking noise, I was thinking much better technique, a bigger magnification needs more support to have the same camera shake (even on the best tripods), any system aberrations are magnified more, AF becomes more critical etc etc.
> 
> The crop factor or additional magnification of smaller pixels compared to bigger ones entails at least the linear factor improvements in everything, AF, aberrations, noise, shutter speed, support etc etc.
> 
> I believe, very strongly, that is why the 1Dx has been so wholeheartedly embraced over the 1.3 crop 1D MkIV, a camera that was pretty much universally loved by everybody and had that all important sports "crop factor", even when the 1D MkIV has a much higher pixel density.



Oh I don't doubt it. I drool over 1D X IQ all the time. Despite how good the 1D IV was, there is still a clear difference between it's IQ and the 1D X IQ. The dynamic range of the 1D X (I don't mean the kind that gives you more editing latitude, I mean the reduction in photon shot noise at all levels) really can't be beat. Not unless you reduce pixel size even more.

Besides, if your spending $5000 to $7000 on a camera body, you probably already have or are easily able to get a $10,000+ supertelephoto lens and teleconverters to go along with it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2014)

My very first bird in flight. The greylag is too far away to give a sharp image, and it was underexposed and I had to boost the shadows. I am showing it just to say that the AF locked on very quickly and well. It was iso640, f/8, 600mm.


----------



## jrista (Feb 15, 2014)

AlanF said:


> My first bird photos with the Tammy! Here is the very first shot taken. 5DIII, f/8 iso640, and 600mm, a greylag goose at Fowlmere in Cambridgeshire.
> 
> The AF is very reproducible (A1 servo), much, much better than the 100-400L on 7D and better than on the 5DIII. The full-frame of the goose is reduced to 1200x800. The head is 100% crop.



Congrats! Detail looks great! 

Have you tried any tracking for BIF yet? That was always a weak spot with the 100-400L and 7D IMO. It is so much better with the 600mm, but still not as good as the 5D III.

I love the Greylag Goose. Sometimes a few of them hang out here in Colorado. They tend to mate with Canada Goose, and you get some very interesting offspring. I actually need to head out to Duck Lake in City Park near Denver. This is about the time that the Cormorants and Greylags show up. The Cormorants nest every year on this island in Duck Lake...to the tune of a couple hundred (and plenty more when all the hatchlings come). It's still pretty cold, but I wonder if they are already here...


----------



## Old Sarge (Feb 15, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.
> 
> Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.



Thank you for posting these pictures. The Tammy looks pretty good and the price seems attractive. May have to get one later this year.


----------



## mustang (Feb 15, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.
> 
> Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.




The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 15, 2014)

Some good looking shots, Alan. I'm glad the lens is working out for you.


----------



## miah (Feb 15, 2014)

Thanks for posting these shots, *AlanF*. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know _"it's a good value for the money."_ The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2014)

mustang said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.
> ...



USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose. For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2014)

miah said:


> Thanks for posting these shots, *AlanF*. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know _"it's a good value for the money."_ The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.


The weather forecast is good for tomorrow and I'll be going out to test further. Like you, it's not the value/£ or $ or € that is paramount but rather does the lens deliver the goods.


----------



## candc (Feb 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> mustang said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I see dxo is working on a module for this lens. That should make for even better results with less manual work. I am looking forward to its release


----------



## Pit123 (Feb 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.
> 
> Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.


Thanks, Alan, for showing!
Regarding magnificiatinion, you have showed us all, that 400mm x 1,5x magnification shows the same size of the subject as the 600mm.
We can also see that the upscaled image from Tammy on the 5d3 is not close (enough) to [email protected], which, IMO, is also soft. As dxomarl shows, the canon 100-400 is a lot shaper than tammy on 400mm on a 7d, so probably the results between an upscaled 100-400 and tammy would be a closer, if not close enough for me. Time will tell.


----------



## mustang (Feb 16, 2014)

mustang said:


> USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose. For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.



Thanks for the info! Looking forward to see some more examples from this lens.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2014)

Beautiful day today at Lackford Lakes in Suffolk. Unfortunately, not too much to photograph and generally too far away. All lenses give good results on all bodies if the subject fills the frame. What we want to see in testing a lens is whether a cropped image is sharp. Here are some cropped images. They are all taken at 600mm, f/8, iso 640, hand held (as always) on a 5DIII. All images had minimal processing but had 0.9 pixels worth of USM at 100%. They are all 100% crops.

So, I must emphasize, I haven't chosen these images to show how great the lens is, show it at its best or act as Tamron's publicity agent. These are various crops to show what the lens is like, and you can make up your own mind.

My take: it's good enough for me in absolute terms - not just because it is is good value for money; I will use it at f/8 at 600mm as f/6.3 is somewhat soft when cropping; it is much better on the 5DIII than APS-C (just as is the 100-400); it is a pleasure to use hand held as it is nicely balanced and not too heavy; the AF is very consistent, but a little slow at 600mm; I haven't been able to test it much for BIF but my first impressions are that it is very similar to the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC - if anything it seemed to lock on better and not lose the subject. 

In my opinion, it renders the 100-400 obsolete and Canon had better come up with something good to compete.

Notes: the Mallard was not over-cropped; the lapwing was very far away and is heavily cropped - I think the quality is very similar to what I get on the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC; the flying swan was picked up very easily by the AF; the Yanks are clearly following me from up high.


----------



## JorritJ (Feb 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> (mallard flapping wings)



Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.

The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.

Seems to me like this 150-600mm delivers some excellent quality for its price. The only real drawback I can see (for me personally) is the size, I don't believe it'll fit in my travel photography bag, which is exactly the maximum handbag size for air travel. If it were not for that, I would have ordered this lens already. Now I'll have to see if Canon finally releases that 100-400L successor before the summer, and see what may come from that.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 16, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> The only real drawback I can see (for me personally) is the size, I don't believe it'll fit in my travel photography bag, which is exactly the maximum handbag size for air travel. If it were not for that, I would have ordered this lens already. Now I'll have to see if Canon finally releases that 100-400L successor before the summer, and see what may come from that.



Solved that problem. I bought this tamrac for the 100-400, which fitted in nicely with the body attached. Removing the body and rearranging gives a nice fit, and there a compartment for an iPad etc in the lid.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 16, 2014)

candc said:


> thanks for the comparison alan, just the fact that there are comparisons being made says a lot for the tamron. something that cannot be overstated is the bargain price and how well it fits into a pack!



Candc, where did you get this pack? Thanks.


----------



## candc (Feb 16, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > thanks for the comparison alan, just the fact that there are comparisons being made says a lot for the tamron. something that cannot be overstated is the bargain price and how well it fits into a pack!
> ...



That's an f-stop satori exp with a large shallow icu. 

http://shop.fstopgear.com/us/products/mountain/backpacks/satori-exp.html#.UwE4LpDnbbU


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 16, 2014)

Thanks, looks amazing.


----------



## miah (Feb 17, 2014)

Thanks, *AlanF*, all that's really helpful. Question: How does the overall fit and finish feel? I don't own any Tamron lenses, so other than reading reviews I don't know whether the lens feels solid or like junk. Those are extremes, of course, but I'd like your take on how well this thing might hold up with heavy use out in the field. And will the Tammie, as you originally hoped, become your travel lens of choice?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2014)

i tried a demo one out in the store in shanghai the other day none in stock till the 20th though but i have to say overall i'm impressed AF was very accurate on 5Dmk3 and pretty quick even without using the focus limit although i did notice at 600 it was a bit slower to lock than short focal lengths.

Build is amazing its totally not like the tamron of old, (and believe me i have been very anti tamron for quite a while due to buying crappy lenses from them in the past and being totally disappointed) 
Build feels alot like the canon 100 f2.8L IS for anyone wondering, lots of plastic but its high quality and feels dense.

i too wish they had made the canon mount zoom ring go the canon direction but its not a deal breaker just a minor annoyance. 

I think i'm gonna pick one up when they are in stock and try it out a bit more thoroughly I only brought a modest amount of gear with me to china so don't have anything longer than the 135 L with me and the canon 2X TC mk3
which is a great combo but no IS is a PITA with the 2X on


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

As just written, it seems solid enough to me as well. Lensrental seem happy enough with Tamron in their blog and rent out the 209-500. It will definitely be my travel lens - and by coincidence will accompany me to Shanghai next month. The big dilemma is whether it will become my regular weekend hiking lens as well?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

Why do I have a dilemma?
I got interested in posting bird photos on a website birdpix.nl. The mods are so damn tough that any softness whatsoever, visible signs of sharpening or noise (and often not detectable by me) gets a rejection. The 100-400 on the 7D simply wasn't up to the job unless I got close enough to the bird. The lens simply isn't sharp enough on a crop camera and the 7D is both soft and noisy, and sharpening increases the noise. This was all changed by getting the 300mm/2.8 and using the 2xTC. The great increase in focal length made a huge difference, aided by the better sharpness.

Then I got a 5DIII. The 5DIII changes two parameters: the 100-400 is much sharper on the 5DIII, and really very good; and the noise is so much better. But, 400mm is too short on FF - I virtually never go below 600mm while doing bird photography in the UK, but can get closer abroad. The Tammy changes the equation. The 300mm f/2.8 is a far superior lens at 300mm and 420mm with the 1.4XTC, but by the time you get to 600mm at f/5.6 with a x2 TC, then the match is getting closer - I can live with the 600mm f/8 of the Tammy. It weighs about 750 gm less, which is an advantage. I'll test it for longer and see if using it lowers my keeper rate in practice.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 17, 2014)

I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!



F/8 at dawn or dusk will be unusable for anything other than telephoto landscape photography of very still subjects, on a heavy tripod, with mirror lock...along with the longer shutter speed required. I shoot often at dusk, sometimes at dawn. If you're wanting a shutter speed faster than say 1/100 second, then you need radically more light than f/8, or even f/5.6. If you disagree, then perhaps you're referring to shooting more in the "golden hour" than that transition to the "blue hour". I'm talking about shooting in the half hour when the sun is below the horizon. My 6D autofocuses like a champ in this gloom with an f/5.6 lens, as does its noise floor. But I can't expect to shoot action, even with an f/2 lens...let alone f/8 (or specifically an f/6.3 lens that is closed to f/8, as in the case of the Tamron).

F/8 photography of wildlife, is good for bright daylight, and that's about it...unless the animal is asleep.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


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




The very sharp 300mm f/2.8 II is good on both the full frame and crop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


The lesser sharp 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 is much poorer on crop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

Now look at DxOmark.com for the same lenses on the 5DIII and 7D

Exactly the same. The 300mm f/2.8 II is great on both the FF and crop.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

And, the lesser 100-400 is OK on FF but cr*p on crop.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795


http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

Sounds like you need to spend some time ......................


----------



## SambalOelek (Feb 17, 2014)

JorritJ said:



> Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.
> 
> The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.



Does indeed sound like a bad copy. Earlier claims in this thread seem to indicate that there is no way an upscaled 300mm can outresolve a normal copy of the 100-400mm @ 400mm.


----------



## miah (Feb 17, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!
> ...



Huh? So just what faster-than-f/2 lens are you using with your 6D to successfully shoot wildlife action during the "blue hour?" Surely the slow EF 500 and 600 f/4 primes are out, and by this standard so is the EF 300 and 400 f/2.8. Which begs the question: what oh-so-busy critters in your neck of the woods allow you to crawl up beside them and snap away in the twilight with your 50mm f/1.4?


----------



## Plainsman (Feb 17, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!



C'mon - for 600mm with the 300/2.8 IS plus TC you need to stop down to f8 anyway (see the reviews) to get reasonable (not brilliant) performance ie your pricy lens aperture has vignetted from 108mm down to 75mm at 600/8. With the 2x TC even second hand the 300/2.8 is very expensive and fiddly compared to the Tamron and heavier.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!
> ...



My copy of the 300/2.8 II + 2XTC is just as sharp at f/5.6 as f/8, from my own inspection and also FoCal testing. But, one stop should not be a deal breaker.

Poor light is where the 300/2.8 comes into its own. You can slap it on a 70D, on which it is still incredibly sharp at f/2.8 and has a reach of 480mm, and have all the advantage of the aperture for both focussing and picture taking. Here is a photo of a Robin in my unlit garage taken on the 5DIII with the 300mm/2.8 II. It's not wonderful but it is a memory of the Robin raising its brood there. Not bad though for 1/13 s hand held at iso 2500.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 17, 2014)

Alan, sadly it's never clear cut. If I never used 300 2.8 or 420 4 it'd be a different story. OTOH I use 300 X2 a lot which suggests I need a 600! However, I very often am trying to pull my ISO down to 1250 in not the greatest light because I don't have the reach I really need, but I still want decent shutter speed. Then I think 7D2 for reach but I know the ISO capability is just not going to be that great compared to FF so ...... 

What's you feeling on the Tam bokeh?

Jack


----------



## jrista (Feb 17, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Alan, sadly it's never clear cut. If I never used 300 2.8 or 420 4 it'd be a different story. OTOH I use 300 X2 a lot which suggests I need a 600! However, I very often am trying to pull my ISO down to 1250 in not the greatest light because I don't have the reach I really need, but I still want decent shutter speed. Then I think 7D2 for reach but I know the ISO capability is just not going to be that great compared to FF so ......
> 
> What's you feeling on the Tam bokeh?
> 
> Jack



Your 300+2x will allow you to use lower shutter speeds than the Tamron, which is f/6.3 at 600m. Your lens is f/5.6 at 600mm. That said...you use the aperture you need to use in order to get the depth of field you need. If you need to use f/8, you need to use f/8, regardless of the lens your using.

The smoothness of boke is ultimately determined by the size of the entrance pupil (the aperture as viewed through the front of the lens from a distance of "infinity" (in other words, a sufficient distance that light rays are collimated)). The Tamron, regardless of how well it's been designed, still won't compare to your 300mm f/2.8 107mm entrance pupil diameter. Entrance pupil size was one of the reasons I chose the EF 600/4 II...it's entrance pupil diameter is 150mm...which is why the boke from that lens is exquisitely creamy and smooth. 

There are few other lenses on earth that can produce the kind of background boke that the 600mm f/4 L II does, and not that many more that can produce the kind of boke that the 300mm f/2.8 L does.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 17, 2014)

I did a little experiment with my 300 and extenders yesterday - nothing formal, just trying out different angles with a cooperative subject - all of them are uncropped and with different levels of polarization:

300+2x @f/8






300+1.4 @f/8 (from a closer distance - again this wasn't a test)





300 bare @f/11 for a bit more DOF (and from a lower angle)





Each image has its own merits, and depending on cropping needs and the story you're trying to tell one will be more suitable than the others. I'm happy to have the choice and while a zoom would be more convenient, you would lose f/2.8 and f/4, for low light and to blow out the background, which might have been needed in other light or if there were distracting elements in the background. This isn't a slight against the 150-600, just another comparison of sorts.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

miah said:


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



Was I talking to you? No...so don't say "huh?". Never claimed I was using a faster than f/2 telephoto, read it again.

I've actually shot wider angle images of deer and raccoons with my 50mm f/1.4 or 24mm f/1.8. Or if the deer are standing fairly still, I've shot ISO 25,600 at about 1/5 second at 400mm, f/5.6, on a monopod with IS. I've also shot deer running with my 135 f/2, panning the lens hand-held (it has no IS), with a very slow shutter speed and high ISO. Autofocus was one shot mode with center point (it hit once and then when the sequence was over, it would not hit when I tried again out of curiousity...it was quite dark post sunset). I will post a few of these at some point (I don't claim they're award winning images, either!)...but I'm too busy shooting and editing product images for items I'm selling right now. I only have 600+ images of the recent 10 inch snow we had here, to ponder...besides the rest from fall and early winter. I got a few halfway decent (but not mind-blowing) shots of deer in the snow with my 70-300L (it was late afternoon light, but lasted to just after sunset...the snow helps a lot there, with light). I got some bird images also, but the bird photogs on here usually slam my bird images.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I did a little experiment with my 300 and extenders yesterday - nothing formal, just trying out different angles with a cooperative subject - all of them are uncropped and with different levels of polarization:
> 
> 300+2x @f/8
> 
> ...



I like the center image the best, at least regarding color and contrast. The interesting thing about circular polarizers, is it's not really "amount"...it's that it is controlling the amount of parallel light for that particular direction.

When I rented the 500mm f/4 series 1 back in 2011, and went to Florida, I also rented the polarizer insert. It worked well and was fun to adjust while shooting.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 17, 2014)

Carl
I would feel safer shooting large alligators through a 600 than your 24mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Carl
> I would feel safer shooting large alligators through a 600 than your 24mm.


Here's an 11-footer I shot with my 24-70 - at the 70mm end - I try to stay away from close-ups of things that could eat me:


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Carl
> ...


One of the reasons I got the 150-600 was so that I could safely photograph dangerous animals... 

Ally the kitten... 60D and 150-600 at 600mm, ISO2000 and cropped....


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Carl
> I would feel safer shooting large alligators through a 600 than your 24mm.



That's funny, because I was going to suggest to you that they are perfectly docile creatures, and encourage you to shoot some with a fisheye lens!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Carl
> ...



Fairly close, nice shot...it looks like it just ate and is heading to use the lake's facilities...

That's some vivid olive green color on its back, almost looks like somebody body painted it in camo!

Have you seen the Planet Earth episode where the huge African saltwater crocodile attacks the hind legs of a migrating...I think it's called "gnu"...looks like a skinny bull...? Shot with a high speed camera and played in slow motion, the scene lasts like 10 minutes but in normal speed, the scene lasted a few seconds.

It looked painful!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Carl
> ...



I was assuming that they are as docile as you.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Wow, that looks great to 600mm (cheap Tamron) ISO 2000 (terrible 18 megapixel), and cropped. Tamron actually has a really interesting lens to compete in super tele.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Fairly close, nice shot...it looks like it just ate and is heading to use the lake's facilities...
> 
> That's some vivid olive green color on its back, almost looks like somebody body painted it in camo!
> 
> ...


Yep, he had just crawled out of a nearby swamp and was in the grass beside the road when I came upon him. I turned my car around and jumped out as I saw him crossing the road. All I had was my 24-70, so I racked it out and got about 20 feet from him. He didn't pay me any attention at all, but the big guys are actually a bit safer because they're slow. The 5-6 footers are the ones to watch out for because they are really fast and big enough to remove limbs. 

Also, I know the scene you're talking about and alligators are sweet and docile compared to those saltwater crocs. Those things are terrifying.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2014)

Just having my morning read at CR and wow CarlTN and others, thanks for creating some humor. Better than the funny paper.

Having spent money a year ago on the 300 II I have a slight uneasiness now but it's history and what I have is a great lens so I'm not sure why I keep reading about this great deal with the Tammy.

Anyway, it's prompted me to think about what I should be thankful for with my lens and two converters. Jrista, yes bokeh. One thing came to mind that I really love on the 300 is the smooth rotation from veritical to horizontal when on the gimbal, and the detente that tells you you've gone 90 degrees. 

I also loosen that knob which allows the camera to swivel similarly when I'm shooting hand held. This works great with my preference for a very short strap that goes under my right arm (strap is snug as I fire).

Never the less, if I was buying today I probably would have looked at the 300 as just too expensive. Thankfully my wife wouldn't hear such talk - hard to believe isn't it! 

Jack


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Just having my morning read at CR and wow CarlTN and others, thanks for creating some humor. Better than the funny paper.
> 
> Having spent money a year ago on the 300 II I have a slight uneasiness now but it's history and what I have is a great lens so I'm not sure why I keep reading about this great deal with the Tammy.
> 
> ...


+1 on your whole post and every point you make! We must let go of all traces of potential buyer's remorse and stop reading these posts about the 150-600


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Just having my morning read at CR and wow CarlTN and others, thanks for creating some humor. Better than the funny paper.
> 
> Having spent money a year ago on the 300 II I have a slight uneasiness now but it's history and what I have is a great lens so I'm not sure why I keep reading about this great deal with the Tammy.
> 
> ...



Don't let yourself be discouraged. There is no way the IQ of the Tamron will rival your 300/2.8 II, even with a 2x TC. You cannot underestimate the value of the large entrance pupil, the better barrel build, the vastly superior firmware chip, the full time manual USM focus ring with it's wide throw (excellent when you need to manually focus, such as with astrophotography...total godsend!!) You aren't just paying for "glass" when you buy a Canon supertele. Your paying for "the best" LENS. It's a whole package deal. It isn't just the optical quality. The AF USM drive and firmware are the best available for Canon. When coupled with a 5D III or 1D X, you get superior AF precision and accuracy (I'll find the LensRental blog that proves this.) 

Also, you can't underestimate the value of that boke. It's one of the key things, I think given how many professional bird photos I've seen, that sets apart professional quality bird photography from all the rest. Boke is your subject isolator. When you take a photo of a bird, or for that matter of wildlife in general, your subject isn't the background...it's the bird, or the deer, or the coyote or wolf or bear. You don't want the background to intrude on your subject much...just the faintest idea of the general structure of what's there is the most you ever really want, and when it comes to birds, having the background completely blurred into a smooth creamy backdrop is usually the most desirable result. 

Entrance pupil diameters <100mm generally don't quite cut it. The Tamron is just on the edge, but so far I've only seen a couple photos taken with it that truly show that kind of creamy background blur for birds (and then, only from very skilled photographers who have the talent to get appreciably close, and who also already own a 600mm prime of some kind.) The 72mm entrance pupil of your average 400mm entry-level birders lens (400mm f/5.6) is just not enough, and the same goes for the 75mm entrance pupil of 300mm f/4 lenses.

You have one of the best lenses for bird and wildlife photography that you can get on planet earth. The release of the Tamron doesn't change that, despite how good it is.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Just having my morning read at CR and wow CarlTN and others, thanks for creating some humor. Better than the funny paper.
> 
> Having spent money a year ago on the 300 II I have a slight uneasiness now but it's history and what I have is a great lens so I'm not sure why I keep reading about this great deal with the Tammy.
> 
> ...


As someone who has the Tamron 150-600 and is very impressed with it, let me say that if someone offered me a 300II for twice the price of the Tamron, I would jump on the deal! Nothing touches a series 2 big white prime.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2014)

Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.

I think that Canon's big white sales are safe, but they are going to lose a ton of 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 sales to the Tamron, which might force Canon to finally update at least one of those models.


----------



## jrista (Feb 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.
> 
> I think that Canon's big white sales are safe, but they are going to lose a ton of 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 sales to the Tamron, which might force Canon to finally update at least one of those models.



I'm not saying the Tamron isn't impressive. For it's price, it is. It's jut that if you already have the 300 f/2.8 L II, there is absolutely ZERO reason to doubt the decision to buy it. It is still and will always be a superior piece of equipment. It doesn't just needlessly cost that much more...the cost is well justified (especially once you understand the manufacturing process...making those huge glass and fluorite elements requires high grade costly materials and extremely precise manufacture.)

I do agree about their lower-grade telephotos, though. The 100-400 sales, which have always been good, will probably suffer quite a bit. Hard to beat 600mm of extra focal length and 2.25x the detail. (And there is NO WAY the Tamron is "soft"...compared to other lenses in it's class, it seems to be excellent.) I think Canon would even have a hard time maintaining 100-400 sales with a new version...400mm just doesn't compare to 600mm.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.
> ...



+1
I am glad I have the 300 II, but I shall be using the Tammy a lot. And I am relieved I sold the 100-400 as it should be killed by the Tammy. A good 100-400 is very good on FF, but the extra 200mm of the Tammy is a killer. And there are lots of soft 100-400s around, and there are reports of weak bearings in some.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 18, 2014)

Nice to have a shoulder to cry on sometimes. Now I feel better! 

Don, it's sunny and warm here and I'm out on the deck. Although it's "just a chickadee" they are my friends and they love every new prop I provide for them. What more could a guy ask. And they even allow me to use my bare 300 to boot!

I love my 300 ;D

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Nice to have a shoulder to cry on sometimes. Now I feel better!
> 
> Don, it's sunny and warm here and I'm out on the deck. Although it's "just a chickadee" they are my friends and they love every new prop I provide for them. What more could a guy ask. And they even allow me to use my bare 300 to boot!
> 
> ...


It is quite snowy here...

I had a pair of Ravens watching me today... Their perch is on the feed of the original search and rescue ground station... The first rescue beacon was picked up on this dish...

shot with a 70-200F4IS.... There are a lot of nice lenses to pick and choose between...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Here's an 11-footer I shot with my 24-70 - at the 70mm end - I try to stay away from close-ups of things that could eat me:


Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area  ... nice image.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 19, 2014)

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?



A comparison was done with the 300 f/2.8 L I + 2x TC III one of the reviews - I can't remember which one, but I can visualize the images and recall the Tammy was sharper. The EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III is pretty soft (see TDP, for example), and I can't believe it will be as good as the Tammy.


----------



## dcm (Feb 19, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?



For many of us this might be a more applicable comparison than the faster primes. I have considered the 300 F/4 L and 400 F5.6 L which are in the same price ballpark as the Tamron. I already have both III extenders with my 70-200 F4 L IS so I'm debating which lens to add. It would nice to see the comparisons at 300-420-600 and 400-560-800/840. The Tamron could do all but the last one without an extender. Maybe TDP will post results for the Tamron one of these days - it seems to have a lot of interest.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2014)

dcm said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?
> ...



A 2xTC on the 400/5.6 gives f/11. So no AF and manual focus will be tedious. Both, the 300 and 400 with the the 2xTCs are really soft at f/8 and f/11, respectively: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

The Tamron at 600mm and f.8 is sharp and in a different league.


----------



## dcm (Feb 20, 2014)

AlanF said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



That's what I'd expect at 600 or with the 2X extenders, but I'm not just buying it for 600 I'm also interested in the comparisons with 1.4X and no extender to see the performance across the range. I already have below 300 covered pretty well so its 300 up that interests me.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area  ... nice image.


Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time. The EXIF says I was 6.7M from him, but it felt much closer! I first spotted him in the grass where he was well-camouflaged. Here's that shot and the another of the start of his crossing:


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area  ... nice image.
> ...


I hope it wasn't one of the joggers in his fat lumpy stomach ;D ... cool shots.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area  ... nice image.
> ...


Nice!
I prefer to shoot with my 400mm ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 20, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


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


Like this one (400 /f5.6)? Sadly I didn't learn my lesson - this is him/her hissing when I got too close (around 15'), and unlike the big guy, this was a fast and dangerous 6-footer, so this was *really *stupid on my part. I would love to have had your f/2.8, and needless to say I backed way up after the hiss...


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Nice shot mackguyver 

Maybe 400mm + 1.4X TC now...don't want my gear endup inside his/her tummy ;D


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 21, 2014)

So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:

Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.

Canon 300 II + 2xTC III - Better IQ, faster, better build quality/weather sealing. Option to use native 300 f/2.8. Less flexible and 5x more expensive.

Get the Tamron if money is tight and/or wildlife isn't your thing and/or low light shooting is not a frequent event. Get the Canon combo if lowlight is more of an issue, you have plenty of cash to burn and you need a tank of a lens and the best IQ?

Did i miss anything? I like to have a summary at the end of these discussions!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:
> 
> Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.
> 
> ...


I think you summed it up pretty well


----------



## J.R. (Feb 21, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:
> 
> Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.
> 
> ...



You missed out considering the 200-400  

TBF, everything you say about the 300mm + 2x TC applies to the 200-400 as well.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 21, 2014)

I'm not even considering the 200-400 at 10x the price!

Well, i already have a 2x TC III, so i might as well get the 300 2.8 II to make best use of it right?


----------



## J.R. (Feb 21, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> I'm not even considering the 200-400 at 10x the price!
> 
> Well, i already have a 2x TC III, so i might as well get the 300 2.8 II to make best use of it right?



Not really ... the Canon 200-400 is only 7X the price of the Tamron


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2014)

Only two years into DSLRs and I'd say that photography is an area where it's all about compromises that are pretty challenging, unlike pure electronics. I guess it's the nature of glass and optical physics.

In a similar context to this thread I've been tempted with the 1Dx, really tempted. My friend bought it a month ago and when I held it, my heart sank. I'm not getting any younger and packing heavy gear is a pretty significant negative. It even factored into me buying 6D over 5D3, along with price.

adhocphotographer, you've left out resale value. It may or may not factor in. Also it's surprising how many people don't want their image tarnished once they commit to a brand. Really should be irrelevant but it isn't. 

Jack


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

J.R. said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not even considering the 200-400 at 10x the price!
> ...


Who is selling the Canon 200-400 for US$ 7483?
The Tamron 150-600 VC costs $1069 ... the Canon EF 200-400 L IS costs $11299 ... if my math is not wrong the EF 200-400 L IS is pretty close to 11x the price of the tamron 150-600 VC.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 21, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> adhocphotographer, you've left out resale value. It may or may not factor in. Also it's surprising how many people don't want their image tarnished once they commit to a brand. Really should be irrelevant but it isn't.



Damn good point... I would hazard a guess that the 300 2.8 would hold a higher re-sale value... As for brand and image... it does not bother me much, but i know some people it does!


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 21, 2014)

Interesting justification for buying a lens!

(Cost of lens - re-sale cots)/rental cost per day.... if this number is smaller than the days you might rent it, you might as well buy it and sell it if and when you want to!!!  hmmm lets see if my wife buys into this!


----------



## lux (Feb 21, 2014)

Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 21, 2014)

lux said:


> Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.


I like your optimism ... please do tell me how it went with your wife, based on your feedback I may try your technique ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2014)

I have a better solution. Get a new wife similar to mine then you can buy whatever photographic equipment you need! The downside is you might end up wasting money.  Come to think of it there may be some other secondary problems associated with this suggestion. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2014)

lux said:


> Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.



Your maths is way off. 

I bought a 300 f2.8 IS in 2004 for $3,500, I could sell it for $3,000+, that is a <$500 depreciation over 9 years. Don't forget the price of the big lenses keeps going up, the MkI will never be worth the same as a MkII but it will be several years before you can even get a heavily used 300 f2.8 IS MkII for close to $4,000, which leaves plenty of market share for the MkI $1,000 lower.

Sure you can buy the Tamron for the lost money rental price, but the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ...the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.


I have sold all but one Canon lens for profit (~4 Ls and 4 non-Ls), broke even on one L, and lost nearly 50% when I sold a Sigma in mint condition after a year of ownership.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:
> 
> Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.
> 
> ...



Yes, get both if you can afford it. Use the 300/2.8 ± TCs when driving around and on moderate hiking, and the Tammy when travelling abroad or for long hikes. My Black Rapid RS4 has reportedly been delivered in the post and I am going to check if I can anchor it to the 1/4" slots in both the Tammy foot and the 5D3 by buying extra connectors.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.
> ...



Yep been there too. Most of my Canon lenses are now worth 30% on the second hand market when compared to the new prices I paid for them. I've only really lost money on off brand stuff and the DSLR camera bodies. The lenses are pretty good investment really...and you get to use them too. If one thinks long term, the lenses pay for themselves via professional use and then you get money for them when you come to sell them again...it's no brainer over the long term. My 400 f2.8 LIS is only worth a little more than I paid for it s/h 2 years ago. Although I'm not interested in selling it just yet...it's effectively free to use for me. If and when I can raise the cash for a 400 f2.8 LIS mkII....i only have to worry about the difference between the two lenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Your maths is way off.
> 
> I bought a 300 f2.8 IS in 2004 for $3,500, I could sell it for $3,000+, that is a <$500 depreciation over 9 years. Don't forget the price of the big lenses keeps going up, the MkI will never be worth the same as a MkII but it will be several years before you can even get a heavily used 300 f2.8 IS MkII for close to $4,000, which leaves plenty of market share for the MkI $1,000 lower.
> 
> Sure you can buy the Tamron for the lost money rental price, but the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.



You gotta love the BIG WHITES 

I got my 400mm f2.8 IS II just before the price increased by $300. With 2% reward from the purchase, I got my 1.4x TC III for less than half price of original, plus $50 rebate from BH


----------



## gary (Feb 21, 2014)

My advice based on experience if you are looking for a big lens then buy Canon for two reasons, picture quality and residual value. I bought a 300L 2.8IS from new and had much pleasure for three years and then sold it for $400 more than I paid for it. I haven't seen that happening with with other brands.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 21, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > adhocphotographer said:
> ...



Buy it from India ... Tamron for INR 90K, canon 200-400 for 630K


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2014)

gary said:


> My advice based on experience if you are looking for a big lens then buy Canon for two reasons, picture quality and residual value. I bought a 300L 2.8IS from new and had much pleasure for three years and then sold it for $400 more than I paid for it. I haven't seen that happening with with other brands.



simplyelectronics is selling a new 300/2.8 II for £1500 less than I paid for my discounted one nearly two years ago. That loss is far more than the cost of the Tammy. We are not at present in an inflationary era for consumer goods so don't bet on the big whites not seriously depreciating.


----------



## miah (Feb 21, 2014)

Let's be honest about this whole resale thing; percentages do not tell the whole story. Even if the Tammie lost 50% of its value on the used market, say after 3 years, that means you had use of a very nice 150-600 zoom for 3 years for less than $535 US! The Tammie is not a Canon 600, but $535 is just 4% of the cost of the Big White. I'm a serious hobbyist, not a pro making any significant amount of income from photography, so the Tammie's quality/value--even when factoring in resale--looks like a no-brainer.

This morning, walking on my property here in Colorado, I spotted 5 bald eagles and 2 red-tailed hawks (not to mention some prairie dogs, a coyote and a slew of mule deer). While I didn't have a camera with me, my 400 f/5.6 would not have been long enough to put a significant number of pixels on target. The Tammie, "compact and light" as it is, would have been the tool I needed to capture one or more of these feathered friends. Hmm, maybe I need to get off the pot and place an order, but I'd still like to see a few more sample pics... Are you hearing me AlanF and Don Haines?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 21, 2014)

miah said:


> Let's be honest about this whole resale thing; percentages do not tell the whole story. Even if the Tammie lost 50% of its value on the used market, say after 3 years, that means you had use of a very nice 150-600 zoom for 3 years for less than $535 US! The Tammie is not a Canon 600, but $535 is just 4% of the cost of the Big White. I'm a serious hobbyist, not a pro making any significant amount of income from photography, so the Tammie's quality/value--even when factoring in resale--looks like a no-brainer.
> 
> This morning, walking on my property here in Colorado, I spotted 5 bald eagles and 2 red-tailed hawks (not to mention some prairie dogs, a coyote and a slew of mule deer). While I didn't have a camera with me, my 400 f/5.6 would not have been long enough to put a significant number of pixels on target. The Tammie, "compact and light" as it is, would have been the tool I needed to capture one or more of these feathered friends. Hmm, maybe I need to get off the pot and place an order, but I'd still like to see a few more sample pics... Are you hearing me AlanF and Don Haines?


I'm in agreement on the resale thing and when I bought my 300, I bought a LensCoat to protect it with some considerations for re-sale value. I found it ruined the lens and made it much more annoying to use so I returned it. If I lose money someday when the 300 Mk III comes out, so be it. Whatever I lose will be a fraction of the rental cost.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2014)

I just made the point that lux made a big error in their maths, obviously there are many more considerations in lens buying, and when it gets to telephotos cost is normally the true decider, irrespective of depreciation or resale values.

I'd feel comfortable getting the Tamron for part time use at $1,200 ish rather than a Canon 200-400 at $11,000. If my livelihood depended on it I'd probably get the Canon. If it was a hobby and I wasn't very comfortable with my savings and financial arrangements nothing would induce me to spend $1,000's just to play with, if I was comfortable with my financial position the fact that Canon lens ownership can be, essentially free, I'd get the Canon and look after it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 21, 2014)

Tried out the Black Rapid RS-4 this afternoon. The Tammy is very comfortable hanging from it. As some might know, my 5DIII once fell off the 300mm when it was slung over my shoulder. I'd like to secure the 5DIII to the Black Rapid and also have an extra safety link from the Tammy/camera to the shoulder strap in case the screw comes loose from the Tammy tripod bush. I am thinking now of getting the Black Rapid wrist strap, screwing that into the 5DIII and threading its loop through the shoulder strap that is attached to the lens tripod mount. Has anyone tried something like this or has a better suggestion?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2014)

It's difficult to find birds to photograph! Here are two examples from today. The first is too easy: the robin was pretty close, and it should have been sharp. The second is a crane flying. The Tammy is not particularly fast at locking on, but when it does, it keeps on target. The crane is at the limit at what I can take, and I use shots like these as reference to what I have seen. It took some work in PP to get the image where it is. The Canon would have done better, but it doesn't make much difference. The robin is sufficiently sharp that having it any sharper wouldn't make any real difference. The crane still wouldn't have got to publication quality.

Both were at 600 mm, iso 640, f/8 on a 5DIII. The crops are at 100%, the full image of the crane is reduced just to show what was cropped. The robin is at a high compression, in the next posting.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 22, 2014)

I couldn't upload the 3 at once, despite being well under the limit.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 22, 2014)

AlanF you should have been a news reporter!  Very good at delivering the facts without bias.

Jack


----------



## miah (Feb 23, 2014)

Yeah, thanks for posting these, AlanF. Very helpful indeed!

I shot these two today, male and female mallard ducks and a female red tailed hawk, using the trusty 400 f/5.6 and 5D3. Both photos are heavily cropped, hence the desire to pick up the Tammy.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 23, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Interesting justification for buying a lens!
> 
> (Cost of lens - re-sale cots)/rental cost per day.... if this number is smaller than the days you might rent it, you might as well buy it and sell it if and when you want to!!!  hmmm lets see if my wife buys into this!



FYI didn't work!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 23, 2014)

miah said:


> Yeah, thanks for posting these, AlanF. Very helpful indeed!
> 
> I shot these two today, male and female mallard ducks and a female red tailed hawk, using the trusty 400 f/5.6 and 5D3. Both photos are heavily cropped, hence the desire to pick up the Tammy.


Miah, I love the first image of the flying ducks ... very beautiful, the ducks seem to pop out of the image ... very nice indeed.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2014)

miah said:


> Yeah, thanks for posting these, AlanF. Very helpful indeed!
> 
> I shot these two today, male and female mallard ducks and a female red tailed hawk, using the trusty 400 f/5.6 and 5D3. Both photos are heavily cropped, hence the desire to pick up the Tammy.



Nice. What were the sizes of each before you reduced them (if you did?)?


----------



## miah (Feb 23, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Miah, I love the first image of the flying ducks ... very beautiful, the ducks seem to pop out of the image ... very nice indeed.



Thanks, Rienzphotoz, the originals look a lot better (of course). I was just glad to shoot my first birds of the year. It's unusually warm here in S Colorado, so they're showing up early. I'll head out again for a walk this morning and see what I find.



AlanF said:


> Nice. What were the sizes of each before you reduced them (if you did?)?



Thanks, AlanF, I also wanted to ask you how close to the Robin were you? It's a nice shot that shows off the Tammy. My original 5D3 files were cropped as follows:

5D3 native: 5760 x 3840
Mallards: cropped to 1595 x 1063, then reduced to 720 x 480 for posting
Red-Tailed Hawk: cropped to 1648 x 1098, then reduced to 720 x 480 for posting

Quick PP in Lightroom only, no plug-ins.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2014)

Thanks Miah. That's pretty good performance by the lens (and you).


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2014)

*Safety strap for Black Rapid*

The Black Rapid strap connects to the tripod foot of the Tamron using a 1/4" bolt, attached to a swivelling caribiner, through which is threaded the nylon webbing.
I am worried about my 5DIII falling off the lens because of my accidentally unlocking it, which has happened, cracking the plastic top. I have also read of the Black Rapid failing because the swivel head comes loose or the 1/4" bolt becomes undone. I decided to hook the camera to the webbing or top of the caribiner to prevent the hitting the ground if it becomes loose and to add a safety cord if the lens comes off the webbing. The first idea was to buy a 1/4" bolt to fit into the bottom of the camera and use that as an attachment. However, Canon does not advise that the attachment would be strong enough. The camera lugs must be strong as they are designed to take the weight of the body plus lenses like the 70-200/2.8 hanging on a Canon strap. So, here is my cheap and cheerful solution.

I attached a looped cord to a key ring of suitable size, and tested the strength by swinging a 14 lb clock weight from it. Then, I threaded the loop through a camera lug and threaded the rest of the cord through the protruding loop. The cord was then attached to the webbing by the key ring.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2014)

As an altruistic act on behalf of CR Tammy owners, I simulated a strap failure to test the rig. It worked. Make sure that the safety strap is not too long as the lens goes from horizontal to vertical on severing the link to its tripod mount and being suspended from the camera. I also replaced the cord with a section of flat webbing salvaged from old equipment as it is easier to thread through the lugs and also the key ring when changing lenses or camera bodies. The choice of webbing was between a lanyard from an ancient 110 Minolta or a pair of Nikon binoculars. I decided that although the latter might appear to be amusing to some it could offend a malicious Japanese god.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 23, 2014)

Some BIF with the Tammy...


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 23, 2014)

And a couple more...


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 23, 2014)

Forgot to add: all are on a 5D3, ISO 1250, f/8, 1/2000s.


----------



## Click (Feb 23, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, thanks for posting these, AlanF. Very helpful indeed!
> ...



+1

Beautiful image 8)


----------



## miah (Feb 23, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Forgot to add: all are on a 5D3, ISO 1250, f/8, 1/2000s.



Thanks for posting these, Albi86, just one question: Were all of these shots with the Tammy at 600mm?


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 23, 2014)

miah said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Forgot to add: all are on a 5D3, ISO 1250, f/8, 1/2000s.
> ...



Yes  100% crops don't look too pretty, but I blame that on my (lack of) skill. 

EDIT: to be fair, as you can see from the light in the picture, I was close to sunset. It's not easy for the lens/camera to focus in that situation, especially against high-contrast background like the canes.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 23, 2014)

How good do you think the IS is at 600mm? It doesn't seem like 4 stops to me.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> How good do you think the IS is at 600mm? It doesn't seem like 4 stops to me.



depends.

how do you calculate that it is not 4 stops?
you shoot handheld with and without VC and look how many stops you need to see no blur from your tremors? 

or you just say you should be able to handhold it at ~1/30s. @600mm.


----------



## candc (Feb 24, 2014)

Without doing any scientific testing, I would say 3 stops.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > How good do you think the IS is at 600mm? It doesn't seem like 4 stops to me.
> ...


http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866
It is claimed in this review that 50% of his shots at 1/40 s are sharp. Most of mine are blurred at that speed.


----------



## jrista (Feb 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Sharpness at such speeds is entirely subjective. Given the kind of use cases this lens will most likely be used for (birds, wildlife and other action with cropped sensor cameras), at 1/40s, your likely going to get considerable blur, even if you have steady hands. Your subjects will be moving, and even a small amount of movement (ESPECIALLY for birds) at anything under about 1/800s results in blur. 

I used to try to keep my shutter speed slower with the 7D to keep noise levels lower (and avoid having to go over ISO 1600), however for passerines, they are so jittery and constantly on the move that anything under about 1/800s (and in the case of the really small, super hyper birds like chickadees or bushtits and the like, even shutter speeds of 1/1250s and slower) results in subject blur. This was even the case with the EF 600mm f/4 II on a heavy duty tripod and gimbal (GT3532LS + Jobu Pro 2).

The only time your going to get stable 1/40s shots hand-held is if there is no motion in the scene. I had the luck of getting a 1/6s handheld shot ONCE in my entire time photographing:







*Night Heron at Night*
_Canon EOS 7D + EF 600mm f/4 L II
1/6s @ f/4 ISO 3200_

The only reason I was able to get the shot is because the bird was literally motionless for the entire time it took me to uncap the lens, stabilize myself so that I was motionless, configure the right camera settings, and take the shot. This was about a half hour or so after sunset, during the last minutes of civil twilight/first minutes of astronomical twilight. It was truly "night". Unless you intend to go around photographing night herons at night, I don't expect many nature photographers who get the Tammy 150-600 will be getting many sharp handheld shots at such low shutter speeds.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 24, 2014)

BTW, I used zone AF in my 5D3 with the central group. 
AF was set to Case 3: focus on subject entering the focus area. 
This is because I find it often difficult to keep a flying bird on the active AF area. However, I suspect that my movement trying to follow the bird caused some loss of sharpness. Shots at 1/2000s look better than those at 1/1000 but still not tack sharp in any point - i.e. it doesn't seem the focus is off.

Any suggestion?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2014)

Thanks Jon, I am sure you are right. The heavy cropping we do with birds is stretching the camera to its limits and we need much higher speeds than indicated by the old rule and the number of IS stops. Further, I think I have read that the old rule of thumb that you need a shutter speed of faster than 1/f breaks down at as f increases and so a 600mm requires more than 1.5x the speed at 400mm. The 1.6x crop factor on the 7 or 70D comes into it as well, and again more than 1.6x.


----------



## philmoz (Feb 24, 2014)

Thanks to a tip from Roo, I picked up this lens on Friday.
First serious tests this evening and so far it's looking pretty good (IMO) - will take a bit of practice though, keeper rate is a bit low 





















Larger versions plus some more images here - http://www.pbase.com/phil_a_mitchell/tooradin

Phil.


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



well that doesn´t mean it has to be the lens or VC. 
exactly what i meant. 
are you able to hold a different (canon) 600mm lens at that speed?

i know people who can handle 600mm with IS at 1/30s or 1/40s but im not one of them.
as im not one of the guys who can shoot a 600mm handheld without IS at 1/600s.

you can´t just say "the rule is 1/focal length and this is a 4 stop VC so i should be able to hold it at 1/40s". that´s taking YOU out of the equation.

when you look at professionell bird photographer most of them use a tripod or at least a monopod.
for a good reason.

next thing i will buy is a gimbal.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 24, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



Here is a recent quote from Art Morris, one of the most famous professionals of all time:

"2) The Sharp, Fast, Versatile 300mm ƒ/2.8
For years I had my eyes and my mind closed to the 300mm ƒ/2.8 lenses. That all changed when I borrowed one for my big Antarctica trip with Cheesemans' Ecology Safaris in early 2012. I loved it so much that I extended the loan and brought it along to Japan for a month. On the Southern Oceans trip, I needed to travel light; the Canon 300mm ƒ/2.8L IS lens was my big lens. It was great in the Zodiacs® and *great for handheld birds-in-flight *photography with or without the 1.4x TC. I used it with the 1.4x TC for all of my sea eagle flight photography in Hokkaido, and it was great for the snow monkeys as well. Aside from the light-gathering ƒ/2.8 speed, the lens is mind-bogglingly sharp. 
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, EF 300mm ƒ/2.8L IS USM, Extender EF 1.4x III, *handheld* "

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/long-lens-tips-and-techniques.html

Professionals use tripods or hand hold according to circumstances. The 400/5.6 was (and still ) is so popular because hand holding is necessary for much bird in flight photography. Now, we can use the Tammy or 300/2.8 - we are so lucky.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Night Heron at Night*
> _Canon EOS 7D + EF 600mm f/4 L II
> 1/6s @ f/4 ISO 3200_


So, the effective FOV is 960mm at 1/6sec ... show off  just kidding ... but that is very impressive! 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> show off  just kidding ... but that is very impressive! 8)


+1 - Great shot and amazing shutter speed!


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 24, 2014)

philmoz said:


> Thanks to a tip from Roo, I picked up this lens on Friday.
> First serious tests this evening and so far it's looking pretty good (IMO) - will take a bit of practice though, keeper rate is a bit low
> 
> Phil.



Hi Phil, I really like your #2!

Have have you been finding the AF on flying birds?


----------



## philmoz (Feb 24, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to a tip from Roo, I picked up this lens on Friday.
> ...



Thanks.

I struggle to keep any flying birds in the viewfinder, let alone within the cameras AF area, so it's hard to make any real comment on the lens AF. When I did manage to follow a bird the lens AF seemed to work ok.

Phil.


----------



## miah (Feb 24, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Tried out the Black Rapid RS-4 this afternoon. The Tammy is very comfortable hanging from it. As some might know, my 5DIII once fell off the 300mm when it was slung over my shoulder. I'd like to secure the 5DIII to the Black Rapid and also have an extra safety link from the Tammy/camera to the shoulder strap in case the screw comes loose from the Tammy tripod bush. I am thinking now of getting the Black Rapid wrist strap, screwing that into the 5DIII and threading its loop through the shoulder strap that is attached to the lens tripod mount. Has anyone tried something like this or has a better suggestion?



Sorry for the tardy reply, *AlanF*, but this is the first chance I've had to take photos of my strap set-up. I haven't yet dropped a lens or body, but I came close to dropping my 5D one time when changing lenses from my shoulder strap. So, like you, I prefer a fail-safe. 

I prefer the Joby strap to Black Rapid. I like their rubber bushing/style of lock-nut better and I can adjust the length of their strap very quickly with one hand/no buckles. That means I can wear it long enough to hold my camera/lens beside my waist, gun-slinger style for quick action, then quickly suck it up under my arm pit if I want to scramble up a rock without banging the camera into everything.

Both body and lenses-with-collars are equipped with Induro PU-60 base plates for my tripods.

I attach the Joby slider to a Kirk 1" Std Quick Release which attaches to either the camera, for short lenses, or collars, for long lenses. This allows me to quickly doff the strap and attach either the body or lens to my tripod in a heartbeat. I got the idea to use the Kirk SQR from Neuro, and it hasn't let me down yet.

Next, I use an Optek neoprene wrist leash (very soft and comfortable) on my right wrist, making sure to tighten up the toggle. It stays on my wrist all day. I modified the tip of the leash by sewing on a 5/8-inch, male-side, Fastex Side-Release buckle. I then sewed a very short female Fastex buckle to the right-hand strap bracket on the 5D body, using a short length of webbing. Make sure any leash attached to the camera body itself--chest strap or wrist strap--is as short as possible to minimize wind flappage.

This set-up allows me to have both my lens and camera attached to me at all times, together and/or independently. The wrist leash is long enough that I can still get into my backpack, take a drink of water, etc., without unclipping myself from the camera body, as the whole rig hangs at my side from the chest strap. If I want to change lenses while all leashed up? No problem. Lenses with or without a collar? No problem. Quickly jump to a tripod regardless of lens? No problem.

This is the most versatile set-up I've come up with. I don't like hand straps--something you were leaning towards--because they often use up the body's tripod mounting threads where I'd prefer to have a base plate. Too, though they offer some added stability, they're too slow to get in and out of as circumstances change. Finally, you can see in the photos that I keep my collars rotated 90-degrees when dangling the camera/lens from my Joby so I can quickly lift the body by its grip and rest the barrel of the lens on my left hand. Obviously, I have to loosen the collar screw and rotate things right-side up when jumping to a tripod. I find this 90-degree collar tilt also puts the body/lens in the best gun-slinger position for a quick-response shot.

I hope this helps.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 24, 2014)

So I picked up this lens yesterday here in shanghai I think i got the only retail copy available until next month  
and went out to the bund to test it out.

first I'm not a birding kind of guy so these shots are really beginner BIF stuff, I've tried with the 300 f4L and 2X TC before but wasnt very happy and had a low keeper rate so never got into it much

I also have to say until now i have been a card carrying life member of the Tamron Hate Club.

Some initial feelings on the lens
build is very solid It feels like a 100 f2.8L IS macro on steroids, lots of plastic but the good sort.
tolerances feel tight and precise
zoom ring is too tight for my taste and it has way too long of a throw (this could have been reduced by at least 50% IMO, hopefully it will loosen up over time. The nikonian direction is a minor annoyance but i've shot both nikon and canon so its far from a deal breaker for me. Perhaps they made the zoom too stiff to reduce potential for zoom creep, its very very stiff initially off the 150 mark going up and less stiff from 600 going down. 

Balance on the 5D feels a little front heavy (I think a 1D body will have perfect balance with this lens), I wasn't shooting with any kind of strap just carried it loose either by the camera grip or by the tripod foot which i had turned up to the top so it didn't get in the way of trying to zoom.
The focus ring is great really smooth and fast.

first thing i had a problem with was it wouldn't focus at all, I thought oh great here we go : farrrkking tamron, but i went into my menus and turned on continue to focus when impossible setting (cant remeber the exact words and too lazy to check) which i had off and this seemed to clear that up.

unfortunately the day was really crappy lots of contrast leaching smog, light rain drizzle so i teste dout the the weather sealing combo of the 5Dmk3 and this lens a little as i had no protection for the camera or lens so they got a little wet. nothing major though I didn't feel the rain was heavy enough to need an umbrella.

the smoggy hazy sky made trying to get focus on white birds quite difficult especially when they were backlit but the lens tracked exceptionally well. I tried it in spot (epic fail) switched to zone and realised i need more practice before i try that again with fast moving birds  so put it in area and just left the AF in the hands of canon's AF engineers.

anyway here are some shots I got, I don't use burst still just single shot silent and all shots are timed, back button focus and Dof button for engaging servo.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 24, 2014)

some more


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 25, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> So I picked up this lens yesterday here in shanghai I think i got the only retail copy available until next month
> and went out to the bund to test it out.
> 
> first I'm not a birding kind of guy so these shots are really beginner BIF stuff, I've tried with the 300 f4L and 2X TC before but wasnt very happy and had a low keeper rate so never got into it much
> ...



Those are good looking BIF shots wickidwombat 

For $1000ish - this lens seems to get better and better - Esp. when it in the right hands of photographers


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 25, 2014)

Wombat, I feel like my initial impressions are exactly the same as yours. Like you, also for me it's the first time having such a long lens and trying focusing on crazy moving targets.

I had decent results with Zone AF but I'm looking forward to test the automatic 61pt selection.


----------



## 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)

wickidwombat said:


> some more



Nice job! Quite a frame filling experience you had, and the composition looks fine to me, can't tell you lack experience with BIF (of course I'm no expert myself). But I'm more interested in how they would look from say, I don't know...200 yards away? You were obviously within 80 to 100 feet of these. The more elusive wildlife, is not as tame as a seagull.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 25, 2014)

*Canon IS vs Tamron VC*

It was easier to frame a target with the Canon at 600mm as the image jumps about less, which is the reaon why a queried the number of stops the IS by the Tamron VC gains. 
I tested today the Tamron VC at 600mm vs the Canon 300/2.8mm II + 2XTC III on a target about 40 m away. At 1/640s my keeper without IS/VC was about 50%. With IS on, the keeper rate of the Canon was about 50% at 1/40s. With the Tamron, the 50% keeper rate was about at 1/80s. So, I think in practice the Tamron is about 3 stops, in my hands, and the Canon 4 stops. 

*Build quality*
If you think that the Tamron won't survive a fall, don't drop it. (Mine is now at the end of a Black Rapid Strap plus additional safety strap). But, how strong is the 100-400 L? Well, mine was attached to my 7D when sitting in a passenger seat, with the 7D between my knees and the lens pointing down. The camera slipped and the lens hit the floor from a height of about 20 cm, flat on to the front of the hood. That small jolt was enough to break the USM motor. The 100-400 is reported to have cases of bearing failures. 

I am not going to do the test of dropping the Canon 300mm 2.8 and comparing it with dropping the Tamron from the same height. Anybody volunteering for that?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I am not going to do the test of dropping the Canon 300mm 2.8 and comparing it with dropping the Tamron from the same height. Anybody volunteering for that?


Alan, if you send me your lenses, I'll be happy to be the one who drops them and compares the damage 

Thanks for your continued updates on this comparison. I've been getting out with my 300 + MkIII extenders lately and also had a chance to run the set through the FoCal battery of tests. Like your lens, my 300 + 2x is almost exactly the same sharpness at f/5.6 as it is at f/8, with just a slight bump at f/6.3. The AF consistency is the best of any of my lenses, with the 70-200 2.8 IS II a close second. 

Also, I did some hand-holding with the 1.4x + EF12 + 2x and found the quality to be decent, but the light was really harsh and humidity high, so I'll have to give it another shot down the road...

Back to the Tamron, do you miss the other IS modes? I find myself using mode 3 a lot on the Canon and mode 2 will be my go to mode when I shoot some sports and fighter jets in the coming months.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 25, 2014)

oh i need to add a couple of things trying to shoot sea gulls with this lens without using the focus limiter was basically impossible. static or slow moving subjects are fine though without the focus limiter on.

the other is I have previously tried the 70-200 with 2X TC to shoot birds in flight and failed misserably
not blaming the lens but to pick this thing up and be nailing it with reasonable consistency really says alot about how this thing performs.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 25, 2014)

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...


You won't be sorry ;D


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 25, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...



As a general rule, if you can afford the 300/2.8, you're probably not the target market for the Tamron. 

Even if you need a zoom, I see the 100-400 & 300/2.8 + 2xTC as a better setup than the Tamron alone. Of course you don't get all of that stuff for 1069$.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...
> ...


My combo is the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III and 2x III - Total $10,296. Hmm, the Tamron seems like a pretty good deal in comparison  It's also a wee bit lighter and more compact that this set.

If I didn't shoot wildlife for 80-90% of my personal work, I'd buy the Tamron without a second thought.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 25, 2014)

AlanF said:


> *Build quality*
> If you think that the Tamron won't survive a fall, don't drop it. (Mine is now at the end of a Black Rapid Strap plus additional safety strap). But, how strong is the 100-400 L? Well, mine was attached to my 7D when sitting in a passenger seat, with the 7D between my knees and the lens pointing down. The camera slipped and the lens hit the floor from a height of about 20 cm, flat on to the front of the hood. That small jolt was enough to break the USM motor. The 100-400 is reported to have cases of bearing failures.
> 
> I am not going to do the test of dropping the Canon 300mm 2.8 and comparing it with dropping the Tamron from the same height. Anybody volunteering for that?


People don't drop their lenses intentionally (unless, one is like Kai Wong kind) ... from the few big lenses that I've owned, I've bumped and/or dropped them on several occasions ... my EF 100-400mm L IS & EF-S 17-85mm lens dropped form a height of at least 5 feet on to a rig floor (consisting of ridged metal floor), the EF-S 17-85mm had an instant death, but the EF 100-400 L IS survived with a few scratches on the body and a dent on the filter thread ... I sold the 100-400 L IS a year after that fall and still got the same price I had paid for it. A few months ago (November 2013) my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II had a violent knock from a crane and and it got flung out 10 feet away from a height of approx 6 feet, but it still works perfectly, except it has ugly scratches on the filter thread (if you look closely, at the image below, you can see the scratches/chipped off filter thread part ... I painted it black with a permanent marker to mask the silver color, so it doesn't show the ugly chipped off/scratched part too much on the filter thread) ... most Canon L lenses can take a few falls and hits and still live to make awesome images ... same cannot be said for third party lenses that I own.

I am absolutely convinced of the Tamron 150-600's awesome image quality, it's worth more than its price tag in that front, but not so much on its poor build quality.
I'm pretty sure Kai Wong will be more than happy to volunteer for the drop test ;D ... that guy is plain nuts when it comes to dropping lenses, setting cameras on fire etc


----------



## miah (Feb 25, 2014)

Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with *wickidwombat's* comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as *AlanF* and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.

Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

miah said:


> Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with *wickidwombat's* comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as *AlanF* and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.
> 
> Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!



But what about weather sealing? I didn't think the Tamron had it. If it doesn't, and you guys are talking about buying one to carry off into the bush...then I wonder if the weather sealing argument others have for other lenses, is just an excuse to argue? Not saying it's not nice to have, but how is it ok for this Tamron to not have it, but not ok for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "art" to not have it?

Anyway, if there's info somewhere that there actually _is_ weather sealing, I don't see it.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 26, 2014)

The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted! 

But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed. 

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS! 

I would choose the Tamron if most of my wildlife was taking in good light, but it is not! I can't afford the 300 right now, but i am saving, and for me I think it is worth the wait! 

Here is an example... a shot taken at 200mm f/2.8 iso 1600 1/200. some extra reach at 2.8 would have been nice! Yes i know i can stop down and bunk the ISO, but i like the choice not to. I am also a shaky person, so crazy low shutter speeds kill me with still subject let alone a moving one! 

ps - I would like to thank everyone on here for their in-hands review of this lens and comparison to the 300 combo. It has really helped me make up my mind... I just need to sway the wife now!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 26, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with *wickidwombat's* comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as *AlanF* and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.
> ...



It's moisture resistant - http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-8.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted!
> 
> But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed.
> 
> ...



Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!! 

In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

AlanF said:


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



Thanks.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 26, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!
> 
> In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.



Thanks.... I won't be selling my 70-200, i use it tooooo much for portraits and other things too! I'm just going to content myself with it + a 2xtcIII until funds (and the wife) are more agreeable!  I can certainly see the appeal of the tamron!


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 26, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!



I'm afraid you're wrongly intending "weather sealing", "weather resistance" and similar expressions as "waterproof".


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 26, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lens.jpg

hahaha... I think this lens could stand the monsoon longer enough for me to find shelter!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!
> ...



Do wives get more agreeable over time? Or is it that you don't realize, that it is you who have adjusted your desires to be more in agreement with her wishes as the years go by? I'm not married, but from what I know of them...well, I better hold my tongue on this!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


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


Carl, you just learn to be discrete and how to justify your purchases - you know like I really need the 85 f/1.2 II to make you look all the more beautiful and to make all of your friends jealous  Also, you always have to get a deal that's so good you'd be a fool not to buy it - Honey, when am I ever going to get 10% off a "big white" lens? I _have _to buy it.

I'm coming up on 11 years but still feel like a rookie


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 27, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted!
> 
> But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed.
> 
> ...



As an owner of 300mm f2.8 IS II for few weeks, I would consider the 300mm as a "PERFECT" lens in my own world. I carried this lens around the zoo good 4-5hrs and there wasn't weight issue at all(I wish I can say that to my 400mm f2.8 IS II). AF speed is SUPER fast and IQ is just AMAZING. Although, I haven't try with x1.4 TC III yet, but I would expect IQ be better then tammy at any range.(not to mention you getting f4 @ 420mm). Why I said that? well, my 400mm f2.8 IS II works extremly well with x1.4 TC III 

However, the Tammy seems to be a great lens too - ZOOM & COST


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 27, 2014)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

boom... this is what we have all been waiting for! 300 here i come (start laying down the foundations)...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Do wives get more agreeable over time? Or is it that you don't realize, that it is you who have adjusted your desires to be more in agreement with her wishes as the years go by? I'm not married, but from what I know of them...well, I better hold my tongue on this!



Carl... I'm fairly new at the whole marriage thing (less than 2 years), but I have already 'figured out' (small sample size) a couple of important points. The main one being my priorities and her will not always align... the key is to get them to align! 6k on a lens is obscene to someone who is not into photography, i need to illustrate the advantages more... even if an advantage is to get me to stop moaning about it! 

in all fairness, i blame my wife for my current lens desires... in the last 18 months SHE has bought and surprised me with a 5DIII kit, 70-200 IS II, a 24L II, and a 17-40L. She got me hooked on the good stuff! But even if it is no-go... i'm still significantly better off


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> in the last 18 months SHE has bought and surprised me with a 5DIII kit, 70-200 IS II, a 24L II, and a 17-40L.


You are a lucky man 8)


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > in the last 18 months SHE has bought and surprised me with a 5DIII kit, 70-200 IS II, a 24L II, and a 17-40L.
> ...



I know it!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2014)

A comparison of the Tammy vs Canons at a variety of focal lengths and lenses.

*Tamron @150 f/5 vs Canon 100-400 @150 f/5*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

_Tammy sharper, especially at edges_

*Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @300 f/5.6*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

_Little between them_

*Tamron @400 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @400 f/5.6*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

_Little between them_

*Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @300mm f/2.8*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

_The world’s sharpest lens wins, but Tammy not bad_
*
Tamron @400 f/5.6 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @420mm f/4
*
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
_
Canon wins, but not by a knockout_

*Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @600mm f/8*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

_As my own tests showed, the Canon is better but Tammy OK at centre
_

*Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 300mm f/4 @600mm f/8*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

_Tammy wins hands down against the smaller Canon_

*Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 200-400mm f/4 @560mm f/8*

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Not much in it at the centre versus one of the great lenses in Canon's repertoire.

It all goes to show that the Tammy is as good as the 100-400 L up to 400mm, and a respectable 600mm thrown in.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 27, 2014)

Good recap AlanF!

Tamron have certainly produced a stella lens! Kudos!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2014)

*The Tammy at 500mm*

This shows the Tammy at 500mm is remarkable

*Tamron @500mm f/6.3 vs Canon 500mm II f/40
*
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

_Wide open the Tammy is pretty impressive versus the superb Canon_

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=745&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

_Both at f/8, the Canon is only marginally ahead._


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

adhocphotographer said:


> Good recap AlanF!
> 
> Tamron have certainly produced a stella lens! Kudos!


+1 Definitely! One more for old time's sake - teh Tammy vs. my old buddy the 400 f/5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The Canon wins by a hair, but this is a very respectable result!


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2014)

Tammy @ 600mm f/6.3 vs Canon 600mm L IS f/4

This is even more remarkable, the Tammy at its "soft" f/6.3 is sharper in the centre than the redoubtable Canon at f/4, and not much worse at midframe.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=336&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## hoodlum (Feb 27, 2014)

That 600mm f4 comparision was surprising.

Here is one more against the 400mm f5.6 + 1.4tciii @f8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

hoodlum said:


> That 600mm f4 comparision was surprising.
> 
> Here is one more against the 400mm f5.6 + 1.4tciii @f8.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1


Good one and the old 400 does quite well! If Canon ever updates that optics and adds IS, it would be one seriously amazing lens.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 28, 2014)

Am I really reading this correctly?

The Tamron at 300mm & f/5.6 appears to be "holding it's own" quite well in the center, and may even be more crisp mid-frame & in the corners, against the mighty Canon 70-200 II (at a similar f/5.6) with a 1.4x TC.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

And at 400mm the Tamron looks sharper across-the-board compared to the Canon 70-200 II with a 2x TC.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

So if you _already_ have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II (& you wanted to go longer) for about the same cost of both Canon Extenders, you can get the extra 400-600mm range _and_ better sharpness by going with the Tamron?

If I'm understanding all this correctly, for someone like me who typically photographs "static" landscapes, this is a no-brainer right? At least until the Canon 100-400mm II becomes available... :


----------



## dcm (Feb 28, 2014)

Looking at the TDP samples, the Tammy looks like it could be an interesting addition to my lens collection, where my long lenses include the 135F2L, 70-200F4L IS, and both TC IIIs. As expected the Tammy cannot match the 135F2L in sharpness, even versus the 1.4x at larger apertures. But the Tammy does appear to outperform the 135F2+2.0x. A comparison with the 70-200F4L IS yields similar results by itself or with the 1.4x, while the Tammy outperforms the 70-200 with the 2.0x and has an aperture advantage. 

Doubt I will use the TCs as much once the Tammy arrives. Wonder how the Tammy performs with a TC? Anybody tried this yet? Might try to shoot the moon .


----------



## AlanF (Feb 28, 2014)

Yes, you are reading correctly. The 100-400 L is slightly better than the 70-200 with extenders at 280 and 400mm, and the Tamron 150-600 and the 100-400 are within a whisker of each other. Canon TCs are overpriced. 

The Canon TCs won't fit on to the Tammy so I couldn't test it. But, I would guess that the Kenko etc ones will give terrible IQ and AF.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 28, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> And at 400mm the Tamron looks sharper across-the-board compared to the Canon 70-200 II with a 2x TC.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2
> 
> ...



Indeed... I think if this lens was released a couple of years back when i first wanted length, i would have gone for it over adding extenders to my 70-200... that resolution is inspiring. Lets see how Canon will counter it... If the putative 100-400 II does not add a significant IQ, the tamron is a clear winner, and lets face it, the next 100-400 will cost a damn sight more than the tammy!


----------



## Vincwat (Feb 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> A comparison of the Tammy vs Canons at a variety of focal lengths and lenses.
> 
> *Tamron @150 f/5 vs Canon 100-400 @150 f/5*
> 
> ...




From what I see, the Canon is much better in the corners at 150mm, from 200mm the difference is negligible.
From 300mm the Tamron is better, especially in the corners...


----------



## AlanF (Mar 1, 2014)

The-Digital-Picture image quality charts have been most useful. The site is one which we know to be most reliable and objective (thanks Bryan!). A couple of comparisons took me by surprise.

The Tammy is at best at 300mm, where it has negligible CA at f/5.6 and is about as good as the truly excellent Canon f/300 L.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Tammy is really good at 500mm, wide open at f/6.3. In particular, it is sharp at the corners, unlike at 600mm. So, I think for birds in flight, it may be best used at 500mm so if the fast ones are close to the edge they will still be sharp and you get a wider angle for view for capture.

The Tammy at 500mm f/6.3 is as sharp as the Canon 100-400L at 400mm. So you get a 25% boost in reach and 56% more pixels on target with no loss of image quality.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 1, 2014)

dcm said:


> Looking at the TDP samples, the Tammy looks like it could be an interesting addition to my lens collection, where my long lenses include the 135F2L, 70-200F4L IS, and both TC IIIs. As expected the Tammy cannot match the 135F2L in sharpness, even versus the 1.4x at larger apertures. But the Tammy does appear to outperform the 135F2+2.0x. A comparison with the 70-200F4L IS yields similar results by itself or with the 1.4x, while the Tammy outperforms the 70-200 with the 2.0x and has an aperture advantage.
> 
> Doubt I will use the TCs as much once the Tammy arrives. Wonder how the Tammy performs with a TC? Anybody tried this yet? Might try to shoot the moon .



the 2x TC physically wont attach  I tried


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 1, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.


Is there a comparison of both lenses (Tammy 150-600 VC & 100-400 L IS) on the same crop sensor camera body (e.g. 60D / 7D / 70D etc)?


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 1, 2014)

AlanF said:


> A comparison of the Tammy vs Canons at a variety of focal lengths and lenses.
> 
> *Tamron @150 f/5 vs Canon 100-400 @150 f/5*
> 
> ...



you should check your findings.
the canon is clearly sharper in the corners here.

ps:

or you should make it more clear what text is for which example (if it´s a headline or a footnote).

i guess your text "Tammy sharper, especially at edges"

is for the "Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @300 f/5.6" example?


----------



## Plainsman (Mar 1, 2014)

The iso 12233 crops show the hit that sharp primes take when you attach a bog standard Canon 2xTC.

Inevitable because that same TC is a compromise that has to give reasonable performance with other lenses in the Canon range all with different glass components/spacing/ray paths etc.

The Tamron 150-600 could be considered as a 150 - 300 with a built in exactly matching 2xTC which is the reason why it performs pretty well all the way up to 600.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 2, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.
> ...



Yes, on dxomark.com

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-7D___1263_619_598_619

dxo rates the Tammy as better than the 100-400mm on the 7D, but the difference is not as great as on the 5DIII.

The various links are in
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender

To get an idea of the loss of resolution on going from FF to crop with the 10-400mm L see

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

When I got the 5DIII I noted in CR how much better the 100-400 was on it rather than on the 7D.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 2, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


Thanks for the links


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2014)

The Tammy does not come with a case. Wex photographic sent as a freebie a Canon 300EG gadget bag when I bought a 70D from them. This bag fits the Tamron 150-600 perfectly! (Not with the camera attached).

I have posted some photos in the BIRDS IN FLIGHT thread. They were taken by chance as I was carrying the lens and 5DIII on a journey to my lab when I noticed an aerial dog fight. The lens locked on quite quickly to the two very distant birds high in a clear blue sky.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 5, 2014)

The-digital-picture has now posted the full review 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

It has basically what we know from our own discussions, but done rather well. Bryan does suggest that you would do better by using the lens at 500mm and rezzing up to 600mm rather than using it at 600mm directly. The Tammy is indeed really good across the whole frame at 500mm. My conclusions looking at his own data

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

is that if you are using just the centre then 600mm is advantageous but if you need the whole frame or are photographing birds in flight where it is difficult to keep them in the centre, 500mm is better, especially as it gives a wider field of view.


----------



## hoodlum (Mar 5, 2014)

500mm would also give you slightly faster AF for BIF.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 18, 2014)

A rave review from a 600mm f/4 IS L pro

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


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> A rave review from a 600mm f/4 IS L pro
> 
> http://www.theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/



Less than credible review.

He talks about f/4 to blur the background while most often at 600mm f/8 the DoF is barely enough to cover your subject. He boils it down to a mere 1.33 EV difference in luminosity, apparently disregarding the fact that the Canon focuses much faster. No mention at all about keeper rate. He gives very detailed technical info about each picture, except the two in which he compares the Tamron and the Canon.

And I'm saying all of this as a very happy owner of the Tamron. It's an amazing lens, but I can't stand the wilful spread of incorrect and biased information.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2014)

going crazy standing in the B&H queue for this!


----------

