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

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm really sorry about the server issues. I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this. I've not had this kind of crash before.

Its working now Dustin ... a fabulous review, really liked reading and watching it (twice already).
About the lack of a lens pouch/bag with the purchase, I suppose that might be due to what you've said "I personally wonder if they are not selling this lens at a loss to drive brand recognition" ... quite possible, including a lens pouch/bag could've just made the "loss" a bit more unbearable for Tamron ;D ... jokes apart, I rally liked the review. My ex-boss is getting it for me from Japan ... so, I should be holding the lens by around the 10th February ... very excited to have bought the lens ... now I just need to wait patiently or perhaps read your review once more to calm my nerves. ;D

 

[mackguyver]

Justin, thanks for another excellent review! You were extra thorough this time and I had to laugh at all of the disclaimers and such, but it is truly bulletproof this time! For someone who doesn't shoot much wildlife, I thought you took some great shots, particularly the deer & bison photos. The only problem I can find with your review is that it's making me want to order one of these lenses! Keep up the great reviews and I have a feeling we'll be seeing you posting the in the bird and animal shot threads in the near future

 

[Etienne]

Just read your entire review. Very detailed, very helfpful.
I don't use long telephoto often, so this might be just the trick for me.
One thing I don't like is the zoom and focus direction, and the focus near the camera body. I am so used to the ergonomics on my canon lenses, this will screw me up a bit. But, as you point out, that quality at THAT PRICE!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks, Dustin.

My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens. Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties? Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires? I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade? Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?

I'd consider getting this lens, but not if it's going to "wear out" after 6 years. Does anyone out there have experience with Tamron service, especially on older lenses?

Thanks again for the great review.

I'm sure you can understand that I have no way of answering that question. The lens has just come to the market, and I don't know how well it will hold its value or hold up after years of field work. I do know that I have both sold and bought used Tamrons, and I haven't had one fail on me yet. My Tamron 24-70 VC has been my most used lens over the past year and I have taken it into multiple countries and all kinds of different environments without a moment's hesitation from it. I'm feeling pretty good about that!

Still - how is having having a six year warranty a bad thing?

 

[GmwDarkroom]

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list. An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

One point I'd like to make.

My current "super telephoto" is the 70-200/2.8L IS II with 2x TC III. Together, these are 1,815g compared to the Tamron's 1,951g. I'm not sure that's really much difference.

I'm wondering how the VC works in regular 2-axis mode when tracking moving subjects. I use my Canon like this all the time and it works quite well. However, the specific implementation matters. Some lenses get jerky and jump around when tracking in 2-axis mode. I think I remember seeing this on the 18-270VC, which is why I'm wondering about it.

That's a good point, and why I said that I don't think that users of a 70-200 f/2.8 variant will find much of a weight difference. I had not issue with the VC during panning, but I didn't use it that way a lot. Most of the new generation IS systems automatically detect panning and turn off that axis.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Cracking review! However, from my perspetive, I'm still interested in focussing on BIF when at 600mm. I'm not a birder, but if it is good for BIF, it'll be good for cheetah and other big cats running.

Just need someone to review that and if it's as good as the rest of Dustin's review, I might well get one.

Unfortunately BIF is hard to do this time of year where I live in Canada. There just aren't hardly any birds around! There also isn't any open water right now that might attract waterfowl. I'm afraid someone else will have to provide that kind of testing.

Funny you should say that.... I have a Snowy Owl hanging around and hope beyond all reasonable hope that by the time my lens (pre-ordered a month ago) arrives, that Snowy will still be around....

Even funnier, as I am waiting for a LONG!!! lens for birding, I was wandering around yesterday shooting Chickadees at 24mm.... yet I use them as justification for 600mm....

Lucky you! I've encountered one owl in the wild here, and had a great timing getting shots of it!! That was a winter ago, however, and I only had the 300mm reach of the 70-300L.

 

[Orangutan]

Thanks, Dustin.

My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens. Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties? Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires? I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade? Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?

I'd consider getting this lens, but not if it's going to "wear out" after 6 years. Does anyone out there have experience with Tamron service, especially on older lenses?

Thanks again for the great review.

I'm sure you can understand that I have no way of answering that question.

Dustin, of course that question was not directed at you, personally, it was an expression of my doubts about the prospect of laying down $1000 for a lens that may have a brilliant youth, and then burn out before middle-age.

The question regarding Tamron's history and reputation was thrown open to anyone who had knowledge or experience.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi,
Thanks for the review... Look like I'm going to order one to replace my EF400mm F5.6L once it's available in my country. ;D

Have a nice day.

No problem.

Great review!

Your reviews have always been good, but this is the best one yet! Congratulations on a job well done!

+1

Good stuff! Especially because it's what we wanted to hear

That does help, doesn't it ;D

I'm really sorry about the server issues. I'm on hold right now with my host trying to resolve this. I've not had this kind of crash before.

Its working now Dustin ... a fabulous review, really liked reading and watching it (twice already).
About the lack of a lens pouch/bag with the purchase, I suppose that might be due to what you've said "I personally wonder if they are not selling this lens at a loss to drive brand recognition" ... quite possible, including a lens pouch/bag could've just made the "loss" a bit more unbearable for Tamron ;D ... jokes apart, I rally liked the review. My ex-boss is getting it for me from Japan ... so, I should be holding the lens by around the 10th February ... very excited to have bought the lens ... now I just need to wait patiently or perhaps read your review once more to calm my nerves. ;D

I'm glad you are going to be able to get a copy. Enjoy! Your point about including the pouch/bag is certainly a valid one

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Justin, thanks for another excellent review! You were extra thorough this time and I had to laugh at all of the disclaimers and such, but it is truly bulletproof this time! For someone who doesn't shoot much wildlife, I thought you took some great shots, particularly the deer & bison photos. The only problem I can find with your review is that it's making me want to order one of these lenses! Keep up the great reviews and I have a feeling we'll be seeing you posting the in the bird and animal shot threads in the near future

I've encountered a little "friendly fire" before, so I did my best to be thorough and balanced. I'm sure there will still be those that find fault.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Just read your entire review. Very detailed, very helfpful.
I don't use long telephoto often, so this might be just the trick for me.
One thing I don't like is the zoom and focus direction, and the focus near the camera body. I am so used to the ergonomics on my canon lenses, this will screw me up a bit. But, as you point out, that quality at THAT PRICE!

I don't enjoy that trend, either, but my Canon 70-300L is setup the same way. Of that past six or seven lens reviews I've done, more were setup with the rings reversed than the "old way".

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list. An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

That extra 200mm certainly makes a difference. I haven't really shot the lens on a crop much (other than the M :), but the reach on a 70D/7D would be amazing.

Thanks, Dustin.

My question is about the long-term reliability of this lens. Yes, it's got a 6-year warranty, but does Tamron have a reputation for honoring their warranties? Will it be unrepairable after the warranty expires? I.e., is this a 6-year consumable, or can I re-sell it with a clear conscience after 4 years if I choose to upgrade? Yes, I know all equipment eventually dies outright, but how long does Canon continue to provide repair service for their L lenses?

I'd consider getting this lens, but not if it's going to "wear out" after 6 years. Does anyone out there have experience with Tamron service, especially on older lenses?

Thanks again for the great review.

I'm sure you can understand that I have no way of answering that question.

Dustin, of course that question was not directed at you, personally, it was an expression of my doubts about the prospect of laying down $1000 for a lens that may have a brilliant youth, and then burn out before middle-age.

The question regarding Tamron's history and reputation was thrown open to anyone who had knowledge or experience.

I understand completely. I personally feel that Tamron has built some great lenses in the last couple of years. It will be interesting if Roger does a breakdown on one of these lenses at some point and gives us so feedback on the guts and the way that they are put together.

 

[lescrane]

Dustin,
I join everyone here in thanking you for the review. It provides a lot of good info and samples; taken together with Roger's bench testing, I think we have a good "picture".

As far as the large, expensive filter, I do use a UV at times, esp. when I'm at the beach, I'd rather wipe spray and sand off the filter than off the lens. So I did splurge for the B&W MRC filter for about 160.00. That and a new ball head will get me up to 1500.00 which is about how much I had "budgeted"..

 

[bholliman]

Excellent review Dustin! I always appreciate your hand-on, photographers approach to reviews.

I just had time for a quick read today during an abbreviated lunch hour, but will re-read tonight when I have more time.

From Dustin's review: "I simply don’t have the budget to purchase many of the super-teles that cover this focal range, and furthermore, I don’t shoot this style of photography often enough to justify the expense even if I did."

This is why this lens is very interesting to me. For 98% of my normal shooting the 14mm-200mm lenses I own are fine. On the rare occasions I need something longer than 200mm, I use my 2x extender. However, I have been more interested in shooting wildlife recently and would like to have something longer - but can't realistically justify (to myself) spending $6K or $12k on lenses that I will seldom use. We are planning a 2-week trip to Alaska next summer, and I imagine I'll need all the reach I can get for some of the wildlife up there. This looks like a terrific, affordable option.

 

[Fishnose]

[size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,
I join everyone here in thanking you for the review. It provides a lot of good info and samples; taken together with Roger's bench testing, I think we have a good "picture".

As far as the large, expensive filter, I do use a UV at times, esp. when I'm at the beach, I'd rather wipe spray and sand off the filter than off the lens. So I did splurge for the B&W MRC filter for about 160.00. That and a new ball head will get me up to 1500.00 which is about how much I had "budgeted"..

Nice. It's great to be able to get that extra gear and still be at your budgeted price. I'd like to think that this will affect Canon's pricing when it release updates to either the 400mm f/5.6 or the 100-400L, but it probably won't.

Excellent review Dustin! I always appreciate your hand-on, photographers approach to reviews.

I just had time for a quick read today during an abbreviated lunch hour, but will re-read tonight when I have more time.

From Dustin's review: "I simply don’t have the budget to purchase many of the super-teles that cover this focal range, and furthermore, I don’t shoot this style of photography often enough to justify the expense even if I did."

This is why this lens is very interesting to me. For 98% of my normal shooting the 14mm-200mm lenses I own are fine. On the rare occasions I need something longer than 200mm, I use my 2x extender. However, I have been more interested in shooting wildlife recently and would like to have something longer - but can't realistically justify (to myself) spending $6K or $12k on lenses that I will seldom use. We are planning a 2-week trip to Alaska next summer, and I imagine I'll need all the reach I can get for some of the wildlife up there. This looks like a terrific, affordable option.

Yep. Looks like we are pretty much in the same boat. I even thought about an Alaskan cruise when I first heard of this lens!!

[size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]

I don't personally get why third party options are so much slower to come to Nikon mounts. I guess we are fortunate that clearly the first engineering priority goes to Canon mounts. Still, I don't understand why Nikon mounts sometimes lag for months behind.

 

[Albi86]

[size=12pt]Totally excellent review and photos Dustin - thanks!! Now I just need the Nikon version to come out so I can put one of these on my D800![/size]

I would wait a bit. On a 36 MP sensor this lens might perform less admirably.

 

[AlanF]

Dustin
I am comparing some of your bird photos with examples I've taken by downloading some of your crops. However, I don't know whether yours are 100%. For example, this one is 1024x1024 but I estimate from the full shot that it is about 1600x1600 in the original and has been reduced. Is this so?

 

[lycan]

the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin
I am comparing some of your bird photos with examples I've taken by downloading some of your crops. However, I don't know whether yours are 100%. For example, this one is 1024x1024 but I estimate from the full shot that it is about 1600x1600 in the original and has been reduced. Is this so?

Some of the crops vary in size, Alan. I'm working off memory, but your numbers seem about right. The problem is that the review as a post is 100MB+, so every extra bit adds more weight on the server and everyone's internet connection.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

the photo above looks soft or is it blurred/not focused correctly?

That's a 100% crop from a 600mm shot, wide open, in -20 weather. Pretty much worse case scenario. The lens is softer at 600mm than the rest of the focal range, to be sure. The good news is that it does sharpen up when stopped down.