LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 07 Nov 2013 (Thursday) 09:38   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
brianh4204
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
125 posts
Charlotte NC
[MORE/SHARE]

lmans wrote in post #16527320external link
I am not sure how well the Canon and Nikon's 600 and 800 are selling...maybe real well but I am guessing the sale quantities are bitterly low.

But, where are the numbers high? The Super Zooms...Canon's, Nikon's, Olympus, Sony etc....that is the market that is selling at a relatively cheap price. I see a ton of birders walking around with a bino on one shoulder and a superzoom on the other. Now, those might be pretty inexperienced birders and ones willing to sacrifice a bit of quality for 'zoom' but those cameras are the ones selling.

Maybe the Tamron 150-600 is geared to winning back some of the super-zoom market by offering a price point which is competitive to super-zooms? The Canon and Nikon's 600 and 800 will not be touched by anyone other than people who make a living taking nature shots-----period. THAT is their market.

But the Tamron can make some inroads back into the regular birding world that the super-zooms have attempted to take. I would guess that the Tamron 150-600 would be much better than any super-zoom at distances between 10 meters+ ...

May make great inroads...

Amazing what can be done in PP. I have seen images that were in need of some serious help turned into stellar images. I think that ultimate image quality is getting less important than ones computer skills. I think I will use the money saved to take some crash courses in PP. So if I can become truly proficient in the PP game may be that I can get by with a lens that cost less than a car and be a happy camper..

to me, this is a great range in a reasonably priced package that may be a great performer in bright sunny conditions, wont do a lot for Friday night football.

Post #646, Dec 14, 2013 17:43:23




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Pax2You
Senior Member
Pax2You's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
354 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Need some hands on reviews please. The specs look awesome.

Post #647, Dec 14, 2013 22:44:53


7D, Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS, Sigma APO 2x DG EX TC, Kenko 2x MC4 DGX TC, 50mm 1.8, 18-55mm II, ZEQ25gt Mount

LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2007
16,609 posts
Bay Area, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

brianh4204 wrote in post #16527558external link
May make great inroads...

Amazing what can be done in PP. I have seen images that were in need of some serious help turned into stellar images. I think that ultimate image quality is getting less important than ones computer skills. I think I will use the money saved to take some crash courses in PP. So if I can become truly proficient in the PP game may be that I can get by with a lens that cost less than a car and be a happy camper..

to me, this is a great range in a reasonably priced package that may be a great performer in bright sunny conditions, wont do a lot for Friday night football.

Try some supertele and then say that. Honestly, lens makes a lot of difference IMHO. Of course those superteles are lot of $$$ and weigh more also. But one just can't pp a picture with normal lens to make it look like the one from $$$ lens.

Post #648, Dec 14, 2013 22:55:25


5dmk3, Sigma Art 35mm f1.4, 35L, 85L II, 24-70mm f2.8 II, 70-200mm f2.8 IS II
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2

LOG IN TO REPLY
brianh4204
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
125 posts
Charlotte NC
[MORE/SHARE]

bobbyz wrote in post #16528115external link
Try some supertele and then say that. Honestly, lens makes a lot of difference IMHO. Of course those superteles are lot of $$$ and weigh more also. But one just can't pp a picture with normal lens to make it look like the one from $$$ lens.


So, what is normal lens versus $$$ lens..

I believe there was a time that that would be a true statement. I don't believe that dollars are the absolute determining factor in performance anymore. The difference in performance between the best lenses from the big guys and the 3rd party lens has narrowed dramatically over the years. the difference between the big guys own product line has narrowed as well. The Canon 40 STM is about as cheap as you get and the IQ is excellent. Even the lowly 50 1.8 is capable of creating great images.

Point about PP is not that you can take a crappy image from a terrible lens and make it a work of art, but you can take a less than stellar image from any lens and with the correct PP make it an incredible image.

As far as super teles, you have to have something to start with, I believe that technique is a huge part of determining the results. Garbage in, garbage out. That cant be fixed with any amount of processing...

Post #649, Dec 14, 2013 23:13:52




LOG IN TO REPLY
SamFrench
Senior Member
Joined Jul 2011
626 posts
Pacific Northwest
[MORE/SHARE]

With all this talk about the "big guys" and the "3rd party guys" it brings to mind the concept that some of the 3rd party guys have collaborated with some of the big guys in the past to produce lenses sold under the big guys label(s). Is this not correct? I'm not talking specifics like long telephoto -

Post #650, Dec 14, 2013 23:27:28




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
14,254 posts
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[MORE/SHARE]

brianh4204 wrote in post #16527558external link
Amazing what can be done in PP.

Yep!

bobbyz wrote in post #16528115external link
But one just can't pp a picture with normal lens to make it look like the one from $$$ lens.

I beg to differ. I shot with a 40D and the Tamron 55-200mm for the first year and a half. A great little lens. It has its mechanical flaws but has surprisingly good optics, much better than you would expect from such a ridiculous lens. I learned how to be a photographer with that lens and because of its mechanical limitations I was forced to work very hard. SOOC the files were not clean and so I was forced to learn Photoshop and that has made a world of difference. In the end I made shots like this. Now I don't know what you think, but to me this looks very good in terms of IQ.

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://u1.ipernity.com ...6693007.d6b5dd1f.10​24.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


For me the main difference between L-glass and the cheaper lenses is that the files from L-glass are much cleaner SOOC and need a lot less work in post. But if you get it right in camera and you know your way around Photoshop, the end result from a cheaper telelens can most definitely come very close to what you would get with the $$$ lenses.

Post #651, Dec 14, 2013 23:44:30


Levina - BAT
AMASS - If you were thinking about donating, this would be a good time!
gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
brianh4204
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
125 posts
Charlotte NC
[MORE/SHARE]

I thing the 3rd party guys are well on their way to being the big guys. Don't know anyone that shoots Sigma Merrill's but do know a lot of Canon, Nikon and even Sony peeps that shoot Sigma lens..

No first hand knowledge of a 3rd party company producing a labeled product. Wouldn't be surprised if it has happened, seen it in so many industries..

Hey I drive an Infinity, everything on the car can be replaced with Nissan parts at half the price..

Post #652, Dec 14, 2013 23:45:30




LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2012
819 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #16528190external link
Yep!

I beg to differ. I shot with a 40D and the Tamron 55-200mm for the first year and a half. A great little lens. It has its mechanical flaws but has surprisingly good optics, much better than you would expect from such a ridiculous lens. I learned how to be a photographer with that lens and because of its mechanical limitations I was forced to work very hard. SOOC the files were not clean and so I was forced to learn Photoshop and that has made a world of difference. In the end I made shots like this. Now I don't know what you think, but to me this looks very good in terms of IQ.

NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
http://u1.ipernity.com ...6693007.d6b5dd1f.10​24.jpgexternal link
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO


For me the main difference between L-glass and the cheaper lenses is that the files from L-glass are much cleaner SOOC and need a lot less work in post. But if you get it right in camera and you know your way around Photoshop, the end result from a cheaper telelens can most definitely come very close to what you would get with the $$$ lenses.

It all depends on your level of tolerance for IQ. The image you posted shows more softness than I would be okay with at web viewing size, much less print sizes. Not to say that it isn't a great photo, and most people would be okay with it, but some of us just have a different level of tolerance as to what we consider "good enough" image quality. If you're just tooling around or shooting for fun, the image quality of cheap zooms + photoshop might be enough for you, but if you're selling your prints or working for pay, shelling out the dough for a lens with excellent IQ is worth it.

You can get a much cleaner, sharper, nicer looking image with an expensive lens and photoshop than you can with a cheap lens and photoshop.

Post #653, Dec 15, 2013 00:29:57


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

LOG IN TO REPLY
brianh4204
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
125 posts
Charlotte NC
[MORE/SHARE]

drzenitram wrote in post #16528235external link
It all depends on your level of tolerance for IQ. The image you posted shows more softness than I would be okay with at web viewing size, much less print sizes. Not to say that it isn't a great photo, and most people would be okay with it, but some of us just have a different level of tolerance as to what we consider "good enough" image quality. If you're just tooling around or shooting for fun, the image quality of cheap zooms + photoshop might be enough for you, but if you're selling your prints or working for pay, shelling out the dough for a lens with excellent IQ is worth it.

You can get a much cleaner, sharper, nicer looking image with an expensive lens and photoshop than you can with a cheap lens and photoshop.

What????

What about this image is not printable???

Based on your listed equipment what long lens would you have used???

I could print this all day long on my lowly canon Pixma pro 9000 M2 at 13x19 and produce an image that would be worthy of hanging on the wall.

Come on people, get over yourselves, your big glass egos and get real. Big expensive glass does not make for a good photog...

Really, look at some of the best images posted here and other forums and I think you will find that bigger, more expensive glass does not equate to a 1 to 1 increase in image quality.

Post #654, Dec 15, 2013 00:43:10




LOG IN TO REPLY
jaspa
Senior Member
jaspa's Avatar
Joined Mar 2011
231 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

brianh4204 wrote in post #16528257external link
What????
Come on people, get over yourselves, your big glass egos and get real. Big expensive glass does not make for a good photog...

That's sort of beside the original point though. Also, being good at PS doesn't make for a good photographer either.

Post #655, Dec 15, 2013 01:04:02


- Jason -

LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
14,254 posts
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[MORE/SHARE]

drzenitram wrote in post #16528235external link
It all depends on your level of tolerance for IQ. The image you posted shows more softness than I would be okay with at web viewing size, much less print sizes.

It's true that I sharpen my bird images conservatively as I am not a fan of the overly sharp birds that I so often see posted here and elsewhere where the feathers look like steel cords. This is the level of sharpness that I like with this gull in this image: with the bird in focus and sharp yet still showing the softness of the feathers just the way birds do in real life.
I also think you are confusing sharpness with IQ. Sharpness is part of it but there is much more to IQ than that.

Also keep in mind that this particular shot was taken with the cheapest of telezooms around. My point is that you can't tell from this shot that it was taken with a less than $ 100 lens. You may think it's not sharpened enough, but that is something else entirely as that depends on personal taste because clearly there is room to sharpen more.

And obviously, if I were to print this I would sharpen quite differently.

Post #656, Dec 15, 2013 01:08:41


Levina - BAT
AMASS - If you were thinking about donating, this would be a good time!
gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
14,254 posts
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
[MORE/SHARE]

jaspa wrote in post #16528279external link
Also, being good at PS doesn't make for a good photographer either.

No, to be sure. If you start shooting birds at noon with the sun at 2 o'clock, no Photoshop is going to save your images! Of course it starts in camera, with a good, properly exposed shot. That is a sine qua non!

Post #657, Dec 15, 2013 01:11:45


Levina - BAT
AMASS - If you were thinking about donating, this would be a good time!
gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
brianh4204
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
125 posts
Charlotte NC
[MORE/SHARE]

jaspa wrote in post #16528279external link
That's sort of beside the original point though. Also, being good at PS doesn't make for a good photographer either.

Agree completely with the statement "being good at PS doesn't make for a good photographer either". But as Levina de Ruijter stated it is more about composition and the original image produced than the lens that produced the image. A decent image can become a great image in the processing of the image.

So back to the 150-600. Point is that if it does not match absolute sharpness of the canon offerings, say 100-400, post will create images that are very close and in the long end I think the Tamron will produce sharper images than the Canon @ 400 and cropped to match the 600 of the Tamron.

Yep, good PS doesn't make a good photog but can make a good photogs images great..

Post #658, Dec 15, 2013 01:39:54




LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
pwm2's Avatar
Joined May 2007
8,626 posts
Sweden
[MORE/SHARE]

brianh4204 wrote in post #16528257external link
Really, look at some of the best images posted here and other forums and I think you will find that bigger, more expensive glass does not equate to a 1 to 1 increase in image quality.

Now you have to start by defining what you would mean with 1 to 1 increase in image quality.

Especially since there aren't a single metric to measure IQ...

Post #659, Dec 15, 2013 03:04:52


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

LOG IN TO REPLY
dufflover
Senior Member
dufflover's Avatar
Joined Nov 2012
315 posts
Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

It would be sad if Tamron's market was vs the Sigma 150-500 rather than the big boys of 100-400, 50-500 or even 120-300. That's what the price seems to indicate anyway ...

Post #660, Dec 15, 2013 05:07:45


"Duffman, could you bring in two bottles of smooth, untainted DUFF?""Oh Yeah!"
Main gear: Canon 7D, Canon 60D, Sig 120-300/2.8 OS, Can 100-400, Can 70-200/2.8L II, Can 1.4x-II, Can 2x-III, Tam 17-50/2.8, Tam 90/2.8 macro

My Flickr (feel free to critique!)external link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
300,697 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00499 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
708 guests, 494 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Hurlikai

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.