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

[wickidwombat]

oh i need to add a couple of things trying to shoot sea gulls with this lens without using the focus limiter was basically impossible. static or slow moving subjects are fine though without the focus limiter on.

the other is I have previously tried the 70-200 with 2X TC to shoot birds in flight and failed misserably
not blaming the lens but to pick this thing up and be nailing it with reasonable consistency really says alot about how this thing performs.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...

 

[mackguyver]

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...

You won't be sorry ;D

 

[Albi86]

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...

As a general rule, if you can afford the 300/2.8, you're probably not the target market for the Tamron.

Even if you need a zoom, I see the 100-400 & 300/2.8 + 2xTC as a better setup than the Tamron alone. Of course you don't get all of that stuff for 1069$.

 

[mackguyver]

Strangely enough, this is me making sway towards the 300 f/2.8 II over the Tamron...

As a general rule, if you can afford the 300/2.8, you're probably not the target market for the Tamron.

Even if you need a zoom, I see the 100-400 & 300/2.8 + 2xTC as a better setup than the Tamron alone. Of course you don't get all of that stuff for 1069$.

My combo is the 70-200 2.8 IS II + 300 2.8 IS II + 1.4x III and 2x III - Total $10,296. Hmm, the Tamron seems like a pretty good deal in comparison It's also a wee bit lighter and more compact that this set.

If I didn't shoot wildlife for 80-90% of my personal work, I'd buy the Tamron without a second thought.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Build quality
If you think that the Tamron won't survive a fall, don't drop it. (Mine is now at the end of a Black Rapid Strap plus additional safety strap). But, how strong is the 100-400 L? Well, mine was attached to my 7D when sitting in a passenger seat, with the 7D between my knees and the lens pointing down. The camera slipped and the lens hit the floor from a height of about 20 cm, flat on to the front of the hood. That small jolt was enough to break the USM motor. The 100-400 is reported to have cases of bearing failures.

I am not going to do the test of dropping the Canon 300mm 2.8 and comparing it with dropping the Tamron from the same height. Anybody volunteering for that?

People don't drop their lenses intentionally (unless, one is like Kai Wong kind) ... from the few big lenses that I've owned, I've bumped and/or dropped them on several occasions ... my EF 100-400mm L IS & EF-S 17-85mm lens dropped form a height of at least 5 feet on to a rig floor (consisting of ridged metal floor), the EF-S 17-85mm had an instant death, but the EF 100-400 L IS survived with a few scratches on the body and a dent on the filter thread ... I sold the 100-400 L IS a year after that fall and still got the same price I had paid for it. A few months ago (November 2013) my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II had a violent knock from a crane and and it got flung out 10 feet away from a height of approx 6 feet, but it still works perfectly, except it has ugly scratches on the filter thread (if you look closely, at the image below, you can see the scratches/chipped off filter thread part ... I painted it black with a permanent marker to mask the silver color, so it doesn't show the ugly chipped off/scratched part too much on the filter thread) ... most Canon L lenses can take a few falls and hits and still live to make awesome images ... same cannot be said for third party lenses that I own.

I am absolutely convinced of the Tamron 150-600's awesome image quality, it's worth more than its price tag in that front, but not so much on its poor build quality.
I'm pretty sure Kai Wong will be more than happy to volunteer for the drop test ;D ... that guy is plain nuts when it comes to dropping lenses, setting cameras on fire etc

 

[miah]

Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with wickidwombat's comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as AlanF and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.

Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!

 

[CarlTN]

Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with wickidwombat's comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as AlanF and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.

Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!

But what about weather sealing? I didn't think the Tamron had it. If it doesn't, and you guys are talking about buying one to carry off into the bush...then I wonder if the weather sealing argument others have for other lenses, is just an excuse to argue? Not saying it's not nice to have, but how is it ok for this Tamron to not have it, but not ok for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "art" to not have it?

Anyway, if there's info somewhere that there actually is weather sealing, I don't see it.

 

[adhocphotographer]

The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted!

But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed.

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I would choose the Tamron if most of my wildlife was taking in good light, but it is not! I can't afford the 300 right now, but i am saving, and for me I think it is worth the wait!

Here is an example... a shot taken at 200mm f/2.8 iso 1600 1/200. some extra reach at 2.8 would have been nice! Yes i know i can stop down and bunk the ISO, but i like the choice not to. I am also a shaky person, so crazy low shutter speeds kill me with still subject let alone a moving one!

ps - I would like to thank everyone on here for their in-hands review of this lens and comparison to the 300 combo. It has really helped me make up my mind... I just need to sway the wife now!

 

[AlanF]

Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with wickidwombat's comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as AlanF and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.

Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!

But what about weather sealing? I didn't think the Tamron had it. If it doesn't, and you guys are talking about buying one to carry off into the bush...then I wonder if the weather sealing argument others have for other lenses, is just an excuse to argue? Not saying it's not nice to have, but how is it ok for this Tamron to not have it, but not ok for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "art" to not have it?q

Anyway, if there's info somewhere that there actually is weather sealing, I don't see it.

It's moisture resistant - http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-8.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

 

[CarlTN]

The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted!

But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed.

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I would choose the Tamron if most of my wildlife was taking in good light, but it is not! I can't afford the 300 right now, but i am saving, and for me I think it is worth the wait!

Here is an example... a shot taken at 200mm f/2.8 iso 1600 1/200. some extra reach at 2.8 would have been nice! Yes i know i can stop down and bunk the ISO, but i like the choice not to. I am also a shaky person, so crazy low shutter speeds kill me with still subject let alone a moving one!

ps - I would like to thank everyone on here for their in-hands review of this lens and comparison to the 300 combo. It has really helped me make up my mind... I just need to sway the wife now!

Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!

In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.

 

[CarlTN]

Like resale value, we have to keep this "build-quality" issue in perspective. A lens that could take repeated falls off two-story buildings would be great, but not if it requires two sherpas to lug it around for you. For my purposes, traveling solo with minimum kit either on foot or motorbike, durability must be balanced against size and weight. After seeing the images posted on this thread, I'm convinced the Tammy's IQ is more than adequate for my needs. I think we can all agree that the price is an exceptional value. And now with wickidwombat's comparing the build-quality to that of the Canon 100L--a lens I own, love and have carried over hill and dale without a hitch--I'm convinced that the Tammy has the right IQ, AF, size, weight and build-quality to go ahead and place my order. I'll keep it tethered to me, as AlanF and I discussed in this thread, but expect it to last through many a trip.

Thanks to the early adopters who bought this lens and shared their experiences here!

But what about weather sealing? I didn't think the Tamron had it. If it doesn't, and you guys are talking about buying one to carry off into the bush...then I wonder if the weather sealing argument others have for other lenses, is just an excuse to argue? Not saying it's not nice to have, but how is it ok for this Tamron to not have it, but not ok for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "art" to not have it?q

Anyway, if there's info somewhere that there actually is weather sealing, I don't see it.

It's moisture resistant - http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/overview/single/product/sp-150-600mm-f5-63-vc-usd-8.html?tx_keproducts_pi6[cam]=&tx_keproducts_pi6[vc]=false&tx_keproducts_pi6[sp]=false

Thanks.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!

In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.

Thanks.... I won't be selling my 70-200, i use it tooooo much for portraits and other things too! I'm just going to content myself with it + a 2xtcIII until funds (and the wife) are more agreeable! I can certainly see the appeal of the tamron!

 

[Albi86]

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I'm afraid you're wrongly intending "weather sealing", "weather resistance" and similar expressions as "waterproof".

 

[adhocphotographer]

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I'm afraid you're wrongly intending "weather sealing", "weather resistance" and similar expressions as "waterproof".

http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/lens.jpg

hahaha... I think this lens could stand the monsoon longer enough for me to find shelter!

 

[CarlTN]

Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!

In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.

Thanks.... I won't be selling my 70-200, i use it tooooo much for portraits and other things too! I'm just going to content myself with it + a 2xtcIII until funds (and the wife) are more agreeable! I can certainly see the appeal of the tamron!

Do wives get more agreeable over time? Or is it that you don't realize, that it is you who have adjusted your desires to be more in agreement with her wishes as the years go by? I'm not married, but from what I know of them...well, I better hold my tongue on this!

 

[mackguyver]

Nice image and I'd be shaking and peeing my pants if I was there with that tiger!!

In my opinion you should just sell the 70-200 right now and put that down on a 300 f/2.8...at least if this type of wildlife photography in low light is mostly what you do. However if most of what you do is people portraiture or something, then I can understand why you need the 70-200.

Thanks.... I won't be selling my 70-200, i use it tooooo much for portraits and other things too! I'm just going to content myself with it + a 2xtcIII until funds (and the wife) are more agreeable! I can certainly see the appeal of the tamron!

Do wives get more agreeable over time? Or is it that you don't realize, that it is you who have adjusted your desires to be more in agreement with her wishes as the years go by? I'm not married, but from what I know of them...well, I better hold my tongue on this!

Carl, you just learn to be discrete and how to justify your purchases - you know like I really need the 85 f/1.2 II to make you look all the more beautiful and to make all of your friends jealous Also, you always have to get a deal that's so good you'd be a fool not to buy it - Honey, when am I ever going to get 10% off a "big white" lens? I have to buy it.

I'm coming up on 11 years but still feel like a rookie

 

[Dylan777]

The Tamron looks awesome and is certainly a great deal.... I am honestly tempted!

But I did a bit of a test last night with my currently set-up (70-200 + 2xtc). I do most of my wildlife photography (for fun) in the dusk/dawn time, and f/8 for good IQ would not cut it... hell, f/5.6 is a struggle. I find i use my 70-200 native at 2.8 a lot because the of the speed.

Weather sealing and the build quality of the lens are also important as it is India; it is very dusty and when it rains, IT RAINS!

I would choose the Tamron if most of my wildlife was taking in good light, but it is not! I can't afford the 300 right now, but i am saving, and for me I think it is worth the wait!

Here is an example... a shot taken at 200mm f/2.8 iso 1600 1/200. some extra reach at 2.8 would have been nice! Yes i know i can stop down and bunk the ISO, but i like the choice not to. I am also a shaky person, so crazy low shutter speeds kill me with still subject let alone a moving one!

ps - I would like to thank everyone on here for their in-hands review of this lens and comparison to the 300 combo. It has really helped me make up my mind... I just need to sway the wife now!

As an owner of 300mm f2.8 IS II for few weeks, I would consider the 300mm as a "PERFECT" lens in my own world. I carried this lens around the zoo good 4-5hrs and there wasn't weight issue at all(I wish I can say that to my 400mm f2.8 IS II). AF speed is SUPER fast and IQ is just AMAZING. Although, I haven't try with x1.4 TC III yet, but I would expect IQ be better then tammy at any range.(not to mention you getting f4 @ 420mm). Why I said that? well, my 400mm f2.8 IS II works extremly well with x1.4 TC III

However, the Tammy seems to be a great lens too - ZOOM & COST

 

[adhocphotographer]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

boom... this is what we have all been waiting for! 300 here i come (start laying down the foundations)...

 

[adhocphotographer]

Do wives get more agreeable over time? Or is it that you don't realize, that it is you who have adjusted your desires to be more in agreement with her wishes as the years go by? I'm not married, but from what I know of them...well, I better hold my tongue on this!

Carl... I'm fairly new at the whole marriage thing (less than 2 years), but I have already 'figured out' (small sample size) a couple of important points. The main one being my priorities and her will not always align... the key is to get them to align! 6k on a lens is obscene to someone who is not into photography, i need to illustrate the advantages more... even if an advantage is to get me to stop moaning about it!

in all fairness, i blame my wife for my current lens desires... in the last 18 months SHE has bought and surprised me with a 5DIII kit, 70-200 IS II, a 24L II, and a 17-40L. She got me hooked on the good stuff! But even if it is no-go... i'm still significantly better off