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

[miah]

Thanks for posting these shots, AlanF. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know "it's a good value for the money." The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.

 

[AlanF]

Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.

The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose. For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for posting these shots, AlanF. We all know you're accustomed to the rarified air delivered by the EF 300 f/2.8, so if you think this lens delivers it probably does. I look forward to more images and your overall take on the AF, build quality, etc. after your tests. And personally, I don't want to know "it's a good value for the money." The excellent price is great, and far more in reach than any of the big whites, but I want to know that my time out in the field using the lens is well spent.

The weather forecast is good for tomorrow and I'll be going out to test further. Like you, it's not the value/£ or $ or € that is paramount but rather does the lens deliver the goods.

 

[candc]

Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.

The lens is very interesting. I have one question. I seems that the photos are edited, how much sharpening did you apply?

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose. For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.

I see dxo is working on a module for this lens. That should make for even better results with less manual work. I am looking forward to its release

 

[Pit123]

Some shots to show how well the "soft Tammy" at 600mm f/6.3 compares with 400mm f/6.3 upscaled 1.5x. The full-frames are reduced to 1200x800, the crop at 600mm is 100%, the one at 400mm is 100% upscaled by 1.5x. These are at the limits of resolution. the 600mm shows much extra detail, contrary to Pitbull's assertions.

Shot after shot was equally sharp, showing how good the AF is.

Thanks, Alan, for showing!
Regarding magnificiatinion, you have showed us all, that 400mm x 1,5x magnification shows the same size of the subject as the 600mm.
We can also see that the upscaled image from Tammy on the 5d3 is not close (enough) to 600mm@63, which, IMO, is also soft. As dxomarl shows, the canon 100-400 is a lot shaper than tammy on 400mm on a 7d, so probably the results between an upscaled 100-400 and tammy would be a closer, if not close enough for me. Time will tell.

 

[mustang]

USM in Photoshop 0.9 pixels @ 100 for the large sized head of the goose. For the goose in flight, I put the RAW through DXO prime noise reduction with simultaneous 1 pixel USM at 100. I did the same for the 400vs600 f/.6.3 of the geese in the far distance.

Thanks for the info! Looking forward to see some more examples from this lens.

 

[AlanF]

Beautiful day today at Lackford Lakes in Suffolk. Unfortunately, not too much to photograph and generally too far away. All lenses give good results on all bodies if the subject fills the frame. What we want to see in testing a lens is whether a cropped image is sharp. Here are some cropped images. They are all taken at 600mm, f/8, iso 640, hand held (as always) on a 5DIII. All images had minimal processing but had 0.9 pixels worth of USM at 100%. They are all 100% crops.

So, I must emphasize, I haven't chosen these images to show how great the lens is, show it at its best or act as Tamron's publicity agent. These are various crops to show what the lens is like, and you can make up your own mind.

My take: it's good enough for me in absolute terms - not just because it is is good value for money; I will use it at f/8 at 600mm as f/6.3 is somewhat soft when cropping; it is much better on the 5DIII than APS-C (just as is the 100-400); it is a pleasure to use hand held as it is nicely balanced and not too heavy; the AF is very consistent, but a little slow at 600mm; I haven't been able to test it much for BIF but my first impressions are that it is very similar to the 300/2.8 II + 2xTC - if anything it seemed to lock on better and not lose the subject.

In my opinion, it renders the 100-400 obsolete and Canon had better come up with something good to compete.

Notes: the Mallard was not over-cropped; the lapwing was very far away and is heavily cropped - I think the quality is very similar to what I get on the 300mm/2.8 + 2xTC; the flying swan was picked up very easily by the AF; the Yanks are clearly following me from up high.

 

[JorritJ]

(mallard flapping wings)

Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.

The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.

Seems to me like this 150-600mm delivers some excellent quality for its price. The only real drawback I can see (for me personally) is the size, I don't believe it'll fit in my travel photography bag, which is exactly the maximum handbag size for air travel. If it were not for that, I would have ordered this lens already. Now I'll have to see if Canon finally releases that 100-400L successor before the summer, and see what may come from that.

 

[AlanF]

The only real drawback I can see (for me personally) is the size, I don't believe it'll fit in my travel photography bag, which is exactly the maximum handbag size for air travel. If it were not for that, I would have ordered this lens already. Now I'll have to see if Canon finally releases that 100-400L successor before the summer, and see what may come from that.

Solved that problem. I bought this tamrac for the 100-400, which fitted in nicely with the body attached. Removing the body and rearranging gives a nice fit, and there a compartment for an iPad etc in the lid.

 

[MichaelHodges]

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!

Candc, where did you get this pack? Thanks.

 

[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!

Candc, where did you get this pack? Thanks.

That's an f-stop satori exp with a large shallow icu.

http://shop.fstopgear.com/us/products/mountain/backpacks/satori-exp.html#.UwE4LpDnbbU

 

[MichaelHodges]

Thanks, looks amazing.

 

[miah]

Thanks, AlanF, all that's really helpful. Question: How does the overall fit and finish feel? I don't own any Tamron lenses, so other than reading reviews I don't know whether the lens feels solid or like junk. Those are extremes, of course, but I'd like your take on how well this thing might hold up with heavy use out in the field. And will the Tammie, as you originally hoped, become your travel lens of choice?

 

[wickidwombat]

i tried a demo one out in the store in shanghai the other day none in stock till the 20th though but i have to say overall i'm impressed AF was very accurate on 5Dmk3 and pretty quick even without using the focus limit although i did notice at 600 it was a bit slower to lock than short focal lengths.

Build is amazing its totally not like the tamron of old, (and believe me i have been very anti tamron for quite a while due to buying crappy lenses from them in the past and being totally disappointed)
Build feels alot like the canon 100 f2.8L IS for anyone wondering, lots of plastic but its high quality and feels dense.

i too wish they had made the canon mount zoom ring go the canon direction but its not a deal breaker just a minor annoyance.

I think i'm gonna pick one up when they are in stock and try it out a bit more thoroughly I only brought a modest amount of gear with me to china so don't have anything longer than the 135 L with me and the canon 2X TC mk3
which is a great combo but no IS is a PITA with the 2X on

 

[AlanF]

As just written, it seems solid enough to me as well. Lensrental seem happy enough with Tamron in their blog and rent out the 209-500. It will definitely be my travel lens - and by coincidence will accompany me to Shanghai next month. The big dilemma is whether it will become my regular weekend hiking lens as well?

 

[AlanF]

Why do I have a dilemma?
I got interested in posting bird photos on a website birdpix.nl. The mods are so damn tough that any softness whatsoever, visible signs of sharpening or noise (and often not detectable by me) gets a rejection. The 100-400 on the 7D simply wasn't up to the job unless I got close enough to the bird. The lens simply isn't sharp enough on a crop camera and the 7D is both soft and noisy, and sharpening increases the noise. This was all changed by getting the 300mm/2.8 and using the 2xTC. The great increase in focal length made a huge difference, aided by the better sharpness.

Then I got a 5DIII. The 5DIII changes two parameters: the 100-400 is much sharper on the 5DIII, and really very good; and the noise is so much better. But, 400mm is too short on FF - I virtually never go below 600mm while doing bird photography in the UK, but can get closer abroad. The Tammy changes the equation. The 300mm f/2.8 is a far superior lens at 300mm and 420mm with the 1.4XTC, but by the time you get to 600mm at f/5.6 with a x2 TC, then the match is getting closer - I can live with the 600mm f/8 of the Tammy. It weighs about 750 gm less, which is an advantage. I'll test it for longer and see if using it lowers my keeper rate in practice.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!

 

[CarlTN]

I would love a 300mm f/2.8, but to be honest, i would be slapping on a TC almost all the time, so having a native 600mm lens would be ideal. f/8 is a little slow for what i need (forests at dawn/dusk), but i guess this is where the ISO performance of the 5D III should come in.... hmmmmm.... I am extremely interested in this lens! I guess the 4000 Euro i would save on this lens could go to some awesome trips!

F/8 at dawn or dusk will be unusable for anything other than telephoto landscape photography of very still subjects, on a heavy tripod, with mirror lock...along with the longer shutter speed required. I shoot often at dusk, sometimes at dawn. If you're wanting a shutter speed faster than say 1/100 second, then you need radically more light than f/8, or even f/5.6. If you disagree, then perhaps you're referring to shooting more in the "golden hour" than that transition to the "blue hour". I'm talking about shooting in the half hour when the sun is below the horizon. My 6D autofocuses like a champ in this gloom with an f/5.6 lens, as does its noise floor. But I can't expect to shoot action, even with an f/2 lens...let alone f/8 (or specifically an f/6.3 lens that is closed to f/8, as in the case of the Tamron).

F/8 photography of wildlife, is good for bright daylight, and that's about it...unless the animal is asleep.

 

[AlanF]

...
The 100-400 on the 7D simply wasn't up to the job unless I got close enough to the bird. The lens simply isn't sharp enough on a crop camera and the 7D is both soft and noisy, and sharpening increases the noise.
...

Then I got a 5DIII. The 5DIII changes two parameters: the 100-400 is much sharper on the 5DIII, and really very good; and the noise is so much better
...

Sounds like you need to spend some time doing AFMA tuning for your lenses.

The very sharp 300mm f/2.8 II is good on both the full frame and crop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=739&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


The lesser sharp 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6 is much poorer on crop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

Now look at DxOmark.com for the same lenses on the 5DIII and 7D

Exactly the same. The 300mm f/2.8 II is great on both the FF and crop.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

And, the lesser 100-400 is OK on FF but cr*p on crop.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III---Measurements__795


http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-100-400mm-F45-56L-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D---Measurements__619

Sounds like you need to spend some time ......................

 

[SambalOelek]

Not even once has my 100-400L on my 5Dm3 (f/8.0, 1/1000 or faster, 400mm, 100>ISO>800, MA'd) produced a 100% crop coming close to that mallard crop - not even from a weighted down tripod.

The 100-400L may well be a bad copy, I've always found the images coming from it to be sub-par, and the 70-300L @ 300mm scaled up easily outperforms it.

Does indeed sound like a bad copy. Earlier claims in this thread seem to indicate that there is no way an upscaled 300mm can outresolve a normal copy of the 100-400mm @ 400mm.