Tamron 150-600 G2 (Page 3): Ouuuu this naïve question of curiosity will drive you crazy … unintentionally. You basically gave me my answer. = Contrary to my experience you believe...

MiroFoto

Ouuuu this naïve question of curiosity will drive you crazy … unintentionally. You basically gave me my answer. = Contrary to my experience you believe Tamron is not a bad product. But you do not seek the good quality, you want the perfect . Then you also try to reach the 800mm +. With those parameters in mind you need to be a bodybuilder to use this lens. So how do you feel about the Nikon P1000. On your scale of acceptance is the quality difference so big and visible ? I saw the pictures from that camera and I was amassed by their quality (on 4K monitor). Yes, I understand there is a professional and amateur perception. Do you mind to address it …. just a little?

Miro

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

ggab wrote:

I also have the Tamron G2 and the Tamron 1.4 extender. I do not find the quality of the Tamron 1.4 with the G2 to be acceptable. Frankly, I do not find the G2 iq acceptable with either the Tamron 1.4 built for it or the Canon 1.4 III. On its own, the G2 is perfectly acceptable.

Your mileage may vary.

I have the Tamron 1.4x because I bought a second Tamron 180 macro from another member here on UHH and the 1.4x came with it. I tried it on the 150-600 G2 and found that with care it can produce usable images when doing manual focus off a tripod in good light. Now understand this is on small birds etc in my yard, no more than 70-80 feet.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

MiroFoto wrote:

Ouuuu this naïve question of curiosity will drive ... (show quote)

Please us "quote reply" so we know just who you are addressing.

MiroFoto

robertjerl - I did not quote anybody particular (normally I do) . My question was to anybody who is willing to answer ….I had a bad experience with Tamron 16-300, so I thought to get rid of it and go 4 Nikon P1000. Not looking for any Great great quality, but a chance to take a picture of a bird....without taking him first to the taxidermist .<..just a bad joke. PS: but Mr Audubon did it that way.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

billnikon wrote:

OME for me thank you.

- yes, in the end - if you are truly serious.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

MiroFoto wrote:

robertjerl - I did not quote anybody particular (normally I do) . My question was to anybody who is willing to answer ….I had a bad experience with Tamron 16-300, so I thought to get rid of it and go 4 Nikon P1000. Not looking for any Great great quality, but a chance to take a picture of a bird....without taking him first to the taxidermist .<..just a bad joke. PS: but Mr Audubon did it that way.

OK. The 16-300 and the 18-400 don't appeal to me because I don't see how they could be high IQ over that long a range. It is hard enough for them to do with 70-300 or similar. Even my much loved 100-400L loses in the IQ race with good primes. But while the 100-400L was somewhat expensive when it came out the good primes are up in the nose bleed range. I paid a bit over $2400 when I got mine.

FramerMCB Loc: Northern, ID (formerly Portland, OR area)

imagemeister wrote:

I do agree with this - especially if fast/accurate AF matters ....

I have used the Canon 300 2.8 and 400 5.6 primes - and recently a friend had a Sigma 150-600 SPORT lens for sale - so I tried it out. I have to say it was a great disappointment and I returned it to him quickly. I only tested it and used it at 600mm - and yes, on a tripod and with micro focus adjustment on a 80D.
.

You can't compare a 150-600mm ZOOM lens autofocusing ability against a prime Canon supertelephoto. Both of these Canon lenses you reference focus faster than the Canon 100-400mm zoom too. Not too mention that the 300mm f2.8 is a $4,000+ US dollar lens.

MiroFoto

OK, OK I will kind of close this thread . You got deep into you expertise (all of you) and your answers are in the astronomical $s for the lenses "OK good". I mean that in the respectful way ...I am not a photographer. Your answers are great to read ...however they do not apply to my level.

Thank you all for your time. Miro

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

FramerMCB wrote:

You can't compare a 150-600mm ZOOM lens autofocusing ability against a prime Canon supertelephoto. Both of these Canon lenses you reference focus faster than the Canon 100-400mm zoom too. Not too mention that the 300mm f2.8 is a $4,000+ US dollar lens.

You CAN if you have used them ! .....I am not sure if it was exactly focusing ability caused - more so optics IMO, but the IQ was a let down for sure.
.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I was looking for tamaron 150-600 G2 vs sigma 150-600 contemporary. Sport much heavier and more cash. I realize that lower zoom are sharper and Canon much more expensive. Rather not include them in discussion as no interest in spending that much.
I have few telescopes with are really mirror lens. One 2000 mm f10 and one 2750 mm f 10. The 8 +10 inch mirrors great optics and heavy tripods. Thanks for info so far.
The tamron docking console seems like a good accessory. I always have used a protective filter but that's my preference and I'll evaluate images with or without it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I was looking for tamaron 150-600 G2 vs sigma 150... (show quote)

The Canon 400 5.6 prime is about $700 used. I THINK the 77D can use a 1.4X with it also.
.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

I have the 150-600 g2 and love it. Got it last year from B&H and micro-adjusted it with my a77ii using a LensAlign target. Put it through it's paces at Oshkosh. Here are a couple favorites. Every year I try to use a monopod or tripod, but it seems to keep getting in the way. In the end everything, no matter the lens, is hand-held.

1/1250 sec, 600mm, ISO 100
1/1250 sec, 600mm, ISO 100...

(Download)

1/125 sec, 150mm, ISO 100, F/14 (Chosen as AvWeb Picture of the Week) - AvWeb is an aviation e-newsletter I subscribe to.

(Download)

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Love the prop blur ! .......thanks for sharing

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

imagemeister wrote:

Love the prop blur ! .......thanks for sharing

Thanks. I was in the front row of the showline (had to set up some of my stuff hours ahead of time to get the spot). "Gunfighter" was one of 23(?) P-51s that taxied down the taxiway in front of us, they all turned to the angle shown, and let-em-rip. Good thing I was wearing my hearing protectors!!! After that, they all took off in groups of four and did a bunch of fly-bys. If I had an extra $3k or so in my pocket I could go up for an hour or so in one of them. The year before I spent my cash on a ride in "Aluminum Overcast", EAA's B-17.

Raybo Loc: George Town, Grand Cayman

I'll preface my post with the fact that I'm a simple enthusiast. I just try to have fun with the hobby...

I bought a 150-600 G2, and it was my first "decent" lens. Have since bought a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 Tamron as well. Very happy with the 24-70. Jury is still out on the 70-200, but given I occasionally get some incredible shots with it...thinking it is probably me, not the lens. Or, don't have the body set up quite right for the situation.

Has seen some comment on the extenders. I can't imagine trying to use on on the 150-600. However, I'm seriously considering one to use with the 70-200. I really like the size of the 70-200, and that it's internal focus. And with it being relatively fast, hoping it will be a good all around package to work with.

Would also have to agree with comments on the 150-600 being a good "bright light" lens. Have tried to get a few birds shot with it, but for me, that's always late in the day, and it does struggle in lower light.

Went out this morning and took a few shots as examples of what I'm getting with it. These were taken mid-morning, high humidity in tropical environment. So fair bit of haze, in general. Hope they help you get an idea of what the lens is capable of with a fellow amatuer...

All of these are uncropped, with only minimal "auto" correction to be able to export from RAW to jpg. All as wide open as the lens would run at the focal length. All auto white balance, spot metering and, for the most, single point autofocus, and with the exception of the first two that were locked at ISO 100, set for auto ISO at 6400 max. Shutter speed (I think) mostly at 1/1000, but I may have "intuitively" rolled the shutter speed if the bar in the viewfinder tapped out the ISO. Also set for +2/3 exposure compensation. Canon 6D mkII. Most on a monopod with a gimble. VC on, set at VC mode 1.

First one was taken with the 24-70, 24mm, f2.8 to give an idea of the environment. Second one is at 600mm on the cupola in the center of the first shot way in the back. Probably about 400 yds-500 yds away. You'll need to download and zoom in to get an idea of the IQ.

I don't get as much of an opportunity to use it as I would like, but have been reasonably happy with it. Hope this helps.

You mileage may vary...

Wide View