JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Others have said that the Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens is not sharp at the long end. I have that lens and have been very pleased with my shots taken at 600mm but possibly I have lower expectations than others. I'm posting a couple edited images taken at 600mm and I want to know if these images would have been sharper if taken with the Nikon 200-500mm lens. There's nothing to stop me from buying the Nikon lens if the consensus is that it will produce superior images. All opinions are much appreciated.

(Download)


(Download)

Julian Loc: Sarasota, FL

I don't know wether to offer you an "honest" or an honest opinion...

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Either one will work. In other words I don't want any sugar coating. If these images are not up to the standard of what the Nikon lens is capable of I want to know that. I'm not going to beat myself up for not buying the Nikon lens in the first place.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

I have the G2 also and your images look spot on. Tuning the lens can be tricky. Best thing to do is to send camera and lens to Tamron service to tune them together. But that said, I don't see why you need to do anything; however, at other focal lengths and ranges, it may not be so good. In that case, I would send to Tamron. Free service when under warranty.

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

They both look just fine to me!

captivecookie Loc: Washington state

Zooming in on both pictures, the top bird's eye is sharp but there is a bit of noise. The second birds eye is not as sharp. This may be because the focus is off or your aperture was set differently. I am not experienced enough with mega zooms to advise further, other than to suggest renting the Nikon and doing a side by side comparison of the same object.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

To me it looks spot on also but I've read where a couple others were not happy with theirs so they switched to the Nikon lens and are extremely happy with it. So even though it looks good to me I'm wondering is it as good as I think it is or am I missing something.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Your pictures look just fine.
If someone doesn't think they are sharp enough invite them to go with you and show how much better they are than you and your lens.
If you just "want" the 200-500 and can afford it then buy it for you - not someone else.

Some of the people who critique photos on line are not too sharp them selves and others have a nice sharp point to the top of their head.

I hear the same about my Tamron and the Canon 100-400L. Well my solution was simple - I had both of the first editions of those lenses and I now have the second editions. All four of them do/did a great job as long as I did my part.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, not sugar coating:
Looking at the second image downloaded and enlarged, I think it's great.
Is the image not good enough for you? (Would be for me.)
Are you concerned that there might be another lens that could be better and you might be missing something?
What happens if another lens becomes available, would it be (or not) better?
You appear to be worried that you don't have the [i]best[/].
Then, ...how would you know if you do?

Side notes:
- if I was to compare lenses, I would do NO post processing to avoid any chance of clarity/crispness loss in the process.
- You can only ask the people who have the same lenses and camera body for a viable comparison to your shots.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I use the Nikon 200-500 on my D7200 - I am pretty fanatical on sharp. If you go to my posts, I nearly always state what equipment was used. Any of the backyard birds should show what the lens will do. I can't see how someone could make a lens choice for me, or for you. Good luck whatever your decision.

gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN

Frankly they are tack sharp. In the first download I can see a reflection in the bird’s eye. That’s good! Keep shooting.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Do they look the same on my monitor as on yours? If not, any opinion I or anyone else here has is meaningless.

Doc Barry Loc: Huntsville, Alabama USA

Well said Robert!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Before you go on a GAS attack, you might want to consider all aspects of the image creation process.

Are you capturing in RAW? Are you processing with software that maintains the image entirely as RAW or in 16-bit in other formats? Are you capturing with AF in continuous mode? How does your camera perform in the ISO range 1000 - 6400? Do you use a tripod and gimbal? Do you use selective focus with a single high-precision AF point on the bird's eye? How do you sharpen? Process noise? Are you using a filter on this lens? If yes, how does it look without this filter?

The colors and focus on the blue jay are superb. The grain at ISO-1000 seems a bit high, but one would have to see the unedited original to determine possible corrective actions such as seeking a brighter exposure in the camera or more noise processing in post or a newer camera with a different noise profile. The mockingbird shows much less noise at ISO-0200, but also a seemingly more significant crop.

If you navigate images in Flickr groups for "Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2", you can see results from a variety of cameras. But, one can't see all the processing involved, and only sometimes the camera type and EXIF.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Looks very sharp to me. That lens seems to be very top drawer.