TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Hitting Market

[Don Haines]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.

It's already the number one selling lens in japan..... There is a lot of interest in this lens. that, plus the wait for release in the rest of the world, gives a great deal of speculation.

 

[CTJohn]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?

Cuz it's too damn cold and crappy outside to do anything else

I'm thinking (hoping?) this lens will pleasantly surprise.

It will

Are you testing one?

 

[zim]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?

Cuz it's too damn cold and crappy outside to do anything else

I'm thinking (hoping?) this lens will pleasantly surprise.

It will

Now that's just teasing !!!!
Looking forward to your review, do you know when/where it will be published first?

Regards

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?

Cuz it's too damn cold and crappy outside to do anything else

I'm thinking (hoping?) this lens will pleasantly surprise.

It will

Now that's just teasing !!!!
Looking forward to your review, do you know when/where it will be published first?

Regards

They are keeping me on a tight leash with this one. I'll be able to go live somewhere near the end of the month, but that is seriously about as much as I'm allowed to say.

 

[jthomson]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee?

Cuz it's too damn cold and crappy outside to do anything else

I'm thinking (hoping?) this lens will pleasantly surprise.

It will

Now that's just teasing !!!!
Looking forward to your review, do you know when/where it will be published first?

Regards

Yes Dustin, it's not nice to tease the less fortunate.

As to why all the fuss. It looks like this lens may be better optically than a canon 100-400mmL and is about 2/3 the price. There hasn't been any real competition to the canon 100-400mm for way too long. If enough of the established testers give this a thumbs up I'll be getting one, tired of wating for an update of the 100-400.

Sigma should also be worried as none of their 400mm or 500mm zooms beat the 100-400mmL. Although Sigma could be eating canon's lunch with their 35mm and 50mm primes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.

My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.

I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.

My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.

I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.

I'm really surprised to hear about the Samyang, although I have heard that there was an early optical formula that wasn't nearly as good. How long ago was that?

My copy (Rokinon) is shockingly sharp. I purchased the copy that I reviewed because I simply did not want to send it back. I know of many very, very skilled night and landscape photographers that use it over far more expensive options because it is just that good.

 

[Drizzt321]

I got a response from LensRentals on their FB, said they'll get a lens or two and check it out and carry it if they thing it's good enough. Hopefully that means Roger will actually do his thing, although don't know if he can use the optical bench on a lens that long.

 

[that1guyy]

Sucks being a poor college student; so much stuff I want but so little money! D=

 

[amoore00357]

Sucks being a poor college student; so much stuff I want but so little money! D=

I am right there with you on this one. That's why I hope this is the lens that can satisfy my need for the 400 5.6 prime.

 

[Aglet]

My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.

Ya, I bought a 5D Mark II with results like that...

I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.

ditto, or I'll do my own tests
But I'm in no rush on this lens, appealing as it sounds optically, it is still a large and heavy bit of gear and I DO have a very good 100-400L for now.
Altho its resale value is likely to drop a fair bit over the next couple months if the new tammy is really good.
Hmmm, keep or sell? glass-gambling time...

 

[markesc]

For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://qicai.fengniao.com/425/4259287_all.html&usg=ALkJrhi9Opw4pIXEaeojLFBCioNg_FpMvw

 

[Hannes]

For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://qicai.fengniao.com/425/4259287_all.html&usg=ALkJrhi9Opw4pIXEaeojLFBCioNg_FpMvw

My antivirus went bananas when I clicked your link, anyone else?

 

[Loswr]

For the money, I think this will get me by until Canon decides to start selling reasonably priced lenses beyond 400mm. Here's a more comprehensive review, and no, we're not getting $11,000 results like a Canon 600, but again, for the money, and considering the alternatives, I think it's worthy of buying, then selling later if again Canon can stop being complacent to the normal people that are not making BILLIONS off wildlife photos, or would rather be financially responsible rather than rewarding the banks by paying interest on a credit card/keep money set aside for a rainy day/or have 2 months cash reserves when you want to actually qualify to refinance your mortgage these days (hint hint hint):

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://qicai.fengniao.com/425/4259287_all.html&usg=ALkJrhi9Opw4pIXEaeojLFBCioNg_FpMvw

My antivirus went bananas when I clicked your link, anyone else?

No issues here… But then again, I'm using a Mac and I'm behind a corporate firewall. The corporate firewall does block malicious sites with a notification (sometimes even the ad spaces on the CR home page get filtered)…no problem viewing the translated review (in Google's safe mode).

 

[AlanF]

A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.

 

[Albi86]

A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.

?

There are 100% crops of swans and the model eye.

Anyway, I recall that the initial promotional images were shot at f/9.0 or so. Probably the sweet spot for the 600mm end is around there.

 

[Artifex]

Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.

My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor. I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.

I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.

I'm really surprised to hear about the Samyang, although I have heard that there was an early optical formula that wasn't nearly as good. How long ago was that?

My copy (Rokinon) is shockingly sharp. I purchased the copy that I reviewed because I simply did not want to send it back. I know of many very, very skilled night and landscape photographers that use it over far more expensive options because it is just that good.

I personally am not very surprise however. Samyang lack good quality control on their lens. My first copy of the 14mm was unable to focus farther than 1m. I returned it and the second copy is absolutely stunning, with no defect whatsoever. For me, you should buy those kind of lens from trusted sources with good return policy and be patient.

 

[silversurfer96]

I hope this lens delivers... I know it's only $1000 and not sure what to expect from it, but I am really hoping for some good reviews. It will be a very good alternative for me since I don't have any telephoto lens beyond 200MM.

 

[AlanF]

A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.

?

There are 100% crops of swans and the model eye.

Anyway, I recall that the initial promotional images were shot at f/9.0 or so. Probably the sweet spot for the 600mm end is around there.

Sorry, I should have said informative 100% crops. There is precious little detail on the swan's face or neck that one can see to judge whether it resolves it. We need to be shown a bird with real plumage, not a blurred whitish.

 

[Albi86]

A pity that there are no 100% crops in the Chinese link. The measured resolutions are interesting. At 600mm and f/6.3 it's very soft. But, at f/8 it is pretty good and f/11 excellent.

?

There are 100% crops of swans and the model eye.

Anyway, I recall that the initial promotional images were shot at f/9.0 or so. Probably the sweet spot for the 600mm end is around there.

Sorry, I should have said informative 100% crops. There is precious little detail on the swan's face or neck that one can see to judge whether it resolves it. We need to be shown a bird with real plumage, not a blurred whitish.

I think you can download the TIFFs of the first promotional images. There was one with a bison. Fur should be even better that plumes to evaluate resolution.