# Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2014)

We have an interesting thread of who would prefer a 600mm f/4 II versus 200-400mm f/4. Let's get down to the nitty gritty of who has actually bought or is in the process of buying one or more of the lenses discussed in the thread.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 10, 2014)

I bought the Tammy and I'm very happy with it. It's my first lens over 300mm and time after time I see some improvement in my skill. It's insanely fun to use. 

Some time ago I speculated that it was possible to build an even better 500mm f/5.6 prime for the same price. I would buy it even keeping the Tammy zoom. 

Photography is a hobby for me and I can't justify spending much more than 1K on a single lens. In fact I'm almost grateful that Tamron opened up the world of good 600mm at this price range. 

If I could afford it, I would buy the 600 L II in an instant.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 10, 2014)

I would like to own a 600mm f/4 L IS II, or a 500mm f/4 L IS II. I need to beef up my arms and my wallet first. Currently I use the wonderful little 400mm f/5.6 L no-IS. I so like hand-holding for shooting BIF that I would like to be able to hand-hold the heavier lens as well.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 10, 2014)

I have a 200-400 on order. I should get it in a few days  at least when I get bad/average shots with the Canon, I'll only have myself to blame


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2014)

So Canon does not make a 500mm f/4L IS II? 

Is this a "forbidden" choice? :

Or even a 800mm f/5.6L...

Edit: Sorry I read about the reference in the thread but still I protest 8)


----------



## filo64 (Mar 10, 2014)

I have got the Tamron 150-600mm and I am going to keep it for the reach, portability and the image quality at f/8. I am not planning to shoot rapidly moving subjects, but tracking with the center af point of my 5D Mark III seems to work fine.

I do believe that you get what you pay for, and that the Tammy is as good as it is because it is a contemporary design.

As far as I know the Tamron is "moisture resistant", i.e. not absolutely weather sealed, even though some reviews say so. For me that is going to be good enough since I am not going to crouch in the bushes with this lens and Germany is seldom dusty.

The VC image stabilizer of my copy of the lens seems to be very effective.


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 10, 2014)

Alan

At 600mm how does the Tamron perform against the 300mk11 and 2x extender. I have this combination and love it.


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 10, 2014)

I've been pretty happy with my 100-400 but then I rented the 300 f/2.8 ii last autumn and got hooked. I can hand-hold with a 2x and get a 600 that still will focus. While the 100-400 can yield some good results at times, many of the shots in shade or in cloudy weather (going through some wildlife shots taken with the 100-400 right now) at 400 are just not sharp enough for me. I was thinking about a 400 f/2.8 or a 600 f/4 but size and the price is just too much for me to justify. Same with a 500.

Been thinking long and hard about the Tammy and was just about to handle one (although I was concerned about a bit of slower AF and about future incompatibility issues and the IQ at 600) when the "group buy" on cannonpricewatch.com comes along. A 300 f/2.8 ii for about the cost of a refurb? 

I know what I will get out of the 300 with a 1.4x and a 2x, and with a bit of cropping to boot, I think I can better the options available in my budget. 

Here's a hand-held 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x at 1600 iso with f/8 right out of the camera with no cropping and no post other than resizing. I could never get this with my 100-400. Could I with the Tammy?


----------



## Skatol (Mar 10, 2014)

I guess buying used/older models is out of the question???? I purchased an older 600mm non-Is and a 300mm F2.8 mark I for less than a new 600mm mark II. Love them both. These were bought to replace my Sigma 150-500. Seldom do I go back to any of my zooms.


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 10, 2014)

I have posted these images on a previous thread, the Agama lizard is taken with the 300f2.8mk11 with 1.4 extender whereas the kingfisher was taken with the 2 x mk111 extender, same lens. The results are impressive.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 10, 2014)

J.R. said:


> I have a 200-400 on order. I should get it in a few days  at least when I get bad/average shots with the Canon, I'll only have myself to blame


I think that's the worst part of having top notch gear. Failure can only come from one place 

As most of you know - I bought the 300mm (already had the 1.4x and 2x IIIs) and couldn't be happier with it's versatility. The 200-400 would be nice in many situations, but I like the bare 2.8 and smaller size of the 300.


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 10, 2014)

et31 said:


> I bought a new Tamron 150-600mm lens a month ago. I am a professional photographer and am not biased towards or against Tamron vs. Canon, as I own prime L-grade lenses from both companies. Unfortunately, this lens is not weather sealed, and after using the lens for two weeks outside, the amount of internal dust was atrocious. Regardless of being meticulous and using a blower at all times, the lens quickly absorbed dust onto the frontal glass element internally, including moisture, via the cork-screw barrel that retracts into the upper chamber. Closely inspecting the markings on the lens, I saw that it was manufactured in China, as opposed to Tamron's traditional Japan manufacturer, which was a big shock, so quality control has definitely been compromised in order to sell the lens at $1069 :-\.
> 
> Additionally, image stabilization for action shots (specifically bird shots) is not reliable. Even though the proper autofocus point speed and tracking can be adjusted in the Canon 5D Mark III to compensate for the lag, shutter speed has to be at least 1/2000th+ of a second in order to prevent motion blur for hand held action tracking shots (coupled with f/6.3 on a cloudy day and ISO 1000-2000, this creates photos worthy of entry level DSLR bodies and stock lenses - which means not good!). Unlike my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L lens, which has 2 modes of image stabilization and creates very fast and stable shots, the Tamron 150-600mm lens only has an on/off VC switch with no additional stabilization mode selection settings. Gimbal shots are naturally improved, but AF adjustment at 15m to infinity is still sluggish when trying to focus on objects 200ft and further (creep still occurs with the limiting switch). I called Tamron directly, and their technical support team confirmed that their teleconverters are not compatible with this lens as Tamron engineers have officially discontinued all TC's and did not design this lens with the 1.4x or 2x in mind. Additionally, they confirmed that both converters should not be used with the lens, as unpredictable results can occur and are not guaranteed to work properly.
> 
> Static shots are amazing with very comparable MTF chart optical clarity to Canon, and portability of the lens is great ; nevertheless, I need a fast and reliable lens for shooting Ospreys, Eagles, King Fishers, Herons, etc. Sorry everyone, but this lens is not quite the "big white killer" that many individuals thought that it would turn out to be. I too thought that this was the lens that would allow me to save several thousand dollars; however, I have now returned the Tamron 150-600mm lens for a full refund and consequently have to save up in order to purchase the real Canon 600mm f/4.0 L II (weather sealed, improved pre-set focus ranges, stabilization modes, etc.). I am not even going to touch the "Sigmonster" 800mm f/5.6, given that it too is not weather sealed and that other professional birders have complained that the focus ring breaks over time, has a fragile body shell, and is extremely sluggish to maneuver; being confined to a gimbal for the majority of the time. In the end, you get what you pay for! :-\



It's nice to see your first two exactly same posts twice(http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19905.msg376913#msg376913). I think you are the first person complain the VC of this 150-600mm. That's a very useful information for me before I make decision buy this lens. I will keep my eyes to see the VC problem.


----------



## lescrane (Mar 10, 2014)

I am returning from 10 days shooting birds in Florida with tamron 150 600. I have done this for 12 years. My previous kits were the 20 40 and 60d bodies with 100 400 l or 300 L usm 4.0 with 1.4 x t.c. I rarely did BIFs.

Coupled with my new 70d, a monopod and tripod with acratech gv2 head for BIFs I can say that the sharpness and pct of good shots for me has made a huge leap. In addition to wading birds and shore birds I got many song birds and BIFs of osprey and waders flying back and forth to nest.

No problems at all. Shot mostly bet 400 and 600 at 7.1 or 8. 

I feel I already got my money worth


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 10, 2014)

Why is there no 400 f/2.8 ii in that list? I do not own (may soon change) the 400 f/2.8 ii but use one a lot, and it should be in the list as it is one of the very best lenses Canon produces.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 10, 2014)

I bought the 300f/2.8 II after owning the Version 1, I am of the opinion the 300f/2.8 II is the sharpest & quickest focussing of all the Large Whites, the 200f/2 is almost as good. Use of the 1.4x converter gives very little appreciable degradation in IQ, not bad with the 2x as well. This is my go to Lens in dim light & where all day hand holding is required.

I've owned the 200-400f/4 since release date, this is probably used for 90% of my Imaging, I can find very little, if anything, to fault on this Lens. Fast Lock On AF, Sharp & clear. I don't generally hand hold this Lens, it's used on a monopod or tripod set up, with the 1.4x converter to flip in/out, plus the zoom & camera controls to adjust there's too much going on to make this Lens a comfortable Hand Hold for long periods, plus at 4 Kilos it get's old pretty quickly.

I've owned the 600f/4 II for about 18 months now, an amazingly sharp Lens, use of the 1.4x converter gives very little appreciable degradation in IQ, not bad with the 2x as well. Not exactly a Hand Holdable Lens although possible for short periods, fast AF sharp as a diamond Lens, it's size though when travelling is a bit of a PIA, but worth it where the 600-840 is needed in large open spaces, or Birding (although Birds are not what I generally use the Lens for).

I did own both the 400f/2.8 V1 & later the 400f/2.8 II Lenses, both of these are superb Lenses, not quite as fast to AF as the 300f/2.8 II but close, IQ is hard to beat, size is good, the Version II became almost a Hand Holdable Lens, but gets heavy quickly, if I hadn't bough the 200-400f/4 this would still be my main go to Lens for Wildlife, works very well with the 1.4x converter, quite good with the 2x.

I've never owned a Tamron Lens, but I see the attraction purely in price, I do own the Sigma 35 Art (excellent Lens), and a couple of Zeiss Lenses (15 & 55, on IQ immaculate, but MF).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> Alan
> 
> At 600mm how does the Tamron perform against the 300mk11 and 2x extender. I have this combination and love it.


Kerry
Here are 21 pages of detailed discussion: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0

Basically, the Tamron does not disgrace itself against one of the best combinations of lens and extender. In the first posts I show some iso12233 shots.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2014)

et31 said:


> I bought a new Tamron 150-600mm lens a month ago. I am a professional photographer and am not biased towards or against Tamron vs. Canon, as I own prime L-grade lenses from both companies. Unfortunately, this lens is not weather sealed, and after using the lens for two weeks outside, the amount of internal dust was atrocious. Regardless of being meticulous and using a blower at all times, the lens quickly absorbed dust onto the frontal glass element internally, including moisture, via the cork-screw barrel that retracts into the upper chamber. Closely inspecting the markings on the lens, I saw that it was manufactured in China, as opposed to Tamron's traditional Japan manufacturer, which was a big shock, so quality control has definitely been compromised in order to sell the lens at $1069 :-\.
> 
> Additionally, image stabilization for action shots (specifically bird shots) is not reliable. Even though the proper autofocus point speed and tracking can be adjusted in the Canon 5D Mark III to compensate for the lag, shutter speed has to be at least 1/2000th+ of a second in order to prevent motion blur for hand held action tracking shots (coupled with f/6.3 on a cloudy day and ISO 1000-2000, this creates photos worthy of entry level DSLR bodies and stock lenses - which means not good!). Unlike my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L lens, which has 2 modes of image stabilization and creates very fast and stable shots, the Tamron 150-600mm lens only has an on/off VC switch with no additional stabilization mode selection settings. Gimbal shots are naturally improved, but AF adjustment at 15m to infinity is still sluggish when trying to focus on objects 200ft and further (creep still occurs with the limiting switch). I called Tamron directly, and their technical support team confirmed that their teleconverters are not compatible with this lens as Tamron engineers have officially discontinued all TC's and did not design this lens with the 1.4x or 2x in mind. Additionally, they confirmed that both converters should not be used with the lens, as unpredictable results can occur and are not guaranteed to work properly.
> 
> Static shots are amazing with very comparable MTF chart optical clarity to Canon, and portability of the lens is great ; nevertheless, I need a fast and reliable lens for shooting Ospreys, Eagles, King Fishers, Herons, etc. Sorry everyone, but this lens is not quite the "big white killer" that many individuals thought that it would turn out to be. I too thought that this was the lens that would allow me to save several thousand dollars; however, I have now returned the Tamron 150-600mm lens for a full refund and consequently have to save up in order to purchase the real Canon 600mm f/4.0 L II (weather sealed, improved pre-set focus ranges, stabilization modes, etc.). I am not even going to touch the "Sigmonster" 800mm f/5.6, given that it too is not weather sealed and that other professional birders have complained that the focus ring breaks over time, has a fragile body shell, and is extremely sluggish to maneuver; being confined to a gimbal for the majority of the time. In the end, you get what you pay for! :-\



The lens is moisture resistant. I have had no problems whatosever of dust entering the lens. The VC works fine, and in my hands is about 3 stops as opposed to the 4 stops on my 300mm f/2.8. Yesterday I went for a walk with it on my 5DIII and suddenly saw a bird of prey in the sky. The lens locked on immediately and I got 4 or 5 equally sharp shots in a row at 1/1250 s - below is the full frame reduced to 2400x1600 and a 100% crop. The crop is as sharp as you would expect for that small size. I usually get 100% keepers for 1/600 s and above, as listed elsewhere. As for being made in China, if that is a sign of poor quality I had better dump my iPhone and Macbook Air and iPad etc.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 11, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The lens is moisture resistant.



Wonder what that means?


----------



## arbitrage (Mar 11, 2014)

I own the three mentioned Canon lenses and I had ordered the Tamron to replace my 100-400 but then cancelled after reading about AF issues. Also I really don't use my 100-400 as the 300II and converters is portable enough for me. I've had the 600II since October 2012 and use it mainly for spring migration when the birds are skittish and far. Most often with the 2xTC attached. But I also use it bare and at 840 also when appropriate. I've had the 300II since Nov 2013 and have used it with both TCs and it is a phenomenal lens and I use it instead of my 100-400 now as a "portable" solution. I got the 200-400 just a month ago to take to Antarctica in November and I brought it to Borneo for birding and wildlife(orangutans). That is where I am typing this from now. I have found it very versatile for the mammals but wish I had my 600 for the small birds but there was no way I wanted to travel with the 600 through SE Asia. I have used the 2-4 with 1.4 external and had good success at 784mm or really at 800mm if you use the square root of 2 to get 1.4. Only issue has been the low light of the jungle and needing the 1DX to save shots with ISOs from 6400-25600 being used in the deeper jungle!!!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The lens is moisture resistant.
> ...



Rubber lens flange gasket. Presumably the sliding tube has a gasket and the front lens is sealed. Definitely not for scuba diving or zooming in and out in a thunderstorm.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> I own the three mentioned Canon lenses and I had ordered the Tamron to replace my 100-400 but then cancelled after reading about AF issues. Also I really don't use my 100-400 as the 300II and converters is portable enough for me. I've had the 600II since October 2012 and use it mainly for spring migration when the birds are skittish and far. Most often with the 2xTC attached. But I also use it bare and at 840 also when appropriate. I've had the 300II since Nov 2013 and have used it with both TCs and it is a phenomenal lens and I use it instead of my 100-400 now as a "portable" solution. I got the 200-400 just a month ago to take to Antarctica in November and I brought it to Borneo for birding and wildlife(orangutans). That is where I am typing this from now. I have found it very versatile for the mammals but wish I had my 600 for the small birds but there was no way I wanted to travel with the 600 through SE Asia. I have used the 2-4 with 1.4 external and had good success at 784mm or really at 800mm if you use the square root of 2 to get 1.4. Only issue has been the low light of the jungle and needing the 1DX to save shots with ISOs from 6400-25600 being used in the deeper jungle!!!



I also use the 300mm f/2.8 II plus TCs. The AF on the Tamron on the 5DIII and 70D is not far behind the 300mm with 2xTC and is very acceptable. The Tamron's AF is not a problem for my Tamron or for most of the others who have posted. The reproducibility and consistency of the Tamron AF is far better than that of the 100-400.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 11, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The lens is moisture resistant.
> ...



Pretty much anything. 

There is no standard, so every manufacturer can decide what "weather-sealing", "weather-resistance", "splash-proof" etc mean.


----------



## Roo (Mar 11, 2014)

I've used the 600 f4 and own the 150-600. The 600 f4 delivers a great image but at great cost, weight and lack of flexibility. The size of it (including hood) also means is a great wind catcher that requires constant adjustment in windy conditions. If I could afford it I'm sure I would find a good use for it, but its lack of flexibility rules it out for me. The 300 with 2x tele has promise and is more affordable but again its not that flexible. I can't always zoom with my feet for what I'm shooting and I like being able to use the wide end of the zoom for some shots. That leaves the 200-400 or the 150-600. I would love the 200-400 but its cost rules it out so I'm (happily) left with the Tamron. I've used it for 4 full shooting days so far all of which have been in less than ideal light and it still hasn't let me down


----------



## HankMD (Mar 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> I bought the Tammy and I'm very happy with it. It's my first lens over 300mm and time after time I see some improvement in my skill. It's insanely fun to use.
> 
> Some time ago I speculated that it was possible to build an even better 500mm f/5.6 prime for the same price. I would buy it even keeping the Tammy zoom.
> 
> ...



+1. Loving the Tammy. But too little time to use it


----------



## AlanF (Mar 11, 2014)

I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.


----------



## Steve (Mar 11, 2014)

Not one of the lenses listed in the poll but does anyone own and use the Sigma 800 / 300-800? I'm looking into getting an older used supertele and I'm going back and forth on the Sigma 800 vs the Canon 600 non IS. Neither is ideal but I won't have the money for ideal in anything approaching the foreseeable future. I'm curious if there are people here who use the Sig800 and what the thoughts are on its IQ and usability.


----------



## candc (Mar 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.



I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.


----------



## Sharad.Medhavi (Mar 12, 2014)

candc said:


> I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.



That's perfectly fine if you don't 
I found them quite useful, as it is not easy for me to rent these lenses and try them out myself.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2014)

i'd like to see the f11 comparison of said brick wall 

you can tell the canon is a clear winner but as alan said the tamron doesnt do too badly and given the price...

hell a B+W filter for it costs 20% of the lens price!


----------



## TheJock (Mar 12, 2014)

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens. 
I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake. 
I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
I know it’s a big ask but I think it’s valid as there have already been a lot of comments on this thread regarding all these lenses, so if you could make a top ten list of best IQ how would it look???
(e.g. below)
1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2014)

TheJock said:


> As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.
> I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake.
> I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
> Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
> ...


The tamron beats the 300f4L and with the 2x tc it's not even in the same game


----------



## AlanF (Mar 12, 2014)

candc said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.
> ...



That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


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



ROFL

Totally did not expect that!


----------



## TheJock (Mar 12, 2014)

_They don’t build em’ like that anymore_, and, _when I were a lad you could buy a village for a shilling_, comments spring to mind!! ;D


----------



## AlanF (Mar 12, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.
> ...



Yes. The Tamron is at its best between 200 and 400mm, and really superb at 300mm. It is as good as a good copy of the 100-400 at 400mm, and much better in the corners - it fares well against the 400 f/5.6L over the whole frame. The 400 L is very good with a 1.4xTC, the 300L f/4 is not as good. The 100-400 has crippled AF with a TC, and is f/8. The Tamron has rendered those older lenses obsolete. I am afraid you have to spend 5x more on the 300mm f/2.8 to beat it.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 12, 2014)

TheJock said:


> As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, *1/3-of-the-price* lens.



Let's make 1/7. The cheapest improvement on IQ level over the Tamron is the 300/2.8 L + 2xTC.

It's 1070$ vs 7250$. If you can afford/justify the latter, then you should get it; for everyone else the Tamron is a no brainer.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 12, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, *1/3-of-the-price* lens.
> ...



There are other benefits to the 300. Including weather sealing that works with Canon bodies. 

For example a kenko extender does not keep a Canon body's weather seal whereas the Canon TCs do.

I wonder what impact using the Tamron on a 1D X for example would do to the body's weather sealing.

I agree it is a good deal, but I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 12, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > TheJock said:
> ...



The Tamron is also weather-sealed. Whatever that means.


----------



## emag (Mar 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.



Said duel to be conducted with compass and protractor (a.k.a., Weapons of Math Instruction)


Seems to me (and I suspect most others) this entire discussion comes down to budget. If budget allows, or it's required because your livelihood depends on it, get the Big White(s). Otherwise, the Tamron will not disappoint. I'm talking to you, fellow hobbyists.


----------



## candc (Mar 12, 2014)

considering the stature and eminence of the "brick chimney of glory" i reckon its okay to say that the crops all look really good, the ones from the canon combo are a bit better but you have to look close at 100% crops to see the difference. i don't think you would see a difference at normal viewing size. to me the tamron is like the 70-300l in that it will give you great result across its range in a relatively compact lightweight package. it might not have quite the sharpness or max aperture of the big canon primes but its really good, especially considering the cost, weight, size, and its a zoom


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops.
> ...


Why do I picture Wayne & Garth from _Wayne's World_ saying, "We're not worthy" when I read this???

You crack me up Alan and I knew it was an old chimney from your previous posts, but I didn't know it was a famous chimney as well! Thanks for the continued comparisons on these lenses


----------



## JPAZ (Mar 12, 2014)

The "ranking" in the vote is the same as the price. I get all that. Pulled the trigger on the 300 after seriously considering the Tammy. But, at the time, was going through a series of wildlife shots taken with my 100-400 (while watching some Verdins build a nest outside of my window) and was disappointed with so many of them that I felt the Tamron would not be a better option (at least in the under 400 mm range) than what I have. That and the temporary price that was being offered through the buyer's group on www.canonpricewatch.com was all I needed to push me over the edge. I know what the 300 can do since I rented one last fall. I understand that a zoom can be handy at times vs. a fixed length and the use of TC's. The price difference is significant. 

Had I not been seeing so many not-too-sharp images (most of which are probably my fault and not the fault of the lens) at the time, might have still gone with the Tammy. But, I will probably sell the 100-400 soon then look for a good deal on the 2xTC. 

BTW, never underestimate the power of a chimney, and a famous one indeed!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.



My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it


----------



## tron (Mar 12, 2014)

kaihp said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > JPAZ, I started to shake & cry when I saw the prices on the 300 and 85 in the group buy :'(. Ok, not really, but wow, what a deal, especially on the 300. Congrats on scoring that price and I'm sure you're dying to get the new lens. I can't recommend it enough and love it more and more each time I use it.
> ...


Me too


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2014)

kaihp said:


> My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it



That…and the fact that the deal has expired.


----------



## Harry Muff (Mar 12, 2014)

Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?


It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?
> 
> It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.



Speaking as a 600/4 owner, I often stop down into the f/8-11 range to get sufficient DoF for my subjects. Beyond the additional light, the faster aperture (fast being relative - f/4 is fast for a 600mm lens) has the advantage of allowing autofocus with extenders.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?
> 
> It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.


Like Neuro, not unless I need the extra DOF, which is probably 10% of the time - for things like deer or smaller subjects that are close to the lens. I love the subject isolation and speed of f/2.8 on my 300mm and on a recent shoot, I shot at 2.8 vs. f/8 (which was needed for full focus) because I preferred subject isolation to getting everything in focus. It's harder to get those shots, but when you get them, the extra effort is worth it.


----------



## Steve (Mar 12, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Just out of interest, does anyone with a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 etc. use it at anything other wide open?
> 
> 
> It just seems to be the whole point of buying one.



I usually shoot with a 2x on my 300 2.8 and stop down a third or half stop to preserve sharpness. If it's bare or with a 1.4x, I'll almost always shoot wide open. I actually like a dof falloff for some close up bird pics; it makes the birds look more glamorous.


----------



## Kerry B (Mar 12, 2014)

Whilst there is no doubt that using a 300f2.8 wide open is a major benefit in low light action or wildlife photography, there are numerous times when the light is good and I need some sort of depth of field that I use this lens at up to f11. Given that there is no difference in quality between the f stops I will always try and shoot wide open. For the money and yes this lens is expensive but not in comparison with 400f2.8mk11, there is no hiding the fact that you have to pay for quality.
The other thing you have to remember is the big whites do not depreciate, and can be an investment, third party lenses are generally cheap to buy on the second hand market. Another reason to look at the big white's.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Mar 12, 2014)

Sounds like the options here are 1. extremely expensive and 2. Very inexpensive. I've gone in between with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and canon version III teleconverters. I'm very happy with the image quality so far comparing mostly to my old canon 100-400 and newer 70-300L. The extra stop or so of light is great but the weight is significant. Anyone else have the sigma and access to the tamron for comparisons? I already know that the canon primes are slightly sharper and significantly faster for autofocus.

I've been considering the tamron for those times that I don't want to/can't take the heavy weights.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

Steve said:


> I usually shoot with a 2x on my 300 2.8 and stop down a third or half stop to preserve sharpness. If it's bare or with a 1.4x, I'll almost always shoot wide open.


Steve, nice photo, and after reading one of Alan's posts, I tested my 300 with both extenders using FoCal and found that wide open was sharpest bare and with the 1.4x, and f/5.6 and f/8 were even with the 2x. There was a very slight boost at f/6.3, but after reading the-digital-picture and others, I had assumed that f/8 was sharper than f/5.6. Your lens might not match those results, but so far Alan and I have found that to be the case.


----------



## GuyF (Mar 12, 2014)

AlanF said:


> That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.
> 
> Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.



_What?_ I didn't know Newton _invented_ gravity and the prism. I always thought gravity existed before he came along and the prism was a toy/curio which he bought at a county fair.

Before you challenge anyone to a battle of calculus (you failed to name Leibniz), do your homework.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 12, 2014)

GuyF said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.
> ...



I didn't name Leibniz because I didn't claim Newton invented the calculus (he did, but our German colleagues see it differently - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz-Newton_calculus_controversy

You don't understand the Cambridge sense of humour (yes, we do have one). My college claims that William Harvey _invented_ the circulation of the blood, not discovered.

If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)


----------



## candc (Mar 12, 2014)

stochasticmotions said:


> Sounds like the options here are 1. extremely expensive and 2. Very inexpensive. I've gone in between with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and canon version III teleconverters. I'm very happy with the image quality so far comparing mostly to my old canon 100-400 and newer 70-300L. The extra stop or so of light is great but the weight is significant. Anyone else have the sigma and access to the tamron for comparisons? I already know that the canon primes are slightly sharper and significantly faster for autofocus.
> 
> I've been considering the tamron for those times that I don't want to/can't take the heavy weights.



I have the sigma sport and the canon tciii's also. The sigma bare lens has noticibly better IQ and AF. The sigma with 1.4 has better IQ and AF, sigma with 2x is about the same or marginally better. The tamron is plenty sharp enough and the AF is fine for most everything. The only reason to use the sigma or any other lens in the tamrons range is if you need wider aperture for effect or light conditions. The tamron is so nice to carry and use because of its size and weight. I don't see myself using the sigma with the tc's much anymore but I am still going to keep it for the 120-300 f/2.8


----------



## AlanF (Mar 12, 2014)

The ultimate Tamron 150-600mm, available on eBay for only £1,000,000.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 12, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> The other thing you have to remember is the big whites do not depreciate, and can be an investment, third party lenses are generally cheap to buy on the second hand market. Another reason to look at the big white's.



This is a good point & it has been my own experience, I owned both the version 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Lenses, sold them for exactly what I had paid for them when I purchased the Version 2 Lenses, I could have sold them at a profit but I sold to friends so I was interested only in recouping what I'de spent.

On the question of f stop use, on all my White Lenses 200f/2, 300f/2.8, 200-400f/4 & 600f/4 I rarely shoot at anything more than f/2 on the 200, f/2.8 -f/4 on the 300, and f/4 - f/5.6 on the 200-400 & 600. I carry with me at all times a Circular Polariser to help with bright light conditions.


----------



## eml58 (Mar 12, 2014)

TheJock said:


> 1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada



I can only comment on what I own or have owned, mine currently would look like this.

300f/2.8 II
200f/2
400f/2.8 II (Now Sold)
600f/4 II
200-400f4

With the exception of the 200-400f/4, all these Lenses show very minimal IQ degradation when using the 1.4x Version III converter.

Using the 2x Version III Converter on any of these Lenses shows IQ degradation, it's not bad, but it's noticeable.

The 1.4x can be used on the 200-400f/4 when using the built in 1.4x converter for reasonable results, use of the 2x converter gives poor results.

The difference between the 200f/2 & 300f/2.8 II is marginal in the areas of AF speed & sharpness.

The difference between the 400f/2.8 II, 600f/4 II & 200-400f/4 is again marginal in the same areas.


----------



## tron (Mar 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The ultimate Tamron 150-600mm, available on eBay for only £1,000,000.


I'd advise against it! It is rather expensive.
Why don't you get 2x1Dx, a 300mm f/2.8L IS II, a 400mm 2.8L IS II, a 500mm f/2.8L IS II, a 600mm f/4L IS II, an 800mm f/5.6L IS, 1.4XIII, 2XIII. You will pay less and with the change you will get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ;D ;D ;D

On the other hand the Tamron comes with free shipping so tough choice... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 13, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Kerry B said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing you have to remember is the big whites do not depreciate, and can be an investment, third party lenses are generally cheap to buy on the second hand market. Another reason to look at the big white's.
> ...



Actually I disagree that. You have better think about that from finance point of view. Money actually loses its current value in the future because of inflation. For example, you buy 300mm L f/2.8 for $7000. You may sell it for 6500 ten years later. However, you will lose 5% inflation of 7000 yearly. That means the future of your $7000 is about 11500. You actually will lose not 500, but 5000. The more you invest in you lenses the more you will lose in the future.
Don't buy the big white because you think it will keep its value. You will lose more money on the investment. You buy the big white because you think it worth for the money. If I was a PRO, I would buy the best gear I can afford and bring return. Otherwise, I would not.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 13, 2014)

cliffwang, of course you are correct, but did you have to post that! Now the secret of how governments rip us off on capital gains etc., is out of the bag! 

After getting this shot I decided that, yes it is possible to have too shallow a DOF (a slow learner but this did the trick)  

Jack


----------



## Steve (Mar 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Steve, nice photo, and after reading one of Alan's posts, I tested my 300 with both extenders using FoCal and found that wide open was sharpest bare and with the 1.4x, and f/5.6 and f/8 were even with the 2x. There was a very slight boost at f/6.3, but after reading the-digital-picture and others, I had assumed that f/8 was sharper than f/5.6. Your lens might not match those results, but so far Alan and I have found that to be the case.



That is interesting. I've only ever eyeballed the results and it seems like I get better results stopped down slightly. Of course, my 300 is the non-IS and there may have been some improvements made to IQ since 1987.



cliffwang said:


> Actually I disagree that. You have better think about that from finance point of view. Money actually loses its current value in the future because of inflation. For example, you buy 300mm L f/2.8 for $7000. You may sell it for 6500 ten years later. However, you will lose 5% inflation of 7000 yearly. That means the future of your $7000 is about 11500. You actually will lose not 500, but 5000. The more you invest in you lenses the more you will lose in the future.



Inflation has been under 2% for the last three years and has averaged 2.31% for the last 10. Inflation is a real thing but not as big a factor as you're making it out to be. 

e: quick calculation shows a $7000 lens purchased in 2004 equivalent to $8668 in 2014 dollars. Also, its worth remembering that the 300 f2.8 did not cost $7000 in 2004.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > My only problem with that group buy is that I'm not in the US to take advantage of it
> ...



Well, I did see the group buy while it was active, so I won't complain that the deal has now expired 
In HK you can get them for around $5800, which is not so bad.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 13, 2014)

kaihp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



kaihp - where in Hong Kong have you seen them at that price? (HK$ 45,000) I know Fortress sells them for HK$52,500 but they tend to be a bit more expensive.


----------



## lescrane (Mar 13, 2014)

someone in this threat complained that the lens is a dust sucker. I was shooting at beaches and wetlands for two weeks. Lot's of sand hit the camera/lens. Back from the trip and cleaned the exterior thoroughly. Nothing got inside that I can see. I did keep a 95mm B&W MRC filter the lens to protect front from sand and spray. I note that the tamron has a rubber gasket at the base of the mount.

As mentioned before, no problems at all. except maybe a few missed BIFs as per usual poor user technique.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 13, 2014)

cliffwang said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Kerry B said:
> ...



Things have been more stable recently, but it's not hard to find stories of people selling their Mk1 supertelephoto lenses for much more than they paid.


----------



## kaihp (Mar 13, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > In HK you can get them for around $5800, which is not so bad.
> ...



I'm using the price.com.hk Android app/website to search. My Chinese is (very) limited, but there seem to be several sellers offering it for HKD44,800. But they could be "grey imports" - but hey, I'm not in HK so I don't care too much.

When I was in HK in October, I found the 600EX-RT's at lower price than advertised in the app. The "Sim City" shopping mall in Mong Kok, Shan Tung Street had several well equipped shops. DCfever is even registered as an official dealer by Canon HK.

Shoot me a PM if you need more info.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 13, 2014)

kaihp said:


> I'm using the price.com.hk Android app/website to search. My Chinese is (very) limited, but there seem to be several sellers offering it for HKD44,800. But they could be "grey imports" - but hey, I'm not in HK so I don't care too much.
> 
> When I was in HK in October, I found the 600EX-RT's at lower price than advertised in the app. The "Sim City" shopping mall in Mong Kok, Shan Tung Street had several well equipped shops. DCfever is even registered as an official dealer by Canon HK.
> 
> Shoot me a PM if you need more info.



Thanks, appreciate it. Cheers.


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, nice photo, and after reading one of Alan's posts, I tested my 300 with both extenders using FoCal and found that wide open was sharpest bare and with the 1.4x, and f/5.6 and f/8 were even with the 2x. There was a very slight boost at f/6.3, but after reading the-digital-picture and others, I had assumed that f/8 was sharper than f/5.6. Your lens might not match those results, but so far Alan and I have found that to be the case.
> ...



Since you know the number, I assume that you know official government inflation excludes certain categories like food. I believe that you can feel the inflation is much more than 2% from grocery stores, restaurants, and many many places. That's why stock goes to history high and richer became much richer.

Edit:
In March 2004, the Dow Jones industrial average was about 10300, and today is 16340. If you put 7000 in the stock market your stock will be worth 11000 without dividends in average in the past 10 years.


----------



## Steve (Mar 13, 2014)

cliffwang said:


> Since you know the number, I assume that you know official government inflation excludes certain categories like food. I believe that you can feel the inflation is much more than 2% from grocery stores, restaurants, and many many places. That's why stock goes to history high and richer became much more richer.
> 
> Edit:
> In March 2004, the Dow Jones industrial average was about 10300, and today is 16340. If you put 7000 in the stock market your stock will be worth 11000 without dividends in average in the past 10 years.



The CPI does include food. Its the first item listed.
http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7

Inflation and the Dow Jones are two different animals and aren't comparable. No argument from me about the rich getting (much, much) richer, that's a plain fact, but it has nothing to do with inflation. Back to lenses though, as someone pointed out earlier some of the super tele's got a big boost in resale value after the vII's were released with huge new price tags. Pro level camera gear is pretty unique in how well it holds its value. And really, even if you lose a little to inflation, it isn't much in the grand scheme of things when you consider how much this hobby/profession costs.


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 13, 2014)

Steve said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Since you know the number, I assume that you know official government inflation excludes certain categories like food. I believe that you can feel the inflation is much more than 2% from grocery stores, restaurants, and many many places. That's why stock goes to history high and richer became much more richer.
> ...



CPI is not Core inflation. Core inflation excludes food and energy.
FYI
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coreinflation.asp

Some of supertel lens was sold higher price than original price. However, that's wrong comparison between present value and future value. Moreover, that's a logical fallacies, hasty generalization, to explain big white lenses holding their value.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Mar 13, 2014)

I have a loaner 200-400 on the way. Can't wait to check it out!


----------



## TheJock (Mar 13, 2014)

I like the comments from the owners of the f2.8/f4 variants, there is now evidence that the extra money spent for the wider aperture is actually well spent as the wider f stop is being used, so with that in mind (and as no one appears to have brought this one up yet) what’s everyone opinions on the Sigma 300mm f2.8 (like the used version for sale at $2,500 on B&H just now http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801030046-USE/sigma_195101_telephoto_300mm_f_2_8_ex.html ) + a Sigma 1.4X or 2x TC? It just appears to me that this option has not been included in this thread…………………or is it a lemon and I’ve completely missed that fact!!!!!!!


----------



## et31 (Mar 13, 2014)

lescrane said:


> someone in this threat complained that the lens is a dust sucker. I was shooting at beaches and wetlands for two weeks. Lot's of sand hit the camera/lens. Back from the trip and cleaned the exterior thoroughly. Nothing got inside that I can see. I did keep a 95mm B&W MRC filter the lens to protect front from sand and spray. I note that the tamron has a rubber gasket at the base of the mount.
> 
> As mentioned before, no problems at all. except maybe a few missed BIFs as per usual poor user technique.



Great! I'm glad that sand doesn't enter into the barrel, otherwise Tamron would have to make a serious recall. However, dust is naturally much smaller and flatter than sand granules, and regardless of having the same 95mm protective filter on the lens, extending the barrel to 600mm allows for water droplets and dust particles to attach to the exposed barrel section of the lens. So when taking a fast action handheld photo of an Osprey, soaring 90 degrees from the horizontal, and zooming quickly in and out to make sure the bird is mapped onto the full frame sensor, those little particulates bypass this lens’s gasket placed between the top section and the cork-screw internal receiving mechanism. Everyone's lens will display different build characteristics to a very controlled degree, but continual inconsistencies are a sign of poor engineering. For a few extra hundred dollars to the consumer, Tamron could have made the extra effort in ensuring better design for longer use life. As a direct comparative example, my prime series Tamron f/2.8 24-70mm (stronger and thicker seal in the barrel) and 70-200mm (internal focus) lenses have the gold ring marking with excellent sealing and solid build design that feel like professional lenses and were designed to compete directly with the Canon 24-70 / 70-200 lenses. For its well-designed optics, Tamron should have not compromised the 150-600mm. A colleague of mine also purchased the Tamron 150-600mm, and after a few weeks of use, he also acquired a very similar count of internal dust. Deciding to service it himself and remove the front element and apparent dust on the first internal element down the barrel, he removed the 4 screws of the outer plastic mount and an additional 4 lower mount screws holding the front glass element to the housing. (NOTE: Many photographers know how to perform standard surgery on their lenses, given their limited time, budgets, and demanding schedules.) Naturally, Tamron has been very worried about material weight to improve lens portability, so the parts had a light but flimsy feel to them (a little pressure holding the ring in your hands, and the plastic can crack). However, what's worse is that when he showed me the removal of the front glass element, pieces of metal spacer filings started falling out from the sides with an uneven count. The actual glass sits on top of 4 separate sets of layered metal spacers that are physically hand placed in their grooves (not well-defined and move around easily) so that the glass can be suspended (minimizes vibration shock). Nevertheless, the tolerances of the metal spacers are not consistent, and even from the factory, an uneven number of spacers are placed underneath the lens, altering alignment by 1mm, even when placed in their appropriate groove (design and quality control issue). Furthermore, the top glass sits in its housing without any sealing, and so it was easy to see how dust particles could now enter from the top and the barrel chamber wall. Using masks to avoid any spitum, gloves for optic handling and to prevent oil smudging, in addition to a controlled system vacuum and hand held blower, the majority of dust was immediately removed. However, we noticed that two of the "dust" specs that initially caused the need to open the lens, were actually moisture spots that had dried on the underside of the front element and the surface of the first inner element. Again, knowing how they got in was very surprising and discomforting. Using lab grade micro-fiber lens paper, sterile throat swabs w/out glue, and high grade methanol, the spots were carefully and successfully removed without producing any scratches. Blowing out the chamber one last time, it turned out that reassembly became a struggle, given that the layers of spacers kept falling out whenever remounting the front glass element. This is a bad design issue that you don’t have with prime Canon lenses and some entry level Canon lens bodies (i.e. EF-S 55-250)! I have had my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L for 3 years in very demanding environments, and the number of internal dust specs is less than or equal to 3 on the frontal element while remaining clear on the internal elements. Additionally, the build design doesn’t have loose parts and the cleaning process is a breeze given the solid metal components and well-designed tolerances in the machining! For many people, the Tamron 150-600mm will be “good enough” to compete with the market and create a ding in the oligopoly (traditionally Canon and Sigma for long range telephotos on EF DSLR mounts) of lens pricing, while obtaining comparable results to the big white whale brother lenses. However, for many professionals, the compromise of build quality is not acceptable and having to open your lens very early on and void the warranty is not a sign of a healthy relationship with your lens!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 13, 2014)

You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession. 

Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter. 

Secondly, you allude to your professional standard lenses as having a gold ring, and the 15-600mm not being in this class. Tamron used the gold ring cosmetically to designate its SP "Super performance lenses": see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/technology/sp-super-performance.html for a definition of them and their properties including robust outer design. 

The Tamron 150-600mm is officially an SP lens: see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-5.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

The last thing I am going to do is to take my lens apart! If it fills up in the next five years with dust like a Dyson, I'll send it it back to Tamron under warranty.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.



How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'. Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand. Here's some household dust:







Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2014)

et31 said:


> Deciding to service it himself and remove the front element and apparent dust…



Why did he make that decision? Was the dust on internal lens elements having an observable effect on image quality?



et31 said:


> having to open your lens very early on and void the warranty is not a sign of a healthy relationship with your lens!



I'd say it's a sign of something unhealthy…but not the lens.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.
> ...




Are sand particles uniform in size and shape? Aren't some of them flatter and some of them smaller? It is a geometric truism that smaller objects (of similar shapes) have higher surface/volume ratios because volume varies as length cubed and area as length squared. By modelled, I mean that the shape of atmospheric dust particles is determined by their light scattering characteristics, and they usually come out on average as spherical or squat cylinders.


----------



## et31 (Mar 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession.
> 
> Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.
> 
> ...



Yes, let me clarify those points.
1. I should have said that I was referring to dust particles that more than often come from organic matter (i.e. skin cells, fiber stands, decomposed dried plant matter in farm fields during the winter months that flies around everywhere, etc.), in addition to silt size aeolian particulates, as opposed to sand size particles at the ocean that contain quartz grains and other calcium carbonates (so, overall grains that are between silt, sandstone, and higher: 62.5 microns +), which have different refinement properties, and according to the level of weathering, can be angular or round. 

2. Yes, I do acknowledge and have no doubt that the optics and design of the inner glass components reflect the SP rating present in the 150-600mm. However, given the build quality and new engineering of the housing components, the "robust outer design" is subjective only to whatever Tamron feels is correct to their design standards. All Canon white L lenses look alike, feel alike, and have a higher standard in material component integration in the designs; however, with three SP Tamron bodies in front of me, it's obvious that the telephoto model has property differences in engineering (outside from the fact that it's supposed to be light and portable) that doesn't reflect the same Tamron series (i.e. Change in manufacturer could be a reason, economic hit on material costs, or trying something new to change their lens lineup, etc.) It's a semi-pro lens and I understand that the market makes portable zoom telephotos (i.e. Sigma 150-500mm, Tamron 200-500mm, Tamron 150-600mm), but like you said earlier, you "need tools commensurate with your profession." 

I embrace new lens designs and finding ways around spending $10-$20K on a telephoto; however, I just wish someone would come out with a long range telephoto that had smart and efficient engineering standards that reflected strengths in the optics AND the overall product that cost more than $1000, but still was far less expensive than the big guns.....maybe it's Sigma's turn to come out with a corrected version of their flawed 150-500m or Tamron will eventually come out with fixed long range telephoto lenses in the near future. Until then, Canon is laughing at us all, but gives us some credit for effort!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2014)

RE: "Big Game" photo. It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny


----------



## AlanF (Mar 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.
> ...



Neuro
An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.

http://images.sciencesource.com/preview/13250858/BP3016.html

Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Neuro
> An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.
> 
> Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....



LOL. My bad. I remember one of my early Macs had a default alert tone which I'll echo here: Sosumi.

SEM images are frequently colorized to make structers easier to visualize, although obviously no additional real information content is added by the colorization.


----------



## GuyF (Mar 13, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)



First of all, I won't require a second for the duel (ha! take _that_! 8)) and secondly, the picture of your own second appears to be obscured by that little dude in the wheelchair's laptop screen. Funny, I'm sure I met that bloke at CERN back in 2004...looks just like him (note: he cheats at rock, paper, scissors). Anyway, be sure to tell your second that's a nice white blouse she's got on.

Oh, and as for the Cambridge sense of humour? Footlights has so much to answer for.

Game, set and match, chummy.

(I'm sure the pair of us could go on like this all day but isn't it fun to hide behind a keyboard, no?)

Regards.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 14, 2014)

Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RE: "Big Game" photo. It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny



Yes it does, and it is!

Are those CPS caps/hats that some of them are wearing? I haven't seen them before.

Got to hand it to Canon, they really know how to market themselves!


----------



## GuyF (Mar 14, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her.



I know, that's why I said it - now I've got you thinking!


----------

