150-500 or 150-600
Mar 15, 2015 06:30:39 #
I rented the Tamron 150-600 this weekend. Here are some of the better shots I got with it. I found that it doesn't work so well in low light/low contrast situations. It is an f6.3 at 600 mm so one has to keep that in mind. The fit and feel seemed good and focus was very smooth and fast.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37991479@N08/sets/72157650944053099/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37991479@N08/sets/72157650944053099/
Mar 17, 2015 17:07:20 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
Some of the newer Nikon bodies like the D800 series, D4s and D750 can autofocus to f8. With older models the f6.3 does become an autofocus concern. Low light/low contrast is always a problem area for autofocus mechanisms.
Mar 17, 2015 19:28:56 #
Mar 19, 2015 16:05:10 #
The biggest mistake people make when they buy a long lens is to try and take shots at too great a distance..
For me it's about getting much better shots at shorter distances, up to 40-50 meters and even then it's stretching things at times.
I've tried out big expensive Canon & Nikkor (600mm primes) lenses at a "Big Lens Day" I was invited to attend at Photographic Wholesalers here in Adelaide. All failed at very long distances due to atmospheric haze.
I see no point in shooting a bird at 200 meters and then having to crop it to the extreme to get a viewable, low quality pic.
For me it's about getting much better shots at shorter distances, up to 40-50 meters and even then it's stretching things at times.
I've tried out big expensive Canon & Nikkor (600mm primes) lenses at a "Big Lens Day" I was invited to attend at Photographic Wholesalers here in Adelaide. All failed at very long distances due to atmospheric haze.
I see no point in shooting a bird at 200 meters and then having to crop it to the extreme to get a viewable, low quality pic.
Mar 19, 2015 16:18:53 #
This is subjective. Personally I'd look at the Sigma because it's readily apparent the Tamron becomes soft after 500mm. Then again, I don't own either and am limited to a Canon 500 v 1 F4. I do know it's difficult to look at soft images once you're spoiled with tack sharp bird plumage.
Nikon doesn't seem to be hampered as much with the Tamron but with all the difficulties reported I'd chose the Sigma if I was going third party. Yes I''m biased because Tamron left the consumer out to dry not providing sufficient support or number of copies. Very poor business model IMO.
Nikon doesn't seem to be hampered as much with the Tamron but with all the difficulties reported I'd chose the Sigma if I was going third party. Yes I''m biased because Tamron left the consumer out to dry not providing sufficient support or number of copies. Very poor business model IMO.
Mar 19, 2015 16:21:38 #
Mar 19, 2015 16:31:59 #
washy
Loc: Dorset UK
Haydon wrote:
This is subjective. Personally I'd look at the Sig... (show quote)
The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here
Mar 19, 2015 16:43:24 #
washy wrote:
The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here
With due respect to Haydon...
I agree. Sadly most "Pro" (?) reports/reviews on lenses are done by people who don't own or even use them...I have the Bigsig (150-500) and don't notice any softness at 500mm. To hear some of the reviews it sounds like a complete flop, I love mine.
Mar 19, 2015 17:00:21 #
washy wrote:
The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here
:thumbup: look at the ones Ive posted this past week. I dont think they could be any sharper and they were shot at 600mm at f6.3(wide open).
Mar 19, 2015 18:21:30 #
washy wrote:
The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here
Believe me I know a good point of comparison with using my 500F4. The new 100-400 Canon out resolves it at 400 mm. That should say enough. Maybe you guys with Nikon experience differently but all you need to see is low light conditions with many Canon models to know some things aren't quite right. There are countless threads on the internet about the Tamron and Canon bodies, many of them right here if you search. All do respect to you as well SX2002, thank you.
Mar 19, 2015 22:42:02 #
washy wrote:
The Tamron is not so soft at 600mm it is not quite as sharp as it is at 550mm but sharp enough, you only need to look at some of the images posted on here
Unfortunately you can't go by pictures posted here. The Tamron is not as sharp as the Sigma is at 600 mm. I own both lenses and have compared them against each other when viewed 1:1 or greater. This is something that you can't do very well with photos posted on a computer screen. I'm not saying it can't be done but can be very difficult at times. Also keep in mind that many of the photos posted here have not been shot at 600 mm.
I'm not saying that the Tamron isn't a sharp lens, when you consider the money. It's a hard lens to beat for the money but it does drop off in sharpness at 600 mm like most telephoto or zoom lenses do.
Jim D
Mar 20, 2015 03:35:44 #
washy
Loc: Dorset UK
oldtool2 wrote:
Unfortunately you can't go by pictures posted here... (show quote)
In response to your comments you only have to look at Regis's images shot at 600mm to see wether the Tamron is sharp at 600mm. I will also say the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma 150-500(or at least the one I had)at 500mm. Because the 150-500 Sigma at 500mm dropped off dramatically
Mar 20, 2015 11:57:26 #
washy wrote:
In response to your comments you only have to look at Regis's images shot at 600mm to see wether the Tamron is sharp at 600mm. I will also say the Tamron is much sharper than the Sigma 150-500(or at least the one I had)at 500mm. Because the 150-500 Sigma at 500mm dropped off dramatically
I am very familiar with Regis's work. He is posted some fantastic photos but not all of them were taken at 600 mm. I hope the two photos you just posted were not supposed to be examples of the Tamron at 600 mm. The first photo is 552 mm and the second is 500 mm.
As for the Sigma 150-500mm lens, you need to keep in mind that is not one of sigmas professional lenses. I field tested two of them against my Canon 100 400 mm lens and it didn't hold a candle to that lens. I've said it before and I'll say it again with that lens you take a chance, you never know when you will get that good copy or if you will get a bad one. I would not expect that lens to be as sharp or sharper than the Canon or the Tamron 150-600mm. lenses. If you read my posts you will see I am not saying the Tamron is not sharp, but I am saying it is not as sharp as the Sigma sport.
I have a question for you. Which one of these lenses do you own that you are working with? I have them both sitting right here.
Jim D
Mar 20, 2015 13:25:45 #
washy
Loc: Dorset UK
I only own the Tamron. if you look back I said I sold the Sigma. I sold it as it disappointed me that is why I bought the Tamron. As far as I am aware no one in this series of posts ever mentioned Sigmas Pro series of lens so why add it to the equation? There is a lot of difference in price between the new Canon 100-400 and the Tamron 150-600 in sterling it equates to £1100 and you would expect the Canon to be slightly better, but I have seen some work where the originator thought the Tamron sharper against the Mk1 Canon !00-400 that was being used and yes I was aware of what settings I was using on my Tamron, I was quite impressed by its first time out even on my old 500D in not very good light. Dull and overcast and shot in jpeg, not even raw. It is quick to autofocus much quicker than the Sigma. I did enquire of the Sigma sport and I am informed is not available in the UK yet and is supposed to be in the same price bracket as the Canon 100-400 mk2. Here endeth this series of the epistle. Happy shooting. Washy
Mar 21, 2015 11:02:03 #
washy wrote:
I only own the Tamron. if you look back I said I s... (show quote)
I don't think you'll regret owning the Tamron, like I said for the money it's a good lens. I bought the Sigma 150 600 mm because of the weather and some of the places I shoot. I wanted the weather sealing, the other things are just a plus. I don't know what your prices are there but the Sigma 150 600 mm goes about 2000 here and the new Canon 100 400 mm goes about 2200. I own the original version of that lens and am extremely happy with it. Then again I had it rebuilt about a year ago because my dog stopped on it and damaged it.
Have fun shooting!
Jim D
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.