Some amazing shots from this relatively inexpensive lens.
Some have said it replaces their expensive glass and super-teles - would you replace a 600 f/4 with this lens? Maybe that's a stupid question, but I'm just trying to put these posts in perspective.
eaglewolf wrote:
Some amazing shots from this relatively inexpensive lens.
Some have said it replaces their expensive glass and super-teles - would you replace a 600 f/4 with this lens? Maybe that's a stupid question, but I'm just trying to put these posts in perspective.
David
From my limited time with this lens it is not a replacement for the 600 f4. It is not as sharp at f6.3 though it's quite good at f8. The biggest issue I had with it was it's inability to track a subject in low light when tested on my D300.
The Sigma 150-600 Sport is sharper wide open and tracks well in very low light. I'm anticipating the arrival of mine. Is the Sigma as good as a 600 f4? Well it dose not go to f4 :-}
morris wrote:
From my limited time with this lens it is not a replacement for the 600 f4. It is not as sharp at f6.3 though it's quite good at f8. The biggest issue I had with it was it's inability to track a subject in low light when tested on my D300.
The Sigma 150-600 Sport is sharper wide open and tracks well in very low light. I'm anticipating the arrival of mine. Is the Sigma as good as a 600 f4? Well it dose not go to f4 :-}
Morris
I kind of figured that. Sometimes a good value product can make us forget why the big guns cost so much, though I have to admit that a lens that long that could be hand held (weight-wise) is very appealing.
I'll be looking forward to seeing reports on the Sigma lens as well.
eaglewolf wrote:
I kind of figured that. Sometimes a good value product can make us forget why the big guns cost so much, though I have to admit that a lens that long that could be hand held (weight-wise) is very appealing.
I'll be looking forward to seeing reports on the Sigma lens as well.
eaglewolf wrote:
Some amazing shots from this relatively inexpensive lens.
Some have said it replaces their expensive glass and super-teles - would you replace a 600 f/4 with this lens? Maybe that's a stupid question, but I'm just trying to put these posts in perspective.
David
It depends. IQ wise there is not a lot of visible difference. The 600 f4 lens for me, is tripod only. This is based on my experience with my 800mm & 500mm lenses. My mobility is severely hampered. The sessions out in the field needed planning and prep work. But the AF performance and wide apertures can't be beat.
The 150-600 makes one extremely mobile. You can carry it all day long without effort. 4lbs vs 20lbs+. I use mine exclusively hand held. But the price you pay is on the aperture. I treat mine as a f8 lens. So I can use it only in good light (read no clouds). Works really well till 5 mins before the sunset
So if I know that I'm gonna be setting up in one spot, I bring my big gun and the support and stay put. If I don't know the location or if I'm gonna be scouting on foot looking for my subjects, I bring the Tamy. Most of my shooting is of the later variety. So lately 90% of my shooting has been with the zoom. YMMV. If the weight (of the lens itself + support) doesn't bother you, then a big prime is always better.
I have not talked about the cost!
---------------------------------------------
morris wrote:
The biggest issue I had with it was it's inability to track a subject in low light when tested on my D300.
The Sigma 150-600 Sport is sharper wide open and tracks well in very low light. I'm anticipating the arrival of mine. Is the Sigma as good as a 600 f4? Well it dose not go to f4 :-}
Morris
The AF tracking is awesome with my D7100, even in very low light. It's miserable with my D800. My guess is, it may have to do something with my copy of the D800. But I have heard that people with older bodies are experiencing sluggish AF. Nasim's site also discusses this in the lens review. https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-150-600mm-f5-6-3/2
So I have come to the conclusion that the AF performance of this lens when paired with newer bodies like D7100, D810 & D4s is great. Look at images posted by 4mpx earlier in this thread. Some awesome action with his D4s. My D7100 is glued to this lens. This is the only lens (among all the 3rd party & Nikon lenses) that didn't need any MFA with my D7100. The focus is spot on at all focal lengths and at all distances. With the D7100, AF performance is as good as the sigma 120-300 OS. The big Nikon (and Canon) primes have hyper fast AF and none of the 3rd party offerings can compare. But short of that the AF in this lens is very good, with newer bodies.
Well, since I already have the 600 f/4, the Tamron is the more expensive option for me!
Recently I took the 600 with me to a state park in NC planning on seeing what I could capture with it. As I was loading up the gear, I looked back over the map and noted that it the route I was taking was listed as strenuous. I ended up leaving it in the trunk and taking the Nikon 70-300 instead. Good choice, as some of the path was across sheer rock tilted at a 15 degree angle or so. One slip and it could have been bye-bye expensive lens.
So yeah, a hand held lens like the Tamron or possibly the Sigma would be a great addition and would see more use. I could take it just because I might need it, where I definitely would not do that with the 600. As you said, that lens takes planning and preparation to use, aside from needing special situations. The smaller third party lenses can be used for spontaneous shooting that eludes the big lens, at least for me.
I love the AF performance of the 600 f/4 - it is the most impressive piece of glass I've ever had the pleasure to use. When I was shooting surfers in Southern California, it was a blast to use and I didn't begrudge the weight and preparation one iota. However, it isn't the answer to every long shot I might take.
I found the Tamron did not perform well at all on the D300 as far as tracking. On the D7100 and the D800 it has been very good for me. I could never afford a 600 F4 so for me the Tamron is much better, lol. I also always shoot handheld and am always on the go.. A few recent shots..
I have just started using the Tammie and so far I love it. I too found it lacking on the D300, but with my D7100 things are looking up. I can only hope to do as well as these ^
I appreciate all the comments and excellent shots taken with the Tamron 150-600. I would love a Nikkor 600mm, but I think I would love this lens and $9000 even better! any comments on AF with a D700?
Thank you rwingsfan! It does take some practice especially if you are not used to a long lens. I was shooting a Tamron 200-500 for about 18 months when I started out. I then switched to a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 with a 2x TC. I was already used to shooting long lenses, but it still took me 2 weeks to get really used to the Tamron 156...
Even though many people here seem to think the D800 doesn't do well with birds, I think most of the shots I have posted here are with the D800. I generally have my D7100 on my right side with the old 300 F4...
4mpx, your shots are stunning as well!
The beauty of the Tamron is that you can shoot pretty slow, here is one at 1/200th, handheld. I'm not sure I could have hauled a 600 F4 through the cedar grove to get this one.. I beat my gear up, I would hate to do that to a 10K lens... Barred Owl 11_23 1 by krisinct- Thanks for 4 Million views!, on Flickr
coastalconn wrote:
The beauty of the Tamron is that you can shoot pretty slow, here is one at 1/200th, handheld. I'm not sure I could have hauled a 600 F4 through the cedar grove to get this one.. I beat my gear up, I would hate to do that to a 10K lens...
Yep, you shoot slow and also close, especially when a 600mm is needed for a small bird :
I know this might be an odd question, but can someone tell me what is your maximum aperture at 400mm on the nikon version of the Tamron 150-600? Curious if it's 5.6 or 6.3 already. Thank you!
Luftwalk wrote:
I know this might be an odd question, but can someone tell me what is your maximum aperture at 400mm on the nikon version of the Tamron 150-600? Curious if it's 5.6 or 6.3 already. Thank you!
That's what I thought it should be...but mine isn't. It's 5.6 till about 320mm and then jumps to f6 till 450mm. I'm using this on a Nikon D750...can anyone with the same body check? Exposure compensation value is set to 1/3.
