October 20, 2014, 07:40:50 PM

Poll

How many have bought a 600 II, 200-400, 300 II or Tamron 150-600?

I have bought or have ordered a 600mm f/4 II
18 (21.2%)
I have bought or have ordered a 200-400mm f/4 II
12 (14.1%)
I have bought or have ordered a 300mm f/2.8 II
24 (28.2%)
I have bought or have ordered a Tamron 150-600mm
31 (36.5%)

Total Members Voted: 71

Voting closed: March 24, 2014, 10:50:50 AM

Author Topic: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm  (Read 12010 times)

et31

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2014, 02:35:47 AM »
someone in this threat complained that the lens is a dust sucker.   I was shooting at beaches and wetlands for two weeks. Lot's of sand hit the camera/lens. Back from the trip and cleaned the exterior thoroughly. Nothing got inside that I can see. I did keep a 95mm B&W MRC filter the lens to protect front from sand and spray.  I note that the tamron has a rubber gasket at the base of the mount.

As mentioned before, no problems at all. except maybe a few missed BIFs as per usual poor user technique.

Great! I'm glad that sand doesn't enter into the barrel, otherwise Tamron would have to make a serious recall. However, dust is naturally much smaller and flatter than sand granules, and regardless of having the same 95mm protective filter on the lens, extending the barrel to 600mm allows for water droplets and dust particles to attach to the exposed barrel section of the lens.  So when taking a fast action handheld photo of an Osprey, soaring 90 degrees from the horizontal, and zooming quickly in and out to make sure the bird is mapped onto the full frame sensor, those little particulates bypass this lens’s gasket placed between the top section and the cork-screw internal receiving mechanism.  Everyone's lens will display different build characteristics to a very controlled degree, but continual inconsistencies are a sign of poor engineering.  For a few extra hundred dollars to the consumer, Tamron could have made the extra effort in ensuring better design for longer use life.  As a direct comparative example, my prime series Tamron f/2.8 24-70mm (stronger and thicker seal in the barrel) and 70-200mm (internal focus) lenses have the gold ring marking with excellent sealing and solid build design that feel like professional lenses and were designed to compete directly with the Canon 24-70 / 70-200 lenses.  For its well-designed optics, Tamron should have not compromised the 150-600mm.  A colleague of mine also purchased the Tamron 150-600mm, and after a few weeks of use, he also acquired a very similar count of internal dust.  Deciding to service it himself and remove the front element and apparent dust on the first internal element down the barrel, he removed the 4 screws of the outer plastic mount and an additional 4 lower mount screws holding the front glass element to the housing.  (NOTE: Many photographers know how to perform standard surgery on their lenses, given their limited time, budgets, and demanding schedules.) Naturally, Tamron has been very worried about material weight to improve lens portability, so the parts had a light but flimsy feel to them (a little pressure holding the ring in your hands, and the plastic can crack).  However, what's worse is that when he showed me the removal of the front glass element, pieces of metal spacer filings started falling out from the sides with an uneven count. The actual glass sits on top of 4 separate sets of layered metal spacers that are physically hand placed in their grooves (not well-defined and move around easily) so that the glass can be suspended (minimizes vibration shock). Nevertheless, the tolerances of the metal spacers are not consistent, and even from the factory, an uneven number of spacers are placed underneath the lens, altering alignment by 1mm, even when placed in their appropriate groove (design and quality control issue).  Furthermore, the top glass sits in its housing without any sealing, and so it was easy to see how dust particles could now enter from the top and the barrel chamber wall.  Using masks to avoid any spitum, gloves for optic handling and to prevent oil smudging, in addition to a controlled system vacuum and hand held blower, the majority of dust was immediately removed. However, we noticed that two of the "dust" specs that initially caused the need to open the lens, were actually moisture spots that had dried on the underside of the front element and the surface of the first inner element.    Again, knowing how they got in was very surprising and discomforting.  Using lab grade micro-fiber lens paper, sterile throat swabs w/out glue, and high grade methanol, the spots were carefully and successfully removed without producing any scratches. Blowing out the chamber one last time, it turned out that reassembly became a struggle, given that the layers of spacers kept falling out whenever remounting the front glass element.   This is a bad design issue that you don’t have with prime Canon lenses and some entry level Canon lens bodies (i.e. EF-S 55-250)! I have had my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L for 3 years in very demanding environments, and the number of internal dust specs is less than or equal to 3 on the frontal element while remaining clear on the internal elements.  Additionally, the build design doesn’t have loose parts and the cleaning process is a breeze given the solid metal components and well-designed tolerances in the machining!   For many people, the Tamron 150-600mm will be “good enough” to compete with the market and create a ding in the oligopoly (traditionally Canon and Sigma for long range telephotos on EF DSLR mounts) of lens pricing, while obtaining comparable results to the big white whale brother lenses.  However, for many professionals, the compromise of build quality is not acceptable and having to open your lens very early on and void the warranty is not a sign of a healthy relationship with your lens!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 02:59:32 AM by et31 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2014, 02:35:47 AM »

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #76 on: March 13, 2014, 12:05:16 PM »
You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession.

Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

Secondly, you allude to your professional standard lenses as having a gold ring, and the 15-600mm not being in this class. Tamron used the gold ring cosmetically to designate its SP "Super performance lenses": see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/technology/sp-super-performance.html for a definition of them and their properties including robust outer design.

The Tamron 150-600mm is officially an SP lens: see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-5.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

The last thing I am going to do is to take my lens apart! If it fills up in the next five years with dust like a Dyson, I'll send it it back to Tamron under warranty.
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.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #77 on: March 13, 2014, 12:28:46 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #78 on: March 13, 2014, 12:28:55 PM »
Deciding to service it himself and remove the front element and apparent dust…

Why did he make that decision?  Was the dust on internal lens elements having an observable effect on image quality?

having to open your lens very early on and void the warranty is not a sign of a healthy relationship with your lens!

I'd say it's a sign of something unhealthy…but not the lens.   :o
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #79 on: March 13, 2014, 01:06:28 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.


Are sand particles uniform in size and shape? Aren't some of them flatter and some of them smaller? It is a geometric truism that smaller objects (of similar shapes) have higher surface/volume ratios because volume varies as length cubed and area as length squared. By modelled, I mean that the shape of atmospheric dust particles is determined by their light scattering characteristics, and they usually come out on average as spherical or squat cylinders.
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.

et31

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #80 on: March 13, 2014, 01:35:34 PM »
You are a professional and need tools commensurate with your profession.

Some of your points are a little odd. Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

Secondly, you allude to your professional standard lenses as having a gold ring, and the 15-600mm not being in this class. Tamron used the gold ring cosmetically to designate its SP "Super performance lenses": see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/technology/sp-super-performance.html for a definition of them and their properties including robust outer design.

The Tamron 150-600mm is officially an SP lens: see - http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-5.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

The last thing I am going to do is to take my lens apart! If it fills up in the next five years with dust like a Dyson, I'll send it it back to Tamron under warranty.

Yes, let me clarify those points.
1.  I should have said that I was referring to dust particles that more than often come from organic matter (i.e. skin cells, fiber stands, decomposed dried plant matter in farm fields during the winter months that flies around everywhere, etc.), in addition to silt size aeolian particulates, as opposed to sand size particles at the ocean that contain quartz grains and other calcium carbonates (so, overall grains that are between silt, sandstone, and higher: 62.5 microns +), which have different refinement properties, and according to the level of weathering, can be angular or round.

2. Yes, I do acknowledge and have no doubt that the optics and design of the inner glass components reflect the SP rating present in the 150-600mm.  However, given the build quality and new engineering of the housing components, the "robust outer design" is subjective only to whatever Tamron feels is correct to their design standards.  All Canon white L lenses look alike, feel alike, and have a higher standard in material component integration in the designs; however, with three SP Tamron bodies in front of me, it's obvious that the telephoto model has property differences in engineering (outside from the fact that it's supposed to be light and portable) that doesn't reflect the same Tamron series (i.e. Change in manufacturer could be a reason, economic hit on material costs, or trying something new to change their lens lineup, etc.)  It's a semi-pro lens and I understand that the market makes portable zoom telephotos (i.e. Sigma 150-500mm, Tamron 200-500mm, Tamron 150-600mm), but like you said earlier, you "need tools commensurate with your profession." 

I embrace new lens designs and finding ways around spending $10-$20K on a telephoto; however, I just wish someone would come out with a long range telephoto that had smart and efficient engineering standards that reflected strengths in the optics AND the overall product that cost more than $1000, but still was far less expensive than the big guns.....maybe it's Sigma's turn to come out with a corrected version of their flawed 150-500m or Tamron will eventually come out with fixed long range telephoto lenses in the near future.   Until then, Canon is laughing at us all, but gives us some credit for effort!
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:41:13 PM by et31 »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2014, 02:06:04 PM »
RE: "Big Game" photo.  It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny :D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #81 on: March 13, 2014, 02:06:04 PM »

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #82 on: March 13, 2014, 02:57:26 PM »
Firstly, why do you say dust is flatter than sand? Dust particles are usually modelled to be spherical or cylindrical in scientific studies, ie the same shape as sand and certainly not flatter.

How dust is modeled in scientific studies isn't really relevant to it's ability to penetrate a 'dust-resistant seal'.  Neither dust nor sand are actually spherical or cylindrical, but in general dust is smaller and has a higher surface to volume ratio than sand.  Here's some household dust:



Some of it could certainly be described as 'flatter than sand'.

Neuro
An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.

http://images.sciencesource.com/preview/13250858/BP3016.html

Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....
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.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14708
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #83 on: March 13, 2014, 03:20:01 PM »
Neuro
An arrest warrant is being issued for your breaking US copyright.

Anyway, I think it is a fake, composed of cabbage leaves, chillies, potato skins and bean pods. As if an SEM gives real colours....

LOL.  My bad.  I remember one of my early Macs had a default alert tone which I'll echo here:  Sosumi.

SEM images are frequently colorized to make structers easier to visualize, although obviously no additional real information content is added by the colorization. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

GuyF

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #84 on: March 13, 2014, 03:49:37 PM »


If you want a mathematical duel, here is my second (taken on Monday night at iso3200, f/4 24-105)

First of all, I won't require a second for the duel (ha! take that8)) and secondly, the picture of your own second appears to be obscured by that little dude in the wheelchair's laptop screen. Funny, I'm sure I met that bloke at CERN back in 2004...looks just like him (note: he cheats at rock, paper, scissors). Anyway, be sure to tell your second that's a nice white blouse she's got on.

Oh, and as for the Cambridge sense of humour? Footlights has so much to answer for.

Game, set and match, chummy.

(I'm sure the pair of us could go on like this all day but isn't it fun to hide behind a keyboard, no?)

Regards.

AlanF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1092
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2014, 08:18:35 PM »
Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her. 
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.

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 945
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #86 on: March 14, 2014, 09:16:40 AM »
RE: "Big Game" photo.  It's always funny to see a 70-200 f/2.8 look so small and the 70-200 f/4s look tiny :D

Yes it does, and it is!

Are those CPS caps/hats that some of them are wearing? I haven't seen them before.

Got to hand it to Canon, they really know how to market themselves!
1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

GuyF

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2014, 02:53:55 PM »
Watch it, Guy. The one in the white blouse is my wife, and you wouldn't stand a chance against her.

I know, that's why I said it - now I've got you thinking!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
« Reply #87 on: March 14, 2014, 02:53:55 PM »