Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2014 · Sold my Tamron 150-600

  
 
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Bought the lens. Tried to love it. Hoped to based on pretty positive reviews. Just couldn't love it. AF worked. The problem was that I found it lower in contrast and softer than hoped or expected. I sold it. I guess I've been spoiled by lenses such as the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and even to some extent the 100-400L. Now more than ever I wish Godot (the 100-400 II) would finally arrive. What do you think of the 150-600?


Jul 03, 2014 at 12:38 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Numerous threads have been written about this lens.

Most like it for static objects in good light. Not usable on some bodies for action work.



Jul 03, 2014 at 06:12 AM
timbop
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


cameron12x wrote:
Numerous threads have been written about this lens.

Most like it for static objects in good light. Not usable on some bodies for action work.


this is some experiences prior to the firmware update; unfortunately experience with the FW update has been thinly reported.



Jul 03, 2014 at 07:05 AM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Right. Many of the threads have discussed the AF malfunctions -- not focusing reliably on static objects from far-out-of-focus states, and not tracking properly in AI Servo mode. Tamron has now apparently fixed these problems and is repairing previously issued lenses under warranty.

I'm actually talking about the simple case of static subjects in good light. I found the lens slightly soft and low enough in contrast that I just couldn't love it. I didn't love the color rendering, either, although that might just be side effect of (what I saw as) low contrast.

My conclusion -- a subjective assessment only -- is that, in terms of IQ, this lens is in the category that I might call "step-up consumer zooms," not "must-have, top-notch glass." It's not the "Sigma 50 Art of long zooms."

A useful lens that one can use to good effect? Sure. 600mm in a light, hand-holdable package? Yeah. Miraculous? Not really. The tradeoffs in IQ are, in my experience, not insignificant.

cameron12x wrote:
Numerous threads have been written about this lens.

Most like it for static objects in good light. Not usable on some bodies for action work.





Jul 03, 2014 at 07:17 AM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


I can report that the lens with the AF repair had no malfunctions in AF from far OOF states. It's not the fastest AF but it works. As for AI Servo performance for BIF, I did non assess it. My sense from other reports is that it's working as intended. As to it's being responsive enough *when working as expected* for BIF shooters -- that's not yet entirely clear, and I cannot give an opinion either way based on experience.


timbop wrote:
this is some experiences prior to the firmware update; unfortunately experience with the FW update has been thinly reported.





Jul 03, 2014 at 07:20 AM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


timbop wrote:
this is some experiences prior to the firmware update; unfortunately experience with the FW update has been thinly reported .


I venture an opinion that this is because people are naturally more vocal when things go wrong than when they go right...... Anyone that's ever spent a day in a customer service call center can attest to the rarity of calls saying "Awesome work! Awesome product!!" To me, the lack of people saying "its still broken" speaks volumes.

I had an early bad copy of this and dumped it due to the AI Servo issue.... I've since read "enough" (read: nowhere near the volume of the bitching) to make me want to buy this lens again once birding season comes around again down here -- IOW, around November....... By then, the dust should have settled even further, hopefully more will be written.... and... I can always dump it again.....

Or... maybe the new 100-400 (if that's what the new lens is) will make the decision for me. If I can get good IQ/AF with a 100-400 II + 1.4x III, that will be my preference over the Tamron.




Jul 03, 2014 at 09:30 AM
kvolk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


I love it. I may not be very discriminatory. I do have the Canon 70-300 f4 L but have never even considered a longer lens prior to the Tamron 150-600 because of costs. I have never even considered BIF and prior to the Tamron never considered wildlife photography and have shot nothing but landscape. The Tamron has opened up a whole new area of photography for me. The lens has been on my camera continuously for the last couple of months and I have many trips to the local bird refuge. I just got back from another morning trip. This may not be the right lens for the pros but for many enthusiasts it is a great option. In a YouTube video Tony Northrup gives a slight nod to the Canon 400 f4 L but picks the Tamron 150-600 over other options for the other camera brands. Not having shot long lens options I am probably easily impressed but for me I have been very impressed by the sharpness of the Tammy when I use it right. It must have some built in artificial intelligence because the more I use it the better it gets


Jul 03, 2014 at 10:24 AM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


kvolk wrote:
I love it. I may not be very discriminatory. I do have the Canon 70-300 f4 L but have never even considered a longer lens prior to the Tamron 150-600 because of costs. I have never even considered BIF and prior to the Tamron never considered wildlife photography and have shot nothing but landscape. The Tamron has opened up a whole new area of photography for me. The lens has been on my camera continuously for the last couple of months and I have many trips to the local bird refuge. I just got back from another morning trip. This
...Show more

Sharpness, per se, was never the issue with this lens.... I liked mine a lot in this regard.... Wide-open, its sharp to about 500mm and at F8 and beyond, its pretty sharp at 600. My 400 5.6L with 1.4XIII (560mm F8 combo) is visibly sharper than the Tamron at 600 F8 but not by a lot....

The issue was with AI-Servo refusing to lock on, and then only with certain bodies... namely the 7D and 1D4. Depending on what you're shooting, you may not have ever had the issue.




Jul 03, 2014 at 10:37 AM
MaximeTrepreau
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Looks like this lens is crap.
Bad AF, bad colors, bad contrast and no sharpness.
Mine is from first batch :




Jul 03, 2014 at 11:24 AM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Your pictures actually looks "ok" to me. Not stunning, not crap (your words, not mine!), but "ok": actually typical for this lens.

As I said, it can certainly be put to good use, but a 200-400L, or similar, it isn't -- and by a wide margin. That's was my point.

Regards!
Kevin


MaximeTrepreau wrote:
Looks like this lens is crap.
Bad AF, bad colors, bad contrast and no sharpness.
Mine is from first batch :

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5155/14013487752_23a518e7a9_o.jpg





Jul 03, 2014 at 11:42 AM
sivrajbm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


^^^

MaximeTrepreau wrote:
Looks like this lens is crap.
Bad AF, bad colors, bad contrast and no sharpness.
Mine is from first batch :

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5155/14013487752_23a518e7a9_o.jpg



Photo is more than "OK" I think he was yanking chains and saying "His is just Fine"



Jul 03, 2014 at 11:52 AM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


:-) Surely many wonderful pictures will come through this lens. At the same time, I believe based on my experience that people who expect modern "L-like" performance are, on the whole, going to be somewhat disappointed. So it's not really a question whether one can produce a good picture with this lens. Nearly any lens will do, going back to 1830! Rather, the question I addressed is whether this lens performs up to the standards set by modern L glass, e.g., 70-200L II, 200-400L, etc. I think it doesn't. But others can certainly have a good and productive time with it! This isn't meant as a trolling thread! Regards, --Kevin

sivrajbm wrote:
^^^


Photo is more than "OK" I think he was yanking chains and saying "His is just Fine"





Jul 03, 2014 at 12:02 PM
riokid
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


kevinsullivan wrote:
As I said, it can certainly be put to good use, but a 200-400L, or similar, it isn't -- and by a wide margin. That's was my point.



Does the wide margin apply to the comparative cost of the "el crapo" Tamron and the Canon 200-400 too




Jul 03, 2014 at 12:17 PM
hijazist
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


kevinsullivan wrote:
:-) Surely many wonderful pictures will come through this lens. At the same time, I believe based on my experience that people who expect modern "L-like" performance are, on the whole, going to be somewhat disappointed. So it's not really a question whether one can produce a good picture with this lens. Nearly any lens will do, going back to 1830! Rather, the question I addressed is whether this lens performs up to the standards set by modern L glass, e.g., 70-200L II, 200-400L, etc. I think it doesn't. But others can certainly have a good and productive time with
...Show more

Kevin, that's the main issue here. The lens is not meant to be compared with the 70-200 2.8 II and the 200-400 and I don't think anyone has claimed that. It's meant to be compared with the Sigma 150-500 OS, Canon 100-400 + TC, Tamron 200-500. This is evidenced by the price, build, max aperture, etc...

I saw some really nice images here and on flickr with this lens and with some PP I believe it can produce high quality prints



Jul 03, 2014 at 12:22 PM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Yeah. Fair enough. I was hoping for better. I'm dropping back to 100-400, with 1.4X when I need it.

hijazist wrote:
Kevin, that's the main issue here. The lens is not meant to be compared with the 70-200 2.8 II and the 200-400 and I don't think anyone has claimed that. It's meant to be compared with the Sigma 150-500 OS, Canon 100-400 + TC, Tamron 200-500. This is evidenced by the price, build, max aperture, etc...

I saw some really nice images here and on flickr with this lens and with some PP I believe it can produce high quality prints





Jul 03, 2014 at 12:24 PM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


I think what kevinsullivan is trying to say is that there are many people comparing this lens to big whites such as the 200-400 and the 600 F4 because past 500, those are the only lenses out there to compare to.....

Such comparisons are not inherently invalid or crap as long as one considers the cost difference in the comparison. If one simply (an naively) expects this $1,100 lens to perform like a $12,000 200-400+TC, one will be sorely disappointed.

As a regular user of the 400 5.6L, 600 F4L II, and a former owner of the Tamron 150-600, I can say with authority that compared to the 600 -- my thoughts on the the 400 5.6L are above -- the Tamron is pretty decent considering its over a stop slower and 1/10 the price..... IOW, the Canon 600 F4L II's performance is not TEN TIMES better than the Tamron.

As I have said may times, what killed this lens for me was the non-functional AI Servo with my 7D and 1D4..... IQ was more than acceptable for its cost, size, form factor, and aperture.

Re, the rhino shot--- being brutally honest, I don't care much for the composition and processing, but IQ-wise, its quite acceptable to me.... Would be nice to know the EXIF info.

Edited on Jul 03, 2014 at 12:33 PM · View previous versions



Jul 03, 2014 at 12:28 PM
jeremy_clay
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


kevinsullivan wrote:
Your pictures actually looks "ok" to me. Not stunning, not crap (your words, not mine!), but "ok": actually typical for this lens.



lol, his shot is excellent. What more are you hoping to find?



Jul 03, 2014 at 12:30 PM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


I actually wasn't looking to critique anyone else's work. I was commenting on my personal evaluation of the lens and wondering what others think. I was disappointed. YMMV, as they say! Happy Fourth! --Kevin

jeremy_clay wrote:
lol, his shot is excellent. What more are you hoping to find?





Jul 03, 2014 at 12:47 PM
MaximeTrepreau
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


My shot is not of big white level for sure. But it's of small white level to me. (like 300 f/4 L)
IS is nothing like L. Very far from it.

I don't see how you can get best results without a big white L.

EDIT: Maybe it's possible with an APSC+lens combo. But I dunno. If someone know another option ?



Jul 03, 2014 at 01:02 PM
kevinsullivan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Sold my Tamron 150-600


Maxime, Thanks for your reply. We seem to be about on the same page. Some amazing things have been happening in the lens realm lately, with the Sigma 50 Art a good example: at least the equal of, and arguably better than, the best comparable "L" glass, at a fraction of the price. I was sort of hoping for that kind of "breakthrough" with this new telephoto. Happy Fourth of July (if you're in the US). [Edit: I see that you're not! So Happy Bastille Day, instead.]--Kevin

MaximeTrepreau wrote:
My shot is not of big white level for sure. But it's of small white level to me. (like 300 f/4 L)
IS is nothing like L. Very far from it.

I don't see how you can get best results without a big white L.





Jul 03, 2014 at 01:12 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.