Review: Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC G2

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Photography Blog has completed their review of the recently announced and available Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 VC G2. It appears the new Tamron is an improvement over its predecessor.</p>
<blockquote><p>The second-generation Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 offers better image quality, more features, faster auto-focus and more effective image stabilisation than the 2013 version, but the price has increased significantly, so it’s not quite the out-and-out bargain that it once was.</p>
<p>The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 offers improved image quality with smooth bokeh and excellent sharpness, a very effective and versatile image stabilisation system, and a fast, quiet and reliable auto-focus system. Despite a modest increase in size and weight, Tamron’s optic is still smaller and lighter than the Canon and Nikon equivalents, despite offering a bigger, more versatile focal range. <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f5_6_3_di_vc_usd_g2_review/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1277358-REG/tamron_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 $1399 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[9VIII]

I'm not particularly impressed with their sharpness test, they only take "edge" samples from the top-center of the frame.
I'd prefer "side" and "corner" samples. Oh well.

 

[unfocused]

I'm hoping we will see some tests and reviews from more discriminating sites. DPReview and Digital Picture please.

 

[AvTvM]

don't care how good or not it is. Zoom ring turns the wrong way on their lenses with EF mount. Only suitable for Nikon. Until Tamron fixes that ... no way I consider one of their lenses.

 

[AlanF]

I'm hoping we will see some tests and reviews from more discriminating sites. DPReview and Digital Picture please.

TDP had already published the first comparative charts - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19055

The lens is not as good as the 100-400mm II at 400mm and 560mm.

Remember that these are just measurements on just a single copy. Photography blog is one of the less reliable reviewers and it doesn't use consistent targets or even lighting between tests (natural light that varies on different real world targets) so it is difficult to compare lenses unlike TDP, which does very careful comparisons. First impressions from a variety of preliminary reports are that the G2 has improved construction but with little optical performance gain. If the older lens is anything to go by, there will be signigificant copy to copy variation.

DPR used to rely on DxO for quantitative testing of lenses, but DxO stopped some while ago.

 

[Ozarker]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

 

[monsieur_elegante]

A line from the Photography Blog review:

"The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 is a lot cheaper than the nearest Canon and Nikon alternatives, while offering more reach than the similar Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 Contemporary zoom"

Makes me wonder how much effort they actually put in for this article.

 

[Ryananthony]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

 

[AlanF]

A line from the Photography Blog review:

"The Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 is a lot cheaper than the nearest Canon and Nikon alternatives, while offering more reach than the similar Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 Contemporary zoom"

Makes me wonder how much effort they actually put in for this article.

They also described the aperture as being f/5.6 at 400 and 600mm. Doesn't inspire confidence does it?

 

[Busted Knuckles]

As an owner of G1 version, and 3 other Canon zooms, getting hung up on which way the zoom ring turns is causing you to miss a ton of fun and images.

I was hoping the IQ would/might yet be a step better and I could upgrade. Based on what I see at TDP the IQ upgrade falls short of being upgrade worthy. Rats.

I have had a blast w/ G1, swapped w/ a friend for most the day for the Sigma Sport. The sigma cleary has an IQ advantage on the long end, and costs a bit more, and weighs considerable more, and wasn't available when I purchased the Tamzooka G1. And the IQ/cost differential is not worth it for me to upgrade. The weight, not a big deal for me.

What I would love to see is a 600 prime similar in cost as the 400 5.6. Even it didn't have IS. a 600 5.6 with excellent IQ would get my $$ pretty darn quick.

 

[pknight]

The TDP review has me scratching my head. My G1 copy of this lens does much better than what they show there. That much CA in the center of the frame at f/8 suggests that they had a very bad copy of the lens, or something else was affecting the tests. More likely the former. There are some very sharp G2 images with the Tamron TC being posted on POTN.

 

[AlanF]

The TDP review has me scratching my head. My G1 copy of this lens does much better than what they show there. That much CA in the center of the frame at f/8 suggests that they had a very bad copy of the lens, or something else was affecting the tests. More likely the former. There are some very sharp G2 images with the Tamron TC being posted on POTN.

The copy variation in both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mms is huge - you should always test them before buying. I have a stunningly good Sigma Contemporary but there are some bad ones being reviewed. I had a the original Tamron, which was quite good and better than the TDP site one. The Canon 100-400mm II seems to be very consistent in quality.

Posted images are often not of much use. If you fill the frame with the subject, which is usually done in these posts, an old bottle end will give a sharp-looking image.

 

[AJ]

Looking at the sample pictures, I think bokeh has improved.
In all this lens seems positioned between the Sigma Contemporary and the Sport.
As for the resolution, it shouldn't be too much longer before Brian has then up on TDP.

 

[Ozarker]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me.

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one. I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.

 

[Ryananthony]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me.

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one. I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.

Where did f2.8 come from? My response was to your comment about f5-6.3 and how you don't want to change exposure with the change of aperture.

 

[Ozarker]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me.

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one. I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.

Where did f2.8 come from? My response was to your comment about f5-6.3 and how you don't want to change exposure with the change of aperture.

The very first thing I said was, "Lost me at f/5-f/6.3." Meaning those are all too dark for me.

I believe I also said I like a constant aperture ability throughout the zoom range. My 70-200 gives me this at f/2.8. I can stick my 2X III on it and get f/5.6 if I want... throughout the focal range.

I ain't here to argue. A man is free to choose what he wants. This lens loses me right out of the blocks with:

1. Variable aperture throughout the focal range.
2. The apertures are too dark for my tastes.
3. Having to possibly change my settings with every focal length change.

I wasn't knocking your response or cutting you down or belittling you, or the lens. I just don't like the lens. People are free to like what they like and not like what they don't like.

I'm positive I'd like you though.

It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.

If you thought my response to your response was meant to be mean... you are terribly wrong about that. Heck, I even threw in a bunch of smileys hoping you knew that.

However, you saying it was just 2/3 of a stop and changing framing could fix that "But that's just me" in response to my remark about the lens was meant to be a little snarky wasn't it? Because you didn't understand why I said I didn't like the lens? A simple friendly question for me to clarify things would have avoided that snark.

 

[Ryananthony]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me.

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one. I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.

Where did f2.8 come from? My response was to your comment about f5-6.3 and how you don't want to change exposure with the change of aperture.

The very first thing I said was, "Lost me at f/5-f/6.3." Meaning those are all too dark for me.

I believe I also said I like a constant aperture ability throughout the zoom range. My 70-200 gives me this at f/2.8. I can stick my 2X III on it and get f/5.6 if I want... throughout the focal range.

I ain't here to argue. A man is free to choose what he wants. This lens loses me right out of the blocks with:

1. Variable aperture throughout the focal range.
2. The apertures are too dark for my tastes.
3. Having to possibly change my settings with every focal length change.

I wasn't knocking your response or cutting you down or belittling you, or the lens. I just don't like the lens. People are free to like what they like and not like what they don't like.

I'm positive I'd like you though.

It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.

If you thought my response to your response was meant to be mean... you are terribly wrong about that. Heck, I even threw in a bunch of smileys hoping you knew that.

However, you saying it was just 2/3 of a stop and changing framing could fix that "But that's just me" in response to my remark about the lens was meant to be a little snarky wasn't it? Because you didn't understand why I said I didn't like the lens? A simple friendly question for me to clarify things would have avoided that snark.

This got far to hot.

You said the lens "lost me at f5-6.3", which I thought you were referring to the variable aperture, not the apertures themselves (2.8-4 or 4.5-5.6 etc) since your following sentence was about changing exposures while zooming. Which is why I responded with a comment about the 2/3 a stop of exposure difference.

No feelings are hurt. Hope I cold shine some light on my perspective.

 

[TheJock]

So now there’s talk of a new 5DsR as well as the 6DII, well like AvTvM; who won’t buy Tamron for his own reasons, I won’t buy another Canon product until the 200-600 Canon lens has been released.
Canon can’t go slipping announcements to coincide with an actual release just to try and save some customers, this is no longer a fair play and I’m p155ed off waiting, no more cash from me Canon, get your finger out!!!

 

[Ozarker]

Lost me at f/5-6.3

I prefer the same f stop at all focal lengths unless I change it. I shoot in manual mode all the time. Don't want to fiddle with exposure every time I change the focal length.

I know, I could use AV mode. I just don't.

That's just me.

Its only 2/3 of a stop. reframing your shot an inch in any direction could change exposure by that much. ive never found it an issue. But like you, thats just me.

No, it isn't just 2/3 of a stop. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. F/2.8 to f/6.3 is far more than 2/3 of a stop. f/2.8 to f/5.6 is two stops. Did you mean approx 2 2/3 stops? Because that is an issue for me.

I had the EF 400 f/5.6L (Great lens in bright light) and it was too dark in many situations, especially when birds were in shade. Sunrise or golden hours? Blah! Add an ND filter? Pfttt! Can you imagine adding just a 2 stop ND filter to an already dark f/6.3 to take some glare off the water?

f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.

f/5 at 150mm? Come on man.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.

I have Tamron's 15-30 and find it to be a great lens. I'll pass on this one. I don't need a zoom in that range and that dark.

Where did f2.8 come from? My response was to your comment about f5-6.3 and how you don't want to change exposure with the change of aperture.

The very first thing I said was, "Lost me at f/5-f/6.3." Meaning those are all too dark for me.

I believe I also said I like a constant aperture ability throughout the zoom range. My 70-200 gives me this at f/2.8. I can stick my 2X III on it and get f/5.6 if I want... throughout the focal range.

I ain't here to argue. A man is free to choose what he wants. This lens loses me right out of the blocks with:

1. Variable aperture throughout the focal range.
2. The apertures are too dark for my tastes.
3. Having to possibly change my settings with every focal length change.

I wasn't knocking your response or cutting you down or belittling you, or the lens. I just don't like the lens. People are free to like what they like and not like what they don't like.

I'm positive I'd like you though.

It is obvious that f/5-f/6.3 is only 2/3 of a stop. That wasn't my point and the lens gets got dang dark with an ND filter, especially at f/6.3. Sometimes a person needs a filter.

If you thought my response to your response was meant to be mean... you are terribly wrong about that. Heck, I even threw in a bunch of smileys hoping you knew that.

However, you saying it was just 2/3 of a stop and changing framing could fix that "But that's just me" in response to my remark about the lens was meant to be a little snarky wasn't it? Because you didn't understand why I said I didn't like the lens? A simple friendly question for me to clarify things would have avoided that snark.

This got far to hot.

You said the lens "lost me at f5-6.3", which I thought you were referring to the variable aperture, not the apertures themselves (2.8-4 or 4.5-5.6 etc) since your following sentence was about changing exposures while zooming. Which is why I responded with a comment about the 2/3 a stop of exposure difference.

No feelings are hurt. Hope I cold shine some light on my perspective.

 

[AvTvM]

...
f/5 is a no go for me on a long lens. f/6.3 is even more of a no go, but that's just me.
...
I'll save my $$$$$ for a 400 f/2.8 with a 1.4X or 2X. They are once in a lifetime purchases that can be handed down.
sigma 200-500/2.8 EX aka "Sigzilla". even a dedicated f/2x extender comes with it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/200-500mm.htm

i fully understand what you say and sympathize with it. light is paramount. aperture rulez!

but it's all about the money.
and the size of front element and size of lens.
and weight of lens.
also, extenders are no free lunch. they eat light! a 400/2.8 with 2x extender turns into an 800 f/5.6 lens.
pretty dark, man!

but rejoice, there is good news! a constant f/2.8 SUPER tele zoom lens is waiting for you and the EF mount of your Canon mirroslappers.

on stock at amazon abd elsewhere. usd 25,999 with free shipping.
hope you got the wallet for it. and the bizeps!
yes, it can be handed down to sons and sons of sons. with an optional adapter they can easily convert it to a mobile missile launcher if and when needed.

lol, man!

and: lenses are no hand-me down items. except as cup board decoration and rather substantial paperweight. canon ef lenses will only be usable with an adapter max 10 years from now when the last mirrorslapper is retired. much like canon fd glass in 1987. and 20 years from now nobody in their right mind will lug around big fat abd yet slow and dark lenses. for imaging those of us who are still alice then will use tiny nano lightfield cameras with some non-glass microlenses in them. or similar.