shutterbug guy wrote:
I share your pain, my lens went from NJ and then to Chicago for 3 days.....
It should eventually ship out internationally in NJ, makes no sense at all.
Roger
it's called weather, cold, cold, bitter cold, much stops or slips about, half the USA is cold, very cold and a second arctic blast is storming through right now. Routes change as the weather does, they try to get things out, once out tho it's a coin toss at best...zero visibility or near does not bode well for any traveling/shipping. Relax, it's winter, things slow down...
StillFingerz wrote:
it's called weather, cold, cold, bitter cold, much stops or slips about, half the USA is cold, very cold and a second arctic blast is storming through right now.
Tell me about it - overnight we're averaging 16°C - 24°C during the day. Everyone's in cardigans and jerseys.
I am photographing eagles this weekend and possibly snowy owls. I will take this lens, i will be taking 300 2.8, 200-400, 400 2.8 ii, 600 ii, 100-400 as well as the tamron.
I will also be taking a 1dx with batteries charged up, 5d iii, 70D, and maybe the 6D.
I am taking all of this to finish up some reviews for my new site...is there any combo's vs. that you want to see that was not done at the zoo?
I'd like to see more full frame, and more 600mm stopped down. I think the comparisons with the 100-400 are of the most interest to those here, but of course comparing to the the 600ii would be very interesting! I haven't seen that yet. And have you tried any with TCs on the Tamron?
BigCountry, I personally would like to see a lot of good pictures with the 150-600 at the long end and at f/8'ish (where I'd expect to use the lens most of the time). Comparing it to those lenses that cost thousands and thousands more is cool, but not really helpful to the budget minded shooter (ie. the target audience for the Tamron).
Hope you get excellent sunlight on your shoot, good luck!
I have tried an older Tamron SP 1-4 TC on my 150-600 and it works surprisingly well. If there isn't adequate light you have to coax it by using the focus ring to get it close. I have a few other observations I would like to share.
I have had and used FoCal for along time to MA my lenses. The Tamron needed very little on on either my 5d mkiii or my 70d. And in repeated use of the focus consistency test it scored 98.7 consistent. The only lens that has been better is the Canon 70-200 MKII which was 98.9. I found that interesting. On the aperture sharpness tests, at 150mm it's sharpest at f8 and at 600mm at f9.
The VC is not tripod sensing.
Those of you that have purchased this lens, do not quickly dismiss the Silkypix software that comes with it. It does a lot more than correct CA. Read the Tamron section at the end of the software manual. Some interesting things going on in that software. It also is designed to work with Tamron's 24-70.
I think that the tripod mounting foot has been well thought out. I have an inexpensive gimbal and the 3.5" plate that came with it is enough to balance the lens with either of my cameras perfectly.
I have what I and others have felt was a very good example Canon 100-400 and the Tamron will match its IQ until 500mm. However, I feel the results at 600mm are very usable.
This is not a "big white killer" however it is an impressive lens for the cost. It will take a great deal of practice for some to use and I'm sure they will get frustrated, throw up their hands and give up on it. I can just imagine the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth if this lens could replace a truckload of big whites costing multiple thousands of dollars.
Andymark, i will shoot many shots at f/8 just you for, since you are a fellow hoosier! Me taking the other lenses is not to compare them against the tamron per say, but to finish up reviews on all this gear for a new venture i have. I will also take the 70-300mm L. we'll see what we get!
Nice mini review gwaww, thanks! You answered some additional questions I had including the software package thrown in (unfortunately no Linux version) and whether or not to even attempt using my old Tamron 1.4x TC. Did you find much difference in aperture sharpness in the full frame and 70D. I have similar camera in the 5D mkII and 7D, so I'd be interested.
toomanyartists, the canon tele's won't fit on the tamron. The tamron rear mount won't accept them physically. I sold my kenko 1.4x so i cannot comment on that. I suppose you could mount an extension tube then a tele, but I would guess the AF would be a pain to deal with.
Some basic observations.........AF seems quite fast, faster than I expected it will be important to have good light for it on bodies with less emphasis on speed focusing abilities like my 5D classic. However in decent light all went quite well to follow focus. A speeding duck will be a different ballgame to try
I have been seeing mixed results at 600mm as far as sharpness and it seems that f/8 is preferred for best sharpness.
I will continue to observe the results at the long end of this zoom and after I am confident I have eliminated technique as a problem will try another body to compare. Unfortunately the Canon 5D does not offer Micro Adjust and that may be an important step as it is on the super teles too for critical sharpness.
amyandmark3 wrote:
BigCountry, I personally would like to see a lot of good pictures with the 150-600 at the long end and at f/8'ish (where I'd expect to use the lens most of the time). Comparing it to those lenses that cost thousands and thousands more is cool, but not really helpful to the budget minded shooter (ie. the target audience for the Tamron).
Hope you get excellent sunlight on your shoot, good luck!
Mark
+1
500-600 range is where I would use this lens 90% of the time at f/7.1 or f/8
Hoping for clear and sunny conditions for your weekend... thanks so much for doing these tests Jason, it is much appreciated.
big country wrote:
Andymark, i will shoot many shots at f/8 just you for, since you are a fellow hoosier! Me taking the other lenses is not to compare them against the tamron per say, but to finish up reviews on all this gear for a new venture i have. I will also take the 70-300mm L. we'll see what we get!
Karl, your sample photos were quite good. I wonder if this is one of those lenses where one would not quite go all the way to 600mm for best results... such as, maybe stop zooming at around 550-575'ish? I recall that I used to do that with a Sigma 150-500 OS I owned a few years ago... I stopped zooming at around 470mm'ish and got way better results than going all the way to 500mm (at the same apertures).
sfink161 wrote:
Nice mini review gwaww, thanks! You answered some additional questions I had including the software package thrown in (unfortunately no Linux version) and whether or not to even attempt using my old Tamron 1.4x TC. Did you find much difference in aperture sharpness in the full frame and 70D. I have similar camera in the 5D mkII and 7D, so I'd be interested.
I live in a rural part of Minnesota and it has been ugly outside, so all of the testing I did was inside at a distance of about 35' with the camera and lens tripod mounted and mirror locked up. I always do this with a new lens so I know what the lens is possible of doing (a benchmark for me, so to speak). Then is it is up to me to try a match that performance in the field. To answer your question, I think the IQ between cameras is very close. I just recently moved from the same cameras you own and the 70d takes a little less noise work than the 7d otherwise they are very similar. When you realize that the 70d images that I took were taken at an equivalent 1344mm field of view, that's amazing! I cannot get high speed internet or cable where I live so I do my browsing with my iphone as a hotspot, so it's difficult to upload.
amyandmark3 wrote:
Karl, your sample photos were quite good. I wonder if this is one of those lenses where one would not quite go all the way to 600mm for best results... such as, maybe stop zooming at around 550-575'ish? I recall that I used to do that with a Sigma 150-500 OS I owned a few years ago... I stopped zooming at around 470mm'ish and got way better results than going all the way to 500mm (at the same apertures).
^^^ Snop, thanks for the info. The gist of my comment was: if many people are finding this lens to be a little softer when fully zoomed (seems to be the case in many reviews so far), perhaps zooming out just a tad (25mm or so) would provide better results. I'd rather have a sharper 555mm image of a Bald Eagle than a softer one at 582mm. When I did that with my old 150-500 OS, the results were better and worth the extra cropping needed. I'm not saying the Tamron is like this, just wondering if it's a possibility.
Thanks , from what I read the software was mainly for vignetting and since I only have a 7 D and an XTI , I was not even going to install it .
No , I don't have the lens and won't be buying till March .
Just out of curiosity , when people are saying how sharp the lens is - are they looking at a print or on monitor ? How much would I have to crop to notice if I printed on 8.5 X 10 cheap photo paper in a cheap frame ? I am sure I am not the only hobbyist wondering that .
By this I mean people post " filters degrade I Q " - I see / saw no difference on 35-350 at about 200 mm with and without UV filter [ this was printed at 8 x 10 on the C8100 H P [ it has since died ] on the XTI [ cropped / squared up about 10 % ] .
big country: I would not mind seeing comparisons against the 600 II and the 300 2.8 + 2.0 TC.
Fully realizing that the Tamron and the Canons are not in the same league, it would still be good to know how far apart they are optically relative to their cost.
I know some people think such an exercise is a waste of time, but I do not. I'm sure there are some cases -- weight and size limited situations -- where the Tamron could be the only option even for one with access to large primes...... It would be nice to know what one gives up versus the big whites.
I have the Tamron on order and when it arrives will do such a comparison myself..... unless someone beats me to it...
