Review: Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC G2

[ScottO]

I'm quite impressed with the improvements over the G1, maybe I just have a good copy but AF shows significant improvement. Image quality the long end is much improved as well. Fit and finish is better and I love the new Zoom lock. This is one of the first images before AFMA an extreme crop from a 5Dsr 600mm ISO 200 i/200sec F6.3
hand held.
No more than 30 seconds spent in camera raw and I think it's quite acceptable from a sharpness standpoint.

 

[AJ]

Thanks Scott for posting an image from the new 150-600 G2. Would love to see more. Please keep 'em coming!

 

[TheJock]

Getting back to topic:

This lens fills a mid-price hole in the Canon lens lineup. It's competition is the V1 of the lens and the pair of Sigma 150-600's. So far, there is not a review worth reading on the lens and no pictures "out there" from regular users. I look forward to seeing a real comparison of the various options USING THE SAME BODY!!!! (Hey DPR, don't put comparisons of V1 with a 1DS and V2 with a 5DSr in your review) and some real world reviews from people like Dustin.

Many times in the past I have commented that "nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture" The same holds true for lens sharpness. The thing that I am most interested in with this lens is the Tap-In console and how you can AFMA the lens for different focal lengths and different distances. This is a HUGE! thing. This has the potential to leapfrog over everyone else for accuracy of focusing. We are talking about the accurate calibration of precision equipment as opposed to ballparking it.

AF accuracy and repeatability is THE single most important factor in getting a good image. It will be good to see how this works in the real world. What kind of keeper rate will you get?

Don't know about you Don, but I'd love to see a side by side comparison of the new G2 against the Sigma Sport on the same body, preferably a 5DIII. Now THAT will be a nice review!!!

 

[chrysoberyl]

I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.

Wow - downsizing to be able to post degrades to the photos more than I expected.

 

[privatebydesign]

I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.

Wow - downsizing to be able to post degrades to the photos more than I expected.

The problem is the forum has a native 700 pixel in line limit, if you keep your image bigger than that then there has to be some additional resampling to make it fit. If viewers click on your image then they get it at native size in a new window/tab, then they see a much closer version of what you uploaded.

 

[Don Haines]

Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?

I think it is a AF problem. I had 4 helper points enabled on that shot and rather than pick the chest of the bird, where the central point was, it picked one of the helper spots where the top of the stick is. it could be that the feather pattern on the chest was poor to get AF from.....

 

[AlanF]

Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?

I think it is a AF problem. I had 4 helper points enabled on that shot and rather than pick the chest of the bird, where the central point was, it picked one of the helper spots where the top of the stick is. it could be that the feather pattern on the chest was poor to get AF from.....

There is a comment on the dpr site from someone who had two bad copies of the Tamron 150-600mm that were hazy in the areas with fine details.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58505868

Both your shots were in focus, as seen by sharp beaks and claws.

 

[AJ]

Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?

I think it is a AF problem. I had 4 helper points enabled on that shot and rather than pick the chest of the bird, where the central point was, it picked one of the helper spots where the top of the stick is. it could be that the feather pattern on the chest was poor to get AF from.....

There is a comment on the dpr site from someone who had two bad copies of the Tamron 150-600mm that were hazy in the areas with fine details.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58505868

Both your shots were in focus, as seen by sharp beaks and claws.

Maybe camera shake, combined with strong cropping?

 

[AlanF]

The first "proper" review is out by ePhotozine, who have good credibility in my book.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-g2-review-30082

The MTFs at 600mm in the centre look no better than for the Mk I

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866

with the edges worse, especially for CA. The best resolution in the centre at 600mm is at f/11 on a 6D, rather than the previous f/8. 150mm looks better in the G2.

 

[AlanF]

And, the ePhotozine is consistent with TDP, where the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on 5DS R is sharper at 560mm and both at f/8, especially at edges, where there is poor CA on the Tamron (worse at f/6.3).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

 

[AJ]

Thanks for the link Alan.
It's curious that, in the ephotozine analysis, the performance at 300 mm is quite a bit less than at 400 mm. 400 mm seems to be a sweet spot.
This is not shown in the TDP data
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[AJ]

So right now at TDP, it's hard to compare the G2 against the G1 because the tests were done with different camera bodies.
What's interesting, though, is comparing a lens against itself. For example, you can see that the Tamron G2 falls apart after 400 mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Stopping down helps, but does not raise resolution to the same levels seen at 300 mm.
The same is true for its predecessor.

The Sigma 150-600C, on the other hand, has more consistent performance across the focal length range:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
I'm still leaning towards the Sigma...

 

[Ozarker]

CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?)

Yeah. Is that really yours? :

 

[chrysoberyl]

CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?)

Yeah. Is that really yours? :

You have a friendly and jovial look - good portrait!

Mine? Yup! If you look closely in the eye of the crow, you will see a house. In the house, you will see a window. In the window you will see a camera. That's me behind the camera. Ha ha.

Totally highjacked this thread...sorry, a little.

 

[AlanF]

So right now at TDP, it's hard to compare the G2 against the G1 because the tests were done with different camera bodies.
What's interesting, though, is comparing a lens against itself. For example, you can see that the Tamron G2 falls apart after 400 mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=1079&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0
Stopping down helps, but does not raise resolution to the same levels seen at 300 mm.
The same is true for its predecessor.

The Sigma 150-600C, on the other hand, has more consistent performance across the focal length range:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=990&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=990&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
I'm still leaning towards the Sigma...

You can compare indirectly on the TDP via a 3rd lens, e.g. compare the G2 with the 100-400mm II on the 5DS R

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

and then the Tamron Mk I with the 100-400mm II on the 1DS III.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Oh well, better than nothing.

 

[AJ]

Oh well, better than nothing.

True!

 

[Ozarker]

I am definitely sticking with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D. But I do like all the information shared in this thread.

Nice. I think I've thrown away too many photos because I always expect the scales around the eyes to be in perfect focus with a 50% crop, but that's a personal problem I'm trying to get over.

You are right about the photo degradation when posting.

 

[Plainsman]

And, the ePhotozine is consistent with TDP, where the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC on 5DS R is sharper at 560mm and both at f/8, especially at edges, where there is poor CA on the Tamron (worse at f/6.3).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1079&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

This G2 is just a marketing stunt by Tamron.

Slightly better than the G1 they say - well allowing for the high variability (i.e. poor Chinese QA) of the production line product it is quite possible that a "good" G1 version will beat the G2 you get from your dealer.

However I am looking forward to an upcoming improved Sigma Contemporary.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

At first I felt the same as the mood on this thread, but that was when I had only tested the lenses near minimum focus distance (which I suspect is what has been done in these tests). When at more normal shooting distances for lenses like this (25-50 feet+), there is a clear advantage for the G2 in contrast and resolution.

The one downside I see is that light transmission is better in the V1 lens (they added an element to the optical formula of the G2). Color rendering is completely different between the two lenses, too. Better bokeh on the G2. Handling is infinitely better in so many ways.

It's a solid upgrade, but if someone is looking for a night and day improvement, they had better open their wallets and move to the one of the super teles.

The cougar is wide open - 600mm, f/6.3. The focus is not calibrated, as I met the Tamron rep and got the lenses right before going to shoot.