Owning a 600mm f/4 II, 200-400mm, 300mm f/2.8 II, Tamron 150-600mm

[AlanF]

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!!!

I also use the 300mm f/2.8 II plus TCs. The AF on the Tamron on the 5DIII and 70D is not far behind the 300mm with 2xTC and is very acceptable. The Tamron's AF is not a problem for my Tamron or for most of the others who have posted. The reproducibility and consistency of the Tamron AF is far better than that of the 100-400.

 

[Albi86]

The lens is moisture resistant.

Wonder what that means?

Pretty much anything.

There is no standard, so every manufacturer can decide what "weather-sealing", "weather-resistance", "splash-proof" etc mean.

 

[Roo]

I've used the 600 f4 and own the 150-600. The 600 f4 delivers a great image but at great cost, weight and lack of flexibility. The size of it (including hood) also means is a great wind catcher that requires constant adjustment in windy conditions. If I could afford it I'm sure I would find a good use for it, but its lack of flexibility rules it out for me. The 300 with 2x tele has promise and is more affordable but again its not that flexible. I can't always zoom with my feet for what I'm shooting and I like being able to use the wide end of the zoom for some shots. That leaves the 200-400 or the 150-600. I would love the 200-400 but its cost rules it out so I'm (happily) left with the Tamron. I've used it for 4 full shooting days so far all of which have been in less than ideal light and it still hasn't let me down

 

[HankMD]

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.

+1. Loving the Tammy. But too little time to use it

 

[AlanF]

I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.

 

[Steve]

Not one of the lenses listed in the poll but does anyone own and use the Sigma 800 / 300-800? I'm looking into getting an older used supertele and I'm going back and forth on the Sigma 800 vs the Canon 600 non IS. Neither is ideal but I won't have the money for ideal in anything approaching the foreseeable future. I'm curious if there are people here who use the Sig800 and what the thoughts are on its IQ and usability.

 

[candc]

I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.

 

[Sharad.Medhavi]

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.

That's perfectly fine if you don't
I found them quite useful, as it is not easy for me to rent these lenses and try them out myself.

 

[wickidwombat]

i'd like to see the f11 comparison of said brick wall

you can tell the canon is a clear winner but as alan said the tamron doesnt do too badly and given the price...

hell a B+W filter for it costs 20% of the lens price!

 

[TheJock]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.
I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake.
I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
I know it’s a big ask but I think it’s valid as there have already been a lot of comments on this thread regarding all these lenses, so if you could make a top ten list of best IQ how would it look???
(e.g. below)
1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada

 

[wickidwombat]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.
I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake.
I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
I know it’s a big ask but I think it’s valid as there have already been a lot of comments on this thread regarding all these lenses, so if you could make a top ten list of best IQ how would it look???
(e.g. below)
1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada

The tamron beats the 300f4L and with the 2x tc it's not even in the same game

 

[AlanF]

I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.

 

[wickidwombat]

I did another comparison of the Tamron 150-600mm @600mm versus the Canon 300 f/2.8 II + 2xTC III on a 5DIII. A Tudor chimney overlooking my garden has very nice detail and shading in the bricks and mortar. In this collage of 100% crops of 800x700, which are testing the resolution at the limits, you can see that the Canon does have the edge, but the Tamron does very well.

I have made a personal decision to never take or comment on "brick wall of shame" crops. Maybe stating that goes against my conviction but I hold fast.

That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of among others, of gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame.

ROFL

Totally did not expect that!

 

[TheJock]

They don’t build em’ like that anymore, and, when I were a lad you could buy a village for a shilling, comments spring to mind!! ;D

 

[AlanF]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.
I own a Sigma 150-500 and as I have just bought a 70D I’m looking at improving my IQ for keeper’s sake.
I was considering the Tammy but I now know that I need to go “L”.
Next question is regarding the 300L f4 compared to the 400L 5.6, and just to add further debate, how does the 100-400L stack up against either of these if they had an added TC, and also against the big new Tammy?
I know it’s a big ask but I think it’s valid as there have already been a lot of comments on this thread regarding all these lenses, so if you could make a top ten list of best IQ how would it look???
(e.g. below)
1st = 300L, 2nd = 300L + 2xTC, 3rd = 400L, 4th = Tammy 600mm, 5th = 400L + 2xTC etc etc, yada yada yada

The tamron beats the 300f4L and with the 2x tc it's not even in the same game

Yes. The Tamron is at its best between 200 and 400mm, and really superb at 300mm. It is as good as a good copy of the 100-400 at 400mm, and much better in the corners - it fares well against the 400 f/5.6L over the whole frame. The 400 L is very good with a 1.4xTC, the 300L f/4 is not as good. The 100-400 has crippled AF with a TC, and is f/8. The Tamron has rendered those older lenses obsolete. I am afraid you have to spend 5x more on the 300mm f/2.8 to beat it.

 

[Albi86]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.

Let's make 1/7. The cheapest improvement on IQ level over the Tamron is the 300/2.8 L + 2xTC.

It's 1070$ vs 7250$. If you can afford/justify the latter, then you should get it; for everyone else the Tamron is a no brainer.

 

[expatinasia]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.

Let's make 1/7. The cheapest improvement on IQ level over the Tamron is the 300/2.8 L + 2xTC.

It's 1070$ vs 7250$. If you can afford/justify the latter, then you should get it; for everyone else the Tamron is a no brainer.

There are other benefits to the 300. Including weather sealing that works with Canon bodies.

For example a kenko extender does not keep a Canon body's weather seal whereas the Canon TCs do.

I wonder what impact using the Tamron on a 1D X for example would do to the body's weather sealing.

I agree it is a good deal, but I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for.

 

[Albi86]

As someone who’s currently building up a collection of kit, I’d like to thank Alan F for his brick wall shots. I can clearly see that the L glass plus a 2xTC offers better IQ than a third party, 1/3-of-the-price lens.

Let's make 1/7. The cheapest improvement on IQ level over the Tamron is the 300/2.8 L + 2xTC.

It's 1070$ vs 7250$. If you can afford/justify the latter, then you should get it; for everyone else the Tamron is a no brainer.

There are other benefits to the 300. Including weather sealing that works with Canon bodies.

For example a kenko extender does not keep a Canon body's weather seal whereas the Canon TCs do.

I wonder what impact using the Tamron on a 1D X for example would do to the body's weather sealing.

I agree it is a good deal, but I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for.

The Tamron is also weather-sealed. Whatever that means.

 

[emag]

Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Said duel to be conducted with compass and protractor (a.k.a., Weapons of Math Instruction)


Seems to me (and I suspect most others) this entire discussion comes down to budget. If budget allows, or it's required because your livelihood depends on it, get the Big White(s). Otherwise, the Tamron will not disappoint. I'm talking to you, fellow hobbyists.

 

[candc]

considering the stature and eminence of the "brick chimney of glory" i reckon its okay to say that the crops all look really good, the ones from the canon combo are a bit better but you have to look close at 100% crops to see the difference. i don't think you would see a difference at normal viewing size. to me the tamron is like the 70-300l in that it will give you great result across its range in a relatively compact lightweight package. it might not have quite the sharpness or max aperture of the big canon primes but its really good, especially considering the cost, weight, size, and its a zoom