Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Tamron 150-600mm

  1. #1
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,717
    Real Name
    John

    Tamron 150-600mm

    A positive review, especially since most seem to have negative comments about the use of a teleconverter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0RCvRdHdbM

  2. #2
    Dave A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Northern Ontario
    Posts
    1,713
    Real Name
    Dave

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I want one!

    Dave

  3. #3
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    17,389
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I suspect that this might be one of the best looooong telephoto zooms for the money. Although I am thrilled and happy with the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens, I would certainly give this lens a good hard look if I were in the market for a long zoom!

  4. #4
    Arjung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    76
    Real Name
    Arjun Gupta

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Your lens is an amazing one with respect to clarity and fast focussing. Not sure about the Tamron or the MTF curves for both

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Devon, UK
    Posts
    14,401

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I have tried a 1.4x converter on my Sigma 150-600 Sport lens with generally disappointing results, although slightly better with manual focusing than with AF.

  6. #6
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjung View Post
    Your lens is an amazing one with respect to clarity and fast focussing. Not sure about the Tamron or the MTF curves for both
    Tests suggest it's better at the long end than the cheaper Sigma but looses a touch on the dearer Sigma. There isn't much in it though. All well and good but the only real way to find out is to buy and try.

    John
    -

  7. #7
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,717
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I had to do a search to see which lens I had a chance to test and it was the Sigma 150-500mm which I liked but wasn't too eager to purchase. Hopefully I'll get a chance to try out this one and get a discount through my local camera store.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,604
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    In the review, unless I heard wrong, the guy said the two teleconverters were tuned specifically to the 150-600. If that is true then comments, history, etc. on teleconverters at large may be significantly different. Lens design in general, including placement of each element, is very complex. No way you can simply clamp on another element and expect it to be optimal. However, if said element is designed specifically to match the rest of the elements, well that's another story. Canon did that with the pro level 200-400mm with integral 1.4x. Nikon also did it with the 800mm prime which comes with a 1.4x TC intended for use only with the 800mm.

    Zoom lenses by definition are a compromise. At multipliers greater than 3x they become more so. There is a reason that zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 have been around for many years. They simply perform better across the range. But at the end of the day, it all depends on what one needs/expects out of an imaging system(i.e. camera + lens + whatever). Honestly if I didn't produce large prints I'd only own two lenses. A Nikon 18-300 and Sigma or Tamron 150-600. For images that are downsampled to web resolution I certainly can't tell the difference between images shot with an inexpensive, wide-range zoom compared to a $10k prime. And I'm reasonably picky...

  9. #9
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,717
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernFocus View Post
    In the review, unless I heard wrong, the guy said the two teleconverters were tuned specifically to the 150-600. If that is true then comments, history, etc. on teleconverters at large may be significantly different. Lens design in general, including placement of each element, is very complex. No way you can simply clamp on another element and expect it to be optimal. However, if said element is designed specifically to match the rest of the elements, well that's another story. Canon did that with the pro level 200-400mm with integral 1.4x. Nikon also did it with the 800mm prime which comes with a 1.4x TC intended for use only with the 800mm.

    Zoom lenses by definition are a compromise. At multipliers greater than 3x they become more so. There is a reason that zooms like the 24-70 and 70-200 have been around for many years. They simply perform better across the range. But at the end of the day, it all depends on what one needs/expects out of an imaging system(i.e. camera + lens + whatever). Honestly if I didn't produce large prints I'd only own two lenses. A Nikon 18-300 and Sigma or Tamron 150-600. For images that are downsampled to web resolution I certainly can't tell the difference between images shot with an inexpensive, wide-range zoom compared to a $10k prime. And I'm reasonably picky...
    And would also want my primary editing software to be able to handle/correct any distortion/aberrations.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,604
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowman View Post
    And would also want my primary editing software to be able to handle/correct any distortion/aberrations.
    Yes. Using LR I just take that for granted. Good clarification. But really only important for images shot at wide angle and containing distinct horizons, architecture, or other linear objects.

  11. #11
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    17,389
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    A photographer next to me at the Miramar Air Show, yesterday, was using this Tamron 150-600mm lens on a full frame Nikon and said that he loved it. I was using a Canon 7DII with the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens.

    This gave me close to the same framing as he got on his full-framer with the Tamron (a 160-640mm equivalent). I realized that the extra 50mm (150mm vs. 100mm) on the short side might be a bit tight when working with a 1.6x camera. I was often shooting at the minimum focal length with the 100-400mm. The 150mm of the Tamron would give me a 240mm equivalent.

    I wanted to ask him if I could look through his viewfinder but, he was a pretty unfriendly guy; so I thought better of that idea...

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ontario (mostly)
    Posts
    6,667
    Real Name
    Bobo

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    By all means get one and it should perform as expected. BUT do not expect to use it to chase birds large or small. The only comment I hear from people photographing birds (especially in flight) is "I lost focus!" even on relatively large birds like blue herons or contrasty birds like egrets. Some even on tripods.

    The cost differential is very very tempting but one will not get anywhere close to the speed and accuracy of the primes or even the 100-400 which Richard likes (me too).

    The long-in-the-tooth 400/5.6 without IS is relatively inexpensive. Great on either a crop or full frame.

    Many get it on a whim and the self convincing "Oh! I can live with that".

    As I said earlier, anything relatively static, large, does not move fast etc etc, is fine. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or has low expectations.

    Towards end of August I was photographing osprey and the other guy there had one of these on a Canon 1DX Mark 2. I was on the 500/f4 and the older 1DX Mark 1. An osprey dived relatively close maybe 100 feet out and both of us fired away.

    The Mark 1 has a small buffer and mine was filled by the time the bird took off, his has greater capacity so he followed it until it went past the tree line. Probably 100 shots.

    I quickly reviewed my shots and said "all good". He did the same and said "all oof"!
    Last edited by Bobobird; 24th September 2016 at 09:22 PM.

  13. #13
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,737
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowman View Post
    And would also want my primary editing software to be able to handle/correct any distortion/aberrations.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernFocus
    Yes. Using LR I just take that for granted.
    I agree, with just one caveat: As long as you shoot RAW...

    If you shoot jpg with a third party lens; the lens errors will be uncorrected and 'baked in' to the jpg (making them trickier to fix later, I'd expect).

    If you shoot jpg with the camera manufacturers own lens and keep its firmware updated, I believe it should correct lens errors in camera before 'making' the jpg.


    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernFocus
    But really only important for images shot at wide angle and containing distinct horizons, architecture, or other linear objects.
    Dan, your experience shooting with a variety of long lenses far exceeds mine, but theoretically, I'd be concerned about CA (e.g. on trees), if nothing else.

    Is there any truth in my theories? (any or all)

    TIA, Dave

  14. #14
    terrib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Colorado & Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,031
    Real Name
    Terri

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I wonder if you are referring to the first generation Tamron 150-600 which had terrible reviews on birds in flight (or moving subjects). I have the original Tamron and experienced terrible results with BIF but sent it in for a firmware update and it improved considerably. I'd say it still doesn't match my Canon 100-400 (first gen) but it was much improved. I haven't decided to make the jump to this second gen yet but it is tempting. The thought of a teleconverter specifically designed for this lens is also interesting. But I've always rejecting buying a teleconverter because it seems I'm always shooting in such low light I can't imagine losing more light with the teleconverter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobobird View Post
    By all means get one and it should perform as expected. BUT do not expect to use it to chase birds large or small. The only comment I hear from people photographing birds (especially in flight) is "I lost focus!" even on relatively large birds like blue herons or contrasty birds like egrets. Some even on tripods.

    The cost differential is very very tempting but one will not get anywhere close to the speed and accuracy of the primes or even the 100-400 which Richard likes (me too).

    The long-in-the-tooth 400/5.6 without IS is relatively inexpensive. Great on either a crop or full frame.

    Many get it on a whim and the self convincing "Oh! I can live with that".

    As I said earlier, anything relatively static, large, does not move fast etc etc, is fine. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or has low expectations.

    Towards end of August I was photographing osprey and the other guy there had one of these on a Canon 1DX Mark 2. I was on the 500/f4 and the older 1DX Mark 1. An osprey dived relatively close maybe 100 feet out and both of us fired away.

    The Mark 1 has a small buffer and mine was filled by the time the bird took off, his has greater capacity so he followed it until it went past the tree line. Probably 100 shots.

    I quickly reviewed my shots and said "all good". He did the same and said "all oof"!

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    7,604
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Humphries View Post
    Dan, your experience shooting with a variety of long lenses far exceeds mine, but theoretically, I'd be concerned about CA (e.g. on trees), if nothing else.

    Is there any truth in my theories?...
    Recall my prior comments were in the context of shooting for web images. In theory, yes CA can be an issue. However most modern lenses including the class in question, control CA well enough that it is only an issue in rare cases or if one is cropping very heavily. So yes, in theory. But rarely in practice. I have seen some CA when shooting with the Nikon 200-500. It's typically only a couple of pixels wide. When corrected by LR it tends to look like sharpening artifacts. In my experience LR removes the color of CA but not the bright halo effect.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North West of England
    Posts
    7,178
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Some thoughts on the Tamron Mk 1 plus 1.4x converter. I used this lens when I still shot Nikon. It was a good lens in its native form and I had some excellent results on both a D7000 and later on a D7100. An interest in bird phtography led me to add a top end 1.4x teleconverter (Kenco Teleplus). I just couldn't achieve decent IQ with the 1.4x mounted. Apart from the obvious loss of aperture, the problem stemmed from the fact that the combination would only auto focus wide open. This of course is when the native resolution of the lens is at it's weakest and loss of auto focus meant that BIF shots were rarely if ever successful. From memory, this was down to the number of Focus Points in the camera and in this respect the D7100 performed slightly better than the D7000 (plenty on the internet on the subject). Unless I missed something, the video doesn't seem to address this aspect at all. This then begs the question of whether even with a dedicated teleconverter, the Mk 2 version is going to perform well on all cameras with a 1.4 x mounted. I don't have the same problem with my current outfit (Fuji Xt-1 + Fuji 100-400mm + dedicated Fuji 1.4x) and I suspect that is because all three elements (camera, lens and converter) are matched from the outset. As I say, just some thoughts.
    Last edited by John 2; 25th September 2016 at 12:27 PM.

  17. #17
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,717
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    A bit more information on the lens.

    http://www.tamron-usa.com/A022specia...nses/a022.html

  18. #18
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,337
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Tests suggest distortion on full frame is about 1.3% at all focal lengths. Pretty good and I would have thought unlikely to be a problem on wild life.

    There is some chromatic distortion shown on them but it isn't excessive and looks to be easy to correct manually if needed to me.

    I think some factors can be noticed from resolution tests. It's best aperture is F8 at all focal lengths. Below that diffraction has an effect but that may not really be noticed in actual shots. There is hardly and spread with focal length at F11. It's pretty close to what people reckon is acceptable at the edges. On centre it's as good at 600mm as the old canon 100-400mm is at 400mm at F8 and slower but the canon wins at the edges. I'd say pity about the edges but 600mm will fill more frame than 400 and the 400 would suffer with a converter on.

    The newer Canon 100-400mm is a lot better than the older one in tests like these. It's even good wide open.

    I haven't seen any tests with the converter on and the one I have quoted from is from 2014 so is the earlier version and doesn't have the newer IS option. They rate that as being worth 3.5 stops on this model. Only problem - some people shake more than others but as they test all lenses in the same way it's a pretty respectable figure.

    Might seem a waste of time looking at the older model tests but I feel they are still worth considering as they are likely to be an indication of what the new one will be like and hopefully worse.

    I'm more interested in this amount of reach on M 4/3. My only option is the Panasonic 100-400mm. At 400mm it's scarcely better than the tamron and needs to be a lot better. Bit of an exaggeration but not that much. In some ways this is down to the aperture at the long end on all of these lens types but I'm sure the Panasonic could be better.

    John
    -

  19. #19
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    17,389
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    I have a Canon 7D2, a Canon 1.4x TC Mark-1 and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. These three should fit together and should retain IS using center point focus.

    I have not tried this yet, mainly because I have not needed the extra focal length gained with the 1.4x TC. After all, the bare lens gives me a 640mm equivalent which is pretty long. Adding the 1.4x TC would end up with an 896mm equivalent, That is monsterous

    The 1.4x Mark-1 TC provided pretty fair IQ when I used it on my 300mm f/4L IS lens...

    Romy Ocon's Philippine Birds galleries exhibit wonderful bird photos using just about any combination of Canon camera and Canon mount lenses...

    http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/root
    Last edited by rpcrowe; 26th September 2016 at 08:10 PM.

  20. #20
    Shadowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    36,717
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Tamron 150-600mm

    Quote Originally Posted by rpcrowe View Post
    I have a Canon 7D2, a Canon 1.4x TC Mark-1 and a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. These three should fit together and should retain IS using center point focus.

    I have not tried this yet, mainly because I have not needed the extra focal length gained with the 1.4x TC. After all, the bare lens gives me a 640mm equivalent which is pretty long. Adding the 1.4x TC would end up with an 896mm equivalent, That is monsterous

    The 1.4x Mark-1 TC provided pretty fair IQ when I used it on my 300mm f/4L IS lens...

    Romy Ocon's Philippine Birds galleries exhibit wonderful bird photos using just about any combination of Canon camera and Canon mount lenses...

    http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/root
    I noticed he does use TCs for surf photos and he likes to experiment with whatever's on the market.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •