Tamron 150-600mm

[John 2]

Thought it might be worth sharing these.

Like one or two others on here, I have been hovering over this lens for a while and finally took the plunge. A little nervous because I traded in my trusted 70- 300 Nikkor in the process. The shots below are from the first outing. No great shakes aesthetically but they show the quality that this lens is capable of albeit with some PP. This seems to be supported by a review I found this morning carried out by DXO for dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...-150-600-5-6p3

Given the limited range of settings, this is not offered as a scientific review. Just some examples.

All taken with a D7100

1. 260mm f8 ISO400


2. 260mm f8 ISO 400


3. 170mm f8 ISO200


4. 150mm f8 ISO 400


5. 280mm f8 ISO 400

[Shadowman]

Interesting that for this series of images you didn't need anymore focal length than you already had with the 70-300mm, or are you not sharing those with us.

[pnodrog]

I am look forward to getting more examples and your thoughts on this lens. It is certainly on my possibility list. Had been thinking of getting a Nikon 80-400 in the future but staring at 150mm is not a problem and going to 600mm is a distinct advantage as is the price.

[John 2]

John, observant of you. No I haven't yet. August is not a good month for birds on the local reserve. I just took what was there and unusually, just in front of the hide. Once the migrations start, there should be more (unless I catch sight of some Hobbys that are apparently around).

LP, I will certainly pass some comments on. So far I am reasonably impressed. I must admit that my frame of mind was that for the most part, third party lenses are not as good as those made by the Camera manufacturers. Thankfully, this lens seems to prove me wrong. We shall see. Interestingly, when I ran out of birds, I used it on some insects with similar results although hitting the point of focus was that much harder.

[ajohnw]

I would like to see some at 500mm and 600mm too. Also curious if you took them hand held.

Looking at the tests there is a link that compares it with the Sigma 500mm. The Tamron stands up really against it at 600mm. Looks like there is a need to use F8 to F11 on both. The Sigma typical of them is sharp in the centre and falls of where as the Tamron seems to try to give a more even resolution in the centre area. Swings and round abouts really.

Comparing with Nikon and Canon is interesting. It stands up to that.- F8 at the same focal lengths. Tests aren't everything though. They don't really show contrast levels when the lens is working well at lower resolution levels.

John
-

[John 2]

Hi John. Thanks for the comment. I will post some more once I come across suitable subjects. Yes they were mostly hand held. With some lenses you see a definite steadying of the image but that wasn't as apparent with these. That's not to say that the anti vibration wasn't working. I had no failures. What was apparent was how fast the focus speed was but I may be conditioned by my Fuji outfit which isn't as fast as some.

[Peeshan]

Interesting.

Here's the link to a shot from a comment on the dpreview page John2 posted, looks good at 600mm:

http://tidningenfoto.se/files/2014/0...0-mm-trana.jpg

[NorthernFocus]

That is an intriguing looking lens. It covers a wide range in a single package which is nice for traveling. Like others I'll be interested in seeing how it looks at the longer end of the range.

One thing that is aggravating about the DXoMark reviews is that they present the data for zoom lenses at the best performing focal length, in this case at 150mm. I doubt that many people buy tele-zooms with the intent of using them primarily at the short end. DXo does provide the rest of the data but you have to dig in a little to see it. It's interesting that the data shows this lens testing sharper on full frame bodies vs cropped. Not usually the case since the cropped sensors only use the center and typically sharpest part of the lens. At the short end this lens compares favorably against the Nikon 80-400 AF-S which costs over twice as much. Typically Canon/Nikon zooms perform more consistently across the focal range than the third parties and that seems to be what the data shows in this case as well. But that's lab data, real photos will eventually tell the tale.

[ajohnw]

Interesting.

Here's the link to a shot from a comment on the dpreview page John2 posted, looks good at 600mm:

http://tidningenfoto.se/files/2014/0...0-mm-trana.jpg

The man mentioned in the exif seems to be a rather senior Canon Europe person. Consumer Imaging Manager. Not that I'm suspicious or anything. Think I will wait until John shoots some. Even the neck and head of a canada goose would do.

John
-

[John 2]

What I will try and do is find a suitable subject and shoot tripod mounted at 300mm, 500mmand 600mm i.e. mid range, equal to Sigma's offering at full stretch and the Tamron at full stretch. Bright overcast would be preferable to eliminate any contrast effect on apparent sharpness but that shouldn't be a problem in the UK at the moment. If I can I will also vary the aperture from wide open to f8 and f16. I just hope that after doing it, I don't decide that I have bought a pup.

[PhotomanJohn]

Mirror Lock-Up and a sand or shot bag or two would also help.

I am also interested in that lens. Thanks for doing this testing.

John

[ajohnw]

What I will try and do is find a suitable subject and shoot tripod mounted at 300mm, 500mmand 600mm i.e. mid range, equal to Sigma's offering at full stretch and the Tamron at full stretch. Bright overcast would be preferable to eliminate any contrast effect on apparent sharpness but that shouldn't be a problem in the UK at the moment. If I can I will also vary the aperture from wide open to f8 and f16. I just hope that after doing it, I don't decide that I have bought a pup.

I don't think you will John. The 1st test I saw compared it with a 600mm Canon prime. Obviously not so good at full resolution but when reduced it did stand comparison and provide a large image. Bit of PP should fix that up. The tests suggest all round it should be better than the Sigma anyway and is better/near equal to some Nikon zoom offerings. Even expensive ones by the look of it. The only question really is contrast as I feel resolution tests don't totally relate to that.

John
-

[Adrian]

It will be interesting to see how you get on with this lens. We have been impressed with ours so far, though it has not been taken on a big trip yet. It is very usable hand held as the tripod mount works as a good grip. in our experience f8 and smaller is best and clearly good light helps. Build quality so far has been fine. The price is persuasive!

[dennybeall]

How does the extra 100mm help you over say a 150-500 that's a couple hundred dollars less?

[Peeshan]

>Dennybeall: 100mm more can be useful in itself, and even if you don't use the extra length there is chances the 500mm will be sharper on a 150-600mm than on 150-500 (zoom lenses are often softer at the extreme), and possibly the 500mm can be wider open?

[Adrian]

Denny - this is not really the point. We didn't have a 500mm lens at all. So when we decided to buy a long lens the field was wide open. In the context of a long term lens purchase, a relatively small extra cost for the 100mm longer reach (160mm on a Canon crop sensor) was unimportant. Based on review on camera the Tamron appeared to perform better at 500mm than the equivalent Sigma (we tried both in our local shop - they are very accommodating and let us take them away for an couple of hours- and also a much more expensive Canon) and otherwise had good reviews. In fact, unless you are being super critical, it performs well at 600mm and on say a 7D crop the extra reach (effectively making it a 960mm lens) is surprisingly useful on, for example, birds in flight.

[John 2]

Denny - this is not really the point. We didn't have a 500mm lens at all. So when we decided to buy a long lens the field was wide open. In the context of a long term lens purchase, a relatively small extra cost for the 100mm longer reach (160mm on a Canon crop sensor) was unimportant. Based on review on camera the Tamron appeared to perform better at 500mm than the equivalent Sigma (we tried both in our local shop - they are very accommodating and let us take them away for an couple of hours- and also a much more expensive Canon) and otherwise had good reviews. In fact, unless you are being super critical, it performs well at 600mm and on say a 7D crop the extra reach (effectively making it a 960mm lens) is surprisingly useful on, for example, birds in flight.

Absolutely agree with that plus from looking at it (I didn't try it) the Sigma is a heavier piece of kit. In Nikon terms, their nearest lens (80-400mm) is more than twice the price and according to the review I have linked above, only manages about the same performance in overall terms.