Tamron 150-600mm

[Shadowman]

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

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

[Dave A]

I want one!

Dave

[rpcrowe]

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!

[Arjung]

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

[Geoff F]

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.

[ajohnw]

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
-

[Shadowman]

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.

[NorthernFocus]

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...

[Shadowman]

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.

[NorthernFocus]

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.

[rpcrowe]

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...

[Bobobird]

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"!

[Dave Humphries]

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.

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.

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

[terrib]

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.

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"!

[NorthernFocus]

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.

[John 2]

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.

[Shadowman]

A bit more information on the lens.

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

[ajohnw]

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
-

[rpcrowe]

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

[Shadowman]

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.