Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one

[westr70]

Hmm... I'm really interested in this lens now that I have read all these replies. I want to thank the op and everyone else for their comments. Much to consider. If anyone else has a 5dIII with this lens and can lead me to their shots I'd appreciate it. Particularly for bif.

Thanks.

All shot with the Tamron 150-600mm - in poor light as well.


Stellar shots. Very nice.

Pretty in pink by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

BA landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Into landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

 

[mackguyver]

Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.

 

[Scott_McPhee]

Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.

Thank you - all shot with the Tamron just as the light was starting to go so these were not ideal conditions and the lens performed excellently on my 5D3.

I would love one of the big whites too but this lens really makes sense if you want the 600mm reach but can't afford the big bucks.

 

[westr70]

Thanks for Posting Scott. I also checked out your flickr page. Nice work and appreciate your effort.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
One thing to note is that if you use the Tamron 150-600mm in a hot day, make sure the lens is cover with lenscoat or something... I realised that if I remove the zoom barrel lenscoat (must remove if you want to zoom) and there is direct sunlight hitting the zoom barrel, it's get hot very quickly and AF accuracy and contrast will drop quite significantly... may be this is why Canon Super Telephoto are white??

Have a nice day.

 

[wickidwombat]

Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.

Thank you - all shot with the Tamron just as the light was starting to go so these were not ideal conditions and the lens performed excellently on my 5D3.

I would love one of the big whites too but this lens really makes sense if you want the 600mm reach but can't afford the big bucks.

nice work! glad its working out for you

 

[candc]

Thanks everyone for the comments. I think ill errr on the side of the tamron. I really want 600mm so think it would be better (and cheaper) to go with that. And just suffer any slow af at the long end or any softness wide open.

i have the sigma and the tamron. the sigma is better with canon and kenko extenders than it is with the sigma extenders. the sigma bare lens and with a 1.4tc is better than the tamron. the sigma with a 2x is about the same as the tamron but the sigma is huge and heavy! i use the tamron all the time unless i really need 120-300 2.8 or 420 f/4

 

[edwyun]

All shot with the Tamron 150-600mm - in poor light as well.

BA landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Into landing by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Glasgow Airport 2014 by Scott_McPhee, on Flickr

Excellent "BIF"! 8)

 

[Steve]

I'm sorry for my lapse in affordability, err, I mean times, but beryllium??? What is this the 1990s? Graphene is what we all want .

Hell while we're at it let's just grow lens elements from pure diamond.

 

[Canon1]

There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron. Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet. I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store. At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.

Honestly if the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a bit of a stretch (it ain't cheap!) then have a look at a used Mk1. IQ wise there is little between them, yes the Mk2 is better but it takes a Guru of heightened enlightenment to really see the difference.

Not entirely true. Without tc's I would agree with you, but once you add a 1.4 and especially a 2.0 tc, the difference in iq between the 300i and 300ii is significant and immediately noticeable. AF performance is also significantly improved on the mark ii over the mark I.

Regardless, based on the op I would recommend the tamron. That focal range will be very versatile for the zoo and animals will not be as skittish or fast as they are in the wild so AF performance will likely be just fine. Have fun!

 

[Scott_McPhee]

Best suggestion is go and try one - I am in Central Scotland and anyone is welcome to have a go with my Tamron and see what they think.

I ordered mine in on a "try-before-buy" basis but after 5 minutes I was sold - straight to the 600mm end, shoot, check in crop - excellent.

Thanks for the very kind comments on my pictures - much appreciated.

 

[AlanF]

I own both the Tamron and the Canon 300/2.8 II + TCs and can say from considerable experience with both that the Tamron is a "respectable" 600mm. Remarkably, the Tamron stacks up very well against the 300/4 from Canon as seen on TDP and MtF measurement on Lenstip and is far better at 400mm than the 300/4 with a 1.4 xTC

My comment was about 600mm if he needed that focal length--most amateur zooms do better when not racked out, and from what I've seen of posted photos I don't consider the Tamron consistent for anything more than about 450mm. Beyond that the color and contrast are too low for me, which is the same reason I stopped using a TC with the 300 f/4 (except as a spotting scope). I would consider the Tamron for the same application I got the 300 f/4 for, which is telephoto for backcountry backpacking trips where weight is a limiting factor.

With tele zooms, most amateurs want to shoot at the longer end more often than not. Unfortunately, the typical amateur expects a "really good" X --> Y tele zoom to be good at focal length Y, when it is typically good only at focal lengths X --> (Y - (Y-X)/4).

Your post doesn't state clearly whether your Tamron is equivalent to your 300 f/2.8 II + TC at 600mm. I would be surprised if the Tamron did that well, but if you have some side-by-side comparisons to share I'd be interested in seeing them.

I do wish a manufacturer would step up with a 250-500mm or 300-600mm that is tack sharp with rich color at the long end. 2x ratios seem to be more manageable lens designs, and 500-600mm would be enough for most birds and other wildlife.

The Tamron is not as good as my Canon lens. For extreme crops under poor conditions I use the Canon. However, the Tamron is good enough for most of the time. Here is a selection i took with the Tamron, going down the page at 309mm, 450mm, 600mm and 600mm. They might not be up to your standards, but they are good enough for me.

ps - they are all 100% crops. The EXIFS are on the images and you can download to read.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

There might be a bit of a wait for the Tamron. Orders placed in mid March at B&H haven't been filled yet. I'm also on the waiting list at the local camera store. At this rate I might save enough for a big white before the Tamron ships. Been thinking the 300 f/2.8L IS II was the next step for me since already have the extenders, just thought I'd be waiting until a year or two after I got the Tamron.

Honestly if the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS Mk2 is a bit of a stretch (it ain't cheap!) then have a look at a used Mk1. IQ wise there is little between them, yes the Mk2 is better but it takes a Guru of heightened enlightenment to really see the difference.

Not entirely true. Without tc's I would agree with you, but once you add a 1.4 and especially a 2.0 tc, the difference in iq between the 300i and 300ii is significant and immediately noticeable. AF performance is also significantly improved on the mark ii over the mark I.

Interesting - I didn't really see much in it, and then only by pixel peeping, though I would definitely agree on the AF improvement on the 300 Mk2 + Mk3 extenders over the Mk1 with the same extenders.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.

The options I'm considering are:

Tamron 150-600 @ £950

or

Sigma 120-300 Sport @ £2500 + a 2x TC

I can afford either of these options but not both. My question is, which will be better at 600mm? considering, IQ and AF speed.

I have the canon 70-200 2.8ii so the sigma for its 120-200 range doesn't excite me (neither does the cost or weight). but 300mm f2.8 excites me, so does 400mm f4 but I not sure about 600mm via a 2x TC.

Have anyone come across a direct comparison of these two routes to 600mm?

All opinions greatly welcomed.
thanks in advance.
Alex

What price are used 300 2.8 IS going for these days? That might be a better 420mm and 600mm option than the 120-300 in terms of AF and IQ and even weight.

For trekking around zoos all day long though these are a bit of a drag. The 120-300 is really heavy for that sort of scenario and even the 300 2.8 IS isn't so fun. I'm not sure what the Tamron weighs, but it's gotta be better right?? (or not???) And you'll need to also be lugging you 70-200 along as well. A real mess. Although from the talk of it, I guess you are talking about just doing some targeted, super serious shooting, so maybe it's ok??

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If Canon SOME HOW : can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

Hah, now THAT would crazy sweet. ;D ;D ;D ;D The 400 2.8 is just beyond a beast, hideously more unwieldy than the 300 2.8.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Scott, those are all excellent shots, and the BA Landing one is exceptional.

Thank you - all shot with the Tamron just as the light was starting to go so these were not ideal conditions and the lens performed excellently on my 5D3.

I would love one of the big whites too but this lens really makes sense if you want the 600mm reach but can't afford the big bucks.

yeah great stuff

 

[wickidwombat]

a full day trip at shanghai zoo with the tamron on 5dmk3 was heavy enough I couldn't imagine the sigma 120-300 it would not be pleasant

 

[AlanF]

The Tamron is not as good as my Canon lens. For extreme crops under poor conditions I use the Canon. However, the Tamron is good enough for most of the time. Here is a selection i took with the Tamron, going down the page at 309mm, 450mm, 600mm and 600mm. They might not be up to your standards, but they are good enough for me.

ps - they are all 100% crops. The EXIFS are on the images and you can download to read.

Thanks for sharing, Alan. Yeah, the 309mm shot is fine for me. The 450mm is not a disaster, but the 600mm for me would be unacceptable, and looks similar to what I got with the 300 f/4 IS + 2x TC: washed out color, low definition. Reminds me of a bunch of shots I had to toss from a wildlife safari trip with that combo, where everything with IS or a TC went in the trash bin.

You obviously have high standards. The emerald dove was taken in terrible light, f/6.3, where the lens is at its weakest, iso1250, which is higher than I like to go, and 1/250 s, hand held. Here are a couple of better examples. The mandarin duck was a f/6.3 again, but iso640 and 1/1250 s. The wigeon was at f/8, iso640 and 1/1000. Both at 600mm and hand held.

 

[AlanF]

For comparison, here is one at a similar low light level to the emerald dove, a kingfisher with the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on the 5DIII. Iso1250, f/5.6, 1/320s, hand held. As with the others, they are taken in RAW with the only processing being DxO PRIME noise reduction followed by sharpening with USM in PS by 0.9 pix.els at 100%.

 

[Isaac Grant]

To my eyes the Wigeon looks sharper and more vibrant than the Kingfisher. But light is better for sure on the Wigeon. I personally think there are many bad shots with the Tamron floating around the net. And there are some very good ones as well. It is not going to be better than an $11,000 600mm f4 or perhaps not as good as a $6,500 300mm 2.8 + a 1.4iii ($400+) lens but it is way more portable and far cheaper for in my opinion not very much extra sharpness. Some of the shots at this link are very good. Check them out and see for yourself. I own the Tamron and am very happy with it. I have gotten some perfectly acceptable shots for me and shots that are very sharp as well at 600mm. I also find that the zoom has come in handy quite a few times and actually prefer it over the fixed 400mm f5.6 that I used to use.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&t=tamron_150-600vc