In-Depth Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

...

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list.  An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

That extra 200mm certainly makes a difference.  I haven't really shot the lens on a crop much (other than the M ), but the reach on a 70D/7D would be amazing.

...

So what was your experience with the Tamron on the EOS M?

It's mostly about logistics.  The M is so small that the balance is really weird, as is trying to operate the camera with such a small grip.  It would be better on a monopod or tripod, obviously.  As this pictures shows, it is very much a case of the "tail wagging the dog" 

Is that a camera, or a rear lens cap on there? 

Exactly.  Pictures look fine, but logistics are pretty brutal.

[dcm]

...

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list.  An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

That extra 200mm certainly makes a difference.  I haven't really shot the lens on a crop much (other than the M ), but the reach on a 70D/7D would be amazing.

...

So what was your experience with the Tamron on the EOS M?

It's mostly about logistics.  The M is so small that the balance is really weird, as is trying to operate the camera with such a small grip.  It would be better on a monopod or tripod, obviously.  As this pictures shows, it is very much a case of the "tail wagging the dog" 

Is that a camera, or a rear lens cap on there? 

Exactly.  Pictures look fine, but logistics are pretty brutal.

Thanks for the photo.  That's quite an extension from the tripod foot on the lens.  Thought that might be the case, not really hand hold-able due to LiveView and the small body.  A tripod or a shoulder mount like a BushHawk seem like the way to go with the M.

[Drizzt321]

The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens.  If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point).  I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.   

That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.

I'm with you on that one, and other than the 70-300L and 200-400 1.4x, it seems that nearly all of these lenses lose a lot of sharpness at their maximum focal length.  I don't get that because the whole idea is to shoot at or near the max FL.  Who buys a 150-600 to primarily shoot at 150-300?  It seems like the lens designers would optimize for 400-600 at the expense of 150-400, but I'm sure that's neither easy nor cheap

I dunno. I may want to often shoot in the 400+ FL, but right now my longest lens is the 135L, so I suspect I'd find myself shooting a lot from the 200+ with it. And after I eventually get the 70-200, I'll still probably be shooting more in the 200+, or more likely the 300+ when I do shoot with this Tamron. For me it's that (right now) I can't see myself shooting really any of these focal lengths all that regularly, or even if I do I somehow don't see myself spending $7K+ on the BWL lenses, with or without 1.4x/2x TCs. Not to say when I win the lotto I won't be buying myself the LensRentals Chess set, but other than that very fortuitous situation, for me at least, the BWL aren't something I'll be buying.

This lens is really for the crowd that want's a flexible lens, fairly decent optical quality, at what's really an amazing price. Heck, if this were another $300-500 more it'd still be a good price for what you get, although obviously not as great of a deal. So me or people who want a cheap birding lens would find the fairly good (although not great) IQ worth the price. Not to say I don't want maximum IQ, but if you want maximum IQ this lens isn't targeting you anyway.

[candc]

i wish mine would hurry up and get here so i could tell you what it is really like instead of what i think it will do. til then i can say that i have downloaded all the samples and read all the reviews. i agree with what Drizzt321 is saying but it also appeals to another crowd as a secondary lens, i have the sigma 120-300 sport which is amazingly sharp and heavy. its really good with the 1.4tc, 2x meh? from what i have seen its about the same as this new tamron at 600? i plan on getting the 600ii because i like to shoot that fl and its the best i have seen, are you going to go for a walk on the beach with the sigma 120-300 and the 600ii? this lens covers that whole range pretty well in a nice relatively light package no tc's no changing lenses

[CarlTN]

The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens.  If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point).  I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.   

That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.

I'm with you on that one, and other than the 70-300L and 200-400 1.4x, it seems that nearly all of these lenses lose a lot of sharpness at their maximum focal length.  I don't get that because the whole idea is to shoot at or near the max FL.  Who buys a 150-600 to primarily shoot at 150-300?  It seems like the lens designers would optimize for 400-600 at the expense of 150-400, but I'm sure that's neither easy nor cheap

I dunno. I may want to often shoot in the 400+ FL, but right now my longest lens is the 135L, so I suspect I'd find myself shooting a lot from the 200+ with it. And after I eventually get the 70-200, I'll still probably be shooting more in the 200+, or more likely the 300+ when I do shoot with this Tamron. For me it's that (right now) I can't see myself shooting really any of these focal lengths all that regularly, or even if I do I somehow don't see myself spending $7K+ on the BWL lenses, with or without 1.4x/2x TCs. Not to say when I win the lotto I won't be buying myself the LensRentals Chess set, but other than that very fortuitous situation, for me at least, the BWL aren't something I'll be buying.

This lens is really for the crowd that want's a flexible lens, fairly decent optical quality, at what's really an amazing price. Heck, if this were another $300-500 more it'd still be a good price for what you get, although obviously not as great of a deal. So me or people who want a cheap birding lens would find the fairly good (although not great) IQ worth the price. Not to say I don't want maximum IQ, but if you want maximum IQ this lens isn't targeting you anyway.

Good points.  Again, my point is that if you want to shoot at or below 400mm, there are other lenses better suited, weigh less, have faster aperture at those shorter focal lengths...and in some cases cost less, yet deliver equal or higher IQ to this Tamron.

If the longest focal length you have now is 135mm, I have to wonder if you need any kind of telephoto lens at all?  Because if you needed one, you would already have one.  Btw, the TC's work superbly on the 135 f/2...although with the 2x one mounted, I kind of wish for a way to attach a tripod ring.

[CarlTN]

i wish mine would hurry up and get here so i could tell you what it is really like instead of what i think it will do. til then i can say that i have downloaded all the samples and read all the reviews. i agree with what Drizzt321 is saying but it also appeals to another crowd as a secondary lens, i have the sigma 120-300 sport which is amazingly sharp and heavy. its really good with the 1.4tc, 2x meh? from what i have seen its about the same as this new tamron at 600? i plan on getting the 600ii because i like to shoot that fl and its the best i have seen, are you going to go for a walk on the beach with the sigma 120-300 and the 600ii? this lens covers that whole range pretty well in a nice relatively light package no tc's no changing lenses

If you would let me borrow your Sigma 120-300, I would take it on however long of a walk you wish!  I don't live on a beach or go on a vacation every 3 months...but I have lots of nice places near where I am to take wildlife photos.

[Drizzt321]

The reason I feel this new Tamron appears to be not all that appealing, is because it seems to get softer as it goes past 400mm...but going past 400mm is really the whole reason to buy this lens.  If you're going to buy it and shoot more of the time below 400mm, there are better, smaller lenses for that (such as the lighter and less costly Sigma...or the significantly lighter, smaller 70-300L at a slightly higher price point).  I guess what I'm saying is, maybe the best image quality at the longest focal length with this new Tamron, looks like it's at 400mm, or slightly past it...but not at 600mm.   

That's not to say it's not good value for money...but if you want to get maximum IQ for the money past 400mm, it might not be the best choice.

I'm with you on that one, and other than the 70-300L and 200-400 1.4x, it seems that nearly all of these lenses lose a lot of sharpness at their maximum focal length.  I don't get that because the whole idea is to shoot at or near the max FL.  Who buys a 150-600 to primarily shoot at 150-300?  It seems like the lens designers would optimize for 400-600 at the expense of 150-400, but I'm sure that's neither easy nor cheap

I dunno. I may want to often shoot in the 400+ FL, but right now my longest lens is the 135L, so I suspect I'd find myself shooting a lot from the 200+ with it. And after I eventually get the 70-200, I'll still probably be shooting more in the 200+, or more likely the 300+ when I do shoot with this Tamron. For me it's that (right now) I can't see myself shooting really any of these focal lengths all that regularly, or even if I do I somehow don't see myself spending $7K+ on the BWL lenses, with or without 1.4x/2x TCs. Not to say when I win the lotto I won't be buying myself the LensRentals Chess set, but other than that very fortuitous situation, for me at least, the BWL aren't something I'll be buying.

This lens is really for the crowd that want's a flexible lens, fairly decent optical quality, at what's really an amazing price. Heck, if this were another $300-500 more it'd still be a good price for what you get, although obviously not as great of a deal. So me or people who want a cheap birding lens would find the fairly good (although not great) IQ worth the price. Not to say I don't want maximum IQ, but if you want maximum IQ this lens isn't targeting you anyway.

Good points.  Again, my point is that if you want to shoot at or below 400mm, there are other lenses better suited, weigh less, have faster aperture at those shorter focal lengths...and in some cases cost less, yet deliver equal or higher IQ to this Tamron.

If the longest focal length you have now is 135mm, I have to wonder if you need any kind of telephoto lens at all?  Because if you needed one, you would already have one.  Btw, the TC's work superbly on the 135 f/2...although with the 2x one mounted, I kind of wish for a way to attach a tripod ring.

It's really a matter of money and priorities. Burning Man, great wine, or a new lens that's $2k+ (70-200 f/2.8 IS v2)? It's a lot easier to spend a few hundred $$ now than save it up for a single large purchase. At least for me. I have been slowly saving up for that, but I just gotta go ahead and stop buying wine or going out and eating so well. I have thought about getting a TC, and I suppose the 1.4x would be good for a lot of indoor shooting, but otherwise where I want more FL it's when I'm out on the beach trying to get the surfers or pelicans flying along the water, and 400mm is decent, but going out to 600mm would be even nicer.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D

[candc]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm....

[candc]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D

Don's shots look pretty good. What more do you want from a $1000 lens? to keep it in perspective, the 2 canon extenders will cost you about the same

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

and to help prove the point.... this is the centre quarter of an image taken at 552mm... F6.3, 1/800th second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D.

The second picture is taken at sunset, 600mm, F6.3, 1/640 second, ISO320, handheld with a 60D

Don's shots look pretty good. What more do you want from a $1000 lens? to keep it in perspective, the 2 canon extenders will cost you about the same

I'm deliberately playing with 600mm and F6.3 because that's supposed to be where the lens is worst.....

[9VIII]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm....

Come spring, squirrel pictures are going to be high in my priority list.

That lens is looking mighty good. I have to wonder how 600mm on the Tamron actually compares with a crop off the 500f4ISII.

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for everyone, but I own multiple teleconverters and frankly I kind of hate using them.  In the field or at an event, I often don't bother with changing it out because of the environment, the amount of time for the switch, or the risk of getting gunk in my body during the change.  The 135L takes a 1.4x quite well, and I do use that combination, but let's be realistic; it is only 189mm, and an unstabilized 189mm at that.

The 70-200L II takes teles very well well, too, but even on it with a 2x there is quite a degrading of image quality, and it is a 400mm f/5.6 by that point.

If you want reach, the Tamron is the best bargain option on the market.  I'll certainly be adding one to my kit.  And for those saying it is only good up to 400mm - they haven't used it.  I thought I was taking this wide open, but it is actually f/7.1 (stopped down 1/3rd a stop).  But it is 600mm, handheld, and ISO 2000.  How exactly is this not usable?

It is not usable because images such as this are banned on cr by the OSP (Obscene Squirrel Police)

Reference.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15358.45
See page 4 and 7

Great!

Now you have me thinking of making a bowl of popcorn and going out and taking squirrel pictures.... despite the fact that it is dark and a snowstorm....

Come spring, squirrel pictures are going to be high in my priority list.

That lens is looking mighty good. I have to wonder how 600mm on the Tamron actually compares with a crop off the 500f4ISII.

Shot with the 150-600.....