We have an interesting thread of who would prefer a 600mm f/4 II versus 200-400mm f/4. Let's get down to the nitty gritty of who has actually bought or is in the process of buying one or more of the lenses discussed in the thread.
Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
I bought the Tammy and I'm very happy with it. It's my first lens over 300mm and time after time I see some improvement in my skill. It's insanely fun to use.
Some time ago I speculated that it was possible to build an even better 500mm f/5.6 prime for the same price. I would buy it even keeping the Tammy zoom.
Photography is a hobby for me and I can't justify spending much more than 1K on a single lens. In fact I'm almost grateful that Tamron opened up the world of good 600mm at this price range.
If I could afford it, I would buy the 600 L II in an instant.
Some time ago I speculated that it was possible to build an even better 500mm f/5.6 prime for the same price. I would buy it even keeping the Tammy zoom.
Photography is a hobby for me and I can't justify spending much more than 1K on a single lens. In fact I'm almost grateful that Tamron opened up the world of good 600mm at this price range.
If I could afford it, I would buy the 600 L II in an instant.
Upvote
0
I would like to own a 600mm f/4 L IS II, or a 500mm f/4 L IS II. I need to beef up my arms and my wallet first. Currently I use the wonderful little 400mm f/5.6 L no-IS. I so like hand-holding for shooting BIF that I would like to be able to hand-hold the heavier lens as well.
Upvote
0
I have got the Tamron 150-600mm and I am going to keep it for the reach, portability and the image quality at f/8. I am not planning to shoot rapidly moving subjects, but tracking with the center af point of my 5D Mark III seems to work fine.
I do believe that you get what you pay for, and that the Tammy is as good as it is because it is a contemporary design.
As far as I know the Tamron is "moisture resistant", i.e. not absolutely weather sealed, even though some reviews say so. For me that is going to be good enough since I am not going to crouch in the bushes with this lens and Germany is seldom dusty.
The VC image stabilizer of my copy of the lens seems to be very effective.
I do believe that you get what you pay for, and that the Tammy is as good as it is because it is a contemporary design.
As far as I know the Tamron is "moisture resistant", i.e. not absolutely weather sealed, even though some reviews say so. For me that is going to be good enough since I am not going to crouch in the bushes with this lens and Germany is seldom dusty.
The VC image stabilizer of my copy of the lens seems to be very effective.
Upvote
0
I've been pretty happy with my 100-400 but then I rented the 300 f/2.8 ii last autumn and got hooked. I can hand-hold with a 2x and get a 600 that still will focus. While the 100-400 can yield some good results at times, many of the shots in shade or in cloudy weather (going through some wildlife shots taken with the 100-400 right now) at 400 are just not sharp enough for me. I was thinking about a 400 f/2.8 or a 600 f/4 but size and the price is just too much for me to justify. Same with a 500.
Been thinking long and hard about the Tammy and was just about to handle one (although I was concerned about a bit of slower AF and about future incompatibility issues and the IQ at 600) when the "group buy" on cannonpricewatch.com comes along. A 300 f/2.8 ii for about the cost of a refurb?
I know what I will get out of the 300 with a 1.4x and a 2x, and with a bit of cropping to boot, I think I can better the options available in my budget.
Here's a hand-held 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x at 1600 iso with f/8 right out of the camera with no cropping and no post other than resizing. I could never get this with my 100-400. Could I with the Tammy?
Been thinking long and hard about the Tammy and was just about to handle one (although I was concerned about a bit of slower AF and about future incompatibility issues and the IQ at 600) when the "group buy" on cannonpricewatch.com comes along. A 300 f/2.8 ii for about the cost of a refurb?
I know what I will get out of the 300 with a 1.4x and a 2x, and with a bit of cropping to boot, I think I can better the options available in my budget.
Here's a hand-held 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x at 1600 iso with f/8 right out of the camera with no cropping and no post other than resizing. I could never get this with my 100-400. Could I with the Tammy?
Attachments
Upvote
0
I guess buying used/older models is out of the question???? I purchased an older 600mm non-Is and a 300mm F2.8 mark I for less than a new 600mm mark II. Love them both. These were bought to replace my Sigma 150-500. Seldom do I go back to any of my zooms.
Upvote
0
I think that's the worst part of having top notch gear. Failure can only come from one placeJ.R. said:I have a 200-400 on order. I should get it in a few daysat least when I get bad/average shots with the Canon, I'll only have myself to blame
As most of you know - I bought the 300mm (already had the 1.4x and 2x IIIs) and couldn't be happier with it's versatility. The 200-400 would be nice in many situations, but I like the bare 2.8 and smaller size of the 300.
Upvote
0
et31 said:I bought a new Tamron 150-600mm lens a month ago. I am a professional photographer and am not biased towards or against Tamron vs. Canon, as I own prime L-grade lenses from both companies. Unfortunately, this lens is not weather sealed, and after using the lens for two weeks outside, the amount of internal dust was atrocious. Regardless of being meticulous and using a blower at all times, the lens quickly absorbed dust onto the frontal glass element internally, including moisture, via the cork-screw barrel that retracts into the upper chamber. Closely inspecting the markings on the lens, I saw that it was manufactured in China, as opposed to Tamron's traditional Japan manufacturer, which was a big shock, so quality control has definitely been compromised in order to sell the lens at $1069 :-\.
Additionally, image stabilization for action shots (specifically bird shots) is not reliable. Even though the proper autofocus point speed and tracking can be adjusted in the Canon 5D Mark III to compensate for the lag, shutter speed has to be at least 1/2000th+ of a second in order to prevent motion blur for hand held action tracking shots (coupled with f/6.3 on a cloudy day and ISO 1000-2000, this creates photos worthy of entry level DSLR bodies and stock lenses - which means not good!). Unlike my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L lens, which has 2 modes of image stabilization and creates very fast and stable shots, the Tamron 150-600mm lens only has an on/off VC switch with no additional stabilization mode selection settings. Gimbal shots are naturally improved, but AF adjustment at 15m to infinity is still sluggish when trying to focus on objects 200ft and further (creep still occurs with the limiting switch). I called Tamron directly, and their technical support team confirmed that their teleconverters are not compatible with this lens as Tamron engineers have officially discontinued all TC's and did not design this lens with the 1.4x or 2x in mind. Additionally, they confirmed that both converters should not be used with the lens, as unpredictable results can occur and are not guaranteed to work properly.
Static shots are amazing with very comparable MTF chart optical clarity to Canon, and portability of the lens is great
It's nice to see your first two exactly same posts twice(http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19905.msg376913#msg376913). I think you are the first person complain the VC of this 150-600mm. That's a very useful information for me before I make decision buy this lens. I will keep my eyes to see the VC problem.
Upvote
0
I am returning from 10 days shooting birds in Florida with tamron 150 600. I have done this for 12 years. My previous kits were the 20 40 and 60d bodies with 100 400 l or 300 L usm 4.0 with 1.4 x t.c. I rarely did BIFs.
Coupled with my new 70d, a monopod and tripod with acratech gv2 head for BIFs I can say that the sharpness and pct of good shots for me has made a huge leap. In addition to wading birds and shore birds I got many song birds and BIFs of osprey and waders flying back and forth to nest.
No problems at all. Shot mostly bet 400 and 600 at 7.1 or 8.
I feel I already got my money worth
Coupled with my new 70d, a monopod and tripod with acratech gv2 head for BIFs I can say that the sharpness and pct of good shots for me has made a huge leap. In addition to wading birds and shore birds I got many song birds and BIFs of osprey and waders flying back and forth to nest.
No problems at all. Shot mostly bet 400 and 600 at 7.1 or 8.
I feel I already got my money worth
Upvote
0
Why is there no 400 f/2.8 ii in that list? I do not own (may soon change) the 400 f/2.8 ii but use one a lot, and it should be in the list as it is one of the very best lenses Canon produces.
Upvote
0
I bought the 300f/2.8 II after owning the Version 1, I am of the opinion the 300f/2.8 II is the sharpest & quickest focussing of all the Large Whites, the 200f/2 is almost as good. Use of the 1.4x converter gives very little appreciable degradation in IQ, not bad with the 2x as well. This is my go to Lens in dim light & where all day hand holding is required.
I've owned the 200-400f/4 since release date, this is probably used for 90% of my Imaging, I can find very little, if anything, to fault on this Lens. Fast Lock On AF, Sharp & clear. I don't generally hand hold this Lens, it's used on a monopod or tripod set up, with the 1.4x converter to flip in/out, plus the zoom & camera controls to adjust there's too much going on to make this Lens a comfortable Hand Hold for long periods, plus at 4 Kilos it get's old pretty quickly.
I've owned the 600f/4 II for about 18 months now, an amazingly sharp Lens, use of the 1.4x converter gives very little appreciable degradation in IQ, not bad with the 2x as well. Not exactly a Hand Holdable Lens although possible for short periods, fast AF sharp as a diamond Lens, it's size though when travelling is a bit of a PIA, but worth it where the 600-840 is needed in large open spaces, or Birding (although Birds are not what I generally use the Lens for).
I did own both the 400f/2.8 V1 & later the 400f/2.8 II Lenses, both of these are superb Lenses, not quite as fast to AF as the 300f/2.8 II but close, IQ is hard to beat, size is good, the Version II became almost a Hand Holdable Lens, but gets heavy quickly, if I hadn't bough the 200-400f/4 this would still be my main go to Lens for Wildlife, works very well with the 1.4x converter, quite good with the 2x.
I've never owned a Tamron Lens, but I see the attraction purely in price, I do own the Sigma 35 Art (excellent Lens), and a couple of Zeiss Lenses (15 & 55, on IQ immaculate, but MF).
I've owned the 200-400f/4 since release date, this is probably used for 90% of my Imaging, I can find very little, if anything, to fault on this Lens. Fast Lock On AF, Sharp & clear. I don't generally hand hold this Lens, it's used on a monopod or tripod set up, with the 1.4x converter to flip in/out, plus the zoom & camera controls to adjust there's too much going on to make this Lens a comfortable Hand Hold for long periods, plus at 4 Kilos it get's old pretty quickly.
I've owned the 600f/4 II for about 18 months now, an amazingly sharp Lens, use of the 1.4x converter gives very little appreciable degradation in IQ, not bad with the 2x as well. Not exactly a Hand Holdable Lens although possible for short periods, fast AF sharp as a diamond Lens, it's size though when travelling is a bit of a PIA, but worth it where the 600-840 is needed in large open spaces, or Birding (although Birds are not what I generally use the Lens for).
I did own both the 400f/2.8 V1 & later the 400f/2.8 II Lenses, both of these are superb Lenses, not quite as fast to AF as the 300f/2.8 II but close, IQ is hard to beat, size is good, the Version II became almost a Hand Holdable Lens, but gets heavy quickly, if I hadn't bough the 200-400f/4 this would still be my main go to Lens for Wildlife, works very well with the 1.4x converter, quite good with the 2x.
I've never owned a Tamron Lens, but I see the attraction purely in price, I do own the Sigma 35 Art (excellent Lens), and a couple of Zeiss Lenses (15 & 55, on IQ immaculate, but MF).
Upvote
0
KerryKerry B said:
Here are 21 pages of detailed discussion: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19503.0
Basically, the Tamron does not disgrace itself against one of the best combinations of lens and extender. In the first posts I show some iso12233 shots.
Upvote
0
et31 said:I bought a new Tamron 150-600mm lens a month ago. I am a professional photographer and am not biased towards or against Tamron vs. Canon, as I own prime L-grade lenses from both companies. Unfortunately, this lens is not weather sealed, and after using the lens for two weeks outside, the amount of internal dust was atrocious. Regardless of being meticulous and using a blower at all times, the lens quickly absorbed dust onto the frontal glass element internally, including moisture, via the cork-screw barrel that retracts into the upper chamber. Closely inspecting the markings on the lens, I saw that it was manufactured in China, as opposed to Tamron's traditional Japan manufacturer, which was a big shock, so quality control has definitely been compromised in order to sell the lens at $1069 :-\.
Additionally, image stabilization for action shots (specifically bird shots) is not reliable. Even though the proper autofocus point speed and tracking can be adjusted in the Canon 5D Mark III to compensate for the lag, shutter speed has to be at least 1/2000th+ of a second in order to prevent motion blur for hand held action tracking shots (coupled with f/6.3 on a cloudy day and ISO 1000-2000, this creates photos worthy of entry level DSLR bodies and stock lenses - which means not good!). Unlike my Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L lens, which has 2 modes of image stabilization and creates very fast and stable shots, the Tamron 150-600mm lens only has an on/off VC switch with no additional stabilization mode selection settings. Gimbal shots are naturally improved, but AF adjustment at 15m to infinity is still sluggish when trying to focus on objects 200ft and further (creep still occurs with the limiting switch). I called Tamron directly, and their technical support team confirmed that their teleconverters are not compatible with this lens as Tamron engineers have officially discontinued all TC's and did not design this lens with the 1.4x or 2x in mind. Additionally, they confirmed that both converters should not be used with the lens, as unpredictable results can occur and are not guaranteed to work properly.
Static shots are amazing with very comparable MTF chart optical clarity to Canon, and portability of the lens is great
The lens is moisture resistant. I have had no problems whatosever of dust entering the lens. The VC works fine, and in my hands is about 3 stops as opposed to the 4 stops on my 300mm f/2.8. Yesterday I went for a walk with it on my 5DIII and suddenly saw a bird of prey in the sky. The lens locked on immediately and I got 4 or 5 equally sharp shots in a row at 1/1250 s - below is the full frame reduced to 2400x1600 and a 100% crop. The crop is as sharp as you would expect for that small size. I usually get 100% keepers for 1/600 s and above, as listed elsewhere. As for being made in China, if that is a sign of poor quality I had better dump my iPhone and Macbook Air and iPad etc.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I own the three mentioned Canon lenses and I had ordered the Tamron to replace my 100-400 but then cancelled after reading about AF issues. Also I really don't use my 100-400 as the 300II and converters is portable enough for me. I've had the 600II since October 2012 and use it mainly for spring migration when the birds are skittish and far. Most often with the 2xTC attached. But I also use it bare and at 840 also when appropriate. I've had the 300II since Nov 2013 and have used it with both TCs and it is a phenomenal lens and I use it instead of my 100-400 now as a "portable" solution. I got the 200-400 just a month ago to take to Antarctica in November and I brought it to Borneo for birding and wildlife(orangutans). That is where I am typing this from now. I have found it very versatile for the mammals but wish I had my 600 for the small birds but there was no way I wanted to travel with the 600 through SE Asia. I have used the 2-4 with 1.4 external and had good success at 784mm or really at 800mm if you use the square root of 2 to get 1.4. Only issue has been the low light of the jungle and needing the 1DX to save shots with ISOs from 6400-25600 being used in the deeper jungle!!!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
