Jeff Nolten wrote:
Thanks Gary. I did some searching and found that Tamron and Sigma have a number of f6.3 lenses and didn't find anyone complaining that they would not AF. No confirmations that they would either. Just complaints that AF was slow at the long end.
Yes, it is just firmware lying to the camera that the lens is f5.6, not f6.3, but AF is not as good as if it really was an f5.6 lens because less light is reaching the sensor.
First impressions compared to my, Canon 100-400 L:
-Not very reactive to 600 mm f/6.3 (development)
-Not bulky at all (without hand sun)
-Amazing results for stability has 600 mm of hands. (There was some light certe but I Choote to a dark corner)
-The noise? too much noise around to judge, I do not hear the focus while triggering the 6D without problem.
-Seems to be a lot of vignetting 600 mm.
- slow AF at 600mm F6.3
- not bulky at all with the lens hood removed
- surprising results when shooting handheld at 600mm (there was light but I shot toward a dark area)
- how about the focusing noise? Too much noise around me to judge, I didn't hear any focusing noise while I did hear the shutter release of the 6D
- seems like there is quite a high amount of vignetting at 600mm
The sample files are on 1dx & 5DIII and to my eyes in LR4, the detail that is visible in feathers / grass / fur is noticeably worse than 100-400. 10.tiff is on a 5DIII @ 158mm @ f8 and resolving power of the lens *seems* to be lower than 100-400. It will be interesting to see how the 100-400 + 1.4x stacks up against this lens.
We will know for sure once its been tested and hopefully there is finally some serious competition to the aging 100-400 in canon land.
Even so, its a bargain price for 600 f6.3 lens and looks like a winner.
One thing I've learnt over the years, never ever put any faith in images supplied by the manufacturers. They can usually make the best lens/camera look like shite. Some of the shoots look very good, others mediocre. I'll wait for proper testing, but I'd be elated but surprised if it can match the 100-400L for IQ; the price just does not make sense for this length zoom range. Note there are no fancy elements only a few LD lenses, which are standard fare these days. No use of XLD lenses or the like.
If at 600mm this lens matches the performance of the current 100-400L at 400mm it is a winner. One would be unrealistic to expect anything more, given its price.
Howard
Pixel Perfect wrote:
One thing I've learnt over the years, never ever put any faith in images supplied by the manufacturers. They can usually make the best lens/camera look like shite. Some of the shoots look very good, others mediocre. I'll wait for proper testing, but I'd be elated but surprised if it can match the 100-400L for IQ; the price just does not make sense for this length zoom range. Note there are no fancy elements only a few LD lenses, which are standard fare these days. No use of XLD lenses or the like.
Tamron is compared to a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with a 2X TC, 500mm f/4 with 1.4X TC and 800mm f/5.6. The test images look encouraging, but the lighting was not ideal. T
They also compared the lens on 3 bodies, 7D, 6D and 5D mklll. Again, not ideal light and the ISOs range from 1600 to 10,000. The NR has caused a loss of detail etc., but the again the results look OK given the conditions.
The test charts give a good idea of where the IQ stands. I will likely not be shooting in those type of conditions, preferring not to go beyond ISO800 and stopping down to f8 where possible for good cropping ability. What stands out for me is the AF capabilities in less than ideal conditions. This was my one area of concern so this looks very promising assuming you have a recent body.
Wow, the Tamron holds up very well with the Canon competition. Very, very competitive. The EF-800 was somewhat better; it should, being over 10x the price. The Tamron seemed to be significantly better than the EF-300 w/ 2x extender, and just about a tie with the EF-500 & 1.4. I am sure more studious pixel peepers will have much more specific comments and critiques, but I am assuredly impressed, especially factoring in weight and price.
The biggest eye-opener to me regarding the above test was the comparison to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS with a 2XTC. That's a combo that's well regarded when it comes to those trying to get to 600mm on a moderate budget, and it's a combo I've used in the past with success.
If this Tamron can truly match that combo, I'd definitely be interested.
krementz wrote:
Wow, the Tamron holds up very well with the Canon competition. Very, very competitive. The EF-800 was somewhat better; it should, being over 10x the price. The Tamron seemed to be significantly better than the EF-300 w/ 2x extender, and just about a tie with the EF-500 & 1.4. I am sure more studious pixel peepers will have much more specific comments and critiques, but I am assuredly impressed, especially factoring in weight and price.
I can't view the page at the moment due to Google's servers being down for maintenance, but if the Tamron can match the 500 + 1.4 it can basically match the 500 as the TC has almost no effect on IQ. I just cannot believe they could make a $1000 zoom achieve such high IQ, but can't wait to try one out.
gocolts wrote:
The biggest eye-opener to me regarding the above test was the comparison to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS with a 2XTC. That's a combo that's well regarded when it comes to those trying to get to 600mm on a moderate budget, and it's a combo I've used in the past with success. If this Tamron can truly match that combo, I'd definitely be interested.
That's my main interest too. I have the Canon 300 f2.8 IS + 2x Mk III converter. It's not a particularly big lens but there are times when I want something smaller and a bit lighter. I considered the 100-400 zoom, but the Tamron would keep me at 600mm when needed and provide a pretty useful zoom range on top of it. Nice price too!
gocolts wrote:
The biggest eye-opener to me regarding the above test was the comparison to the Canon 300mm f/2.8L IS with a 2XTC. That's a combo that's well regarded when it comes to those trying to get to 600mm on a moderate budget, and it's a combo I've used in the past with success.
If this Tamron can truly match that combo, I'd definitely be interested.
Even though I have my preorder in, I'm skeptical it will match the IQ of this combination. To do so at this price would be nothing less than an astounding achievement IMO.
I agree, Brian. Realistically, for most of our purposes, the visible differences between images made using different lenses are not immediately obvious and easy to identify, unless pixel peeping. The portability, versatility and price point of this lens really makes this an attractive risk-reward scenario.
brimull wrote:
Even though I have my preorder in, I'm skeptical it will match the IQ of this combination. To do so at this price would be nothing less than an astounding achievement IMO.
But, I'm okay with it!
Brian M.
I think what we are seeing from this test is the limitations of using the 2xTC vs a native lens. I preordered the Tamron lens yesterday.
I have not used any lens combinations with a 2X TC that maintained quality of IQ and focus at the same time
IQ or focus is compromised
or you have to stop down to much to get back IQ making the combination slow
I won't be surprised if it does match the 300+2x combination, or comes very close. I see some comments saying it doesn't seem possible for that price. Remember much of the high cost of the Canon L super telephotos is the build quality, material used, weather sealing, exceptional AF speed and fast Apertures. If Tamron was trying to match Canon in those areas also, you surely wouldn't see that $1,000 price tag.
