Testing new lens

[kaneohebud]

I recently bought the new Tamron 150-600mm lens for my Sony A77 MKII camera. I was looking for a little more reach than my Sony 70-400mm gives me. With a 1.5 crop factor, the Tamron's effective reach is 900mm's which is pretty impressive. Here are some sample shots I took the other day. It's obviously not a $10,000 lens and I'm not blown away by the sharpness, but consider that I was high on a cliff over 1000 yards away from these surfers.

[Shadowman]

Looks sharp enough to me, nicely captured.

[FootLoose]

There is nothing wrong with the third shot, Bud.

[rpcrowe]

I was at a Tamron "Tailgate Tour" ( http://www.tamron-usa.com/tailgate/?...FQcpaQod7TQAjg ) last Friday at a local camera store and they had the 150-600mm, lens mounted on a tripod and focused on a sign across the street. I could not read the sign with my bare eyes but could easily read it through that lens. It was quite impressive...

No, I did not purchase one (although I was tempted). Instead, I ate some of their free hot dogs and purchased a new photo vest (not Tamron) to replace my old ragged vest!

One thing that I have noticed when using very long focal length lenses, often it is not the lens but the air clarity over great distances that results in less than optimally sharp images.

Your images, however. look quite good...

Congrats and have fun with the new glass...

[mrinmoyvk]

Nicely captured...

[IzzieK]

I just looked their scheduled tours and they are all in Kommiefornia...

I was at a Tamron "Tailgate Tour" ( http://www.tamron-usa.com/tailgate/?...FQcpaQod7TQAjg ) last Friday at a local camera store and they had the 150-600mm, lens mounted on a tripod and focused on a sign across the street. I could not read the sign with my bare eyes but could easily read it through that lens. It was quite impressive...

No, I did not purchase one (although I was tempted). Instead, I ate some of their free hot dogs and purchased a new photo vest (not Tamron) to replace my old ragged vest!

One thing that I have noticed when using very long focal length lenses, often it is not the lens but the air clarity over great distances that results in less than optimally sharp images.

Your images, however. look quite good...

Congrats and have fun with the new glass...

[ajohnw]

I'd second the air clarity aspect. I even notice it at 300mm on M 4/3 600mm FF equivalent. Indications from tests is that this lens is rather good actually and stands comparison with a number of far more expensive lenses. Probably as it's a very modern design - some others aren't.

John
-

[kaneohebud]

Thanks for the positive comments. Did anyone notice the quadcopter with GoPro hovering over the wave in pix #4?

[HaseebM]

Thanks for the positive comments. Did anyone notice the quadcopter with GoPro hovering over the wave in pix #4?

What is that little white thing over the surfers?? Excellent images though the focal length figures on crop sensors still has me confused. Why call it 900mm effectively when all that the crop does is tighten the focus area. Not saying you guys don't know but why do we keep stating this when there is no magnification involved.

[ajohnw]

I'm thinking of getting one as it looks like Olympus wont be doing what I want. I don't see a 300mm prime as an option for my telephoto use.

I'm in a quandary though. Tamron 150-600mm or Nikon AF-S 80-400mm sometimes with a 1.4x converter. There is a price difference true but the Nikon is a bit lighter. It's not clear if either have any weather proofing. An important aspect in the UK..

John
-

[John 2]

I can't see anything wrong in either definition or sharpness in these Bud. Nice images. I have found mine to very sharp up to about 500mm but it falls off slightly after that. However, it's nothing that a bit of PP sharpening won't compensate for. Given its performance, I couldn't justify the price of Nikon's 80-400mm even if it iwas better and I have read that it isn't. One thing I haven't tried yet though, is to tune the my D7100 autofocus to it. It needs good light and a lot of space on the level but I intend to try it.

[rpcrowe]

I know that my next lens is about 2x the price of the Tamron and maximum FL is 400mm (not 600mm) but, I might just sell my 400mm f/5.6L and 300mm f/4L IS lenses which will get me pretty close to the roughly two thousand U.S. Dollars I will need for the new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Mk.ii lens.

At an equivalent FL of 640mm (on my Canon 7D) the 100-400 Mk.ii just might be all the lens that I need.

Oh Why Oh Why didn't Canon make the 7D or 7D Mk.ii capable of autofocus at f/8? Then I could have used my 1.4x adapter with either the 400mm f/5.6L or the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Mk.ii.

Answer to the above ???: Because improved video and gazillion ISO is what sells cameras. Not things that would improve still photography in normal shooting.

And, no... I am not going to carry a pair of 1Dx cameras to get AF at f/8!

I will, however, wait until the dust clears and the enthusiasm over the 100-400 Mk.ii is mitigated. Then there might be some real-life comments about the lens and the price may go down a bit...

[loosecanon]

The 7DII central focus point will work at f8, as does the 5DIII with updated firmware.

[rpcrowe]

That is terrible news The dual memory card slots and the focus capability at f/8 are two of the improvements that I was hoping for. This is bad news because it just may cost me some money as soon as the 7Dii becomes available as a refurb item from Canon

[jcuknz]

What is that little white thing over the surfers?? Excellent images though the focal length figures on crop sensors still has me confused. Why call it 900mm effectively when all that the crop does is tighten the focus area. Not saying you guys don't know but why do we keep stating this when there is no magnification involved.

It is a much shorter and efficient way of saying " It gives you an equivalent image to what you would get with a lens of that magnification on a full frame digital or 35mm SLR" So for MFT it is x2 the actual focal length, for Canon it is usually x1.6 and for Nikon and Pentax its x1.5 That is for APS-C cameras respectively for CaNikonTax

As for the 'white thing above the surfers" ... first you will need to learn to fly the dang'd thing and particularly over water ....I am not that interested in using one for photography but just to fly it ... yet to succeed Perhaps I am not trying hard enough

[jcuknz]

Oh Why Oh Why didn't Canon make the 7D or 7D Mk.ii capable of autofocus at f/8? Then I could have used my 1.4x adapter with either the 400mm f/5.6L or the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L Mk.ii....

Perhaps if you are that keen you will source a camera with Contrast Detection instead of Phase D becuase I know my rig which is effectively f/10 works just the same as ever with CD. And for most situations CD is as good a PD these days. Certainly I have not noticed as delay/problems comparing PD/CD ... but I probably have not tried the things where PD is better

edit .. I am sure you mean converter rather than adaptor but if you got a cheap MFT body and MFT-EOS adaptor that 400 lens would give you 800x1.4 or 1120mm reach .... though of course as we get to these big figures the improvement in magnification is marginal despite the hu-ha over 'Not 1000 but 1200 ..." In fact not much difference

I have had 950mm for some years now with my older FZ50 bridge and a Raynox 2020 tele-adaptor. Max aperture around f/4.5, f/3.2 less about a third of a stop for the Raynox. But on MFT 400 would be nice I have only a 140 so far.

[Shadowman]

Thanks for the positive comments. Did anyone notice the quadcopter with GoPro hovering over the wave in pix #4?

I didn't see it on first glance, thanks for pointing it out. Cheaters!

[William W]

Nice Pictures.

. . . recently bought the new Tamron 150-600mm lens . . . Here are some sample shots I took the other day. It's obviously not a $10,000 lens and I'm not blown away by the sharpness, but consider that I was high on a cliff over 1000 yards away from these surfers . . .

I don't think that it is reasonable to evaluate SHARPNESS of LENS based upon shots of MOVING SUBJECTS shot at a distance across SALT WATER without the consideration and notation of:

SHUTTER SPEED (especially this factor)
FILTER(S)
CAMERA STABILITY
POST PROCESSING

WW

[AlwaysOnAuto]

These shots make me want to try my Nikon 300mm on my NEX 7 down at the pier. Don't think the waves are as big though. =:>(