Tamron Announces the SP 150-600mm Di VC USD G2 Lens

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
nightscape123 said:
The MTF looks like a pretty good improvement on the long end... I'll wait for some real world testing, but I wonder if this new version is going to beat the 100-400 ii...

How do you define "beat"? Both lenses have their upsides and downsides.

(referring to the original Tamron 150-600 -- not this new one -- below)


The L is sealed, has better AF, and is sharper up to 400mm.

I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

- A
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)
 

LordofTackle

EOS RP
Nov 25, 2014
291
0
AvTvM said:
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)

I agree with you...when comparing the OLD 150-600 vs the 100-400 II.
And these points were what brought me initially from the tammy to the 100-400II (especially the AF and the jumpy IS)

However, it seems that Tamron listened to the people and tried to address all these points of critique in the new version.
Would be nice for people on a budget when they actually managed to get in the same range as the canon (both image and overall quality-wise)
 

FECHariot

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 9, 2016
76
0
AvTvM said:
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)

The AF is not better with the 1.4X tc depending on which camera you have. If you can AF at all because you have a newer camera, most of these limit you to one center point. The 5D4 which allows all points to f8 would be better with the 100-400 II and TC, but my 7D is another story.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
AvTvM said:
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)

You drove right past the point I was making. Depending on your needs, 100-400L II is not better in every way:

If you want an inexpensive '600 prime' (as I imagine how many of these Tamrons and Sigmas are used), the 100-400L II + 1.4x costs too much.

If you want to aim your focus at something off-center and you don't have one of the newest bodies, good luck doing that with the 100-400L II + 1.4x. Not having working AF is a complete fail for many types of photography.

- A
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
ahsanford said:
AvTvM said:
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)

You drove right past the point I was making. Depending on your needs, 100-400L II is not better in every way:

If you want an inexpensive '600 prime' (as I imagine how many of these Tamrons and Sigmas are used), the 100-400L II + 1.4x costs too much.

If you want to aim your focus at something off-center and you don't have one of the newest bodies, good luck doing that with the 100-400L II + 1.4x. Not having working AF is a complete fail for many types of photography.

- A
I have $1500 to spend on a lens..... tell me again how wonderful (even on sale) the 100-400 II is.......
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    187.3 KB · Views: 180
AvTvM said:
ahsanford said:
I appreciate the L with the 1.4x is comparably sharp as the Tamron on the long end, but the Tamron goes to 560mm without the teleconverter limiting the AF. At half the price.

So I could see fans defend either lens as being better given what their needs are.

no rethoric please. The EF 100-400 II is better in absolutely every way ... throughout the entire overlapping focal length range, at all apertures and even with 1.4x extender. Better IQ, AF, handling, sealing, features, much better overall. Pretty commensurate with the differential in pricing, although that is a subjective judgement. :)

And this new version of the Tamron claims increased IQ, AF, and Build quality. Plus it gives you half a stop more light than the Canon from 400-600 mm. I know the 100-400 II beats the current tamron, which is why I bought it over the Tamron. I just think it is impressive that Tamron thinks its improved enough to release a whole new version of this lens and so soon. We shall see what real tests tell us after release. Looks like we won't have to wait very long. I doubt it will beat the build quality of the canon, as Roger said the canon is one of the best built lenses ever made. 3rd party AF is also not likely to ever beat the canon, which is one of the main reasons I personally got the 100-400 II.

The new version does have at least 1 thing over the 100-400 II. With the dock it lets you set AFMA at 24(?) distinct points, much more than the 2 that canon allows.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,748
8,458
Don, the 100-400mm II is much better suited to your outdoor life style. Smaller, lighter and more water resistant. I grab the Sigma 150-600 C in good light when I want better reach. For closer work, the 100-400 is a higher league and much easier to handle.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
AlanF said:
Don, the 100-400mm II is much better suited to your outdoor life style. Smaller, lighter and more water resistant. I grab the Sigma 150-600 C in good light when I want better reach. For closer work, the 100-400 is a higher league and much easier to handle.
Actually, the 600F4 is best suited for my needs.... but if you can't afford a lens, it really does not matter how good it is.... and that's my point. Regardless of the quality of the 100-400 II, it is expensive and that will keep it out of some people's camera bag.

With my 150-600, most of the time it is used at 600mm, that's what I really need, a 600mm prime! If Tamron came out with a 600F5.6 prime I would jump on that so quick!!!!!
 

Luds34

EOS R
May 15, 2014
918
0
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.
 

Roo

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 12, 2013
961
243
Melbourne
Luds34 said:
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.

It depends on your needs. If you spend most of your time with it at 600mm, and it is noticeably sharper than than the v1, then the upgrade could be worthwhile. The panning mode upgrade is very useful for shooting motorsport and aircraft. As for the price, it's irrelevant as I can easily take the view that I've had far more than $700 use out of the v1 in the 2.5 years I've owned it.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
Luds34 said:
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.

Upgrading a body after 3-4 years makes perfect sense, but a lens? I buy most of my lenses with a long-term (at least 5 year if not 10 year) ownership.

Also, were I to buy a 150-600, however good it is (or isn't) it's still 100x better than the hole in my lens portfolio where I have nothing for a given need. In other words, once I put money down in a type/class of lens, I move to the next lens segment I don't own rather than get another one in the same segment.

But YMMV, I suppose if all you shoot is wildlife or BiF, these sort of same-segment lens upgrades might do you a lot of good.

- A
 

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
406
198
Luds34 said:
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.

The zoom lock alone is a very nice improvement (the current one only works at 400mm and has slop - you can go from 5.6 to 6.3). And improved VC on a 600mm 6.3 is potentially pretty helpful too, as well as being able to actually use the tamron dock.

In Oz, its going to be quite the price hike given our exchange rates as well, but theres a lot of incremental improvements that add up quite a bit in my view.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,748
8,458
ahsanford said:
Luds34 said:
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.


But YMMV, I suppose if all you shoot is wildlife or BiF, these sort of same-segment lens upgrades might do you a lot of good.

- A

They do the world of good. So much so, they are addictive.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
ahsanford said:
Luds34 said:
Roo said:
Hmm...I can see a possible upgrade from the V1 coming up :)

While it is tempting to have the latest greatest that could be a costly upgrade. What do you think you could get for a V1 on the secondary market? $700 tops? What is it, $1400 for the new one? That's a $700 difference. Which is a lot of coin for what is probably an evolutionary upgrade.

Upgrading a body after 3-4 years makes perfect sense, but a lens? I buy most of my lenses with a long-term (at least 5 year if not 10 year) ownership.

Also, were I to buy a 150-600, however good it is (or isn't) it's still 100x better than the hole in my lens portfolio where I have nothing for a given need. In other words, once I put money down in a type/class of lens, I move to the next lens segment I don't own rather than get another one in the same segment.

But YMMV, I suppose if all you shoot is wildlife or BiF, these sort of same-segment lens upgrades might do you a lot of good.

- A
I guess it all comes down to how much you use it..... if the lens hardly gets used, then upgrading it is a waste of money.... but if it is your go-to lens then it becomes a different story.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
don't get me wrong, i also find the current tamron and sigma 150-600s excellent value and i highly commend tamron for releasing a further improved version 2 and do look forward to see pricing and reviews. the better and priceworthy it turns out to be, the higher the pressure on canon prices ... and maybe even arca-grooves on EF lens collar foots ... :)
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,351
1,176
Turku, Finland
unfocused said:
I'm having a hard time with the teleconverters. I suppose they can "fool" the body into treating the 1.4 converter as f8, but the 2x converter? And I can't imagine how dim the view would be at f12.6. Good luck focusing that.

I wonder if it could make a half-decent telescope at 1200/13.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,642
unfocused said:
I'm having a hard time with the teleconverters. I suppose they can "fool" the body into treating the 1.4 converter as f8, but the 2x converter? And I can't imagine how dim the view would be at f12.6. Good luck focusing that.

Any chance a body with DPAF could resolve that in LiveView? I've heard of 'spotty but possible' f/11 use that way.

- A
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
672
548
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
Ahsanford, I used to own the first version of the lens, and I tried exactly what you are talking about. Both with the 1.4 x and the 2x on a 70d using dpaf.

The autofocus was bad except when the subject was very distinct. Lots of searching. But that wasn't the only problem. Stability was very difficult at full frame equivalent of 1920mm. Also, the image quality was pretty bad at that extreme.
 
<-- start Taboola -->