Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review

[Loswr]

Totally off-topic but what I find much more annoying is the way Canon switched around the zoom ring and focusing ring on the 24-105. Now THAT is irritating.

Switched from what? Zoom ring closest to the body, focus ring further out is the norm for L-series lenses. The 'reversed' lens in the group is the 70-300L - but you're right about it being irritating. I've found that using the tripod collar for the 70-300L helps, since I hold it by that, which places my fingers at the outer zoom ring by default.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Totally off-topic but what I find much more annoying is the way Canon switched around the zoom ring and focusing ring on the 24-105. Now THAT is irritating.

Switched from what? Zoom ring closest to the body, focus ring further out is the norm for L-series lenses. The 'reversed' lens in the group is the 70-300L - but you're right about it being irritating. I've found that using the tripod collar for the 70-300L helps, since I hold it by that, which places my fingers at the outer zoom ring by default.

My travel telezoom, the Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD is that way, too. I'm thinking of upgrading this to the 70-300L. It will be a major upgrade in image quality amongst other features, but as an added bonus , then all my lenses will rotate the same way, but obviously the 'switched' situation will stay. It is a little strange Canon choose to go this route with this lens, the other 7x-300 lenses all have the focus ring near the front element (okay, the 'L' is rear focusing, so that's probably the reason).

 

[hksfrank]

I've used zooms from different manufacturers and have gotten used to switching back and forth on the zoom direction, just like each lens is different ergonomically.

Totally off-topic but what I find much more annoying is the way Canon switched around the zoom ring and focusing ring on the 24-105. Now THAT is irritating.

Not sure I understand. They are the same on the 24-105 as they are on the 70-200 (inner = zoom, outer = focus).

p.s. i am not expert in lens design or optics even engineer

seems focus ring placement are related to focus group location
as tamron place the USD motor at the back ? (in 70 300 and 150 600)
then A16 have a ring going around like sigma 17 70 , it was at the front
canon 24 105 will have element moving visible in front (like middle at the lens), then it was at front
70 200 2.8 seems also at front (i saw something moving there)
my minolta 70 210 beercan F4 also , it was not IF and sure front was a ring turning around ~

sorry i just guessing about it .__." because there is a physical connection between the ring and the focus stuff and it sounds true that to placing the ring nearby

unless it was wired motor like STM or sony E mount lens .

 

[Drizzt321]

I think the question is, is this "good enough" for those who want to have a super-telephoto available because there are times when even cropping won't do. That's sorta where I fit in. Most of the time I won't use a super-telephoto, but on the other hand, I'm finding I want something (200-400ish, maybe a bit longer) around to use it. Sure, there's renting, but after I rent a handful of times it's almost as if I should have just bought it. If this lens can deliver reasonably good images/video for $1100 in this range...it might just be worth it. The 100-400 w/1.4x will be a lot closer to $2k. And even if they release a new 100-400 with much upgraded optics that make the 100-400 w/1.4x or 2x TC much better IQ than this Tamron...the lens itself I'm sure will be quite a bit over $2k.

There is a cheapo solution for those like me who cannot (yet) commit to a 600mm -- it's called SX50 (or the upcoming SX60.) It's no good for BIF or low light/low contrast but neither is this Tamron.

Some samples (not mine), I think using a tripod:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomson_tsao/with/11685619154/

True enough, however I've already got quite a bit invested in the EF-mount system, and an extremely capable DSLR and I'd rather add a lens (as expensive as they are) then yet another camera to carry around. Although granted it's more portable.

 

[unfocused]

Totally off-topic but what I find much more annoying is the way Canon switched around the zoom ring and focusing ring on the 24-105. Now THAT is irritating.

Switched from what? Zoom ring closest to the body, focus ring further out is the norm for L-series lenses. The 'reversed' lens in the group is the 70-300L - but you're right about it being irritating. I've found that using the tripod collar for the 70-300L helps, since I hold it by that, which places my fingers at the outer zoom ring by default.

Okay, maybe it is the 70-300 "L" that throws me off, as those are the two lenses I use the most. I just know that whenever I try to zoom the 24-105 I end up changing the focus. (I don't often zoom my 100 macro, 85 1.8 or 200 2.8; My 100-400 is pretty easy to keep straight (just push or pull). I never seemed to have the problem with the 15-85 EF-S but that's because it comes with Canon's special auto-zoom feature (let go of the lens and is uses gravity to conveniently zoom all the way out)

 

[lycan]

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000605175/picture/#tab

many images on the Japanese photo sharing site. not much commentary. You have to be a member to view original image......

some of the pics are really sharp. others not really

 

[Country Bumpkins]

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000605175/picture/#tab

many images on the Japanese photo sharing site. not much commentary. You have to be a member to view original image......

some of the pics are really sharp. others not really

So they should be sharp, as many are shot with the Canon 400mm 5.6L. When you click on photos to open for the first time a window will pop up for a split second with exif info before loading larger pic. Many have 400 5.6L attached to them. The in-flight jets for example. These would happen to be the sharpest ones.
As the saying goes. Don't believe everything you see/hear on the internet.

 

[lycan]

http://kakaku.com/item/K0000605175/picture/#tab

many images on the Japanese photo sharing site. not much commentary. You have to be a member to view original image......

some of the pics are really sharp. others not really

So they should be sharp, as many are shot with the Canon 400mm 5.6L. When you click on photos to open for the first time a window will pop up for a split second with exif info before loading larger pic. Many have 400 5.6L attached to them. The in-flight jets for example. These would happen to be the sharpest ones.
As the saying goes. Don't believe everything you see/hear on the internet.

Actually there is one of an airplane that is actually sharper than the ones from the 400mm f/5.6L....

 

[heptagon]

As the saying goes. Don't believe everything you see/hear on the internet.

So you are saying someone would just go on the internet and lie to the world?

 

[SevenDUser]

Someone posted RAW and .jpgs here:

camahoy.com

 

[candc]

I downloaded the raw files and they are pretty good but nothing extraordinary. At 600 the sigma 120-300 with 2xiii is better. Granted the sigma is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. This lens looks like it does what its expected to do but sadly it doesn't appear to be an alternative to the 200-400 or 600ii

 

[Don Haines]

I downloaded the raw files and they are pretty good but nothing extraordinary. At 600 the sigma 120-300 with 2xiii is better. Granted the sigma is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. This lens looks like it does what its expected to do but sadly it doesn't appear to be an alternative to the 200-400 or 600ii

Say it ain't so! I was hoping that it would be better than lenses costing ten times as much

I suspect that if/when Canon updates the 400F5.6 that it will out-resolve the Tamron too....

 

[lescrane]

my comp group is Canon 100-400L (current), sigma 150-500....eg current lenses, similar price and weight, zoom. I expect any prime to be sharper than a low priced zoom but would not buy the 400.00L w/o IS.

I figure if I buy the Tamron for 1K I am not breaking the bank. If Canon comes out w/a dramatically better 100-400L II in two years, I trade in the Tammy and get it. By better, I mean at 400mm.

Everyone is posting samples at 600mm wide open, both parameters usually the worst combination for a lens. The samples I see are not bad. How will this lens be at 500mm f 8? 400 f 6.3?? I feel that if you get the lens and know the sweet spots, it could be a good option.

 

[candc]

I downloaded the raw files and they are pretty good but nothing extraordinary. At 600 the sigma 120-300 with 2xiii is better. Granted the sigma is bigger, heavier, and more expensive. This lens looks like it does what its expected to do but sadly it doesn't appear to be an alternative to the 200-400 or 600ii

Say it ain't so! I was hoping that it would be better than lenses costing ten times as much

I suspect that if/when Canon updates the 400F5.6 that it will out-resolve the Tamron too....

I know, shocking. I think I will get one because it seems to succeed at what it aims to do. I could use a good travel / walkaround lens like this and the price is good.

 

[lescrane]

Someone posted RAW and .jpgs here:

camahoy.com

I could not download these files. I got into a site for the Mega downloader, spent an hour downloading what I thought was a zip of the images and now it's nowhere to be seen.

 

[candc]

Someone posted RAW and .jpgs here:

camahoy.com

I could not download these files. I got into a site for the Mega downloader, spent an hour downloading what I thought was a zip of the images and now it's nowhere to be seen.

I had to install an add on for firefox, it downloads to your desktop, take a look there

 

[SevenDUser]

Someone posted RAW and .jpgs here:

camahoy.com

I could not download these files. I got into a site for the Mega downloader, spent an hour downloading what I thought was a zip of the images and now it's nowhere to be seen.

I had to install an add on for firefox, it downloads to your desktop, take a look there

Oops, forgot to mention that I had to do that too with Firefox.

 

[lescrane]

tx both. Could not install the add-on w/Firefox, downloading another way.

 

[lescrane]

I opened all these files in ACR and went thru my usual editing workflow. Am very impressed with the images....Sharpness good, very nice bokeh. Lighting was pretty flat so I bumped up contrast. I have noticed some CA in other images on line but only in extreme cases,eg, tree twigs against white sky.

BTW, I have never used a full frame and I must say, these clean images from the 5D mark III make me want to get one. (I won't...due to weight,$ and crop factor)

I note that all these images were at max aperture, max focal length and were imho quite usable. Not sure if camera was tripod mounted or handheld, shutter speeds were pretty low.

My guess re: the it's too good to be true...thinking ...about such a low price, is that Tamron has projected huge sales for this....and they are willing to take a lower margin due to high sales. They will poach a lot of sales from canon, nikon and sony, not to mention Sigma. Users who could not consider a lens of this length before will consider this, eventually, other mfgrs will counter

If the web poster is lurking here, thanks a lot for doing this. Looking forward to seeing your comparisons with the 400 5.6 L

 

[Don Haines]

I opened all these files in ACR and went thru my usual editing workflow. Am very impressed with the images....Sharpness good, very nice bokeh. Lighting was pretty flat so I bumped up contrast. I have noticed some CA in other images on line but only in extreme cases,eg, tree twigs against white sky.

BTW, I have never used a full frame and I must say, these clean images from the 5D mark III make me want to get one. (I won't...due to weight,$ and crop factor)

I note that all these images were at max aperture, max focal length and were imho quite usable. Not sure if camera was tripod mounted or handheld, shutter speeds were pretty low.

My guess re: the it's too good to be true...thinking ...about such a low price, is that Tamron has projected huge sales for this....and they are willing to take a lower margin due to high sales. They will poach a lot of sales from canon, nikon and sony, not to mention Sigma. Users who could not consider a lens of this length before will consider this, eventually, other mfgrs will counter

If the web poster is lurking here, thanks a lot for doing this. Looking forward to seeing your comparisons with the 400 5.6 L

I am planning on getting this lens, but in the event that Canon comes out with a 400F5.6II, I would probably get that lens too. A series II prime is unbeatable for image quality and AF... a 150-600 would be hard to touch for flexibility in a long lens... both have their place.