gocolts wrote:
My main comparison test will be between the Tamron and my 400 DO with a 1.4TC, both wide open and at f/8.
Exactly the reason why I ordered one as well... B&H just shipped mine so I should it Monday PM. Assuming that I have some good light on Tuesday, that comparison test will be on the agenda. I have an exceptionally sharp copy of the DO but I'll be reserving any comments until I test it...
I've got a couple of copies in our Imatest lab now, doing a head-to-head with the Tamron 200-500, Canon 100-400, and Sigma 50-500. Should have something up over the weekend.
I did a quick comparison on my lunch break between my 100-400L @ 400mm f/5.6, and the Tamron 150-600 @ 600mm f/6.3. Needless to say, I am VERY happy with the copy of the Tamron I received.
The sculpture is a wood carved polar bear, and the lines above the mouth are nearly hair-sized and give a good idea about the resolution and sharpness.
I did a quick comparison on my lunch break between my 100-400L @ 400mm f/5.6, and the Tamron 150-600 @ 600mm f/6.3. Needless to say, I am VERY happy with the copy of the Tamron I received.
RCicala wrote:
I've got a couple of copies in our Imatest lab now, doing a head-to-head with the Tamron 200-500, Canon 100-400, and Sigma 50-500. Should have something up over the weekend.
The results your lab gets will probably contribute to the decision-making of many photographers on this site. I, for one, will be very curious to see them.
I suspect that Tamron's direct competition for their new lens is Sigma's 150-500. Do you have one of those you can test it against?
Has a the price of a lens ever gone up after its launch if it turns out to be popular? I am a 100-400 owner and am waiting to sift through all the reports before deciding whether or not to pull the trigger. Just wondering if this will cost me anything.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
My worry is not a single shot has anything in sharp focus, no example of fine hair detail and I'm wondering if it's the 70D or lens or both. ISO 1000 is not that high for image to mush up. It looks like focus was never properly achieved maybe due to the very low contrast of the doberman.
+1
My first thoughts after seeing those sample was that it would make a great portrait lens - soft and low contrast. I guess I'm not the only one seeing that.
My first thoughts after seeing those sample was that it would make a great portrait lens - soft and low contrast. I guess I'm not the only one seeing that.
True, but who is going to rely on just 8 shots from just one photographer who just got the lens? Not me.
In the next couple of weeks there will be a plethora of shots from this lens. Those will tell the full story.
Different photographers get different results, even when using the same exact lens.
One issue that I see here is that people are expecting to shoot at 600mm at 1/200. With a crop sensor, 1/1000 is the rule, that of course can be broken. I've had this lens since yesterday and when you get enough light into it, it is fantastic. This lens, on a crop sensor is similar to viewing through a spotting scope. Can't do that well handheld. Same applies with this lens. It really is going to benefit from having a tripod.
Imagemaster wrote:
True, but who is going to rely on just 8 shots from just one photographer who just got the lens? Not me.
In the next couple of weeks there will be a plethora of shots from this lens. Those will tell the full story.
Different photographers get different results, even when using the same exact lens.
Again, no one has pronounce a decision on this lens based upon what has been shown, merely commented on the photos posted. I think we are all in agreement that more data is needed.
Being a guy looking into getting a budget tele this definitely has peeked my interest. Having not seen your dogs in person how happy are you with the color detail? All in all for a few casual shots they look pretty good to me. For that price really good. Beautiful dogs BTW.
Got some nice shots at the zoo today. the 1d x wasn't used, more on that later. I am uploading 100 images for everyone to dissect and analyze. The tamron performed much better on the 5d iii, although i still fell the 100-400 out performs it in the AF dept. As soon as they are uploaded i'll post a link for everyone.
Here is an edited photo from the tamron 150-600mm.
i think you will love the lens. Thanks for the compliments on the dogs.
jason
tgrantster wrote:
Being a guy looking into getting a budget tele this definitely has peeked my interest. Having not seen your dogs in person how happy are you with the color detail? All in all for a few casual shots they look pretty good to me. For that price really good. Beautiful dogs BTW.
RCicala wrote:
I've got a couple of copies in our Imatest lab now, doing a head-to-head with the Tamron 200-500, Canon 100-400, and Sigma 50-500. Should have something up over the weekend.
Roger
Great!
I'll be looking for/at your report with great interest while waiting for my copy (now due on Monday).
Thanks
Steve
It will take me a while to write everything up, but I thought I'd give a quick summary on MTF data:
At 200-30mm, the Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 are generally in the same ballpark. The Tamron 200-500 lags behind the other three.
At 400mm the Tamron 150-600 and Canon edge out the Sigma 50-500, although not massively. The Tamron 200-500 still lags.
At 600 the Tamron has a significant drop in sharpness, although it's certainly still acceptable. And, well, none of the others are still shooting at 600. Of course, at 600mm so many other factors are involved in getting a sharp image that I doubt the drop-off would be particularly noticeable.
It sounds like in the 100-400mm range MTF is similar for both the Tamron 150-600 and the Canon 100-400? The drop in MTF at 600 may contribute to some of the relatively soft photos posted from the Tamron?
RCicala wrote:
It will take me a while to write everything up, but I thought I'd give a quick summary on MTF data:
At 200-30mm, the Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 are generally in the same ballpark. The Tamron 200-500 lags behind the other three.
At 400mm the Tamron 150-600 and Canon edge out the Sigma 50-500, although not massively. The Tamron 200-500 still lags.
At 600 the Tamron has a significant drop in sharpness, although it's certainly still acceptable. And, well, none of the others are still shooting at 600. Of course, at 600mm so many other factors are involved in getting a sharp image that I doubt the drop-off would be particularly noticeable. ...Show more →
Thanks for the summary. I suspected this lens would need to be stopped down to f/8 at 600mm to be usable to me, as there obviously has to be some give and take for a modern 600mm zoom lens that's barely a thousand bucks. The fact that the Tamron and Canon are in the same ballpark at 400mm is telling though, to be honest I didn't expect that.
Looking forward to getting my copy on Tuesday to do some testing of my own.
RCicala wrote:
It will take me a while to write everything up, but I thought I'd give a quick summary on MTF data:
At 200-30mm, the Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 are generally in the same ballpark. The Tamron 200-500 lags behind the other three.
At 400mm the Tamron 150-600 and Canon edge out the Sigma 50-500, although not massively. The Tamron 200-500 still lags.
At 600 the Tamron has a significant drop in sharpness, although it's certainly still acceptable. And, well, none of the others are still shooting at 600. Of course, at 600mm so many other factors are involved in getting a sharp image that I doubt the drop-off would be particularly noticeable. ...Show more →
Roger, were these comments based on shooting wide open? If so how does stopping down the Tamron help.
