PDA

View Full Version : Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3?!?!??!


KenjiS
25th of October 2012 (Thu), 19:26
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/patent-tamron-150-600-f5-6-3/

Rival for the 150-500/50-500 OS apparently..

if it gets VC and USD then.. well this might be a very good alternative, Tamrons made some great lenses lately...

996gt2
25th of October 2012 (Thu), 20:28
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/10/patent-tamron-150-600-f5-6-3/

Rival for the 150-500/50-500 OS apparently..

if it gets VC and USD then.. well this might be a very good alternative, Tamrons made some great lenses lately...

Sigma 50-500 OS HSM is 22 elements in 6 groups and 150-500 OS HSM is 21 elements in 15 groups. The Tamron is 18 elements in 13 groups.

While the # of elements doesn't tell the whole story behind lens performance, it seems like many of the recently introduced high performance telephoto zooms are quite compliacted designs (e.g. the Canon 70-200 II with 23 elements in 19 groups).

crbeveri
25th of October 2012 (Thu), 23:29
My only complaint is the 6.3 aperture at 500mm. I am personally waiting to see the official price mark of the 200-400 f/4 1.4x from Canon. With a 1D4's high ISO performance it to me becomes easily a great sport lens even for night shots and then a good wildlife lens during the day.

KenjiS
25th of October 2012 (Thu), 23:57
My only complaint is the 6.3 aperture at 500mm. I am personally waiting to see the official price mark of the 200-400 f/4 1.4x from Canon. With a 1D4's high ISO performance it to me becomes easily a great sport lens even for night shots and then a good wildlife lens during the day.

1. its 600mm, Not 500mm

2. its likely going to be $1500 or less not $10,000+

crbeveri
26th of October 2012 (Fri), 00:34
1. its 600mm, Not 500mm

2. its likely going to be $1500 or less not $10,000+

That's my fault for miss reading the 600 >.< my apologizes

Even still at 600mm f/6.3... I'd gladly pay a few grand more for it to be f/5-5.6 or even fixed f/5.6. I do believe that the new version II lenses from canon are priced high but for what I shoot I do need speed. Hell... I think the new 400 f/2.8 II from canon is crazy priced when the 500mm f/4 is cheaper and if shooting with the 1Dx you need the 500 as the 400 is too short on a FF sensor but that's just my opinion.

watt100
26th of October 2012 (Fri), 05:59
1. its 600mm, Not 500mm

2. its likely going to be $1500 or less not $10,000+

I could use 600mm
I would take a look if it's sharp and only $1500

KenjiS
26th of October 2012 (Fri), 20:48
^- indeed... Heres hoping Tamron makes this a winner! Could be a great hiking lens

lazer-jock
1st of November 2012 (Thu), 18:32
Nature, airshows, and the list of things that I would use it for grows and grows...

woos
7th of November 2012 (Wed), 10:55
Sigma 50-500 OS HSM is 22 elements in 6 groups and 150-500 OS HSM is 21 elements in 15 groups. The Tamron is 18 elements in 13 groups.

While the # of elements doesn't tell the whole story behind lens performance, it seems like many of the recently introduced high performance telephoto zooms are quite compliacted designs (e.g. the Canon 70-200 II with 23 elements in 19 groups).

Definitely depends on the design and the amount of special elements that are used too, though.

Canon's 100-400mm is extremely sharp, prime sharp at the 400mm end with a good copy. It uses 18 elements.

Guess it depends on what price point Tamron is targeting. Hopefully it'll be about a $1500 lens and will have an AF limiter and super fast AF.

996gt2
7th of November 2012 (Wed), 12:32
Definitely depends on the design and the amount of special elements that are used too, though.

Canon's 100-400mm is extremely sharp, prime sharp at the 400mm end with a good copy. It uses 18 elements.

Guess it depends on what price point Tamron is targeting. Hopefully it'll be about a $1500 lens and will have an AF limiter and super fast AF.

Yes, but the 100-400mm is also an old lens design dating back to 1998. If Canon introduced a 100-400 II and targeted high optical performance, you can bet it would have more than 20 elements in it. The fact that the Tamron has a comparatively simpler design (for a 2012 lens) doesn't lead me to have high hopes for its optical performance at 500mm. But who knows, maybe they can pull off something unexpected.

KenjiS
7th of November 2012 (Wed), 21:43
Yes, but the 100-400mm is also an old lens design dating back to 1998. If Canon introduced a 100-400 II and targeted high optical performance, you can bet it would have more than 20 elements in it. The fact that the Tamron has a comparatively simpler design (for a 2012 lens) doesn't lead me to have high hopes for its optical performance at 500mm. But who knows, maybe they can pull off something unexpected.

Maybe, or they might use some of their more advanced glass in it... better coatings too

Even the 50-500 OS which is very good isnt quite as good as the 100-400

996gt2
7th of November 2012 (Wed), 23:17
Maybe, or they might use some of their more advanced glass in it... better coatings too

Even the 50-500 OS which is very good isnt quite as good as the 100-400

10x zoom that goes to 500mm vs a 4x zoom that goes to 400mm...not really apples to apples there.

KenjiS
8th of November 2012 (Thu), 01:04
10x zoom that goes to 500mm vs a 4x zoom that goes to 400mm...not really apples to apples there.

Its quite close, and far better than either copy of the 150-500 i had

woos
17th of November 2012 (Sat), 18:32
Its quite close, and far better than either copy of the 150-500 i had

Indeed, lol. The 50-500mm OS is, in my experience, WAY better than the 150-500mm. It's really quite close to the 100-400mm.

The "new" Tamron starts at 150mm, instead of the 100mm of the Canon 100-400mm, 80mm of the Nikon 100-400mm, or 50mm instead of the Sigma 50-500mm. I think that will be its main competition. The Tamron supposedly has 4 special elements in it, compared to the Sigma's 3 (or cheaper sigma's 2).. (or maybe 4 and 3, I forget!) Who knows.

Tamron is probably trading something for it though, like crazy high vignetting or something.

I wanna see a new Sigma product in that range, with a focus limiter and FLD glass.

KenjiS
17th of November 2012 (Sat), 18:41
^- Hmn, Trading vignetting might not be a horrible tradeoff if you think about it... On a 7D the vignetting wouldnt be a big deal..

Yes it would suck on FF but I'm thinking along the lines of "most wildlife folks in this price range stick crop"

watt100
17th of November 2012 (Sat), 19:26
Indeed, lol. The 50-500mm OS is, in my experience, WAY better than the 150-500mm. It's really quite close to the 100-400mm.


close but still not "L" image quality

nekrosoft13
27th of November 2012 (Tue), 13:54
My only complaint is the 6.3 aperture at 500mm. I am personally waiting to see the official price mark of the 200-400 f/4 1.4x from Canon. With a 1D4's high ISO performance it to me becomes easily a great sport lens even for night shots and then a good wildlife lens during the day.

200-400 f/4 1.4x will cost 8+k

nekrosoft13
27th of November 2012 (Tue), 13:58
close but still not "L" image quality

Its better design, wider, longer, and has better is/os.

Minor difference in image quality.

I own 100-400 and if I were buying telezoom now, I would go with sigma 50-500.

Is on 100-400 is really bad by today standards. My gf tamron 70-300 vc has better image stabilizer by a mile.

KenjiS
27th of November 2012 (Tue), 15:25
Its better design, wider, longer, and has better is/os.

Minor difference in image quality.

I own 100-400 and if I were buying telezoom now, I would go with sigma 50-500.

Is on 100-400 is really bad by today standards. My gf tamron 70-300 vc has better image stabilizer by a mile.

Its also black, in my experience this enabled me to get -physically- closer to the birds i was trying to shoot and caused a lot less problems with idiotic neighbors than my 100-400...

jocabogho
30th of November 2012 (Fri), 20:26
This lens might be great for surf photos. I'm on a budget and looking for a bigger than 500mm focal length lens, this one might come in handy.

nekrosoft13
30th of November 2012 (Fri), 22:59
Its also black, in my experience this enabled me to get -physically- closer to the birds i was trying to shoot and caused a lot less problems with idiotic neighbors than my 100-400...

if you had 100-400 would you trade it for 50-500 OS?

KenjiS
1st of December 2012 (Sat), 01:41
if you had 100-400 would you trade it for 50-500 OS?

At the time? I almost did, the only reason i did not was the MASSIVE difference in price i was going to have to shell out to keep the 50-500, Like.. $500 ish because when i had it it was brand new... Optically they're VERY close(Equal at f/8, at 5.6 vs 6.3 the Canon is better by a hair), but the 50-500 has a far better OS system and other things that makes it a better lens most of the time

if i was going to buy one now id buy the 50-500 OS, if i had the 100-400 id try to trade or get a used one to lessen the financial impact...