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

[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.....

 

[AlanF]

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

 

[Don Haines]

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

Jack's image appears sharper, but also, mine was shot handheld with a 60D at a slower shutter speed and deliberately at the softest spot of the lens.... and there are no AFMA adjustments on it. a good comparison would involve the same body taking the pictures at the same distance, with both lenses properly calibrated.

 

[Don Haines]

The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.

 

[weixing]

Hi,

The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.

WOW... handheld Astrophotography on Orion Nebula... ;D

The IS must be quite good or you must be very steady... 4s at 600mm...

Have a nice day.

 

[AlanF]

Don
Could you post some comparative bird shots at f/6.3, f/8 and f/11.

 

[Don Haines]

Hi,

The IS test from hell.... 4 second exposure, handheld, 600mm, with a shivering photographer... and cropped image...

I am surprised it went as well as it did.

WOW... handheld Astrophotography on Orion Nebula... ;D

The IS must be quite good or you must be very steady... 4s at 600mm...

Have a nice day.

To be fair, I tried about 20 shots, and this was the best...

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a couple of more shots:


King of the Road by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

This last one is a near wide open (f/7.1 - 1/3rd stop stop down) and 600mm shot using AF Servo (not the 6D's strongest suit) but it worked fine for my limited bird use. BTW, the squirrel shot on the last page was also using AF Servo, but he had stopped moving by the time I took the shot anyway, so I don't think it would be any different than using One Shot.


Show Off by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

P.S. Note how narrow the DOF is on the goose shot when you consider this was 600mm, f/7.1, and I was about 25-30 feet away (roughly). The breast and the face is in focus where it is one the same plane, but the wings are very much out of the plane of focus. You can still get good separation even with this more narrow aperture zoom.

 

[GmwDarkroom]

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me. By 60D standards, of course. Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal. Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.

 

[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.

Shot with the 150-600.....

Darn, I couldn't remember if squirrels hibernate or not.

 

[AlanF]

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me. By 60D standards, of course. Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal. Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.

I am not arguing in favour of using stacked TCs - I am sure the 300/2.8 II plus the 2xTC at 600mm would give better results cropped than the stacked. Don't you think it amazing that two different threads on different subjects used a crop of the same bird at almost the exact same size?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19248.30

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me. By 60D standards, of course. Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal. Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.

I am not arguing in favour of using stacked TCs - I am sure the 300/2.8 II plus the 2xTC at 600mm would give better results cropped than the stacked. Don't you think it amazing that two different threads on different subjects used a crop of the same bird at almost the exact same size?

I'm actually not surprised, as this is one of the few birds that I see with any kind of regularity in a Canadian winter.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's a fun shot that I've have post processed to give a faded look, but does give an idea of what a 150mm shot at f/8 might look like through the lens.


Did I Make this Mess? by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

For all of you birders, here is a pretty amazing review of the lens by a guy comparing it to the 600mm f/4L IS (original version):

http://theamazingimage.com/wildlife/field-test-new-tamron-150-600mm-super-telephoto-zoom/#prettyPhoto

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Here's another shot from me:


Bambi by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr