Sy Sez wrote:
I'm suspect of the image quality of the lens, as the sharpest lenses currently available utilize one or more "superior" LD elements, such as Canon's Flourite, Sigmas FLD, & Tamron's own ELD.
Tamron's 70-200 2.8 contains 1 ELD, 4 LD elements, wile the 150-600 has 3 LD elements and "0" ELD.
It strikes me that Tamron is compromising image quality for price-point.
I wish they'd gone for a $3K price and superior image quality.
By the way, even the EF 100-400L has superior Flourite elements.
Leigh
The sharpest lenses currently available are at an extremely high level, high above the Canon 100-400. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 you mention with 1 EDL and 4 LD elements has theoretical MTF at a very high level. It is clear from the MTF charts than Tamron did not aim at that level with the new 150-600. The spread in sagittal and meridional lines indicate that astigmatism and/or lateral CA is present. The MTF at the short end is only mediocre, but the good news is that it is higher at the long end. This indicates that it has been optimized for the focal length where most cheap zooms fall apart.
For the lens to be successful, the minimum performance mark is to beat the Canon 100-400 with a 1.4x teleconverter, or the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS with a 2X teleconverter. That can easily be done even if it is not comparable to the sharpest lenses available.
abqnmusa wrote:
Now we need a Sigma 500mm F5.6
Canon will not do it and under-cut there precious 500mm F4 II
Imagemaster wrote:
Canon will not do it until someone else does.
It would not undercut their 500 f4 sales, because it is a different buyer that is not willing to pay that price and that does not need f4.
Not every photographer is rich enough to buy $11000 lenses. those who can are lucky
Nature photography should not just be a hobby for the rich. More affordable lenses like the Tamron would allow those without $11000 to enjoy the hobby.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Hell Canon gives us a 400 f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6, and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, so I can't see why they shouldn't or couldn't offer a 500 f/5.6 or say a 125-500 f/4-5.6.
While they have lots of options at 400 they have so far made no sign of updating the 400/4, 400/5.6, or the 100-400. My guess is that the 400/5.6 gets squeezed out. A potential new 100-400 with IQ near a 70-200 would take it's place and then a 500/5.6 could fit in there as well.
1500.00 doesn't sound so outlandish,consider Tamrons price points on all their lenses,28-75 was around 400.00 and it was close to some 'L' lenses costing 3x more,this would be a perfect lens for someone on a budget,lil extra reach then the 100-400 from Canon,surely better than Sigmas 50-500.
digitalbug30d wrote:
1500.00 doesn't sound so outlandish,consider Tamrons price points on all their lenses,28-75 was around 400.00 and it was close to some 'L' lenses costing 3x more,this would be a perfect lens for someone on a budget,lil extra reach then the 100-400 from Canon,surely better than Sigmas 50-500.
28--75 had the IQ for sure, but it's body and AF is not in the same league as the L glass. Hard to fault for $400 though. Had mine for several years. Build of newer 24-70 is better and now they have VC and PZD (USM).
Bigma is not at it's strongest past 300mm, not that it's bad, just could be better. Let's hope Tamron has worked to ensure the long end of the zoom is good, as that's always the bug bear with most zooms.
17-50 nonVC was/is also fantastic.
for the price (used) the 200-500 was pretty incredible. 500mm for $500 is better than no 500mm if big whites are out of the question.
I think this lens will be pretty sweet. I see my old Tamron 200-500 getting a lot of negative press in this thread. Here are 2 examples from it. I actually thought it was pretty good for a cheap consumer lens... If the 150-600 improves on this it will be pretty impressive especially if it only $1500...
Wide open...
45 years ago I was an apprentice machinist and said that a vertical boring mill could someday cut squares, and a milling machine make rounds while holding tolerances of .001 inch. I was told it will never happen. Now, computers have made these things possible by controlling every movement in every axis.
One day, somebody will come up with a computer chip that can move internal lens elements independently to provide a 150-600MM lens that is sharp at all focal lengths and costs a pittance. Every new lens design moves us a little closer to that magical lens. I may not live to see it, but some of you will. After all, nobody ever thought CNC machining would ever exist 45 years ago.
This lens from Tamron is another step into the future of lenses. Ssigma's USB dock is another step. One day, the lens will do all its checking "on the fly" and be a true miracle.
Technologies like Canon's DPAF have the most promise- being able to correlate phase results with contrast results and object tracking in real-time by the camera's control software will allow for some really interesting things.
fill as much as the view finder with what you want don't rely on the 'I will crop later" because you have 22mp to work with,obviously if you crop in post you are throwing away pixels,I say do your cropping while taking the picture,take the time to compose...
Impressive images coastalconn. Only shows it is the photographer and not necessarily the gear. With the astronomical prices of Canon vII superteles, I'm beginning to look at alternatives.
Thanks for sharing your images from your Tamron and Sigma.
digitalbug30d wrote:
do your cropping while taking the picture,take the time to compose...
Ok, I think that last word you used is more appropriate for what you're talking about. Nevertheless, it isn't always possible, especially in certain types of photography, such as wildlife photography. So, while composing perfectly in camera is ideal, cropping in post remains one of the- if not the most- powerful compositional tools available to a digital photographer.
rongoe wrote:
What canon lens gives 400mm for within $100 of $500?
I was just making the point, that a an image taken with a good 400mm lens and upscaled 25% in size, would probably be still of better quality than an image taken with a poor 500mm lens.
