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

[Ozarker]

...
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.

Yeah, a 2.8 at that focal length is what I meant. : : : : :

Yeah, a 2.8 at that focal length is what I meant. : : : : :

An 800mm at f/5.6 is far better than a 150-600 with variable aperture and as dark as 6.3mm. I have no desire for 800mm, but if I did... I guess f/5.6 at that focal range wouldn't bother me. However, with 115 degree temps atmospheric conditions don't work for that.

I have a Tamron. I don't like this one in the post... for the very reasons I stated.

Keep slapping it AvTm. You'll never get no satisfaction.

 

[Bobofango]

I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.

And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges.

Obviously, you are going to sacrifice image quality and light by having greater versatility of zoom. I can think of many times where a prime would not have been able to get the shots i got by zooming out.

This is basically a middle of the range wildlife lens. Lens snobs can look elsewhere. Not everyone has $10,000 to spend....

 

[Ozarker]

I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.

And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges.

Obviously, you are going to sacrifice image quality and light by having greater versatility of zoom. I can think of many times where a prime would not have been able to get the shots i got by zooming out.

This is basically a middle of the range wildlife lens. Lens snobs can look elsewhere. Not everyone has $10,000 to spend....

Glad you like your lens. Saving up for my hobby is half the fun.

 

[AJ]

I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.

And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges.

Obviously, you are going to sacrifice image quality and light by having greater versatility of zoom. I can think of many times where a prime would not have been able to get the shots i got by zooming out.

This is basically a middle of the range wildlife lens. Lens snobs can look elsewhere. Not everyone has $10,000 to spend....

Glad you like your lens. Saving up for my hobby is half the fun.

That's nice. I'm glad you're saving for the lens you want.

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.

 

[dsut4392]

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.

That makes no sense to me. If the lens is already dark enough at f/6.3, why would a person need an ND filter on a 600mm lens? I can understand adding NDs to get a longer final exposure, while wanting an aperture that's still bright enough to compose with when fully open, but don't really see the practical use case for doing this with a tele lens. If you're using enough NDs to take you beyond the exposure you could get by stopping down to the minimum aperture, your viewfinder is going to be dark, period. And if you're not stopping down that far, with a slower lens you could just add a couple less stops of ND so you can still see through the viewfinder, and stop the lens down a couple more stops in final exposure. Are you trying to isolate one stationary white cat in the snow from a bunch of slowly moving white cats in the same plane of focus, where there are other stationary white cats that would come into focus if you stopped down a bit more?

Could you enlighten? Was your comment about using an ND filter a red herring, and you are really thinking about a PL? [to be clear, I am being slightly snarky but would genuinely like to know where you are coming from with the comment I quoted. I understand that this lens isn't for you, it just seems like some of your rationalisations as to why it's not for you are ...not rational ]

 

[Don Haines]

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.

+1

 

[Ozarker]

I've been using the G1 lens for a year and a half on both canon 6D and 7Dmkii. It's been great. I've gotten tons of great shots. Are there better lens out there? yeah, duh.... But usually at a much higher cost. The tamron is great for those looking to step into wildlife photography for the first time.

And honestly, those that complain about the focus ring make me laugh. It hasnt been a problem for me or the other dozens of birders that use this lens in my area. I also find it silly when people make comparisons to a prime lens. It's like apples to oranges.

Obviously, you are going to sacrifice image quality and light by having greater versatility of zoom. I can think of many times where a prime would not have been able to get the shots i got by zooming out.

This is basically a middle of the range wildlife lens. Lens snobs can look elsewhere. Not everyone has $10,000 to spend....

Glad you like your lens. Saving up for my hobby is half the fun.

That's nice. I'm glad you're saving for the lens you want.

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.

I have not. I posted about the Tamron. You got the wrong guy, dude. I only responded to the hijackers.

It ain't about you either.

Just check your security cameras for thread monitoring a little closer before you jump to conclusions.

You might want to get a hall pass from AvTvM first.

I posted what I thought about the lens in a very short and distinct post. Then got piled on. Now by you too.

What do you think about the new lens? Nothing to post? Nope. Stop hijacking.

 

[Ozarker]

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.

+1

:

 

[Don Haines]

Getting back to topic:
We are talking about a budget telephoto lens and the cost of keeping the price down at that focal length is speed of the lens. For those who want faster, then is not the lens you are looking for.... try the F2.8 Sigzilla for $30,000... For those who want cheaper, try the V1 of the lens, a 75-300 with a 2X (non-Canon) teleconverter, or better yet, go get a superzoom P/S camera.

This lens fills a mid-price hole in the Canon lens lineup. It's competition is the V1 of the lens and the pair of Sigma 150-600's. So far, there is not a review worth reading on the lens and no pictures "out there" from regular users. I look forward to seeing a real comparison of the various options USING THE SAME BODY!!!! (Hey DPR, don't put comparisons of V1 with a 1DS and V2 with a 5DSr in your review) and some real world reviews from people like Dustin.

Many times in the past I have commented that "nobody cares what the DR is of an out of focus picture" The same holds true for lens sharpness. The thing that I am most interested in with this lens is the Tap-In console and how you can AFMA the lens for different focal lengths and different distances. This is a HUGE! thing. This has the potential to leapfrog over everyone else for accuracy of focusing. We are talking about the accurate calibration of precision equipment as opposed to ballparking it.

AF accuracy and repeatability is THE single most important factor in getting a good image. It will be good to see how this works in the real world. What kind of keeper rate will you get?

 

[Ozarker]

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.

That makes no sense to me. If the lens is already dark enough at f/6.3, why would a person need an ND filter on a 600mm lens? I can understand adding NDs to get a longer final exposure, while wanting an aperture that's still bright enough to compose with when fully open, but don't really see the practical use case for doing this with a tele lens. If you're using enough NDs to take you beyond the exposure you could get by stopping down to the minimum aperture, your viewfinder is going to be dark, period. And if you're not stopping down that far, with a slower lens you could just add a couple less stops of ND so you can still see through the viewfinder, and stop the lens down a couple more stops in final exposure. Are you trying to isolate one stationary white cat in the snow from a bunch of slowly moving white cats in the same plane of focus, where there are other stationary white cats that would come into focus if you stopped down a bit more?

Could you enlighten? Was your comment about using an ND filter a red herring, and you are really thinking about a PL? [to be clear, I am being slightly snarky but would genuinely like to know where you are coming from with the comment I quoted. I understand that this lens isn't for you, it just seems like some of your rationalisations as to why it's not for you are ...not rational ]

I don't mind the snark. A CP is only good if one is approx. 90 degrees to the sun.

ND is like sunglasses and it doesn't matter where the sun is. F/stop does this does nothing about knocking down glare. An ND filter does. Higher f/stop just gives you an even darker lens when you slap on the ND. Your f/stop choice doesn't matter in the snow either. ND filter for the glare does.

Shooting birds in water makes ND filters very useful for knocking down glare.

A fast lens allows the ability to use the ND for waterfowl on glaring water or wildlife on glaring snow if you need it to knock down the glare.

Or, for me... an ND knocks down the glaring sun on the bright desert landscape or even on a filed of wheat or hay.

The darker the lens the slower the shutter speed has to be... unless one compensates with ISO.

I also don't like a variable aperture on lenses because I shoot in manual 99.9999% of the time.. Not at any price. Well, maybe the Tamron at $500. My personal preference. Don't care what others might want to live with.

Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)

Don't worry what others might say to you. We are talking about the Tamron and what we like, think, or don't like about it. That is completely on topic. Once again, I'm only responding to a question. I didn't initiate it.

This thread is about anything having to do with the Tamron, not just what a few specifics others think it has to be about.

 

[Don Haines]

Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)

Don't worry what others might say to you. We are talking about the Tamron and what we like, think, or don't like about it. That is completely on topic. Once again, I'm only responding to a question. I didn't initiate it.

This thread is about anything having to do with the Tamron, not just what a few specifics others think it has to be about.

If you are going to hijack the thread, I might as well learn from it

BTW, it wasn't your statement, it was all the others.... If the lens is too slow for your preferred way of shooting, then it is. Period... nuff said....

What I don't understand is the use of the ND filter. I agree that using it will knock down the glare, but won't it also knock down the subject? or are you talking about using a graduated ND filter?

 

[Ozarker]

Gotta go now. I might be accused of high jacking the thread again. 8)

Don't worry what others might say to you. We are talking about the Tamron and what we like, think, or don't like about it. That is completely on topic. Once again, I'm only responding to a question. I didn't initiate it.

This thread is about anything having to do with the Tamron, not just what a few specifics others think it has to be about.

If you are going to hijack the thread, I might as well learn from it

BTW, it wasn't your statement, it was all the others.... If the lens is too slow for your preferred way of shooting, then it is. Period... nuff said....

What I don't understand is the use of the ND filter. I agree that using it will knock down the glare, but won't it also knock down the subject? or are you talking about using a graduated ND filter?

Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.

I think my point was that if the lens goes to f/6.3 on the long end and I need to knock down the glare with an ND filter over water or for anything else I might want to shoot where there is a lot of glare, then the lens is a non-starter for me. For me.

I'd just rather have a faster lens.

I understand the price difference between this Tamron and an EF 400 f/2.8 IS II or the 600 f/4 and I know that is a huge consideration.

If I have a 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2 stop ND for glare over water, then I've got effectively a 400mm f/5.6 lens as far as light goes. However, it is still an f/2.8 as far as depth of field right?

So yes, the filter will knock down the subject (duck or whatever bird), but I'll still be able to use the fast shutter I want because I am still only at f/5.6 with a 2 stop filter.

Glare is a particular problem for me as I must stand at the water's edge and there are no trees here above the water. None. The ponds and lakes are surrounded by rocks (not gravel) and I am not physically able to lay flat on them (to avoid some of the glare) and get back up due to bad shoulders and a bad set of knees.

F/2.8 gives me more versatility too should I head up into the mountains where there are trees and shade.

My original post was that the lens just isn't for me. That's all. I should have just ignored the arguments and the questions and not replied to anything at all. Nothing. I hate myself for allowing myself to get dragged into this sort of crap. It's my own fault. I don't owe anyone an explanation for why I want what I want or don't want. &%$# sake, I shouldn't even post anything.

The lens just isn't for me. I'm sure there will be many lover's of the Tamron 150-600.

I have the 15-30 myself. It is a fine lens.

It will take me 4-5 years to save for what is for me. I'll be happy with it.

But yes, Don, this was for me:

That's nice. I'm glad you're saving for the lens you want.

But this thread is not about you. It's about the new 150-600 G2. So please don't hijack. Thank you.

And I guess I am still the hijacker. Sheesh.

Glad to have you along.

 

[Don Haines]

Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.

I think my point was that if the lens goes to f/6.3 on the long end and I need to knock down the glare with an ND filter over water or for anything else I might want to shoot where there is a lot of glare, then the lens is a non-starter for me. For me.

I'd just rather have a faster lens.

I understand the price difference between this Tamron and an EF 400 f/2.8 IS II or the 600 f/4 and I know that is a huge consideration.

If I have a 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2 stop ND for glare over water, then I've got effectively a 400mm f/5.6 lens as far as light goes. However, it is still an f/2.8 as far as depth of field right?

So yes, the filter will knock down the subject (duck or whatever bird), but I'll still be able to use the fast shutter I want because I am still only at f/5.6 with a 2 stop filter.

Glare is a particular problem for me as I must stand at the water's edge and there are no trees here above the water. None. The ponds and lakes are surrounded by rocks (not gravel) and I am not physically able to lay flat on them (to avoid some of the glare) and get back up due to bad shoulders and a bad set of knees.

Personally, I like the range and price of the lens, and like you, wish it was faster.... but with the cost constraints accept it for what it is.

I also use an ND filter for shots on water, except mine is a 2 stop graduated ND filter.... I didn't even bother to get one sized for the Tamron as it is most definitely a slow lens and (at least for me) 2 stops is more than I can take....

Even a polarizing filter is going to knock down the light on this lens

I have used the V1 150-600 a fair bit (wonderful lens) but the softness at 600mm unless you stop down to F9.2 is it's biggest disadvantage. The shot below was under almost perfect conditions but in order to keep the shutter speed up I had to go to ISO640 (pushing it a bit on a crop camera) and had to keep it to F8 where the lens is still a bit soft. Here's hoping that the V2 is better!

 

[Ozarker]

Not talking about landscape so much Don. For me, it's about waterfowl on highly glared water or wildlife in the snow. I live in the desert and sometimes head up into the forests between here and Denver or California.

I think my point was that if the lens goes to f/6.3 on the long end and I need to knock down the glare with an ND filter over water or for anything else I might want to shoot where there is a lot of glare, then the lens is a non-starter for me. For me.

I'd just rather have a faster lens.

I understand the price difference between this Tamron and an EF 400 f/2.8 IS II or the 600 f/4 and I know that is a huge consideration.

If I have a 400mm f/2.8 lens with a 2 stop ND for glare over water, then I've got effectively a 400mm f/5.6 lens as far as light goes. However, it is still an f/2.8 as far as depth of field right?

So yes, the filter will knock down the subject (duck or whatever bird), but I'll still be able to use the fast shutter I want because I am still only at f/5.6 with a 2 stop filter.

Glare is a particular problem for me as I must stand at the water's edge and there are no trees here above the water. None. The ponds and lakes are surrounded by rocks (not gravel) and I am not physically able to lay flat on them (to avoid some of the glare) and get back up due to bad shoulders and a bad set of knees.

Personally, I like the range and price of the lens, and like you, wish it was faster.... but with the cost constraints accept it for what it is.

I also use an ND filter for shots on water, except mine is a 2 stop graduated ND filter.... I didn't even bother to get one sized for the Tamron as it is most definitely a slow lens and (at least for me) 2 stops is more than I can take....

Even a polarizing filter is going to knock down the light on this lens

I have used the V1 150-600 a fair bit (wonderful lens) but the softness at 600mm unless you stop down to F9.2 is it's biggest disadvantage. The shot below was under almost perfect conditions but in order to keep the shutter speed up I had to go to ISO640 (pushing it a bit on a crop camera) and had to keep it to F8 where the lens is still a bit soft. Here's hoping that the V2 is better!

Beautiful bird. It will be soooo nice to get back to Florida in another year or so.

I am surprised at how soft the lens is at f/8 and have to wonder whether you got a bad copy. If V2 were this soft and I bought it... I think I'd be very disappointed. I'm very surprised at that softness. So here's hoping V2 is better for all those concerned.

I don't own a graduated filter and only have a 2 stop and 6 stop B+W ND. I do have the circular polarizers, but the birds never seem to line up with the sun like I need them to.

Now that I'm up walking again I can start thinking about filters more.

Have a great day Don.

 

[AlanF]

Don
Your Tammy is focussed correctly - the feet are nicely sharp - but it is failing on the higher resolution. My old lens was much sharper than that. iso640 isn't that high for a crop. You just have to test these Tammys and Sigmas before buying. The good ones can be very good but their are bad ones.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Don, CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?) and Alan - thanks for your contributions. I wasn't going to get a zoom anyway, but I am now quite convinced that I won't be getting a Tamron or anything slower than f/4. Soft at f/9? Wow! Is that not well past the point where diffraction starts softening the image on crop?

I guess I'll stick with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D for a while longer. Although I surely disliked not getting a good shot of that Pileated this week.

 

[Plainsman]

...so they gauge the sharpness by focussing on a bookshelf on the other side of the room......!!
..what a load of c--p.

 

[Don Haines]

Don, CFB (is that really your selfie above your number of posts?) and Alan - thanks for your contributions. I wasn't going to get a zoom anyway, but I am now quite convinced that I won't be getting a Tamron or anything slower than f/4. Soft at f/9? Wow! Is that not well past the point where diffraction starts softening the image on crop?

I guess I'll stick with my Canon 70-200 2.8 II + 1.4 III TC + 80D for a while longer. Although I surely disliked not getting a good shot of that Pileated this week.

The bluebird was a 1 to 1 crop of an image taken at F8 using a 7D2....and to make it even worse, for some strange reason I think the feathers are soft on the bird That image should be about as bad as it gets with the Tamron.... Other targets seem to give me reasonable detail

 

[AlanF]

Don, now that is very acceptable. What is the difference between this shot and the previous?

 

[justaCanonuser]

I always read that the Sigma 150-600 Sports is the sharpest lens of all 150-600's so far at the long end (Tamron's G2 not not yet included). But according to sources such as Bryan Carnathan's thorough TDP review the "Sports" is the Dark Lord of all those zooms. It's wide open aperture breaks down to f/6.3 at already about 320 mm, Tamron's G1 version adds another 100 mm (!!) to the faster f/5.6 area:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

So I wonder if the Sigma Sports only is a tad sharper on the long end because it is a bit more stopped down by production?

If I'd get myself one of those 150-600's, this open aperture vs. focal length curve would be a key parameter for my decision, because I often struggle with bad light conditions when I shoot e.g. birds. Another important one would be AF performance, because my subjects mostly move. I've tested the Tammy G1 a while with both my 7D and 5D3, when the G1 freshly came out. But I came to the result that I just would buy myself into another 3rd party lens' lousy AF performance frustration. So, if I needed an alternative for my Canon 500mm for lighter traveling gear, I'd definitely get a new Canon EF 100-400 II. Costs more but surely delivers much more in-focus shots, and this is what really counts in real life. I am not sure if the G2 performs so much better AF wise that I could accept it, maybe I'll test a copy.