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

[J.R.]

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?

Not really ... the Canon 200-400 is only 7X the price of the Tamron

 

[Jack Douglas]

Only two years into DSLRs and I'd say that photography is an area where it's all about compromises that are pretty challenging, unlike pure electronics. I guess it's the nature of glass and optical physics.

In a similar context to this thread I've been tempted with the 1Dx, really tempted. My friend bought it a month ago and when I held it, my heart sank. I'm not getting any younger and packing heavy gear is a pretty significant negative. It even factored into me buying 6D over 5D3, along with price.

adhocphotographer, you've left out resale value. It may or may not factor in. Also it's surprising how many people don't want their image tarnished once they commit to a brand. Really should be irrelevant but it isn't.

Jack

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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?

Not really ... the Canon 200-400 is only 7X the price of the Tamron

Who is selling the Canon 200-400 for US$ 7483?
The Tamron 150-600 VC costs $1069 ... the Canon EF 200-400 L IS costs $11299 ... if my math is not wrong the EF 200-400 L IS is pretty close to 11x the price of the tamron 150-600 VC.

 

[adhocphotographer]

adhocphotographer, you've left out resale value. It may or may not factor in. Also it's surprising how many people don't want their image tarnished once they commit to a brand. Really should be irrelevant but it isn't.

Damn good point... I would hazard a guess that the 300 2.8 would hold a higher re-sale value... As for brand and image... it does not bother me much, but i know some people it does!

 

[adhocphotographer]

Interesting justification for buying a lens!

(Cost of lens - re-sale cots)/rental cost per day.... if this number is smaller than the days you might rent it, you might as well buy it and sell it if and when you want to!!! hmmm lets see if my wife buys into this!

 

[lux]

Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.

I like your optimism ... please do tell me how it went with your wife, based on your feedback I may try your technique ;D

 

[Jack Douglas]

I have a better solution. Get a new wife similar to mine then you can buy whatever photographic equipment you need! The downside is you might end up wasting money. Come to think of it there may be some other secondary problems associated with this suggestion.

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

Ok. 300 2.8 l is used from ebay 3400ish. Rental $60 per day at 10 days per year. Resale in 5 years 2000. So I can tell my wife I can buy the tamron 150-600 with the money I save buying the 300 instead of renting right? That should work.

Your maths is way off.

I bought a 300 f2.8 IS in 2004 for $3,500, I could sell it for $3,000+, that is a <$500 depreciation over 9 years. Don't forget the price of the big lenses keeps going up, the MkI will never be worth the same as a MkII but it will be several years before you can even get a heavily used 300 f2.8 IS MkII for close to $4,000, which leaves plenty of market share for the MkI $1,000 lower.

Sure you can buy the Tamron for the lost money rental price, but the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.

 

[mackguyver]

...the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.

I have sold all but one Canon lens for profit (~4 Ls and 4 non-Ls), broke even on one L, and lost nearly 50% when I sold a Sigma in mint condition after a year of ownership.

 

[AlanF]

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!

Yes, get both if you can afford it. Use the 300/2.8 ± TCs when driving around and on moderate hiking, and the Tammy when travelling abroad or for long hikes. My Black Rapid RS4 has reportedly been delivered in the post and I am going to check if I can anchor it to the 1/4" slots in both the Tammy foot and the 5D3 by buying extra connectors.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

...the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.

I have sold all but one Canon lens for profit (~4 Ls and 4 non-Ls), broke even on one L, and lost nearly 50% when I sold a Sigma in mint condition after a year of ownership.

Yep been there too. Most of my Canon lenses are now worth 30% on the second hand market when compared to the new prices I paid for them. I've only really lost money on off brand stuff and the DSLR camera bodies. The lenses are pretty good investment really...and you get to use them too. If one thinks long term, the lenses pay for themselves via professional use and then you get money for them when you come to sell them again...it's no brainer over the long term. My 400 f2.8 LIS is only worth a little more than I paid for it s/h 2 years ago. Although I'm not interested in selling it just yet...it's effectively free to use for me. If and when I can raise the cash for a 400 f2.8 LIS mkII....i only have to worry about the difference between the two lenses.

 

[Dylan777]

Your maths is way off.

I bought a 300 f2.8 IS in 2004 for $3,500, I could sell it for $3,000+, that is a <$500 depreciation over 9 years. Don't forget the price of the big lenses keeps going up, the MkI will never be worth the same as a MkII but it will be several years before you can even get a heavily used 300 f2.8 IS MkII for close to $4,000, which leaves plenty of market share for the MkI $1,000 lower.

Sure you can buy the Tamron for the lost money rental price, but the cost of ownership of the Canon big tele's when you take resale value into account is very very low, many have made profits owning them.

You gotta love the BIG WHITES

I got my 400mm f2.8 IS II just before the price increased by $300. With 2% reward from the purchase, I got my 1.4x TC III for less than half price of original, plus $50 rebate from BH

 

[gary]

My advice based on experience if you are looking for a big lens then buy Canon for two reasons, picture quality and residual value. I bought a 300L 2.8IS from new and had much pleasure for three years and then sold it for $400 more than I paid for it. I haven't seen that happening with with other brands.

 

[J.R.]

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?

Not really ... the Canon 200-400 is only 7X the price of the Tamron

Who is selling the Canon 200-400 for US$ 7483?
The Tamron 150-600 VC costs $1069 ... the Canon EF 200-400 L IS costs $11299 ... if my math is not wrong the EF 200-400 L IS is pretty close to 11x the price of the tamron 150-600 VC.

Buy it from India ... Tamron for INR 90K, canon 200-400 for 630K

 

[AlanF]

My advice based on experience if you are looking for a big lens then buy Canon for two reasons, picture quality and residual value. I bought a 300L 2.8IS from new and had much pleasure for three years and then sold it for $400 more than I paid for it. I haven't seen that happening with with other brands.

simplyelectronics is selling a new 300/2.8 II for £1500 less than I paid for my discounted one nearly two years ago. That loss is far more than the cost of the Tammy. We are not at present in an inflationary era for consumer goods so don't bet on the big whites not seriously depreciating.

 

[miah]

Let's be honest about this whole resale thing; percentages do not tell the whole story. Even if the Tammie lost 50% of its value on the used market, say after 3 years, that means you had use of a very nice 150-600 zoom for 3 years for less than $535 US! The Tammie is not a Canon 600, but $535 is just 4% of the cost of the Big White. I'm a serious hobbyist, not a pro making any significant amount of income from photography, so the Tammie's quality/value--even when factoring in resale--looks like a no-brainer.

This morning, walking on my property here in Colorado, I spotted 5 bald eagles and 2 red-tailed hawks (not to mention some prairie dogs, a coyote and a slew of mule deer). While I didn't have a camera with me, my 400 f/5.6 would not have been long enough to put a significant number of pixels on target. The Tammie, "compact and light" as it is, would have been the tool I needed to capture one or more of these feathered friends. Hmm, maybe I need to get off the pot and place an order, but I'd still like to see a few more sample pics... Are you hearing me AlanF and Don Haines?

 

[mackguyver]

Let's be honest about this whole resale thing; percentages do not tell the whole story. Even if the Tammie lost 50% of its value on the used market, say after 3 years, that means you had use of a very nice 150-600 zoom for 3 years for less than $535 US! The Tammie is not a Canon 600, but $535 is just 4% of the cost of the Big White. I'm a serious hobbyist, not a pro making any significant amount of income from photography, so the Tammie's quality/value--even when factoring in resale--looks like a no-brainer.

This morning, walking on my property here in Colorado, I spotted 5 bald eagles and 2 red-tailed hawks (not to mention some prairie dogs, a coyote and a slew of mule deer). While I didn't have a camera with me, my 400 f/5.6 would not have been long enough to put a significant number of pixels on target. The Tammie, "compact and light" as it is, would have been the tool I needed to capture one or more of these feathered friends. Hmm, maybe I need to get off the pot and place an order, but I'd still like to see a few more sample pics... Are you hearing me AlanF and Don Haines?

I'm in agreement on the resale thing and when I bought my 300, I bought a LensCoat to protect it with some considerations for re-sale value. I found it ruined the lens and made it much more annoying to use so I returned it. If I lose money someday when the 300 Mk III comes out, so be it. Whatever I lose will be a fraction of the rental cost.

 

[privatebydesign]

I just made the point that lux made a big error in their maths, obviously there are many more considerations in lens buying, and when it gets to telephotos cost is normally the true decider, irrespective of depreciation or resale values.

I'd feel comfortable getting the Tamron for part time use at $1,200 ish rather than a Canon 200-400 at $11,000. If my livelihood depended on it I'd probably get the Canon. If it was a hobby and I wasn't very comfortable with my savings and financial arrangements nothing would induce me to spend $1,000's just to play with, if I was comfortable with my financial position the fact that Canon lens ownership can be, essentially free, I'd get the Canon and look after it.

 

[AlanF]

Tried out the Black Rapid RS-4 this afternoon. The Tammy is very comfortable hanging from it. As some might know, my 5DIII once fell off the 300mm when it was slung over my shoulder. I'd like to secure the 5DIII to the Black Rapid and also have an extra safety link from the Tammy/camera to the shoulder strap in case the screw comes loose from the Tammy tripod bush. I am thinking now of getting the Black Rapid wrist strap, screwing that into the 5DIII and threading its loop through the shoulder strap that is attached to the lens tripod mount. Has anyone tried something like this or has a better suggestion?