Tamron 150-600 Shootout via LensRentals.com
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Well... really impressing performance of the Tamron 150-600 VC.Canon Rumors said:
As mentioned by others, of course as long as we have no impressions of AF and VC and the quality variation this is only half of the story.
But I hope that this is enough pressure to Canon to release some new tele lenses, hopefully soon.
Having a 100-400L already, for me this is not so exiting, as I would not improve in IQ.
But for others not having that reach...
I personally would still prefer the Canon, as it is lighter and smaller.
And thinking about the price of polarization and protection filter with 95 mm...
Upvote
0
Hi,Rienzphotoz said:I see ... thanksAlbi86 said:Rienzphotoz said:What does the chart represent? sharpness?Albi86 said:Lee Jay said:
If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.
I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good
I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.
The dark blue is horizontal resolution and the light blue is vertical resolution base on the test chart (red box scale area).
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
weixing said:Hi,Rienzphotoz said:I see ... thanksAlbi86 said:Hi Weixing ... good to know, thank you.Rienzphotoz said:What does the chart represent? sharpness?Albi86 said:Lee Jay said:
If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.
I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good
I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.
The dark blue is horizontal resolution and the light blue is vertical resolution base on the test chart (red box scale area).
Have a nice day.
Upvote
0
Yippy! good news for me ... my ex-boss agreed to buy the lens from amazon Japan and bring it with him .... now I need to patiently wait till February 10th to hold the lens.
Upvote
0
Welcome to CR ... now that is one heck of a loooong first post I've ever read on CR ... now could you please elaborate (oh God, no!), I did not mean elaborate, I meant, could you please summarize, what exactly it is that you want to tell us, coz I kinda lost you after the "crapp!ing ceramics" part ;D
Thanks, & sorry for the ramble. The gist:
The 150-600 lens appears to be a better lens for most people in the market for a low-end super-telephoto.
AND
This signifies a moment in the camera market where it makes sense for Canon to act strategically differently than it has acted over the past 10 years. Those strategy adaptations will lead to more power in the low end, lower prices and some pain-in-the-rear Canon policies (weird pricing and/or availability issues between countries) that would otherwise seem nonsensical.
One additional thought & reason why I think this 150-600 lens signifies greater change:
Sigma and Tamron have plainly decided that the money is in the upscale market. That decision was probably made 3 years ago to produce the new lenses we're seeing coming out now. That means that there could be enormous additional disruption coming out by lens designers who have been beavering away since the Black Eyed Peas were on the charts.
Great time to start an interest in photography.
Thanks, & sorry for the ramble. The gist:
The 150-600 lens appears to be a better lens for most people in the market for a low-end super-telephoto.
AND
This signifies a moment in the camera market where it makes sense for Canon to act strategically differently than it has acted over the past 10 years. Those strategy adaptations will lead to more power in the low end, lower prices and some pain-in-the-rear Canon policies (weird pricing and/or availability issues between countries) that would otherwise seem nonsensical.
One additional thought & reason why I think this 150-600 lens signifies greater change:
Sigma and Tamron have plainly decided that the money is in the upscale market. That decision was probably made 3 years ago to produce the new lenses we're seeing coming out now. That means that there could be enormous additional disruption coming out by lens designers who have been beavering away since the Black Eyed Peas were on the charts.
Great time to start an interest in photography.
Upvote
0
Albi86 said:If I understand it correctly, it's your typical Imatest result like on Photozone. The ordinate is LW/PH.
I can't tell if it's center and edges, or center and corners, or center and average. But they go on pretty close, so it doesn't really matter. It's just good
I think they used a 5D MK III. As an approximation based on other available imatest data, 600mm f/8 is very, very close to the 100-400 L at 400mm f/5.6. Only very slightly worse, if you consider the error margin.
Here's my problem with that chart. Unless I'm doing the math wrong or not understanding what this chart means (certainly possible since it's in Chinese), the f/32 numbers are beating the diffraction limit, calling the entire thing into question.
From what I've seen of visual tests, it loses more contrast than detail at 600mm and f/6.3, and gains it back in huge steps from f/7.1 to f/8. That's probably okay for me as I would use this as a daylight airshow lens, and switch to my 70-200/2.8L IS II (with and without TCs) if the light got lower.
Upvote
0
If you think, that I have to be that precise, then okay:Albi86 said:Maximilian said:
Well, you don't have it either, unless your specific copy of the 100-400 L goes up to 600mm
Having a 100-400L and a 1.4 TC already...
... I am happy to also having some extra f-stop down to 4.5 at the short and 5.6 at the long end.
Or almost compareable values at 560 mm with f8 (including TC)
;D ;D ;D
Upvote
0
The single biggest thing that I am anxious to see from Roger is what I simply cannot test: sample variation/consistency. That's a big deal, considering it is clear that there is a pretty broad sample variation with the 100-400L.
If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.
If you could consistently get as good or better results that the 100-400L at a lower price with better stabilization and reach, that's a big deal.
Upvote
0
OK, that makes sense ... I hope Canon/Nikon lower their lens prices, but I doubt that very much. I use (and have used) lenses from the 3 big third party manufactures (Sigma, Tamron & Tokina ... also use a Rokinon/Samyang 24 T/S lens), but I personally feel that their earlier quality control issues and Canon/Nikon tactics of "camera firmware upgrades" (that mysteriously "change" the way the 3rd party lenses AF) may continue to haunt them for some more years to come ... I see its changing, albeit slowly, but meanwhile Canon/Nikon will continue to charge higher prices as long as possible.[email protected] said:
Upvote
0
CarlMillerPhoto said:
Exactly my situation. I have your typical recommended lenses around this range (Sigma 120-300, 100-400, etc.) but what peaks my interest here is the performance at 600mm f/8 as I'm very realistic in not expecting a $1000 or even $1500 lens to do well 600mm wide open. Similar story with me too with the Sigma combo; it's "ok" but I hesitate to use it with the 2x a lot. So far it looks like the Tamron gives it a good fight, at a much cheaper to price boot and much lighter too!
Don't get me wrong my Sigma is probably not going anywhere regardless as it's a sharp 420mm f/4.5~5 (preferred aperture) with 1.4x TC. And that makes it hard because that means adding another telezoom to the collection lol. And in practice would only ever carry one on an outing.
Upvote
0
Albi86 said:
Hmm...well, the text accompanying the 400mm chart explicitly states "center", whereas the 600mm chart does not say so. I'd ASSUME it's also at center. Maybe a thorough reading would give us more info. (But I am at work...)
Upvote
0
A review that has such low quality shots comparing the products is not very confidence inspiring in the diligence of the testers/reviewers, so I'm disregarding this review.
Upvote
0
Lichtgestalt said:mrsfotografie said:
yeah well as if anyone cares.
the photographic world knows roger... but who knows you beside your mom?
Please forgive me for trolling just this once
But given the kind of product images we're used to from sites like The-Digital-Picture.com, I think I'm a little spoiled perhaps ;D
Upvote
0
