April 19, 2014, 05:35:10 PM

Author Topic: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III  (Read 29749 times)

AlanF

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #135 on: February 15, 2014, 01:24:18 PM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #135 on: February 15, 2014, 01:24:18 PM »

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #136 on: February 15, 2014, 01:26:51 PM »
I wasn't just thinking noise, I was thinking much better technique, a bigger magnification needs more support to have the same camera shake (even on the best tripods), any system aberrations are magnified more, AF becomes more critical etc etc.

The crop factor or additional magnification of smaller pixels compared to bigger ones entails at least the linear factor improvements in everything, AF, aberrations, noise, shutter speed, support etc etc.

I believe, very strongly, that is why the 1Dx has been so wholeheartedly embraced over the 1.3 crop 1D MkIV, a camera that was pretty much universally loved by everybody and had that all important sports "crop factor", even when the 1D MkIV has a much higher pixel density.

Oh I don't doubt it. I drool over 1D X IQ all the time. Despite how good the 1D IV was, there is still a clear difference between it's IQ and the 1D X IQ. The dynamic range of the 1D X (I don't mean the kind that gives you more editing latitude, I mean the reduction in photon shot noise at all levels) really can't be beat. Not unless you reduce pixel size even more.

Besides, if your spending $5000 to $7000 on a camera body, you probably already have or are easily able to get a $10,000+ supertelephoto lens and teleconverters to go along with it.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

AlanF

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #137 on: February 15, 2014, 01:27:44 PM »
My very first bird in flight. The greylag is too far away to give a sharp image, and it was underexposed and I had to boost the shadows. I am showing it just to say that the AF locked on very quickly and well. It was iso640, f/8, 600mm.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #138 on: February 15, 2014, 01:30:49 PM »
My first bird photos with the Tammy! Here is the very first shot taken. 5DIII, f/8 iso640, and 600mm, a greylag goose at Fowlmere in Cambridgeshire.

The AF is very reproducible (A1 servo), much, much better than the 100-400L on 7D and better than on the 5DIII.  The full-frame of the goose is reduced to 1200x800. The head is 100% crop.

Congrats! Detail looks great!

Have you tried any tracking for BIF yet? That was always a weak spot with the 100-400L and 7D IMO. It is so much better with the 600mm, but still not as good as the 5D III.

I love the Greylag Goose. Sometimes a few of them hang out here in Colorado. They tend to mate with Canada Goose, and you get some very interesting offspring. I actually need to head out to Duck Lake in City Park near Denver. This is about the time that the Cormorants and Greylags show up. The Cormorants nest every year on this island in Duck Lake...to the tune of a couple hundred (and plenty more when all the hatchlings come). It's still pretty cold, but I wonder if they are already here...
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Old Sarge

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #139 on: February 15, 2014, 01:32:18 PM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.

Thank you for posting these pictures.  The Tammy looks pretty good and the price seems attractive.  May have to get one later this year.
The Old Sarge

mustang

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Country boy from Scandinavia
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #140 on: February 15, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.


The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 03:35:57 PM by mustang »
5D III | 70D | 60D | 50 1.4 | 16-35 2.8 II | 24-70 2.8 II | 24-105 | Sigma 85 1.4 | 100 Macro 2.8L | 70-200 2.8 II | 70-300L | 100-400 | 17-55 2.8 | 10-22
For sale:
60D | 10-22

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1473
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #141 on: February 15, 2014, 04:01:01 PM »
Some good looking shots, Alan.  I'm glad the lens is working out for you.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #141 on: February 15, 2014, 04:01:01 PM »

miah

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #142 on: February 15, 2014, 05:55:18 PM »
Thanks for posting these shots, AlanF. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know "it's a good value for the money." The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.
T3i • 10-22 • 15-85 • 70-300DO *** 5D3 • 35 f/2 • 50 f/1.8 • 24-105L • 100L • 70-300L • 35-350L • 400L f/5.6

AlanF

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #143 on: February 15, 2014, 07:43:44 PM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.


The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose.  For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

AlanF

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #144 on: February 15, 2014, 07:48:24 PM »
Thanks for posting these shots, AlanF. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know "it's a good value for the money." The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.
The weather forecast is good for tomorrow and I'll be going out to test further. Like you, it's not the value/£ or $ or € that is paramount but rather does the lens deliver the goods. 
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

candc

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #145 on: February 15, 2014, 09:23:14 PM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.


The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose.  For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.

I see dxo is working on a module for this lens. That should make for even better results with less manual work. I am looking forward to its release

Pit123

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #146 on: February 16, 2014, 03:03:41 AM »
Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.
Thanks, Alan, for showing!
Regarding magnificiatinion, you have showed us all, that 400mm x  1,5x magnification shows the same size of the subject as the 600mm.
We can also see that the upscaled image from Tammy on the 5d3 is not close (enough) to 600mm@63, which, IMO, is also soft. As dxomarl shows, the canon 100-400 is a lot shaper than tammy on 400mm on a 7d, so probably the results between an upscaled 100-400 and tammy would be a closer, if not close enough for me. Time will tell.

mustang

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Country boy from Scandinavia
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #147 on: February 16, 2014, 03:04:35 AM »

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose.  For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.


Thanks for the info! Looking forward to see some more examples from this lens.
5D III | 70D | 60D | 50 1.4 | 16-35 2.8 II | 24-70 2.8 II | 24-105 | Sigma 85 1.4 | 100 Macro 2.8L | 70-200 2.8 II | 70-300L | 100-400 | 17-55 2.8 | 10-22
For sale:
60D | 10-22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #147 on: February 16, 2014, 03:04:35 AM »

AlanF

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 845
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #148 on: February 16, 2014, 01:51:56 PM »
Beautiful day today at Lackford Lakes in Suffolk. Unfortunately, not too much to photograph and generally too far away. All lenses give good results on all bodies if the subject fills the frame. What we want to see in testing a lens is whether a cropped image is sharp. Here are some cropped images. They are all taken at 600mm, f/8, iso 640, hand held (as always) on a 5DIII. All images had minimal processing but had 0.9 pixels worth of USM at 100%. They are all 100% crops.

So, I must emphasize, I haven't chosen these images to show how great the lens is, show it at its best or act as Tamron's publicity agent. These are various crops to show what the lens is like, and you can make up your own mind.

My take: it's good enough for me in absolute terms - not just because it is is good value for money; I will use it at f/8 at 600mm as f/6.3 is somewhat soft when cropping; it is much better on the 5DIII than APS-C (just as is the 100-400); it is a pleasure to use hand held as it is nicely balanced and not too heavy; the AF is very consistent, but a little slow at 600mm; I haven't been able to test it much for BIF but my first impressions are that it is very similar to the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC - if anything it seemed to lock on better and not lose the subject.

In my opinion, it renders the 100-400 obsolete and Canon had better come up with something good to compete.

Notes: the Mallard was not over-cropped; the lapwing was very far away and is heavily cropped - I think the quality is very similar to what I get on the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC; the flying swan was picked up very easily by the AF; the Yanks are clearly following me from up high.
5D III, 70D, Powershot SX50, 300/2.8 II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, 70-200/4 IS, 24-105, 15-85, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 150-600.

JorritJ

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #149 on: February 16, 2014, 02:56:09 PM »
(mallard flapping wings)

Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.

The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.

Seems to me like this 150-600mm delivers some excellent quality for its price. The only real drawback I can see (for me personally) is the size, I don't believe it'll fit in my travel photography bag, which is exactly the maximum handbag size for air travel. If it were not for that, I would have ordered this lens already. Now I'll have to see if Canon finally releases that 100-400L successor before the summer, and see what may come from that.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III
« Reply #149 on: February 16, 2014, 02:56:09 PM »