Tamron 150 600 woes

[Leigh]

I tried one, and the AF was dismal on both of my 7D bodies, weather in IA-servo, or One-Shot.

"Hit & miss'--Mostly miss! Maybe I got a "bad" copy--Sent it back.

Leigh

 

[Schafjan]

Have the Tamron for my 70D. No problems discovered. Subjects in focus are tack sharp.

 

[AlanF]

I tried one, and the AF was dismal on both of my 7D bodies, weather in IA-servo, or One-Shot.

"Hit & miss'--Mostly miss! Maybe I got a "bad" copy--Sent it back.

Leigh

Focussing of my 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTCIII on my 7D was dismal (slow and inconsistent), which was the reason I sold it for a 70D, which focusses brilliantly with the Canon combo and and with the Tamron 150-600mm. Blame the camera and not the lens. Many of us have found this.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Bought a tamron 150 600 for my 5d3 and 60d. It has AFMA problems (-6 tele, +5 wide)

Sent it back for calibration. Came back worse (-15 tele, -5 wide).

Gave up and I'm sending it back for refund.

Anyone else had problems with this lens?

Took the chance to test some copies on a Tamron booth in a local shop in Frankfurt (Germany). I brought my 7D and 5D3 with me, my wife her Nikon D300S. With the Canon mount test copy + no AFMA, my 7D focused acceptably well, my 5D3 not (both in AI servo mode). Checking the test images later (mostly walking people), I could see that the full frame combo had a severe backfocus on the long end. The Nikon test combo did overall well. My wife bougth a copy which later at home displayed a massive backfocus, too, so we had to calibrate it with the Nikon.

I am a bit worried, not about a backfocus that can be easily corrected, but about general focus inconsistensies which can cause the loss of a wildlife shot that only comes once. I have a Tamron 24-70/2.8, too, which needed a huge AFMA with my 5D3 but still makes a lot of trouble (compared with Canon glass). So I am not yet convinced about getting a 150-600, even I'd love to have this great Tammy as a compact sidekick for my Canon 500 mm prime (+ shorter lenses).

 

[Admin US West]

If the new 7D MK II and subsequent bodies have dual pixel technology with improved focusing technology over the 70D, the biggest benefactor may well be third party lenses. The 70D when used with live AF has been reported to focus very accurately even with difficult to focus 3rd party lenses.

Once Canon gets the tracking and other features working well in generation 2 of the dual pixel system, I'd be much more likely to go for a 3rd party lens.

 

[mikio]

A third party lens is always a risk. Mine, for example has a perfect AFMA - 0 wide and 0 tele.
At first it had a famous bug on 5D mark III with AF focusing from near objects to far away.
I sent it to service and they had updated the lens firmware.
But now, I suddenly discovered another problem with the lens.
It works perfectly well with all AF points except a central one.
I mean, the same issue with unstable refocusing from a near by object (~3m) to a far away object (~30m) - now remains only if a single center AF point is selected.
How it is possible, I still can't understand.
A specially if all my other lenses work perfectly fine with the center point AF on this camera.

 

[the blackfox]

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .

 

[Stephen Melvin]

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .

The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?

 

[dcm]

My copy arrived with significant back focus at 600 which was clearly visible in shots taken at MFD on my 6D with center focus point only.

AFMA with FoCal resulted in -2 at 150, -10 at 600 which seems to have corrected the issue. Sharpness was best at f/8 or f/9, there was a big drop off at f/6.3. Other tests showed the focus consistency was above 99% at both ends, which is as good as my Canon L glass.

It still occasionally hunts for focus in low light, low contrast situations which I expected - low being relative in this case.

 

[FEBS]

If the new 7D MK II and subsequent bodies have dual pixel technology with improved focusing technology over the 70D, the biggest benefactor may well be third party lenses. The 70D when used with live AF has been reported to focus very accurately even with difficult to focus 3rd party lenses.

Once Canon gets the tracking and other features working well in generation 2 of the dual pixel system, I'd be much more likely to go for a 3rd party lens.

If you mean live view with live AF then I can only partly agree. Yes that will be rue for all those with 'static' objects, but for sports or wildlife other AF features have to be introduced on the market to benefit from 3th party lenses. I think that Canon will always perform better with their own lenses.

 

[3kramd5]

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .

The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?

They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.

 

[Stephen Melvin]

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .

The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?

They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Remember, it's Sigma that has AF problems with nearly all of their lenses. Most Tamrons work fine.

 

[weixing]

Hi,

i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the reach .

The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?

They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Remember, it's Sigma that has AF problems with nearly all of their lenses. Most Tamrons work fine.

No, Canon didn't give Tamron or any 3rd party lens manufacturer their EF mount information and protocol... they (3rd party lens manufacturer) reverse engineer it. Take a look at this article (although it's a very old article, but I think should still be true today):
http://kbsupport.cusa.canon.com/system/selfservice.controller?CONFIGURATION=1011&PARTITION_ID=1&secureFlag=false&TIMEZONE_OFFSET=&CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=9820

Anyway, my Tamrons 150-600mm AF work quite well except that when in AI servo mode, I notice sometime it'll go out of focus momentary even if the subject is not moving... but have not try to reproduce the issue... will try when got some free time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Remember, it's Sigma that has AF problems with nearly all of their lenses. Most Tamrons work fine.

No, Canon didn't give Tamron or any 3rd party lens manufacturer their EF mount information and protocol... they (3rd party lens manufacturer) reverse engineer it. Take a look at this article (although it's a very old article, but I think should still be true today):


Have a nice day.
[/quote]

Its still true today. The business about other manufacturers receiving Canons lens AF information is a old wives tale made up by someone long ago, and repeated without checking.

 

[3kramd5]

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

 

[Stephen Melvin]

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

Yes. Canon and Nikon both use Tamron to build (generally low end) Canon-branded lenses.

 

[3kramd5]

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

Yes. Canon and Nikon both use Tamron to build (generally low end) Canon-branded lenses.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.

 

[dgatwood]

Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.

Of course, you can often creatively work around such contracts. For example:

1. Use the information to build a testing rig for the Canon lenses that tests every single command, with emphasis on edge cases. This is needed for the contract anyway.

2. Use the test rig to validate a "lens" that behaves according to the reverse-engineered spec. Tweak until it passes. At that point, if your test rig is complete, so is your reverse-engineered specification document.

 

[3kramd5]

Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.

Of course, you can often creatively work around such contracts. For example:

1. Use the information to build a testing rig for the Canon lenses that tests every single command, with emphasis on edge cases. This is needed for the contract anyway.

2. Use the test rig to validate a "lens" that behaves according to the reverse-engineered spec. Tweak until it passes. At that point, if your test rig is complete, so is your reverse-engineered specification document.

Even then, though, they may be using a procedure developed for say a Canon 18-55 to acceptance test their own design for a 150-600, which may not be appropriate.

Also, it depends on how a contract is written (and how faithful the company is to the contract). If I were a Canon lawyer, I would specifically preclude any sharing of Canon intellectual property and associated technology across the company. If I get a proprietary spec from a client, I can't copy it longhand into my notebook and then use it for other purposes, nor can I embed it in software and use it for other purposes (at least not legally).

Whatever the case, the third party glass designers aren't privy to the information required to match Canon's own designs and algorithms, for obvious reasons.

 

[Old Sarge]

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

Yes. Canon and Nikon both use Tamron to build (generally low end) Canon-branded lenses.

And this can be verified....where?