Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Two subjects, two questions each:

1. Has anyone owned both the original and the G2? And if so, is the difference worth spending the money on the G2?

2. For those who own the G2, have you used the 1.4x TC on it? And if so, how sharp are the images at 840mm?

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

This is for dslrs, mirrorless is a different animal. Own the G2 and after tuning, I am getting good results with it. I do not recommend using a 1.4x teleconverter. Most cameras won't AF over f/8. The G2 goes to f/5.6 at around 250 mm focal length. Add 1 stop for the teleconverter and you are at f/8, the upper limit of most modern AF systems and AF is slower at f/8 as the number of f/8 sensors is usually small and at the center of the frame. The lens goes to f/6 around 325 mm, where AF will fail.

That's one of the reasons I picked up a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 and a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. It will still AF at 500 x 1.4 = 700mm f/8. Factor in a aps-c (DX) sensor and you are at 1.5 x 500 x 1.4 = 1050mm. Sharpness is pretty good with the teleconverter.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I owned one of the first Tamron 150-600s released released back when, it was a good lens.
I traded it for the G2 - faster AF, a bit better IQ and weather sealed.

I think it is worth it. Look here for an evaluation of the 4 150-600 lenses available: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=19903 (there may be an update to the article but I haven't seen it)

I don't have the current Tamron 1.4 TC but I have tried the lenses with an older model - awful - I tried it with a Canon 1.4x III mediocre at best.
Tamron does make the TC-X14 and TC-X20 for the 150-600 G2 and 3 other lenses. It will cost aprx $440 to get one and find out how well it works.

I forgot, I own the Kenko Pro300 TC's, both the 1.4x and 2.0x - I will have to try them with the G2. The 1.4x does work well with my Tamron 180 Macro lens (slow AF but I use it at a set distance for butterflies, bees and hummingbirds at the feeder).

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thanks for your input Stroday.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thanks for your input.

I'm trying to think of all the factors re: your answer and the cost. I can buy a skin for my original vs. G2's weather sealed. I'm not sure how a skin measures up to a lens being weather sealed. And altho Tamron does make a TC 1.4x for the G2 that would give me 840mm, I'm not sure if the AF would work well at f/8 at the far end. I'm not sure I'd want to part with the money for the lens and TC just to find out it doesn't give me the IQ and other factors at that reach.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

If you can make it to a good camera store they may let you try a few shots with the different options. Put them on, take a few shots out the door etc then later import to your PP app and evaluate - use a rest or something to eliminate movement.

I don't remember if it was the article I linked or another but a wildlife photographer concluded he could produce useable images for the magazines he sold to or print to sell with any of the 4 150-600 lenses.

I use Canon cameras and I also owned and used the two editions of the Canon 100-400L and I used both with the 1.4x III TC. Excellent results. With the TC the IQ equals the Tamron G2, without the TC it exceeds it a bit. But the G2 has the extra reach. I use them with one of my three bodies: 5DIV, 7DII, 80D. I use the Tammy G2 on a tripod with my 80D most of the time, the 7DII is teamed with the 100-400L w/wo TC and a pistol grip for walking around after birds etc. My 5DIV gets used with one or the other lenses when I am in a blind or other situation where I can get closer or want max IQ.

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

I have had the first version and have the G2, Definitely worth it. Paired with my D500 it is now a potent birds in flight rig. I have the tele also and the quality is good, but I would not try birds in flight with it, the focus is too slow. For any other shooting it is good, but you have to have bright sunlight or a very still subject.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Good idea. Thanx.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thanks for the response.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Image quality will be less when attaching a 1.4 to a slow zoom, focusing is slower, viewing is darker, and image quality will not match what the lens delivers without it.
Also, make sure you are shooting at least at 1/1000 sec. or much higher when attaching the 1.4 to that lens.
Both lenses are softer at the long end and adding a 1.4 only magnifies the issue. But, if your looking for reach, you will obtain reach but at a price.
It is always better to learn to get closer to your subject and to leave the 1.4 in your pocket.
The effect of a 1.4 is much better on a fast prime lens vs. a slow zoom.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

GilFrey1

Thanks for the link to the comparison review. That is the main reason I read UH nearly every day

Gil Frey

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I had the original and the images were good, but the focus was slow. I was hedging about upgrading to to the G2. Then I picked up a Nikon Z7 and the original won’t autofocus on it, but rather than the G2 I traded in my Tamron on a “like new” Nikon 200-500 and love it. Since it’s f/5.6 throughout the range you can use a 1.4 TC with cameras that focus at f/8. It mostly lives on my D500 for the extra reach. So far I get better results from cropping than the TC. I need to try fine tuning with the TC to see if that helps.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I have used both. Found the G2 sharper on my D800 and D810. As to whether it's worth the money, I don't know anything about you or your finances, so I can't say. For me, it's worth it.

I would never use any of these slow 600mm zooms with a TC. Focus gets slower, it will hunt in early/late in the day light, viewfinder is too dark, sharpness suffers a little. You'll need a camera body that can AF at F8, otherwise you'll be focusing manually. Results with the TC are great in excellent light, leaves a lot to be desired when light is less than excellent. You'll need a substantial tripod to hold everything steady enough to get blur-free shots from camera movement. If the subject moves you can forget about it. You'll likely be shooting at ISO 1600 up to 6400 to get at least a 1/1000 sec shutter speed.

This article may help:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2/2

I used to own a 600mmF4. When I decided to go light, wihtout a tripod, gimbal and camera bag to carry it all, I looked at all of the superzooms (with the exception of the G2 because it was not yet available). I got results from the Sigma Sport 150-600 that were hard to tell apart from the 600mmF4. I found a friend's G2 to be just as sharp as the Sigma.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Skins are a waste money, there like many fishing lures, they catch more people than fish.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thank you for your detailed response. It and others gave me all the information I needed to make the decision NOT to buy the G2, since using a TC was the major factor for doing so. I'll just stick with my original Tamron.