It is significant, but I'd like to see them both compared at exactly 560mm, too.
Also, the Canon image seems to be under-exposed by about a stop? Or a cloud went by overhead?
Still, the performance of the Tammy at 600mm @ f/8 seems VERY good in this example.
Based on what I've seen so far, I believe that with good light and proper technique, this lens WILL deliver the goods!
I'm glad that I pre-ordered one, and hope to have a copy sometime later next week.
I agree with your assessment! Those two shots do give the Tamron a significant edge. I'm not going to get one at this time as I'm saving for the 200-400 instead but at some point I may replace my 100-400 with the Tamron. For now I will enjoy watching some great images posted by the users who are used to using long glass (500 and above) and also will enjoy watching the users who aren't used to it struggle and complain that the lens isn't sharp
I wonder if Canon has an answer in the works - Rumors of a 100-400 replacement have been around for, I don't know, about 6 years.
Seriously, if this Tamron performs, it just knocked the resale value of the 100-400 down a notch or two.
The beauty of it is that it brings decent 600 mm capability to the middle class. I mean, I can get to 600 (and often do) with the 300/2.8 and a 2X teleconverter, and the results are excellent. But if the Tammy can bring decent results at 1/5 or less of the price, then it will be a winner.
The SP looks really good in those Jason Holzworth examples.
It would be nice to know which Extender was used, if AFMA was performed for both or either examples (the 100-400L looks a little soft), and what if any PP was done. OTOH, the SP looks just fine, as-is.
First, for those nikon shooters, it appears that B&H has added a March 31st ship date to their preorder page.
And 2nd, it is clear from these sample images that the Tamron beats the Canon 100-400. I can see a little pink and green color fringing on the near and far contrasty edges on the outskirts of the image area (seems good in the middle). Check out the 300 2.8 for how it's snow edges don't have the pink fringing. That's what the extra $3-6k will get you! Oh, btw, the 100-400 seems to have similar color fringing as the Tamron, but maybe not quite as whacky of color.
Keep posting your images despite my critique that follows! I don't mean to talk down about the posted images. We all appreciate them! But some observations:
AvianScott's images of the wooden polar bear are hard to base any conclusions off of because the depth of field at 600mm is much narrower than the 400, and much less of the whole head is in focus.
Big Country's images are nice, but the first ones I looked at from the 100-400 seem to have had more sharpening applied than the others (look at the edges of the snow, and even just the grain/noise itself).
The backyard bird shots are mostly all cropped to varying degrees. It's nice to see what can be done, but doesn't tell me too much. I'd like to see a full shot (to see how small the bird is in the whole frame), and then a 100% crop showing a part of the bird, AND if this is from a crop sensor or full frame. Noise reduction and sharpening settings can obscure both good things and bad things that comes from a lens. By the way, from what I hear, Canons apparently apply some noise reduction even when you have noise reduction turned off, at some ISOs.
It seems that a lot of the samples being posted now are with crop sensors. That's nice to see of course, but it's getting hard to keep track of the samples being posted and what we're looking at when they aren't clearly and continuously labeled. I'd like to see more full frames, as they show the whole picture of these lenses (bad pun sorry).
@ toomanyartists: Great first post, and welcome to the board!
I agree, I too would like to see a bunch of consistent test examples shot with full-frame sensors to confirm the edge-to-edge sharpness of the lens, when shot wide open (or at varying apertures).
Still, thanks very much to ALL who have contributed the images thus far!
toomanyartists, very little sharpening was applied to any of the zoo photos, as well as very little post. They are basically straight out of camera.
jcolwell, i am not sure what you mean by which extender, i used one of my canon 1.4x iii's. no AFMA was performed. just a small amount of contrast, highlights, sharpening and noise reduction was made. just a LR preset i have to make my raw images look like jpgs straight out of camera in LR...I didn't mess with exposure.
I would not normally put the 100-400 with a 1.4x iii, i would use it bare, then have either the 200-400 or 600 ii
i believe that the lens will be hit and miss depending on the environment a person is using it, regardless of their skill level, of course their skill level will play a factor as well, but so will other things.
This lens is perfect for the majority of it's targeted users. If you are used to using the big whites, i don't think this will be your go to lens, unless you want something lightweight and convenient. For me this is perfect for when me and my wife travel together, I can have my long lens arsenal and she can haver her tamron.
This putting a lens on a tripod and shooting with mirror lockup, focusing manually with live view and firing with a remote is not what i call the real world of getting sharp images. No one that buys this lens is going to be shooting like that. People are buying this for birding, wildlife, maybe some sports, maybe use it for portraits. Not to photograph books, statues or money indoors. There is also more to the story of how "great" a lens is, one being how responsive is the AF in various lighting condition and target conditions.
At the end of the day, i don't believe the used prices of 100-400 will be affected that much if at all...used prices are 900-1100, and i really thing that they'll stay there. Yes, some people will dump their 100-400s and that will be the exception.
If someone is looking for a long lens that zooms and doesn't want to drop some serious cash, here ya go.
big country wrote:
jcolwell, i am not sure what you mean by which extender, i used one of my canon 1.4x iii's. no AFMA was performed. just a small amount of contrast, highlights, sharpening and noise reduction was made. just a LR preset i have to make my raw images look like jpgs straight out of camera in LR...I didn't mess with exposure.
Hi Jason,
Sorry. My mind got disconnected from the flow when I cited hoodlum's post.
big country wrote:
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.
Beautiful shot! My copy should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. I realize this image has been processed but I process every image I keep anyway. If my copy of the lens gives me the same IQ as this, I'll be one happy camper. I also realize it's going to take some getting used to in able to get be best from this lens just like any other but maybe a little more because of the 600mm
BTW: What software did you edit this image with, if you don't mind?
I remember several years ago, complaints about the sigma 50-500 were every where on the web. Come to find out, most, but not all of the complainers thought they could throw it up hand held it just like there 70-200 and get the same results. Everybody just needs to remember 600mm is a longer lens than most are used to and will take some special care in handling to get the best out of it. In other words, get used to the new lens before they make any judgements on the WEB that might lead someone away from what might be a good lens..
The thing is i feel more confident hand holding the 200-400 w/1.4x or the 600mm ii, maybe thats because they are so much heavier, your mind automatically goes to supporting/stabilizing them.
we are headed to the everglades and south florida next month, so we'll see how it goes with the tamron.
Beautiful shot! My copy should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. I realize this image has been processed but I process every image I keep anyway. If my copy of the lens gives me the same IQ as this, I'll be one happy camper. I also realize it's going to take some getting used to in able to get be best from this lens just like any other but maybe a little more because of the 600mm
BTW: What software did you edit this image with, if you don't mind?
I remember several years ago, complaints about the sigma 50-500 were every where on the web. Come to find out, most, but not all of the complainers thought they could throw it up hand held it just like there 70-200 and get the same results. Everybody just needs to remember 600mm is a longer lens than most are used to and will take some special care in handling to get the best out of it. In other words, get used to the new lens before they make any judgements on the WEB that might lead someone away from what might be a good lens.....Show more →
That's my concern. 600 is a completely different beast than 300. Expecting the VC to work miracles on handheld shots isn't a particularly realistic expectation. I'd love to see some tripod mounted shots and a bit more of a scientific approach - and that's why we've got to wait. They're coming. And hopefully shots with zero PP on them as well.
Of course for those in a hurry, the lens is only a grand - and B&H has a wonderful return policy...
Thanks Roger! Have you ever tested the Canon 100-400 with a 1.4x extender? I was curious as to see how much drop off there is, especially if it might expect to look something similar to the Tamron 150-600 drop-off as it approaches 600mm.
Nice tests. My take away is that, at least in terms of IQ measured by MTF, the new Tamron looks almost equivalent in the 150-400 range as the Canon lens, with the added bonus of going to 600mm when needed. Based on what I see so far, I think I would treat this as a ~ 150 to 450mm lens, which can go higher in a pinch. But, I would not buy it for 600mm use, unless weight was a big factor. That's just what I would do. YMMV.
