surf monkey wrote:
Don't the MTFs look similar for the Tamron 200-600 and 150-500 at the longest FL?
I never owned one, but I was under the impression that the 150-500 didn't have very good IQ.
I was hoping for something closer to the Canon 100-400 in IQ, which is now a 15 year old lens.
I already posted a comparison of MTF's at the beginning of this thread. It looks better to me than any of the competitors, even the excellent 100-400L.
Based off the MTF's and the IQ of the recent releases like the 24-70 IQ shoukd be good.
The issue is going to be AF particularly its ability to track.
I passed on the 24-70 for that reason hoping its better as i know lots of guys who would pick one up..
dehowie wrote:
Based off the MTF's and the IQ of the recent releases like the 24-70 IQ shoukd be good.
The issue is going to be AF particularly its ability to track.
I passed on the 24-70 for that reason hoping its better as i know lots of guys who would pick one up..
I would be using one for motorsports and airshows, mainly panning, so hopefully the AF will be able to manage that... I was going to buy a 35mm f1.4 at Christmas but I might just hold off to see the reviews of this as I have no long lens and can put up with the 35mm f2 for a few months longer if needed.
galenapass wrote:
It will be very interesting to see what IQ is like. Right now it feels like there is a lot of very positive developments outside of Canon.
About time, since Canon and Nikon have not seemed interested in producing affordable super-teles.
F4 is not a criteria in a 500mm or 600mm lens for many people.
note: click on images in the above link for 100% view
Having a hand holdable lens is what makes the 150-600 so interesting to me.
To get 600mm most other combinations are at least F5.6. Then stop down 1/2 to 1 stop more to get sharpness.
So if the Tamron is sharp at 600mm F6.3 is is a winner.
hand holdable and affordable
best of all not TC to slow focus and reduce IQ
Does not appear Canon will give us a affordable option for greater than 400mm focal length without TC's
Canon 500mm F4 + 1.4X = 700mm F5.6 << hand holdable for short periods, not affordable
400mm F4 + 1.4X = 560mm F5.6 << at least F6.3 to get sharpness, good focus with 1.4X
400mm F5.6 + 1.4X = 560mm F8 << focus is slow, must stop down to get sharpness so F11
300mm F2.8 + 2X = 600mm F5.6 << F6.3 or F8 to get sharpness, slow focus due to 2X TC
600mm F4 << not hand holdable, not affordable
The Tamron 150-600 should get Sigma engaged to produce a competing lens product.
The Tamron 150-600 should get Sigma engaged to produce a competing lens product.
Firms compete for business, but when possible they prefer to do so with differentiated products so as to avoid cut-throat price competition. Sigma has been devoting effort to the fast prime segment of the market, whereas Tamron has been focusing on the zooms. This way they avoid competing head to head on the exact same product.
rongoe wrote:
Firms compete for business, but when possible they prefer to do so with differentiated products so as to avoid cut-throat price competition. Sigma has been devoting effort to the fast prime segment of the market, whereas Tamron has been focusing on the zooms. This way they avoid competing head to head on the exact same product.
abqnmusa wrote:
400mm F5.6 + 1.4X = 560mm F8 << focus is slow, must stop down to get sharpness so F11
300mm F2.8 + 2X = 600mm F5.6 << F6.3 or F8 to get sharpness, slow focus due to 2X TC
Disagree entirely with this. The 400L is tack sharp wide open and is still sharp wide open with 1.4x TC. Even my 100-400L + 1.4 is sharp wide open and I rarely stop it down. Also in good light and especially on the 1 series the AF speed is pretty respectable and I've done BIF work without much trouble. Similarly I find 300 + 2x is still very good at f/5.6 and while f/6.3 is a tad better, I often don't stop down, and AF while obviously slower than the bare lens is still more than good enough for action work.
I agree however, this Tamron could be a game changer and I can't wait to add it to my aresenal.
My perfect travel kit would now be: 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 150-600 when I don't need to take the 500 f/4.
note: click on images in the above link for 100% view
Having a hand holdable lens is what makes the 150-600 so interesting to me.
To get 600mm most other combinations are at least F5.6. Then stop down 1/2 to 1 stop more to get sharpness.
So if the Tamron is sharp at 600mm F6.3 is is a winner.
hand holdable and affordable
best of all not TC to slow focus and reduce IQ
Does not appear Canon will give us a affordable option for greater than 400mm focal length without TC's
Canon 500mm F4 + 1.4X = 700mm F5.6 << hand holdable for short periods, not affordable
400mm F4 + 1.4X = 560mm F5.6 << at least F6.3 to get sharpness, good focus with 1.4X
400mm F5.6 + 1.4X = 560mm F8 << focus is slow, must stop down to get sharpness so F11
300mm F2.8 + 2X = 600mm F5.6 << F6.3 or F8 to get sharpness, slow focus due to 2X TC
600mm F4 << not hand holdable, not affordable
The Tamron 150-600 should get Sigma engaged to produce a competing lens product. ...Show more →
The fox shot is nice and sharp, the rest are mediocre at best. However, I bet there was a lot of atmosphere between lens and deer in the deer shots. The close up of the falcon isn't all that great but not bad.
As to your comments about getting to 600mm. I agree with your assessment for the most part but I would disagree that you need to stop down with the 400DO or the 300f/2.8 (granted I use the newest mk II version) but mine is razor sharp wide open at f/5.6 with the 2.0TCIII and focus on the 1DX is better than the bare 100-400 IMHO.
Oh well at $1100 bucks I'll give it a test run and shoot it back to back with my 100-400 at the Yukon Wildlife preserve in January. I'll also compare it to the 300 f/2.8 IS II with 2.0 TCIII but I already know that the 300 + TC will blow it away as it already blows away the 100-400.
hoodlum90 wrote:
Tamron Canada just responded to my e-mail and confirmed suggested list price in Canada is $1299cdn. Dealers may/will likely sell for less.
Kerrisdale Cameras, Vancouver, BC - $1299CDN, plus tax, available end of January.
I must be much more critical of image quality with TC's. I have not seen any TC combination that did not require stopping down at least 1/2 stop to 1 stop to regain image quality. Especially witih 2X TC. On any lens.
My point was that by the time you add TC's to get 600mm the image quality may not surpass the Tamron, and may be slower than F6.3 after stopping down.
Yes, the Canon 400mm F5.6 is sharp wide open. that is what I use now.
Tamrom 150-600 will not require TC's and be affordable.
I have 100-400 L and love it. It works with a 1.4. However, for Nikon...I wish a similar lens. The 80-400 afs breathes a lot....reducing the effective telephoto focal length to 261 at minimal focal distance. So this is the fear of this Tamron 150-600. What if it breathes as well to say 300 mm at minimal focal distance. This can happen.
Mark K wrote:
I have 100-400 L and love it. It works with a 1.4. However, for Nikon...I wish a similar lens. The 80-400 afs breathes a lot....reducing the effective telephoto focal length to 261 at minimal focal distance. So this is the fear of this Tamron 150-600. What if it breathes as well to say 300 mm at minimal focal distance. This can happen.
Do we have a maximum magnification number for it yet?
Mark K wrote:
I have 100-400 L and love it. It works with a 1.4. However, for Nikon...I wish a similar lens. The 80-400 afs breathes a lot....reducing the effective telephoto focal length to 261 at minimal focal distance. So this is the fear of this Tamron 150-600. What if it breathes as well to say 300 mm at minimal focal distance. This can happen.
I could care less if it breathes at minimal focal distance.
but don't have a price or date yet. Just got on a "list"