Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I downloaded all of the sample TIFs from that page and examined them full size in Lightroom. A few observations:

• The BIF shots were all taken with a 1Dx, and it seems to be an earlier version of the lens because it just registers at 150-600mm
  
  The latter shots were taken with a 5DIII and the lens registers its proper name
  
  Sharpness at 600mm f/6.3 is not astounding, but it is far from bad.
  
  I have no question that good samples were chosen, so obviously YMMV
  
  Both color rendition and bokeh in both the highlights and the transition zone look quite good to me for a variable aperture zoom
  
  I'm glad the samples include BIF shots. I hope this indicates reasonably good AF
  
  They are TIF files, and there is 0 sharpening on import, but I suspect they were sharpened before being flattened in PS because haloing appears pretty quickly when adding more sharpness in LR
  
  Stopping down even a bit seems to improve sharpness (in the samples) at 600mm

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

There has never been any attempt to bias my results, and, since my primary occupation is as a pastor, I do value honesty.

Just to be clear, I'm not in any way suggesting dishonesty or bias on your part. What I'm suggesting is that if you're testing lenses provided directly to you (as a reviewer) by the manufacturer, your results may be biased through no fault of your own, but due to the manufacturer hand picking and pre-testing the lenses you receive. Also, pre-production lenses, by definition, aren't representative of lenses that come from the established production line.

If you like the lens well enough to purchase your own copy, I trust you will update your review if the production lens you buy differs substantially from the preproduction lens Tamron sent you for testing.

Absolutely. I have ended up purchasing retail copies of several of the lenses that I have tested. I have also updated reviews both on my website and on threads here with comments about issues that I have encountered with lenses/equipment after review.

Even my contact in Tamron Canada is surprised at how quickly this lens is coming to market. They initially expected a longer roll-out period. I am somewhat skeptical that the copy I get my hands on will be a pre-production copy with the release date now not much more than a month away. I think that ship has sailed, and whoever shot these samples were using the pre-production units.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I really don't see a need to question Dustin Abbott's integrity on lens testing. I would argue that large magazines and websites that make their money through advertising by big camera companies, or click-throughs to stores have more to gain by biased reviews.

I think *all* reviews should be questioned, not so much because of intentional bias, but because of testing variations, and as mentioned by previous posters, variation between copies, esp. w/big glasss. when the lens is out, we should have 5 or more reviews to look at, and unless there's some conspiracy, we should get a consensus on qualities based on bench tests.

My only concern is how will this lens work for me. That's not just theoretical, it's practical. For example, I do not use a tripod, I shoot either handheld or with a monopod. So even if I had a sharpest lens ever made, I would introduce some shake which would affect results. I value a fast and effective stabilization system and that's my biggest hope for this lens. I'm sure it will have to be stopped down at least one full stop for optimum optical sharpness, and that it will *not* be sharpest at 600mm. So, the question is...how will this work for me at 400-500mm compared to a more expensive 100-400 L? or the Bigma??? I think we'll all find out soon and that will end the some of the speculation.

Good points, and one of the biggest reasons why Roger's conclusions are LensRentals are so valuable. He has access to more copies than any reviewer I know, and I trust his assessment on the technical end. My reviews are more about real world use, and are much less useful scientifically and hopefully a little more useful for those looking for practical application.

 

[rs]

Re: 150-600mm Sample Images

These are the sample images from Tamron's site.

http://www.tamron.com.hk/A011/

I thought this one looked very good for a 600mm zoom. Certainly much better than 400mm + TC.
http://www.tamron.com.hk/A011/Fukuda_14.tif

Just brought that image (TIF) into Lightroom and looked at it @ 100%. It is stopped down a stop from wide open (f/9), but even so it looks pretty sharp. Individual hairs are resolved quite well. Even better, the transition zone looks good (and that was a real weakness for their 70-300 VC).

f6.3 to f9 is only one stop. Not much of a stop down, and its already getting pretty close to diffraction. Presuming wide open can't yield these results, there's not much room to maneuver while maintaining performance with this lens. Still, that shot does look impressive, but no clues as to how much PP was applied, or what lens was really used. Just look at Nokia's promotional material for examples of how not everything is as it seems:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3297878/nokias-pureview-still-photos-also-include-fakes

 

[unfocused]

Kind of ridiculous for people to be arguing over the sharpness of a lens that hasn't been released yet.

The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens for the money. Comparable sharpness to the 100-400 L. Not as sharp or as responsive as the 70-300 L but about a third the cost too. My only real complaint with the 70-300 was that under certain conditions it had a tendency to "hunt" a little before locking focus. Not consistently and not a terrible problem, but I did experience it a time or two.

If the 150-600 is of comparable quality, I'll be pleased.

 

[Hannes]

At $1100 it sounds like the new default zoo lens to me. Like I wrote in the other thread, as long as IQ isn't much worse than the 100-400L I may well buy one.

 

[samkatz]

Kind of ridiculous for people to be arguing over the sharpness of a lens that hasn't been released yet.

The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens for the money. Comparable sharpness to the 100-400 L. Not as sharp or as responsive as the 70-300 L but about a third the cost too. My only real complaint with the 70-300 was that under certain conditions it had a tendency to "hunt" a little before locking focus. Not consistently and not a terrible problem, but I did experience it a time or two.

If the 150-600 is of comparable quality, I'll be pleased.

I'm very pleased with the Tamron 70-300 vc also, esp. comp to the Canon 70-300 IS USM(non L). My big pet peeve w./this lens is mechanical. The VC on/off switch protrudes a lot and I'm constantly shutting it off by mistake, not realizing it until I waste a couple shots. hope they improve that.

 

[Albi86]

Kind of ridiculous for people to be arguing over the sharpness of a lens that hasn't been released yet.

The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens for the money. Comparable sharpness to the 100-400 L. Not as sharp or as responsive as the 70-300 L but about a third the cost too. My only real complaint with the 70-300 was that under certain conditions it had a tendency to "hunt" a little before locking focus. Not consistently and not a terrible problem, but I did experience it a time or two.

If the 150-600 is of comparable quality, I'll be pleased.

I'm also quite happy with mine.

Again, my only concern has been the CA and low resolving power. When mounted on crop cameras it dies.

It really shines on FF (borders keep up quite well) but then again, 300mm on FF isn't quite taking you anywhere fancy. Now, 600mm....

 

[AJ]

I really don't see a need to question Dustin Abbott's integrity on lens testing. I would argue that large magazines and websites that make their money through advertising by big camera companies, or click-throughs to stores have more to gain by biased reviews.

I think *all* reviews should be questioned, not so much because of intentional bias, but because of testing variations, and as mentioned by previous posters, variation between copies, esp. w/big glasss. when the lens is out, we should have 5 or more reviews to look at, and unless there's some conspiracy, we should get a consensus on qualities based on bench tests.

My only concern is how will this lens work for me. That's not just theoretical, it's practical. For example, I do not use a tripod, I shoot either handheld or with a monopod. So even if I had a sharpest lens ever made, I would introduce some shake which would affect results. I value a fast and effective stabilization system and that's my biggest hope for this lens. I'm sure it will have to be stopped down at least one full stop for optimum optical sharpness, and that it will *not* be sharpest at 600mm. So, the question is...how will this work for me at 400-500mm compared to a more expensive 100-400 L? or the Bigma??? I think we'll all find out soon and that will end the some of the speculation.

I agree with that too. I'm watching this lens closely, and it may very well be the lens for me. If I need to stop down a little for optimal sharpness then so be it. Also I don't expect miracles along the edges because I don't place my subjects there. If this thing does a competent 500/8 and and if the stabilization is solid then I'm sold.

FWIW I like the bokeh on that bison shot.

 

[hoodlum]

C-Net has just confirmed price of $1069. They said Tamron announced the pricing today (Sunday). I don't see any Tamron press release with pricing so this must have been verbal.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57615654-1/tamron-sets-price-for-150-600mm-supertele-$1069/

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm hoping for a lens that can live up to the IQ of Tamron's more recent releases (the 24-70VC and 70-200VC), but at only $1100 I'm also quite skeptical. I would have preferred it if Tamron spent an extra $200-300 to make a better lens (e.g. better glass, improved durability). Even at $1400 it would be still be a compelling alternative to the 100-400L if it could keep up optically. At $1100 it seems like the aim was more to be the best third party long zoom than actually compete directly with the 100-400L.

Who knows, lets wait for the reviews...

 

[Albi86]

I'm hoping for a lens that can live up to the IQ of Tamron's more recent releases (the 24-70VC and 70-200VC), but at only $1100 I'm also quite skeptical. I would have preferred it if Tamron spent an extra $200-300 to make a better lens (e.g. better glass, improved durability). Even at $1400 it would be still be a compelling alternative to the 100-400L if it could keep up optically. At $1100 it seems like the aim was more to be the best third party long zoom than actually compete directly with the 100-400L.

Who knows, lets wait for the reviews...

The more you go up in price, the less people want to buy 3rd-party lenses - for a number of reason.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm hoping for a lens that can live up to the IQ of Tamron's more recent releases (the 24-70VC and 70-200VC), but at only $1100 I'm also quite skeptical. I would have preferred it if Tamron spent an extra $200-300 to make a better lens (e.g. better glass, improved durability). Even at $1400 it would be still be a compelling alternative to the 100-400L if it could keep up optically. At $1100 it seems like the aim was more to be the best third party long zoom than actually compete directly with the 100-400L.

Who knows, lets wait for the reviews...

While I don't entirely agree with you, I will confess that a somewhat similar thought has been in the back of my mind. The release price for the 70-200VC was $1599, the 24-70VC was either $1299 or $1399. With the size of the front element I can scarcely see where production costs could be lower on the 150-600. And yet Tamron is claiming weathersealing, robust build, and new technology in the glass. We'll see.

If it turns out to be a fairly good lens, however, Tamron is going to sell a LOT of these.

 

[hoodlum]

Dustin, do you know what the pricing for Canada is?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, do you know what the pricing for Canada is?

Not yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see either $1099 or $1199, but I will know for sure in a few weeks. I have been told that I will have a copy in hand by the first of the year. I'm excited to try it out, although I wish it were a better time of year. Wildlife in January is, well, sometimes hard to find!

 

[Artifex]

Dustin, do you know what the pricing for Canada is?

Not yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see either $1099 or $1199, but I will know for sure in a few weeks. I have been told that I will have a copy in hand by the first of the year. I'm excited to try it out, although I wish it were a better time of year. Wildlife in January is, well, sometimes hard to find!

If you are as lucky as me, you will end up with a lot of photos of wild snow banks!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, do you know what the pricing for Canada is?

Not yet. I wouldn't be surprised to see either $1099 or $1199, but I will know for sure in a few weeks. I have been told that I will have a copy in hand by the first of the year. I'm excited to try it out, although I wish it were a better time of year. Wildlife in January is, well, sometimes hard to find!

If you are as lucky as me, you will end up with a lot of photos of wild snow banks!

That's what I'm afraid of!

 

[Otara]

Summer in Oz! But our problem will be more wanting to go outside because the streets are melting rather than the snow.

Also because of various changes in exchange rates and $1000 custom limits, its gone to something that might be 50% more in price Oz dollarwise compared to a year or so ago.

Otara

 

[hoodlum]

Tamron Canada just e-mailed me and said the official list price is $1299cdn. But dealers may/will likely sell for less.

 

[crasher8]

More and more disbelief around here that anything short of a Zeiss can outperform a Canon. Too bad. Brand loyalty can be blind faith at times, Nikon users show us that!