dsr1 wrote:
How do you think it's going to do on Fast Action Photography? (Duh)
Don't mean to be rude or anything but it's a $1069.00 5-6.3 lens for heaven sake. Maybe at ISO 3200 and a really fast shutter speed it can at least compete.
And what has ISO 3200 and a really fast shutter speed got to do with AF
If you can go by what we've heard so far, and your into Wildlife or Bird Photography, buying this lens is a no brainer. Yes the more expensive lenses are better and better built. But for those of us without good size bank accounts, this really looks good.
I'm hoping it becomes avalable on Amazon very soon !
Imagemaster wrote:
And what has ISO 3200 and a really fast shutter speed got to do with AF
Imagemaster,
Wouldn't the higher ISO allow for the faster shutter speed in any given light, especially bright light thus being able to catch a moving animal or BIF with less motion? I've always thought that made sense to me, or am I wrong?BTW: I didn't mean to start anything by being adding my unnecessary addition to my first comment.
dsr1 wrote:
Wouldn't the higher ISO allow for the faster shutter speed in any given light, especially bright light thus being able to catch a moving animal or BIF with less motion?
Certainly, but that still has nothing to do with AF speed or accuracy.
Imagemaster wrote:
Hey, why don't you Easterners go out and shovel some snow...
It's +7 C here right now, at 17:40, local time. We're getting a total of about 40mm of rain today & tomorrow morning. Tomorrow afternoon, the temperature in Halifax is forecast to fall from +9 C to -9 C. We get the best of all worlds here, on the Best Coast.
I figure that the Tamron SP 150-600/5-6.3 Di VC might be a decent lens for travel, when I want some extra reach, without the effort of carting around some really heavy glass. I look forward to seeing more example photos from this lens.
Here's some of the vital stats that help to explain why I'm interested.
The lenses in the attached image are scaled for correct relative size; showing from left to right,
- Canon EF 300/2.8L IS II (photo B&H)
- Tamron SP 150-600/5-6.3 Di VC (photo Tamron)
- Sigma EX 120-300/2.8 OS (photo jcolwell)
- Canon EF 500/4L IS II (photo B&H)
(L/R) EF 300/2.8L IS II, SP 150-600 VC, EX 120-300/2.8 OS, EF 500/4L IS II
lowa2 wrote:
Sweet sweet shot Tony! Snow? Nope, just a flash freeze in the forecast that's all +10C today with heavy rain, -10 tomorrow! That's going to suck!
GC5 wrote:
I don't have a problem with Tamron, but their AF consistency is not as reliable as Canon, and several of their lenses have had problems with outer AF points especially. If AF consistency, sharpness, colors and the like matter to you, the verdict is still out. I'm sure it will be a fine lens, but then, so is the Sigma. Only time will tell, but there are plenty of people who will stick with the Canon. Clearly is is longer and likely has better stabilization, and if that is your only criteria, the new lens looks a winner.
GC5,
It may be the only one in the world but I have a Tamron 70-300 mm f4-5.6 that is sharp enough that I can crop from 300 mm to the 100-400's 400 mm scene and find no loss of IQ what so ever. It also has the best VC, I've owned including Canons 70-200 f4 and Canons 100-400 mm. Not one problem with reliability on the Tamron. I was already thinking of selling my 100-400 before the Tamron 150-600 mm was introduced. After seeing all the samples posted in reviews, I just sold my 100-400 for enough to pay for the Tamron and have enough left to pay for a bean bag to help stabilize the lens at the 600 mm it offers.
I honestly think Tamrons policy of using the new technology to improve quality and gain customers and customer confidence is a lot more desirable than Canon or Nikon's policy to line their pockets at customer expense, Here Here Tamron!
It may be the only one in the world but I have a Tamron 70-300 mm f4-5.6 that is sharp enough that I can crop from 300 mm to the 100-400's 400 mm scene and find no loss of IQ what so ever. It also has the best VC, I've owned including Canons 70-200 f4 and Canons 100-400 mm. Not one problem with reliability on the Tamron. I was already thinking of selling my 100-400 before the Tamron 150-600 mm was introduced. After seeing all the samples posted in reviews, I just sold my 100-400 for enough to pay for the Tamron and have enough left to pay for a bean bag to help stabilize the lens at the 600 mm it offers.
I honestly think Tamrons policy of using the new technology to improve quality and gain customers and customer confidence is a lot more desirable than Canon or Nikon's policy to line their pockets at customer expense, Here Here Tamron!
Me? I'm not knocking Tamron! I bought the 70-200 VC and sold my Canon 70-200 II. I'm hopefully optimistic that this 150-600 turns out to be a great lens for the money. I want one, not that I'll use it much
Greg M wrote:
... I bought the 70-200 VC and sold my Canon 70-200 II...
This seems very unexpected, to me. What would prompt such a move, if I can ask? Do you mean the Canon is an inferior lens in some away, or that the Tamron comes at a lower price and you enjoyed pocketing the difference.
Perhaps I'm really missing the fact that the 3rd party lenses are truly better than the Canon lenses.
John Caldwell wrote:
This seems very unexpected, to me. What would prompt such a move, if I can ask? Do you mean the Canon is an inferior lens in some away, or that the Tamron comes at a lower price and you enjoyed pocketing the difference.
Perhaps I'm really missing the fact that the 3rd party lenses are truly better than the Canon lenses.
Thank you,
John Caldwell
The only difference in performance that I found between the two was that the Tamron was just a tad slower to focus in low light but it still locks on fairly quick. I found the Tamron's AF to be just as reliable as the Canon. It also freed up $650 to go towards another lens. My Tokina 16-28 cost me $699 so it was a choice of two excellent lenses or one slightly better lens. With the Tamron being able to do everything that I wanted it to do it was a no brainer for me.
I can understand why it might not be for someone else for various reasons but being able to use them side by side made my decision pretty easy. I prefer Canon lenses but that Tamron is very impressive. Earlier last year I had only Canon glass but the gap between SOME third party lenses and the Canon equivalents has narrowed or disappeared especially when price is factored into the equation.
dsr1 wrote:
How do you think it's going to do on Fast Action Photography? (Duh)
Don't mean to be rude or anything but it's a $1069.00 5-6.3 lens for heaven sake. Maybe at ISO 3200 and a really fast shutter speed it can at least compete.
I don't know how it'll do on fast action work, but if you have any real pearls of wisdom to spread feel free.
Greg M wrote:
Me? I'm not knocking Tamron! I bought the 70-200 VC and sold my Canon 70-200 II. I'm hopefully optimistic that this 150-600 turns out to be a great lens for the money. I want one, not that I'll use it much
Greg M.
How's the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC? Is it as good as has been reported compared to the Canon 70-200 MK II IS? I thing you're the first I've heard of that changed from thr Canon MK II to the Tamron 2.8 VC.
If Tamron would come out with a 17-85 f4 VC I could wind up owning all Tamron lens before it's over.
