wdshuck wrote:
I haven't had a chance to use the 200-600. I like hiking some, so the size always scared me away.
bobek13 wrote:
Yeah everybody got their preference so it`s nothing strange if a 100-400 suits you better.
One more Q - you didn`t perhaps have gotten a chance to compare it to the 200-600?
A.
This is the question I am struggling with. I travel and hike a lot. The 200-600 makes more sense as a birding lens - perhaps marginally sharper and/or better AF, although still unclear if noticeably better - but the 150-500 is way more portable
For now I find it's a mixed bag. I got pics that are crazy sharp even with high iso, but then again I got some with low iso and really fast SS that are really bad. My explanation for now is that the bad shots are a mix of the af of the a7rII not being up to the task and operator error - 99% of all I shot untill this lens was all manual lenses so I am really not experienced in telephoto segment of photography.
Next month I plan to buy an a7rIV and I'll see it that makes a difference in keeper rate.
Hello Forum, just got my 150-500mm Tamron, did quick tests against the 200-600mm Sony and the 100-400mm Sigma. All 3 AF was very fast and accurate .
at 200mm I feel the Sigma had a tad better IQ and bokeh. at 400mm the edge was a tad towards the Sony, almost not worth mentioning, at 500mm the same.
Was very surprised on the size of the Tamron this means a smaller backpack, the close focusing is wonderful, the VC was quite nice.
The AF behaved great as expected on my A1 but what surprised me was on my a7r IV, it seemed crisper, more precise.
I need to test with bird feathers and at a longer distance, as there I feel the Sony lacks.
Well, I finally got out to test the lens alittle. In a nut shell was really disappointed. So much so I ended up taking it back. I have a feeling I had a bad copy. The VC was terrible compared to my Sony. I was actually getting slightly better results on 2 and 3 settings but still nothing in comparison to my 100-400GM. At 500 the lens just was not sharp no matter what I did. It was not unusable but my 100-400GM was much sharper cropping in. And yes I know it is much cheaper but I guess Tamron is at fault because of expectations based on prior recent Tamron lenses that are very sharp. Anyway I did exactly what I said i would not do and that was I now had a 1400 dollar credit. So of course I had to spend that. Picked up the last 200-600 they had in the shop. Yes it is alot bigger but surprisingly it doesn't feel much heavier. Anyway just mounting on my A7riv I can tell just here in my office it is way sharper at 600 and the stabilization is just in a different league compared to the Tamron 150-500. At least the one I had. Again I might have just had a dud It's a bummer because the build quality is excellent and I love the size of it compared to the 200-600.
I am a fan of a number of the Tamron lenses. However, their long Zooms have never matched OEM zooms in my experience.
The Sony 100-400 GM, and the 200-600 G lenses are probably the best in their class from any manufacturer. This is true in AF, and IQ. You are going to see and feel the difference. I recommend anyone needing these FLs just spend the money and buy the Sony lenses. Not the place to go third party.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Well, I finally got out to test the lens alittle. It in a nut shell was really disappointed. So much so I ended up taking it back. I have a feeling I had a bad copy. The VC is terrible compared to my Sony. I was actually getting slightly better results on 2 and 3 settings but still nothing in comparison to my 100-400GM. At 500 the lens just was not sharp no matter what I did. It was not unusable but my 100-400GM was much sharper cropping in. And yes I know it is much cheaper but I guess Tamron is at fault because of expectations based on prior recent Tamron lenses that are very sharp. Anyway I did exactly what I said i would not do and that was I now had a 1400 dollar credit. So of course I had to spend that. Picked up the last 200-600 they had in the shop. Yes it is alot bigger but surprisingly it doesn't feel much heavier. Anyway just mounting on my A7riv I can tell just here in my office it is way sharper at 600 and the stabilization is just in a different league compared to the Tamron 150-500. At least the one I had. Again I might have just had a dud...Show more →
bobhandal1 wrote:
Hello Forum, just got my 150-500mm Tamron, did quick tests against the 200-600mm Sony and the 100-400mm Sigma. All 3 AF was very fast and accurate .
at 200mm I feel the Sigma had a tad better IQ and bokeh. at 400mm the edge was a tad towards the Sony, almost not worth mentioning, at 500mm the same.
Was very surprised on the size of the Tamron this means a smaller backpack, the close focusing is wonderful, the VC was quite nice.
The AF behaved great as expected on my A1 but what surprised me was on my a7r IV, it seemed crisper, more precise.
I need to test with bird feathers and at a longer distance, as there I feel the Sony lacks. ...Show more →
Looking fwd to your test report as I am not the testing guy, I just go out and shoot
1bwana1 wrote:
I am a fan of a number of the Tamron lenses. However, their long Zooms have never matched OEM zooms in my experience.
The Sony 100-400 GM, and the 200-600 G lenses are probably the best in their class from any manufacturer. This is true in AF, and IQ. You are going to see and feel the difference. I recommend anyone needing these FLs just spend the money and buy the Sony lenses. Not the place to go third party.
You are going to love the 200-600 G.
If only I paid less for the Tammy (like you guys can) Tamron`s got some weird pricing policy. In EU it is priced at 1500€ (just shy of 1800$) while the 200-600 just got a cashback deal and is 1630€ new, while used one`s on german photo forum come in at 1400-1600€.
I went Tamron way because of color (I really dislike the white colored lenses), the lack of arca swiss foot in Sony, the filter size, the size of the lens itself and because of the issues reported here that people shooting RIV have experienced with 200-600 lens. The only thing that is a big minus for me with Tamron is the inability to use TC`s.
Will see if the RIV will be a big difference performance wise, if not I might sell the Tamron and get a used Sony instead. Yes I will have to swallow the loss but I know for a long time I`ll never be rich so why save the money if I can spend it
Bobek,
There are many kinds of rich. Living in a place of great beauty, and having a wonderful family as you do is a form of wealth that billionaires can't put a price on.
1bwana1 wrote:
Bobek,
There are many kinds of rich. Living in a place of great beauty, and having a wonderful family as you do is a form of wealth that billionaires can't put a price on.
wordfool wrote:
The 2-6 is significantly bigger and heavier than the 1-4, which for me at least makes it a less attractive option. The 2-6 is indeed more of a specialist wildlife lens and probably not something you'd drag up a mountain for landscapes. I can't justify a $2K lens for only occasional use with wildlife. Something more like the Canon RF 1-5 or this Tamron would be a better all-purpose option for me with just enough useful extra reach over the 1-4 for those occasions I shoot wildlife.
You'd just use the 1.4x TC in the 100-400 GM if you needed the extra reach, still excellent IQ even wide open. you get a 140-560 that is still lighter than the Tammy and covers more range and has much better mfd.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You'd just use the 1.4x TC in the 100-400 GM if you needed the extra reach, still excellent IQ even wide open. you get a 140-560 that is still lighter than the Tammy and covers more range and has much better mfd.
I just ordered the TC 1.4X for the 100-400 for this very reason. Also own the Sigma 100-400. It's also an excellent lens and much lighter than the Sony, yet no TC ability.
I ordered the Tammy for a coworker who shoots water polo. We both have the A7c. I have the 1-4 GM. I would love to do a direct on the field comparison with birds. I hope BH get more in stock soon. It's been backordered for a while.
It's a bummer because the build quality is excellent and I love the size of it compared to the 200-600. 