Tamron Announcement: SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 VC USD

[Zwentibold]

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Tamron-150-600-mm-mise-sur-orbite,8662.html

can anyone here read French? All I know is that "printemps" means
"Spring" which would be tres bon.

I was just talking to my source here in Canada and got the impression that the release is definitely still several months out, so spring wouldn't surprise me.

Yes, it's said that it wouldn't be released until next spring (which doesn't mean it'll be effectively released at this date)

 

[Albi86]

anyone else see the MTF charts here on Tamron's Europe site? Any thoughts??

that's a pretty big discrepancy in 30 lp/mm curves between sagittal and meridonal at the long end as you go away from center.
Doesn't that make for some annoying aberations and grungy transition bokeh?
Despite that, will wait for some tests to see if it outperforms my old 100-400. If so, then the last "L" in my quiver might hit the market.

Probably yes, and probably it means that unlike their 70-300 VC USD, this lens will perform better on crop than on FF. But as a whole image, it's probably going to perform better than a 100-400 when you crop down to match a 600mm FoV.

More and more I see myself with a crop DSLR and a mirrorless FF.

 

[dufflover]

Already owning a 100-400, 70-200 II (extenders) and Sigma 120-300 (lol) I can't say I'll be getting this lens but will be very keen to see how it goes ... and then who knows

To me, it kinda looks like a halfway mix between a Sigma 150-500 and 120-300. With an MTF chart like that there is a bit of doubt how decent it'll be outside of the centre. However, if I want to compare it to say the Sigma 120-300 with a 2x TC (thus my eye on this Tamron lens) it could turn out as a native 600 it performs better overall.

 

[Don Haines]

My experience with "longer yet affordable lenses" is:
Sigma 50-500... the worst of a bad breed
Tamron 200-500... almost as bad
Sigma 150-500.... better, but still not sharp
Canon 100-400... better, but lots of copy variation.
Sigma 120-400... best of the zooms, but BARELY ahead of the very outdated Canon 100-400
Canon 400F5.6... beats them all, but it is a 20 year old design with no IS

and interestingly enough, the 70-200 with teleconverter outresolves the works of them.....

Don
Maybe you have been unlucky with with your 100-400mm. My copy is as good as my former 400mm f/5.6 (or was I unlucky with my copy of the 400 - but the Canon MTFs, slrgear and photozone show them to be similar). There are several reports, including from Neuro, that the 100-400 is at least on a par with the 70-200 + 2xTC, though he is reviewing that.

I re-did parts of my test on a pair of bodies.... one a 60D and the other a 5D2. This time I had AFMA'd the 100-400 and found that it was significantly sharper than the Sigma 120-400. I re-tried the lens on the 60D and realized that it's lack of sharpness on the crop body was due to focusing issues.

Moral of the story.... AFMA your lenses..... my test was faulty....

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Found a review in Japan:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trinitylumberton.org%2Fcategory29%2F

The reviewer do a compare using a 7D and 6D with the following lens:
1) Tamron SP 150-600 mm Di VC USD F5-6.3
2) EF300mm F2.8L IS + Extenderx2.0 Ⅲ
3) EF500mm F4L IS Ⅱ + Extenderx1.4 Ⅲ
4) EF800mm F5.6L IS

Look very good to me...

Merry Christmas!

 

[Albi86]

Hi,
Found a review in Japan:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trinitylumberton.org%2Fcategory29%2F

The reviewer do a compare using a 7D and 6D with the following lens:
1) Tamron SP 150-600 mm Di VC USD F5-6.3
2) EF300mm F2.8L IS + Extenderx2.0 Ⅲ
3) EF500mm F4L IS Ⅱ + Extenderx1.4 Ⅲ
4) EF800mm F5.6L IS

Look very good to me...

Merry Christmas!

Looks very good indeed!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I re-did parts of my test on a pair of bodies.... one a 60D and the other a 5D2. This time I had AFMA'd the 100-400 and found that it was significantly sharper than the Sigma 120-400. I re-tried the lens on the 60D and realized that it's lack of sharpness on the crop body was due to focusing issues.

Moral of the story.... AFMA your lenses..... my test was faulty....

Sorry, but any lens test/comparison which relies on autofocus is flawed (unless it's the AF performance specifically being tested).

 

[Don Haines]

I re-did parts of my test on a pair of bodies.... one a 60D and the other a 5D2. This time I had AFMA'd the 100-400 and found that it was significantly sharper than the Sigma 120-400. I re-tried the lens on the 60D and realized that it's lack of sharpness on the crop body was due to focusing issues.

Moral of the story.... AFMA your lenses..... my test was faulty....

Sorry, but any lens test/comparison which relies on autofocus is flawed (unless it's the AF performance specifically being tested).

I was looking at a single copy of various lenses and wanted to know how that specific lens worked on a specific body under normal use (AF on)... I agree that on a proper test of sharpness, manual focus magnified in live-view is the way to go.

Setting AFMA for the lenses tested changed the results, therefore the original test was faulty.

If anything, the re-test showed the value of AFMA.... you could almost consider it a two-part test of the value of AFMA....

 

[Aglet]

I've often been impressed by how sharp my 100-400L is, whether on a 60D or the 7D I no longer have.
my 7D+100-400 would AF with extreme accuracy w-o having had to AFMA it.

I'm eager to see how the new Tammy compares in optical performance and AF as it'll be running on my Nikon bodies.