Garylv wrote:
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.
Good points, but regarding IQ, a zoom of this type (150-600mm!) would have to be quite a lens to match a 300mm 2.8 II and 2xTC III, especially at 600mm. Zoom lenses, by design, are "compromises" in IQ and rarely (if ever) are equal throughout their focal range. I've used the 300mm 2.8 version II along with the 2xTC version III extensively and the image quality remains very high despite the obvious compromise whenever a TC is attached. I believe others who have used this particular combination have come to the same conclusion. I don't know about other combinations using the 2xTC.
I'll be tickled if it does match it, so I'm in the camp that hopes it does.
brimull wrote:
Good points, but regarding IQ, a zoom of this type (150-600mm!) would have to be quite a lens to match a 300mm 2.8 II and 2xTC III, especially at 600mm. Zoom lenses, by design, are "compromises" in IQ and rarely (if ever) are equal throughout their focal range.
Yes that's a particularly ambitious lens design. Quite a feat if they can pull it off with relatively consistent performance throughout the range. I hope they put priority on the 600mm end. We already have seemingly endless choices on the shorter end.
My 300 f2.8 IS is not the newer Mk II version although I do use the new 2X Mk III converter with it. But if the Tamron IQ comes very close to what I have now at the 600mm end, it's worth that modest price tag. I might even consider putting the 300 f2.8 IS up for sale. Don't use it nearly as much as I used to. It was mainly purchased for weekend Sports shooting. Still in nearly pristine condition.
brimull wrote:
Good points, but regarding IQ, a zoom of this type (150-600mm!) would have to be quite a lens to match a 300mm 2.8 II and 2xTC III, especially at 600mm. Zoom lenses, by design, are "compromises" in IQ and rarely (if ever) are equal throughout their focal range. I've used the 300mm 2.8 version II along with the 2xTC version III extensively and the image quality remains very high despite the obvious compromise whenever a TC is attached. I believe others who have used this particular combination have come to the same conclusion. I don't know about other combinations using the 2xTC....Show more →
You also have to remember that this is a new lens design and with that zoom range, it is about 1 pound lighter than your 300mm and considerably cheaper.
I am pretty sure there are a lot of people that do not consider Canon 70-200mm zooms to be a "compromise" in IQ.
Imagemaster wrote:
You also have to remember that this is a new lens design and with that zoom range, it is about 1 pound lighter than your 300mm and considerably cheaper.
I am pretty sure there are a lot of people that do not consider Canon 70-200mm zooms to be a "compromise" in IQ.
Yes, I know it's cheaper and lighter, that's why I ordered one.
But I'm addressing the initial claim of its IQ. I believe every zoom is a compromise somewhere along the focal length: some very little like the 70-200mm or new 24-70mm, and some quite a lot like my 28-300mm. I'll gladly stand corrected, however, if this isn't true.
Garylv wrote:
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.
Let's be honest, the reason Canon super teles are so expensive is that they sell in very low volume and Canon attaches a pretty hefty profit margin to them to make up for that.
I took a look at the specs and the Tamron 150-600 is actually even heavier than the Canon 400mm f/4 DO per bhphoto's site at 4.30 lbs vs 4.27 lbs and is 1.55 lbs heavier than the Canon 400mm f/5.6.
How do people typically use 4 lb + lenses? Can you hand hold it with a decent strap (Black Rapid, etc...)? Is a monopod recommended?
The only 2.0TC/prime lens combo that I have used that doesn't sacrifice anything IQ wise and AF wise is the 300 f/2.8 IS II with the 2.0TCIII. The 600 f/4 IS II and 2.0TCIII also doesn't sacrifice IQ but it does sacrifice AF acquisition times.
For the first time yesterday I tried the 2.0TCIII on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens. That sacrifices AF speed to a ridiculous amount. I was truly shocked how slow it was moving the motor. Now that I've tried it myself, I find it amazing that a lot of people were proponents of switching from 100-400s to 70-200s with 2.0TCs. The 100-400 at 400 f/5.6 has exceptionally better AF than the 70-200+2.0 combo.
I think this new Tamron is going to really impress if the AF can be like the 100-400 and the IQ is looking good. But no way would I ever put a TC onto this lens.
dthrog00 wrote:
I took a look at the specs and the Tamron 150-600 is actually even heavier than the Canon 400mm f/4 DO per bhphoto's site at 4.30 lbs vs 4.27 lbs and is 1.55 lbs heavier than the Canon 400mm f/5.6.
How do people typically use 4 lb + lenses? Can you hand hold it with a decent strap (Black Rapid, etc...)? Is a monopod recommended?
Dave
I can easily handhold a 500/4 + 1D body. So the Tamron would be a breeze to me.
ggreene wrote:
Let's be honest, the reason Canon super teles are so expensive is that they sell in very low volume and Canon attaches a pretty hefty profit margin to them to make up for that.
Let's be honest, the reason Canon super teles sell in very low volume is because they are so expensive.
dthrog00 wrote:
I took a look at the specs and the Tamron 150-600 is actually even heavier than the Canon 400mm f/4 DO per bhphoto's site at 4.30 lbs vs 4.27 lbs and is 1.55 lbs heavier than the Canon 400mm f/5.6.
How do people typically use 4 lb + lenses? Can you hand hold it with a decent strap (Black Rapid, etc...)? Is a monopod recommended?
Dave
The Canon 400 DO is much easier to handhold than a 500 f4 or 300 f2.8..
Many people can't handhold a 500 f4 for any length of time, which is why most owners of one have to pack all that tripod gear around with them.
Imagemaster wrote:
The Canon 400 DO is much easier to handhold than a 500 f4 or 300 f2.8..
Many people can't handhold a 500 f4 for any length of time, which is why most owners of one have to pack all that tripod gear around with them.
I'll wait for the reviews to come in before doing anything. The availability of an affordable 600mm lens is very enticing.
At the risk of sounding like a wimp I've used the 400mm f/5.6 a few times and thought the weight was manageable, but another 1.5 lbs for extended use when having to "hold the pose" waiting for a bird to do something interesting sounds like monopod territory for me.
I have to commend Dolina on hand holding the 500mm f/4 and a 1 series body! That is a lot of weight.
Imagemaster wrote:
The Canon 400 DO is much easier to handhold than a 500 f4 or 300 f2.8..
Many people can't handhold a 500 f4 for any length of time, which is why most owners of one have to pack all that tripod gear around with them.
Handholding vs monopod/tripod usage is an interesting subject. Is there any info on whether or not this new lens will be tripod sensing? For me, the ability to use the VC on a monopod would be a plus on such a long lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
The Canon 400 DO is much easier to handhold than a 500 f4 or 300 f2.8..
Many people can't handhold a 500 f4 for any length of time, which is why most owners of one have to pack all that tripod gear around with them.
As a current 400 DO owner, and previous 300 2.8 owner, I concur on the above.
However- one consideration is in hand placement. I hand-hold my 400 DO at racetracks for hours, but my left hand is able to balance the lens fairly easily as it doesn't have to do anything but hold the lens up, and I can put my hand anywhere it feels comfortable as there's no zooming to do. The Tamron will typically require the left hand be put on the zoom ring, which might or might not be a comfortable position for extended hand-held shooting, never mind that it has to twist the zoom ring as well.
That being said, I still plan to give the Tamron a shot.
There usually is no need for "monopod sensing" with IS lenses. There is still some drift, no matter how securely one holds a mono.
A tripod should have no drift whatsoever, and that can confuse the IS. A monopod, pretty unlikely.
<quote>Handholding vs monopod/tripod usage is an interesting subject. Is there any info on whether or not this new lens will be tripod sensing? For me, the ability to use the VC on a monopod would be a plus on such a long lens.
RogerC11 wrote:
Let's be honest, the reason Canon super teles sell in very low volume is because they are so expensive.
Either way the profit margin on them is very high. Who's to say that the Tamron can't be high quality just because it is much less expensive.
Most people say the last few percentage of IQ costs more then the previous 95+%? If Tamron makes it to just 85-90% it will be worth it especially if they can get higher in the center frame. A lot of people looking at these will undoubtedly be FL limited and looking for center performance anyways.
arbitrage wrote:
The only 2.0TC/prime lens combo that I have used that doesn't sacrifice anything IQ wise and AF wise is the 300 f/2.8 IS II with the 2.0TCIII. The 600 f/4 IS II and 2.0TCIII also doesn't sacrifice IQ but it does sacrifice AF acquisition times.
For the first time yesterday I tried the 2.0TCIII on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens. That sacrifices AF speed to a ridiculous amount. I was truly shocked how slow it was moving the motor. Now that I've tried it myself, I find it amazing that a lot of people were proponents of switching from 100-400s to 70-200s with 2.0TCs. The 100-400 at 400 f/5.6 has exceptionally better AF than the 70-200+2.0 combo.
I think this new Tamron is going to really impress if the AF can be like the 100-400 and the IQ is looking good. But no way would I ever put a TC onto this lens....Show more →
Yes, with the 300mm f/2.8 II and the 2xTC III, I know there must be a degradation in IQ over the bare lens; it's just that I can't really see it. That's why the early information that this new Tamron zoom matches this IQ left me skeptical even as I was ordering it myself. Oh, I will be extremely pleased if it's true.
As a side note: That combination does slow the autofocus somewhat for me. But, I don't have a 1DX!
The referenced French video had cc (closed captions) which offers an English caption that effectively translates most of the dialogue. Also the Tamron 70-300 is probably the best zoom tele that I have used under $500. I think my actual cost was $350 with a rebate. So I believe it is possible to up size that lens, maintain performance and keep the cost in the same ball park as the Sigma 150-500mm with perhaps better IQ at the long end.
