Tamron 150-600 Shootout via LensRentals.com

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/tamron-150-600-shootout-via-lensrentals-com/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/tamron-150-600-shootout-via-lensrentals-com/">Tweet</a></div>
Roger and Aaron over at <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> have completed their resolution testing of a host of supertelephoto zoom lenses. The Sigma 50-500 OS and Canon 100-400 were the two big competitors to the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013956-REG/tamron_a011_c_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 150-600 VC</a>.</p>
<p>The Tamron is the least expensive of the bunch and held up very well against others in its class. While it’s not clearly the best resolving lens. The price, focal range & performance will be a big winner for a lot of people.</p>
<p><strong>Summary from LensRentals.com

</strong><em>“My summary would be that the selection between a Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 OS should be made on criteria other than MTF 50. There are some minor differences in resolution, but nothing that makes one clearly better than another. Price, weight, autofocus accuracy, effectiveness of vibration control, and a number of other factors (did I mention price?) are more important considerations when choosing among these lenses.</em></p>
<p><em>It’s pretty obvious that the Tamron has both 600mm range and the lowest price. These tests, and everything I see from photographers using the lens in the field, support that it’s of at least equal image quality. Some people will prefer the extra wide range of the Sigma, others the lighter weight of the Canon. But for a lot of people, the Tamron is going to be the best bang for the buck.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013956-REG/tamron_a011_c_sp_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_di.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Tamron 150-600 VC at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><em> thanks Steve</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Marauder]

"One time I dropped my camera, the shutter went off when it hit, and it made a great macro of the bottom of a dandelion.)"

Still chuckling at that after reading the review! LMAO! Thanks for that review Roger! We've all been waiting for you to weigh in on this lens! Pretty impressive, especially for the price! Still waiting for more comprehensive AF testing, although there's been a few of those already posted too. Looking pretty impressive for the price! If its VC and AF performance is equally impressive, this might just make a nice supplement to my 100-400L for times when I want more reach!

 

[Albi86]

Seems like I'm gonna buy it.

 

[Lichtgestalt]

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

 

[Albi86]

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

Not so good at 600mm wide open, but it gets a lot better at f/8. Not much has been said yet about the 500mm area.

And it's cheaper too.

Certainly not prime-like IQ, but it seems a very good package all in all. Very workable flaws, to say it in other words.

 

[Loswr]

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO.

Still, the new lens delivers surprisingly good resolution performance for the focal length and cost.

 

[AlanF]

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO.

Still, the new lens delivers surprisingly good resolution performance for the focal length and cost.

I ask the same question. The centre MTF at 400mm is 945 and 710 at 600mm, and cropping at 400 would give a similar resolution to 600mm. However, there are reports that lowering the aperture to f/8-f/11 gives a significant increase in sharpness. A pity Roger didn't measure that. We'll have to wait for SLRgear, lenstip. photozone or TDP to deliver the goods.

 

[iowapipe]

in short.. you get the EF 100-400mm quality from 150-400mm on the tamron ....plus an additional 200mm with not so good resolution.

now the question is how good is VC and AF with this lens.

Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO.

Still, the new lens delivers surprisingly good resolution performance for the focal length and cost.

And that is the question I have also. I've put off buying a friend's 100-400 Canon lens because after comparing it to the 400mm 5.6 prime, I decided I really want the lens for the reach of 400mm. Not the flexibility of zoom. I have my 70-200 f4 IS that does well enough for me at this point in my learning curve. (yes, the f2.8 would be wonderful since many of my pics are low light... but the weight and cost both are a hindrance)

My guess is that the IS of this Tamron may be enough to sway me since I'm not going to be setting up in a blind and waiting for wildlife to find me. I'll be traipsing around and trying to find a stump/limb/trunk/rock to be my brace. BUT, the 400mm Canon would be considerably lighter if I can get similar results from a crop. I bit the bullet this past summer and moved up to the 5Diii on a good deal and LOVE the FF experience. I don't want to spend money on a crop body right now, it would be better spent on good glass.

 

[Lee Jay]

Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.

 

[Albi86]

Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fqicai.fengniao.com%2F425%2F4259287_all.html

 

[Lee Jay]

Helpful, but the two things I really wanted to know weren't answered: How effective the VC is while panning, and how much it improves at 600mm when you stop down to f/7.1 and f/8.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fqicai.fengniao.com%2F425%2F4259287_all.html

Whatever that is, it triggered AVG for a web-based exploit.

 

[RGF]

I know the review was about the Tamron 150-600 but too bad Roger did not include the Sigma 150-500 instead of the 50-500. More of a direct comparison.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

This was a brilliant move by Tamron. This thing is enticing buyers who don't even have a need for it, myself included.

 

[candc]

Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic. Was anybody really thinking it would be a substitute for the 600 II? It's 1/12th the price. Anyway, other tests show significant sharpness gains if you stop down at 600mm, and by f/11 its just as good as at 400mm.

 

[Steve]

Indeed. It seems to lose ~25% of its peak resolving power (at 400mm) by the long end. I wonder how that compares to cropping the Canon 100-400L? Also, 600mm will have thinner DoF, meaning AF accuracy is more important. A higher shutter speed may also be required, meaning higher ISO.

Decent things to think about. I would suppose that someone interested in this lens is probably using a crop body and the reduced resolution would most likely be better than the greater apparent noise you'd get from cropping from 400mm. Might be a different story on a 5DII/III or 6D. It would also make a big difference if stopping down improves resolving power at the long end to a significant degree.

Still, as good as a 100-400L with a little extra is going to be a great selling point to a lot of people.

 

[JustMeOregon]

Does anyone have an opinion as to how this Tamron 150-600 would fare against the comparable focal length(s) of the current Canon 100-400 paired with a Canon Extender EF 1.4x III on a 5D3?

 

[Don Haines]

My suspicion is that when Canon announces an updated 100-400 it will handily beat the Tamron where the ranges overlap and that cropping it will come close to the tamron at 600.... But I'll bet that if/when an updated 400F5.6 comes out it will blow the works away for IQ....

One of the things I like about the Tamron is the zoom range... Two of the most popular L glass lenses are the 28-70 and the 70-200's... a 100-400 has an awful lot of overlap.... the 150-600 does not. I'd like to see Canon change the range of the 100-400 to something like 200-500 and with the zoom range being reduced from 4X to 2.5X there could be a huge jump in IQ.

 

[candc]

Well this is kind of a letdown for me. I have one on order and I will see what I think of it when it comes but this comparison says its not any better than what I have at 400 and not what I want at 600. It still looks to be good for what its supposed to do but here's a flash bulletin, it's not a substitute for the 600ii, dang!

I can't tell if you were being sarcastic. Was anybody really thinking it would be a substitute for the 600 II? It's 1/12th the price. Anyway, other tests show significant sharpness gains if you stop down at 600mm, and by f/11 its just as good as at 400mm.

I know it seems to be a remarkable product for the price but I was hoping it would be better wide open at 600. My present 600mm option is the sigma 120-300 plus 2xiii which has adequate sharpness but the AF won't keep up with bif. I hope ths one can, if not it still seems to be a good travel and hiking long zoom.

p.s. I was being sarcastic.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Does anyone have an opinion as to how this Tamron 150-600 would compare to the Canon 100-400 paired with a Canon Extender EF 1.4x III on a 5D3?

Well, for starters you're going to be forced down to f/8 with the Canon & extender. It'll also put the Tamron in front in terms of IQ except for maybe at 600mm. Plus, that Canon + Extender combo is just about twice the price of the Tamron lens lol.