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

[mackguyver]

Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.

I think that Canon's big white sales are safe, but they are going to lose a ton of 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 sales to the Tamron, which might force Canon to finally update at least one of those models.

 

[jrista]

Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.

I think that Canon's big white sales are safe, but they are going to lose a ton of 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 sales to the Tamron, which might force Canon to finally update at least one of those models.

I'm not saying the Tamron isn't impressive. For it's price, it is. It's jut that if you already have the 300 f/2.8 L II, there is absolutely ZERO reason to doubt the decision to buy it. It is still and will always be a superior piece of equipment. It doesn't just needlessly cost that much more...the cost is well justified (especially once you understand the manufacturing process...making those huge glass and fluorite elements requires high grade costly materials and extremely precise manufacture.)

I do agree about their lower-grade telephotos, though. The 100-400 sales, which have always been good, will probably suffer quite a bit. Hard to beat 600mm of extra focal length and 2.25x the detail. (And there is NO WAY the Tamron is "soft"...compared to other lenses in it's class, it seems to be excellent.) I think Canon would even have a hard time maintaining 100-400 sales with a new version...400mm just doesn't compare to 600mm.

 

[AlanF]

Don & jrista: You both make excellent points, but I'm still really impressed with the Tamron. If wildlife photography wasn't my primary interest, it would be the perfect choice. I don't have any regrets over my 300 and while it's not the ideal choice for birding, it's great for mammals, alligators, a lots of other critters. Not to mention that it's awesome for portraits, sports, low light, and takes the extenders and a drop in C-PL as needed. I haven't tried the 25mm macro tube with it quite yet, but have seen excellent near-macro shots with it as well.

I think that Canon's big white sales are safe, but they are going to lose a ton of 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6, and 100-400 sales to the Tamron, which might force Canon to finally update at least one of those models.

I'm not saying the Tamron isn't impressive. For it's price, it is. It's jut that if you already have the 300 f/2.8 L II, there is absolutely ZERO reason to doubt the decision to buy it. It is still and will always be a superior piece of equipment. It doesn't just needlessly cost that much more...the cost is well justified (especially once you understand the manufacturing process...making those huge glass and fluorite elements requires high grade costly materials and extremely precise manufacture.)

I do agree about their lower-grade telephotos, though. The 100-400 sales, which have always been good, will probably suffer quite a bit. Hard to beat 600mm of extra focal length and 2.25x the detail. (And there is NO WAY the Tamron is "soft"...compared to other lenses in it's class, it seems to be excellent.) I think Canon would even have a hard time maintaining 100-400 sales with a new version...400mm just doesn't compare to 600mm.

+1
I am glad I have the 300 II, but I shall be using the Tammy a lot. And I am relieved I sold the 100-400 as it should be killed by the Tammy. A good 100-400 is very good on FF, but the extra 200mm of the Tammy is a killer. And there are lots of soft 100-400s around, and there are reports of weak bearings in some.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Nice to have a shoulder to cry on sometimes. Now I feel better!

Don, it's sunny and warm here and I'm out on the deck. Although it's "just a chickadee" they are my friends and they love every new prop I provide for them. What more could a guy ask. And they even allow me to use my bare 300 to boot!

I love my 300 ;D

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

Nice to have a shoulder to cry on sometimes. Now I feel better!

Don, it's sunny and warm here and I'm out on the deck. Although it's "just a chickadee" they are my friends and they love every new prop I provide for them. What more could a guy ask. And they even allow me to use my bare 300 to boot!

I love my 300 ;D

Jack

It is quite snowy here...

I had a pair of Ravens watching me today... Their perch is on the feed of the original search and rescue ground station... The first rescue beacon was picked up on this dish...

shot with a 70-200F4IS.... There are a lot of nice lenses to pick and choose between...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Here's an 11-footer I shot with my 24-70 - at the 70mm end - I try to stay away from close-ups of things that could eat me:

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?

 

[AlanF]

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?

A comparison was done with the 300 f/2.8 L I + 2x TC III one of the reviews - I can't remember which one, but I can visualize the images and recall the Tammy was sharper. The EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III is pretty soft (see TDP, for example), and I can't believe it will be as good as the Tammy.

 

[dcm]

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?

For many of us this might be a more applicable comparison than the faster primes. I have considered the 300 F/4 L and 400 F5.6 L which are in the same price ballpark as the Tamron. I already have both III extenders with my 70-200 F4 L IS so I'm debating which lens to add. It would nice to see the comparisons at 300-420-600 and 400-560-800/840. The Tamron could do all but the last one without an extender. Maybe TDP will post results for the Tamron one of these days - it seems to have a lot of interest.

 

[AlanF]

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?

For many of us this might be a more applicable comparison than the faster primes. I have considered the 300 F/4 L and 400 F5.6 L which are in the same price ballpark as the Tamron. I already have both III extenders with my 70-200 F4 L IS so I'm debating which lens to add. It would nice to see the comparisons at 300-420-600 and 400-560-800/840. The Tamron could do all but the last one without an extender. Maybe TDP will post results for the Tamron one of these days - it seems to have a lot of interest.

A 2xTC on the 400/5.6 gives f/11. So no AF and manual focus will be tedious. Both, the 300 and 400 with the the 2xTCs are really soft at f/8 and f/11, respectively: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

The Tamron at 600mm and f.8 is sharp and in a different league.

 

[dcm]

I know we are discussing the 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III ... but how about EF 300 f/4 L I + 2X TC III? did anyone compare this combo with the Tamron 150-600 VC? ... obviously the bare EF 300 mm f/4 L IS would be a lot sharper than the Tammy at 300mm, but what about with a 2x TC?

For many of us this might be a more applicable comparison than the faster primes. I have considered the 300 F/4 L and 400 F5.6 L which are in the same price ballpark as the Tamron. I already have both III extenders with my 70-200 F4 L IS so I'm debating which lens to add. It would nice to see the comparisons at 300-420-600 and 400-560-800/840. The Tamron could do all but the last one without an extender. Maybe TDP will post results for the Tamron one of these days - it seems to have a lot of interest.

A 2xTC on the 400/5.6 gives f/11. So no AF and manual focus will be tedious. Both, the 300 and 400 with the the 2xTCs are really soft at f/8 and f/11, respectively: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

The Tamron at 600mm and f.8 is sharp and in a different league.

That's what I'd expect at 600 or with the 2X extenders, but I'm not just buying it for 600 I'm also interested in the comparisons with 1.4X and no extender to see the performance across the range. I already have below 300 covered pretty well so its 300 up that interests me.

 

[mackguyver]

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time. The EXIF says I was 6.7M from him, but it felt much closer! I first spotted him in the grass where he was well-camouflaged. Here's that shot and the another of the start of his crossing:

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time.

I hope it wasn't one of the joggers in his fat lumpy stomach ;D ... cool shots.

 

[Dylan777]

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time. The EXIF says I was 6.7M from him, but it felt much closer! I first spotted him in the grass where he was well-camouflaged. Here's that shot and the another of the start of his crossing:

Nice!
I prefer to shoot with my 400mm ;D

 

[mackguyver]

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time. The EXIF says I was 6.7M from him, but it felt much closer! I first spotted him in the grass where he was well-camouflaged. Here's that shot and the another of the start of his crossing:

Nice!
I prefer to shoot with my 400mm ;D

Like this one (400 /f5.6)? Sadly I didn't learn my lesson - this is him/her hissing when I got too close (around 15'), and unlike the big guy, this was a fast and dangerous 6-footer, so this was really stupid on my part. I would love to have had your f/2.8, and needless to say I backed way up after the hiss...

 

[Dylan777]

Holy sh!t, a croc in the middle of road ... I wouldn't wanna be jogging alone in that area ... nice image.

Thanks and people jog and bike along this road all of the time. The EXIF says I was 6.7M from him, but it felt much closer! I first spotted him in the grass where he was well-camouflaged. Here's that shot and the another of the start of his crossing:

Nice!
I prefer to shoot with my 400mm ;D

Like this one (400 /f5.6)? Sadly I didn't learn my lesson - this is him/her hissing when I got too close (around 15'), and unlike the big guy, this was a fast and dangerous 6-footer, so this was really stupid on my part. I would love to have had your f/2.8, and needless to say I backed way up after the hiss...

Nice shot mackguyver

Maybe 400mm + 1.4X TC now...don't want my gear endup inside his/her tummy ;D

 

[adhocphotographer]

So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:

Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.

Canon 300 II + 2xTC III - Better IQ, faster, better build quality/weather sealing. Option to use native 300 f/2.8. Less flexible and 5x more expensive.

Get the Tamron if money is tight and/or wildlife isn't your thing and/or low light shooting is not a frequent event. Get the Canon combo if lowlight is more of an issue, you have plenty of cash to burn and you need a tank of a lens and the best IQ?

Did i miss anything? I like to have a summary at the end of these discussions!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:

Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.

Canon 300 II + 2xTC III - Better IQ, faster, better build quality/weather sealing. Option to use native 300 f/2.8. Less flexible and 5x more expensive.

Get the Tamron if money is tight and/or wildlife isn't your thing and/or low light shooting is not a frequent event. Get the Canon combo if lowlight is more of an issue, you have plenty of cash to burn and you need a tank of a lens and the best IQ?

Did i miss anything? I like to have a summary at the end of these discussions!

I think you summed it up pretty well

 

[J.R.]

So, the sum of all this discussion is as such:

Tamron - Excellent value lens with great IQ (beats competition in the range), and is the cheapest 600mm lens. However, f/8 is required at 600mm to get good results. It is a zoom, so more flexible.

Canon 300 II + 2xTC III - Better IQ, faster, better build quality/weather sealing. Option to use native 300 f/2.8. Less flexible and 5x more expensive.

Get the Tamron if money is tight and/or wildlife isn't your thing and/or low light shooting is not a frequent event. Get the Canon combo if lowlight is more of an issue, you have plenty of cash to burn and you need a tank of a lens and the best IQ?

Did i miss anything? I like to have a summary at the end of these discussions!

You missed out considering the 200-400

TBF, everything you say about the 300mm + 2x TC applies to the 200-400 as well.

 

[adhocphotographer]

I'm not even considering the 200-400 at 10x the price!

Well, i already have a 2x TC III, so i might as well get the 300 2.8 II to make best use of it right?