Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III

[mackguyver]

Good recap AlanF!

Tamron have certainly produced a stella lens! Kudos!

+1 Definitely!  One more for old time's sake - teh Tammy vs. my old buddy the 400 f/5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The Canon wins by a hair, but this is a very respectable result!

[AlanF]

Tammy @ 600mm f/6.3 vs Canon 600mm L IS f/4

This is even more remarkable, the Tammy at its "soft" f/6.3 is sharper in the centre than the redoubtable Canon at f/4, and not much worse at midframe.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=336&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[hoodlum]

That 600mm f4 comparision was surprising.

Here is one more against the 400mm f5.6 + 1.4tciii @f8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

[mackguyver]

That 600mm f4 comparision was surprising.

Here is one more against the 400mm f5.6 + 1.4tciii @f8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

Good one and the old 400 does quite well!  If Canon ever updates that optics and adds IS, it would be one seriously amazing lens.

[JustMeOregon]

Am I really reading this correctly?

The Tamron at 300mm & f/5.6 appears to be "holding it's own" quite well in the center, and may even be more crisp mid-frame & in the corners, against the mighty Canon 70-200 II (at a similar f/5.6) with a 1.4x TC.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=3

And at 400mm the Tamron looks sharper across-the-board compared to the Canon 70-200 II with a 2x TC.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

So if you already have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II (& you wanted to go longer) for about the same cost of both Canon Extenders, you can get the extra 400-600mm range and better sharpness by going with the Tamron?

If I'm understanding all this correctly, for someone like me who typically photographs "static" landscapes, this is a no-brainer right? At least until the Canon 100-400mm II becomes available... 

[dcm]

Looking at the TDP samples, the Tammy looks like it could be an interesting addition to my lens collection, where my long lenses include the 135F2L, 70-200F4L IS, and both TC IIIs.  As expected the Tammy cannot match the 135F2L in sharpness, even versus the 1.4x at larger apertures.  But the Tammy does appear to outperform the 135F2+2.0x.  A comparison with the 70-200F4L IS yields similar results by itself or with the 1.4x, while the Tammy outperforms the 70-200 with the 2.0x and has an aperture advantage. 

Doubt I will use the TCs as much once the Tammy arrives.  Wonder how the Tammy performs with a TC?  Anybody tried this yet?  Might try to shoot the moon .

[AlanF]

Yes, you are reading correctly.  The 100-400 L is slightly better than the 70-200 with extenders at 280 and 400mm, and the  Tamron 150-600 and the 100-400 are within a whisker of each other. Canon TCs are overpriced. 

The Canon TCs won't fit on to the Tammy so I couldn't test it.  But, I would guess that the Kenko etc ones will give terrible IQ and AF. 

[adhocphotographer]

And at 400mm the Tamron looks sharper across-the-board compared to the Canon 70-200 II with a 2x TC.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=2

So if you already have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II (& you wanted to go longer) for about the same cost of both Canon Extenders, you can get the extra 400-600mm range and better sharpness by going with the Tamron?

If I'm understanding all this correctly, for someone like me who typically photographs "static" landscapes, this is a no-brainer right? At least until the Canon 100-400mm II becomes available... 

Indeed...  I think if this lens was released a couple of years back when i first wanted length, i would have gone for it over adding extenders to my 70-200...  that resolution is inspiring. Lets see how Canon will counter it...  If the putative 100-400 II does not add a significant IQ, the tamron is a clear winner, and lets face it, the next 100-400 will cost a damn sight more than the tammy!

[Vincwat]

A comparison of the Tammy vs Canons at a variety of focal lengths and lenses.

Tamron @150 f/5 vs Canon 100-400 @150 f/5

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Tammy sharper, especially at edges

Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @300 f/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

Little between them

Tamron @400 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @400 f/5.6

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Little between them

Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @300mm f/2.8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The world’s sharpest lens wins, but Tammy not bad

Tamron @400 f/5.6 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @420mm f/4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Canon wins, but not by a knockout

Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 300mm f/2.8 II @600mm f/8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

As my own tests showed, the Canon is better but Tammy OK at centre


Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 300mm f/4 @600mm f/8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=111&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Tammy wins hands down against the smaller Canon

Tamron @600 f/8 vs Canon 200-400mm f/4 @560mm f/8

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=764&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

Not much in it at the centre versus one of the great lenses in Canon's repertoire.

It all goes to show that the Tammy is as good as the 100-400 L up to 400mm, and a respectable 600mm thrown in.

From what I see, the Canon is much better in the corners at 150mm, from 200mm the difference is negligible.
From 300mm the Tamron is better, especially in the corners...

[AlanF]

The-Digital-Picture image quality charts have been most useful. The site is one which we know to be most reliable and objective (thanks Bryan!). A couple of comparisons took me by surprise.

The Tammy is at best at 300mm, where it has negligible CA at f/5.6 and is about as good as the truly excellent Canon f/300 L.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Tammy is really good at 500mm, wide open at f/6.3. In particular, it is sharp at the corners, unlike at 600mm. So, I think for birds in flight, it may be best used at 500mm so if the fast ones are close to the edge they will still be sharp and you get a wider angle for view for capture.

The Tammy at 500mm f/6.3 is as sharp as the Canon 100-400L at 400mm. So you get a 25% boost in reach and 56% more pixels on target with no loss of image quality.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

[wickidwombat]

Looking at the TDP samples, the Tammy looks like it could be an interesting addition to my lens collection, where my long lenses include the 135F2L, 70-200F4L IS, and both TC IIIs.  As expected the Tammy cannot match the 135F2L in sharpness, even versus the 1.4x at larger apertures.  But the Tammy does appear to outperform the 135F2+2.0x.  A comparison with the 70-200F4L IS yields similar results by itself or with the 1.4x, while the Tammy outperforms the 70-200 with the 2.0x and has an aperture advantage. 

Doubt I will use the TCs as much once the Tammy arrives.  Wonder how the Tammy performs with a TC?  Anybody tried this yet?  Might try to shoot the moon .

the 2x TC physically wont attach I tried

[Rienzphotoz]

Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.

Is there a comparison of both lenses (Tammy 150-600 VC & 100-400 L IS) on the same crop sensor camera body (e.g. 60D / 7D / 70D etc)?

[Lightmaster]

A comparison of the Tammy vs Canons at a variety of focal lengths and lenses.

Tamron @150 f/5 vs Canon 100-400 @150 f/5

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Tammy sharper, especially at edges

you should check your findings.
the canon is clearly sharper in the corners here.

ps:

or you should make it more clear what text is for which example (if it´s a headline or a footnote).

i guess your text "Tammy sharper, especially at edges"

is for the "Tamron @300 f/5.6 vs Canon 100-400 @300 f/5.6" example?

[Plainsman]

The iso 12233 crops show the hit that sharp primes take when you attach a bog standard Canon 2xTC.

Inevitable because that same TC is a compromise that has to give reasonable performance with other lenses in the Canon range all with different glass components/spacing/ray paths etc.

The Tamron 150-600 could be considered as a 150 - 300 with a built in exactly matching 2xTC which is the reason why it performs pretty well all the way up to 600.

[AlanF]

Finally, the Tammy is much better on FF than crop. The Tammy at 600mm on FF has the same reach as a 100-400mm on a crop, but a far better IQ.

Is there a comparison of both lenses (Tammy 150-600 VC & 100-400 L IS) on the same crop sensor camera body (e.g. 60D / 7D / 70D etc)?

Yes, on dxomark.com

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tamron-SP-150-600mm-F-5-63-Di-VC-USD-Model-A011-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D-versus-Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-7D___1263_619_598_619

dxo rates the Tammy as better than the 100-400mm on the 7D, but the difference is not as great as on the 5DIII.

The various links are in
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mount-lens-review-New-contender

To get an idea of the loss of resolution on going from FF to crop with the 10-400mm L see

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

When I got the 5DIII I noted in CR how much better the 100-400 was on it rather than on the 7D.