What would you see as the primary pros/cons between purchasing the new Tamron 150-600 vs a Nikon 80-400 VR. Already own a Nikon 1.7 teleconverter.
How well does your body AF at F6.3 vs 5.6? How well does your body handle the higher ISO's required by the Tamron ? How well can you crop the Nikon to the Tamron's field of view and still maintain IQ ?
imagemeister wrote:
How well does your body AF at F6.3 vs 5.6? How well does your body handle the higher ISO's required by the Tamron ? How well can you crop the Nikon to the Tamron's field of view and still maintain IQ ?
Why are "higher ISO's required by the Tamron"? Do you feel it is more important to avoid shooting wide open?
amehta wrote:
Why are "higher ISO's required by the Tamron"? Do you feel it is more important to avoid shooting wide open?
all too often, members of this post speak of stopping down a lens 1 or 2 stops to get the best results.
bull drink water wrote:
all too often, members of this post speak of stopping down a lens 1 or 2 stops to get the best results.
True, my question is whether imagemeister or others believe that the Tamron requires stopping down
more than the Nikon? The Tamron is only 1/2 stop slower, so that doesn't require much higher ISOs.
amehta wrote:
True, my question is whether imagemeister or others believe that the Tamron requires stopping down more than the Nikon? The Tamron is only 1/2 stop slower, so that doesn't require much higher ISOs.
I think the ISO would actually be a little worse with the 80-400 when using the 1.7 with it to get to the same range. Is this not correct? Of course, the 80-400 is also more expensive but it would also seem to offer more versatility. I am wondering if there are other more compelling reasons to purchase one over the other?
Jbat wrote:
I think the ISO would actually be a little worse with the 80-400 when using the 1.7 with it to get to the same range. Is this not correct? Of course, the 80-400 is also more expensive but it would also seem to offer more versatility. I am wondering if there are other more compelling reasons to purchase one over the other?
Yes, adding the 1.4x teleconverter to the 80-400mm to get to 560 would cost one stop, so it would be f/8, a half stop worse than the Tamron at 600mm.
The most compelling reasons to get the (new) Nikon 80-400mm are image quality and focus speed, if it is perceptibly better than the Tamron. I have not yet seen comparisons. If they are comparable, then the Tamron wins on focal length and price.
I read an interesting review last night in Outdoor Photographer Magazine and it said the 150-600 came out on top for it's ability to focus faster. I have neither lens, but that was the opinion in the article.
amehta wrote:
Why are "higher ISO's required by the Tamron"? Do you feel it is more important to avoid shooting wide open?
Merely the difference between 5.6 and 6.3 - which is not big ...until you get to ISO 3200....
amehta wrote:
True, my question is whether imagemeister or others believe that the Tamron requires stopping down more than the Nikon? The Tamron is only 1/2 stop slower, so that doesn't require much higher ISOs.
All lenses benefit from stopping down 1-2 stops from wide open - but I do not suggest it helps the Tamron any more or less than the Nikon.
SueMac wrote:
I read an interesting review last night in Outdoor Photographer Magazine and it said the 150-600 came out on top for it's ability to focus faster. I have neither lens, but that was the opinion in the article.
Focus speed, to some extent - will depend on your camera body.
Thanks all for your comments.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.