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

[Ozarker]

f/5-6.3? Too dark for me when small birds tend to be in the shady branches or are most active around sunrise or sundown. Sold my 400mm f/5.6 for that very reason.

If the sun is bright... fine. But that tends to = a bad photo. At least for me.

I hate taking bird photos in the bright sunlight with a washed out sky. Add an ND filter? Good luck.

 

[9VIII]

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 think the 150-600V2 is a good idea, not because it might be better than the original Tamron 150-600, but because it might finally be an upgrade to the best budget supertelephoto lens on the market.
Now that Brian finally has 7D2 samples on the Canon 400f5.6 (they were just put up this summer) we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=278&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Canon 400f5.6 is significantly better overall (at equivalent Field of View), full frame or crop, with or without TC.
It just doesn't have a Stabilizer, I have a feeling that's the feature most people are really getting these things for.
Other than being stabilized, the lenses that Tamron and Sigma sold to people were just another batch of big, cheap zoom lenses. They just weren't horribly inferior, and included a feature that didn't exist 23 years ago.
It's really surprising it took this long.

Hopefully Tamron can finally bring birding into the 21st Century in terms of both sharpness and extra features.
(It's almost painful just knowing that this segment of the market has been stagnant this long.)

 

[AlanF]

Don't take seriously one person's measurements on their one copy of the lens. These lenses have pretty large copy variations, and single test results depend on just how good the particular lenses tested were. Different testers have produced conflicting reports on the Sigma vs Tamron 150-600mm. The only tester who does things properly is Roger of lensrentals who tests 5-10 copies using the best equipment. He has the Sigma C marginally ahead of the Tamron 150-600mm at the one focal length tested, 400mm:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

The only lens that matters is the copy you have. I have had one each of the Tamron and Sigma C, and for mine the Sigma is much better. It could be quite different for another pair of those lenses.

 

[Sharlin]

I think the 150-600V2 is a good idea, not because it might be better than the original Tamron 150-600, but because it might finally be an upgrade to the best budget supertelephoto lens on the market.
Now that Brian finally has 7D2 samples on the Canon 400f5.6 (they were just put up this summer) we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are.

How does it make sense to compare two lenses using different sensor sizes and pixel pitches? Yes, it's well known the Tamron is weak in the corners at 600mm... but it's 600mm and not 400mm! There are not many people trying to choose between a crop+400mm and a FF+600mm. They have the sensor size fixed and are trying to pick a lens to fit their purposes.

Plus of course the Tamron is a zoom and thus infinitely more valuable to most users than a 400mm (or a 640mm eqv) prime.

 

[9VIII]

Don't take seriously one person's measurements on their one copy of the lens. These lenses have pretty large copy variations, and single test results depend on just how good the particular lenses tested were. Different testers have produced conflicting reports on the Sigma vs Tamron 150-600mm. The only tester who does things properly is Roger of lensrentals who tests 5-10 copies using the best equipment. He has the Sigma C marginally ahead of the Tamron 150-600mm at the one focal length tested, 400mm:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/08/the-sort-of-great-400mm-shootout/

The only lens that matters is the copy you have. I have had one each of the Tamron and Sigma C, and for mine the Sigma is much better. It could be quite different for another pair of those lenses.

Yes, it's absolutely correct that no one review should be taken as representative of the whole production variation of a lens. If I'm seriously considering a lens I prefer to have read at least three thorough reviews.

Actually Brian has noted that sometimes he picks the best copy out of multiple examples of a lens, but I wouldn't be surprised if that only applies to Canon.

Out of all the TDP samples, the worst offender of single copy variation I can think of is the Sigma 18-35A.
Reviews amazingly well everywhere else on the Internet, looks fuzzy at TDP.

...There are not many people trying to choose between a crop+400mm and a FF+600mm.

I'm pretty sure that is one of the most common comparisons any crop shooter interested in a supertelephoto lens will make (it's still something I like to check for regularly), and we all know what the sales ratio is like between crop bodies and full frame.

The 1DsMkIII and 7D2 are almost ideal for direct comparisons because the resolution is so similar.
The results are even more spectacular given the inherent disadvantage of the crop sensor.
Using the Canon lens and body combo will give drastically superior AF, and the AF point spread on the 7D2 is another improvement over Full Frame bodies.

The main point is that for reach limited shooting the Tamron 150-600 was never the best option, and if a supertelephoto zoom lens underperforms on the long end then it's still kind of missing the point of having a zoom range. Some reviewers even concluded that there wasn't much point in zooming in past 500mm (to be fair that was probably shooting wide open and not at f11 where the Tamron is sharpest, but that just further demonstrates the weakness of the lens).

 

[dufflover]

f/5-6.3? Too dark for me when small birds tend to be in the shady branches or are most active around sunrise or sundown. Sold my 400mm f/5.6 for that very reason.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't have luxury of the larger behemoths and make do with what we got. Luckily the physics of image processing/sensors/ISO is improving at consumer prices unlike the physics of light which I think will always be high four-digits (AU) for fast super-tele's.

 

[AvTvM]

The Canon 400f5.6 is significantly better overall (at equivalent Field of View), full frame or crop, with or without TC. It just doesn't have a Stabilizer, I have a feeling that's the feature most people are really getting these things for. Other than being stabilized, the lenses that Tamron and Sigma sold to people were just another batch of big, cheap zoom lenses. They just weren't horribly inferior, and included a feature that didn't exist 23 years ago. It's really surprising it took this long.

yes, i agree. It is totally insane and does not make any sense that Canon did NOT update the EF 400/5.6 to with IS already about 10 years ago. Stupid, Canon. Believing, they can get away forever just milking their customers and holding back better products. And don#t tell me it would require huge R&D resources and bankrupt all of Canon to update a simple 400/5.6 with IS ... ;D

Good on Canon (and Nikon!), that Tamron and Sigma are taking a good number of sales from them with their good and affordable 150-600s.

 

[AlanF]

I think the 150-600V2 is a good idea, not because it might be better than the original Tamron 150-600, but because it might finally be an upgrade to the best budget supertelephoto lens on the market.
Now that Brian finally has 7D2 samples on the Canon 400f5.6 (they were just put up this summer) we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are.

How does it make sense to compare two lenses using different sensor sizes and pixel pitches? Yes, it's well known the Tamron is weak in the corners at 600mm... but it's 600mm and not 400mm! There are not many people trying to choose between a crop+400mm and a FF+600mm. They have the sensor size fixed and are trying to pick a lens to fit their purposes.

Plus of course the Tamron is a zoom and thus infinitely more valuable to most users than a 400mm (or a 640mm eqv) prime.

Agreed. And it is just not true that "we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are." The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mms are very good lenses - and I do compare them with my very expensive top quality Canon primes and zooms.

 

[9VIII]

I think the 150-600V2 is a good idea, not because it might be better than the original Tamron 150-600, but because it might finally be an upgrade to the best budget supertelephoto lens on the market.
Now that Brian finally has 7D2 samples on the Canon 400f5.6 (they were just put up this summer) we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are.

How does it make sense to compare two lenses using different sensor sizes and pixel pitches? Yes, it's well known the Tamron is weak in the corners at 600mm... but it's 600mm and not 400mm! There are not many people trying to choose between a crop+400mm and a FF+600mm. They have the sensor size fixed and are trying to pick a lens to fit their purposes.

Plus of course the Tamron is a zoom and thus infinitely more valuable to most users than a 400mm (or a 640mm eqv) prime.

Agreed. And it is just not true that "we can see just how futile the first round of these new zoom lenses really are." The Tamron and Sigma 150-600mms are very good lenses - and I do compare them with my very expensive top quality Canon primes and zooms.

Ok, "futile" was the wrong word.

In practical terms they might have been better off using a smaller zoom range, something like a 200-400, but in the end they did produce a well rounded package, the concept just needs more polish before it will be relevant to everyone.

I should reiterate that this new Tamron lens sounds very exciting, those MTF charts show a lens that could actually make everything else in the segment obsolete.