Shallow Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC vs 300mm/2.8 II +2xTC III

[AlanF]

Unpacked my Tamron this morning. Basically, it handled just as predicted by the lensrental data and the other good data published. It focussed fast at 400mm and below, and a bit sluggish at 600 on both a 5DIII and 70D. The IQ performance at 400mm and below was at about the same as the 100-400L, which I have sold.

Now for the test that I have wanted to see: how does it compare at 600mm vs the 300mm f/2.8 II plus 2xTCIII. I AFMAd it on a 5DIII and took a couple of shots of an iso 12233 chart. The chart was illuminated by only a halogen lamp. Images from both lenses were treated the same way for processing from raw. The Tamron was set for f/6.3 at 1/400s iso 2500, and the 300x2 at f/5.6 at 1/500. For the pair in the next post, both were at f/8 and 1/250. These are 100% crops, which need downloading for comparison.

Here are the Tammy at/f6.3 (Top) and the Canon at f/5.6 (Bottom)

 

[AlanF]

At f/8, Tammy at Top and Canon at Bottom.

 

[AlanF]

Finally, low resolution of the whole frame from each, Tammy on top as before. I was pretty close to the target, at about 8m. You can see that there is significant focus breathing with the Tammy at this close distant.

All in all, I am very, very impressed with the Tammy, and will be taking it on an extended visit to China next month for its convenience in both weight and size, as well as the zoom. It will be my standard travel lens for nature trips abroad.

 

[Albi86]

Thanks for the test!

However, if you want to measure optical performance on its own, it's always better to MF via live view

 

[Loswr]

Thanks for the test!

However, if you want to measure optical performance on its own, it's always better to MF via live view

And focus bracket, picking the sharpest images from each lens for comparison.

Adding my thanks, Alan - great info!

 

[jrda2]

Thanks for posting

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

More valuable information. I know you were really diligent in trying to gather information before you pulled the trigger, so I'm glad that you are initially pleased with the lens.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

so the difference in crop resolution is from focus breathing..... that´s quiet a bit.

how compares that on longer distances?

 

[Pit123]

Thanks for posting.
Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500.
A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.

 

[AlanF]

so the difference in crop resolution is from focus breathing..... that´s quiet a bit.

how compares that on longer distances?

Lensrentals did proper testing of the MTFs of the Tammy with its rivals. They found that at longer distances the lens is a true 600mm.

By the way, I measured the relative aperture IQ using FoCal and found it to be sharpest at f/9 - f/11 on the 5DIII, at 600mm. f/8 is very close but sharpness drops off at 7.1 and much more so at f/6.3, consistent with all published data. On the 70D, maximum sharpness is reached by f/8 and doesn't change to about f/16. The lens performs well on the 70D but I will use the 5DIII as it easier to achieve better hand holding results by going to higher iso at f/8.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for posting.
Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500.
A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.

The lensrental measurements showed that the Tammy and the 100-400 are very close at 400mm. And I found the same. I have done the actual comparison of the Tammy at 400 and 600mm on the iso 12233 charts. The 400 shows far worse detail than at 600mm. The up sampled 100-400 image will in no way match the Tammy at 600mm. I bought the 300/2.8 II + TCs because the 100-400 didn't give me the resolution I wanted. The Tammy is a big leap forward - not as good as the 300 combo, but it gets much closer than the 100-400 did.

 

[Pit123]

Comparing shots shown, I found the real focal length to be 504mm (I had to resize the canon lens shot to 84% to show same target size ) on this shooting distance. (If the 300mm+2x is real 600mm)

 

[Pit123]

The lensrental measurements showed that the Tammy and the 100-400 are very close at 400mm. And I found the same. I have done the actual comparison of the Tammy at 400 and 600mm on the iso 12233 charts. The 400 shows far worse detail than at 600mm. The up sampled 100-400 image will in no way match the Tammy at 600mm. I bought the 300/2.8 II + TCs because the 100-400 didn't give me the resolution I wanted. The Tammy is a big leap forward - not as good as the 300 combo, but it gets much closer than the 100-400 did.

I have both the 100-400 and the 300mm mk2 and I find the 100-400mm to be much closer to the 300mm + 2x than your results.
I guess an upsampled tammy 400mm shot will show same or more details than tammy on 600mm wide open.

 

[AlanF]

Comparing shots shown, I found the real focal length to be 504mm (I had to resize the canon lens shot to 84% to show same target size ) on this shooting distance. (If the 300mm+2x is real 600mm)

Oops - I made a stupid mistake. On checking the exifs I found the Tammy was set to 552mm, not 600. So, the breathing is not as bad as it seemed.

When the light gets better here, I'll take some more comparisons at the correct setting and lower iso.

Perhaps you have a bad copy of the 300mm if your 100-400mm is close to it?

 

[Pit123]

Oops - I made a stupid mistake. On checking the exifs I found the Tammy was set to 552mm, not 600. So, the breathing is not as bad as it seemed.

When the light gets better here, I'll take some more comparisons at the correct setting and lower iso.

Perhaps you have a bad copy of the 300mm if your 100-400mm is close to it?

Ok- looking forward to your results with lower iso. Hope you will upsample a 400mm shot as well.
And: No, my 300mm is very, very sharp. (upgraded from mk1 for comparison). And my 100-400mm is not close to it, but closer than yout tammy @600mm. Maybe your 100-400mm was a bad copy?

 

[AlanF]

You could do a comparison. Print off the iso chart (you can find it on the internet) on A4 or US paper, and photograph it at a distance to give the same size image as I posted. Then photograph it with your 100-400 at the same distance and upsample it at 1.5x and compare.

I was only joking about your 300 being a bad copy - the lens is phenomenal.

 

[Pit123]

You could do a comparison. Print off the iso chart (you can find it on the internet) on A4 or US paper, and photograph it at a distance to give the same size image as I posted. Then photograph it with your 100-400 at the same distance and upsample it at 1.5x and compare.

I was only joking about your 300 being a bad copy - the lens is phenomenal.

In that case I need to copy your exact distance, camera, camerasettings and PP settings as well.
Also shooting at 2500 iso is meaningless if you are looking for details at 100% crops.
And printouts for test purpose? I dont find that to be suitable for high res comparisons.

Anyway, here is a 100% crop from my 100-400mm. raw file opened in fastone (no sharpening):

 

[Lichtgestalt]

Thanks for posting.
Comparing 100% crops side by side, I will say its day and night difference here. Even on iso 2500.
A lower iso shot would show even bigger differences.
I'm quite sure an upsampled 100-400mm shot will show same details as the Tammy.

when the tamy is a s good as the 100-400 until 400mm?
you think the 200mm more doesn´t add anything? unlikely i say.

from what i read the tamron nearly touches excellent levels at f8 @600mm?

 

[lux]

Has anyone tried using the tammy to take pictures of field sports? I'd love to know how it was compared to the 100-400 or the 300 2.8 in a real life scenario.

 

[candc]

thanks for the comparison alan, just the fact that there are comparisons being made says a lot for the tamron. something that cannot be overstated is the bargain price and how well it fits into a pack!