Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Nov 2013 (Thursday) 09:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

 
graham121
Goldmember
Avatar
1,212 posts
Gallery: 107 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 10867
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Pakenham, VIC, Aus
     
Jan 24, 2014 02:02 |  #2731

5D3ismydream wrote in post #16631941 (external link)
If I already have Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM + 2x extender III will be better choice for wildlife and birding? A 2x extender III costs just 500 USD while a Tamron 150-600mm may cost over 1000 USD (probably 1200USD in my country)

Not having seen any comparisons between the two set ups all I can say is that the 70-200 + 2x combo may be better in the 150-400mm range...however the Tamron will win hands down in the 400-600mm range ( which is probably most useful for wildlife and birding).

So whilst you may save yourself $700...you lose 200mm at the long end and you may not get the result you are after for wildlife and birding.

Maybe wait until the lens is available locally - I am in the same position as you so I am waiting to see, touch and feel the lens and then by that time there will be more tests and reviews to look at.


A coupla bodies and a few lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,927 posts
Gallery: 280 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6144
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Jan 24, 2014 02:10 |  #2732

^^^ Yes. It's not like you have to hurry this. There's plenty of time to decide. Wait for the usual sites to come with their reviews, wait until the early adopters have used it a bit longer as it takes some time to get to know new gear. There's no hurry. I'm waiting too for more in depth reviews and long(er) term user experiences.


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,404 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 461
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 24, 2014 04:47 |  #2733

5D3ismydream wrote in post #16631941 (external link)
If I already have Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM + 2x extender III will be better choice for wildlife and birding? A 2x extender III costs just 500 USD while a Tamron 150-600mm may cost over 1000 USD (probably 1200USD in my country)

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #16631996 (external link)
These decisions are always difficult. Maybe you could go to the shop and look at the Tamron 150-600mm. Try it out a bit, see how it feels?
And I wouldn't buy the 2x extender III. A 2x II will be sufficient. The mark III really only makes a difference for the new super telelenses. For your 70-200mm the 2x II will be excellent. You can buy them used for half the price of a new mark III.

I've never used/tested the version II models of Canon's extenders, but I understand the III of the 2x is supposed to be optically better than the II (though I'm told there's not much difference between the II and the III for the 1.4x).

There's also a not inconsiderable step up in quality with the version II of the 70-200 (I understand it's likely to take a TC better than the original).

The 70-200II + 2x TC III is good, but the AF does take a hit, and I personally feel the need to stop down a bit to regain some quality (i.e. f8 or f11 when at 400mm). Comparisons I've seen with that combo (at 400mm) generally disagree whether it's better quality (or worse) than a 100-400 (I suspect sample variation is a big factor).

Given the comparisions I've seen between the 100-400 and the new Tamron, I'd suspect the Tamron would be a better choice than the 70-200+2x TC if you were regularly planning on shooting at, and above, 300mm.

If you mostly shoot under 200mm, and only occasionally go above, then the 70-200 + TC would be better.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
Jan 24, 2014 06:00 |  #2734

Peter2516 wrote in post #16631758 (external link)
Where did you end up buying it?

I have 1 on hold last Sat till 11am but could not make it now is gone. :(


Online at Wolfe's camera I bet you had one at Kenmore?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bsmooth
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2005
Location: New England
     
Jan 24, 2014 06:19 as a reply to  @ Tanglefoot47's post |  #2735

It looks like the opteka or Manfrotto 393 for best bargain gimbal heads then.
I agree you can handhold a 500 or 600, but for how long, and If you happen to have lots of walking ahead (looking for snowies on the beach for example) how practical is it ?
Granted the Tamron is much lighter than a 500 or 600, but thats still a lot of weight to be lugging around.
I just have a 100-400, and after say 4 or 5 hours walking on the beach it gets pretty heavy, not unbearable but...
I think I want this lens, but at the same time, I'm wondering If a camera upgrade from my 1DMKII, would be a better choice. I'm sure we'll be seeing even more closeups of birds now with all these Tamrons about !


Bruce

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
Jan 24, 2014 06:31 |  #2736

I own a Canon 1.4x TC III and use it with some regularity behind the 70-200, which is why my 150-600mm is arriving on the brown truck today (confirmed out for delivery at this point.)

The 1.4x on the back of the 70-200 is just not enough far too often, even on the 7d with its crop factor. And while I can afford the Canon 400 prime now I lose autofocus (unless I tape pins) and with the TC I bet there's not much difference in IQ AND I lose some light-gathering over the Tamron. The gain is that I get IQ @ 400, but I spend more.

I'll probably sell the 1.4x TC once I use the Tamron a bit. If it obviates my desire to use it with the 70-200, the TC will go up for sale.

I owned a TC II and the III is materially better in IQ. It's also more money, so there you have it.


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bsmooth
Senior Member
Avatar
861 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2005
Location: New England
     
Jan 24, 2014 06:45 as a reply to  @ tickerguy's post |  #2737

Also just throwing around some figures using the 1DMKII, which is a 1.3x factor sensor. With the 150-600 tamron, it essentially gives you a 780mm lens.
Now with a Canon 400 5.6 and 1.4 Ext you have essentially a 728mm lens.
I was just wondering which of these would be a better choice, granted with the 400 you lose a little bit of light and range, but I think that combo is still lighter than the 150-600. What do you think ?
Also are the newer 1.4 ext (version 2 and 3) any better than the 1st version ?, which i think I have.


Bruce

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
Jan 24, 2014 06:54 |  #2738

The TC III is materially better than the II. I've owned both and currently own a III. The III also costs more.

The 400 prime darn well ought to beat the IQ of the Tamron, but with the TC I bet it's much closer AND you've lost light-gathering capability, and to switch between the two focal lengths takes a wee bit longer (/sarc) than it does with the Tamron. :D


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,404 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 461
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:12 |  #2739

tickerguy wrote in post #16632239 (external link)
I own a Canon 1.4x TC III and use it with some regularity behind the 70-200, which is why my 150-600mm is arriving on the brown truck today (confirmed out for delivery at this point.)

The 1.4x on the back of the 70-200 is just not enough far too often, even on the 7d with its crop factor. And while I can afford the Canon 400 prime now I lose autofocus (unless I tape pins) and with the TC I bet there's not much difference in IQ AND I lose some light-gathering over the Tamron. The gain is that I get IQ @ 400, but I spend more.

I'll probably sell the 1.4x TC once I use the Tamron a bit. If it obviates my desire to use it with the 70-200, the TC will go up for sale.

I owned a TC II and the III is materially better in IQ. It's also more money, so there you have it.

Yea, that makes perfect sense to me - a 70-200 bare (as it has great IQ and AF for that range), and the Tamron for the longer work.

Bsmooth wrote in post #16632258 (external link)
Also just throwing around some figures using the 1DMKII, which is a 1.3x factor sensor. With the 150-600 tamron, it essentially gives you a 780mm lens.
Now with a Canon 400 5.6 and 1.4 Ext you have essentially a 728mm lens.
I was just wondering which of these would be a better choice, granted with the 400 you lose a little bit of light and range, but I think that combo is still lighter than the 150-600. What do you think ?
Also are the newer 1.4 ext (version 2 and 3) any better than the 1st version ?, which i think I have.

Does the 1DMKII AF at f8? If not, then the 400 f/5.6 + TC would be a problem.

Without a TC, the 400 prime should AF faster than the Tamron, and for BIF the shutter speeds should be high enough that the lack of IS would be less of a problem. If you need more reach, or IS/VC, then the Tamron's probably the choice.

I don't know the version I of the Canon TCs. I wouldn't be surprised if the II was better, but I believe the III of the 1.4x isn't sufficiently better than you should overlook a good deal on a used 1.4x II.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dfbovey
Goldmember
1,602 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:23 |  #2740

The 400 is likely faster to focus even with an extender attached on a 1D body.


Flickr (external link)
Canon 1D markIV - Canon 1D markIII - Canon 6D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L - Canon EF 500mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,404 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 461
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:31 |  #2741

dfbovey wrote in post #16632317 (external link)
The 400 is likely faster to focus even with an extender attached on a 1D body.

Impressive if that's true (as it'd be focussing at f/8, whereas the Tamron would be [at worst] at f/6.3). I do understand the 400/5.6 is an AF speed demon though.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Avatar
17,927 posts
Gallery: 280 photos
Best ofs: 10
Likes: 6144
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:36 |  #2742

sploo wrote in post #16632301 (external link)
Does the 1DMKII AF at f8? If not, then the 400 f/5.6 + TC would be a problem.

Yes, it does AF at f/8.

As to me advising to get a used mark II extender. Well, it seems the man isn't exactly swimming in cash and I really don't think the mark III will make a world of difference, especially not on the old cameras/lenses. The Traumfliegertest I referred to earlier showed that the Canon 2x Mark III came out slightly ahead of the 2x Mark II overall, but that the Mark II was actually sharper in the center. It's at the edges where the Mark III did a bit better. This test is the reason I never bothered to get a mark III. I have one 1.4x Kenko (the test winner:) ) and two 2x extenders: the Canon Mark II and another Kenko and the Kenko is a tiny bit sharper in the center and for some reason focuses easier manually than the Canon, but then, I try to avoid using a 2x extender altogether. :)


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,876 posts
Likes: 2104
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:43 |  #2743

With all this focus speed talk, does anyone know of a link to someone who has actually measured focusing speed? The reason I ask is that I always read here that the 400mm prime is such a speed demon when compared to other lenses but the few times i have used one, it didn't seem faster compared to my 100-400. Maybe it was faster and tracked better, but in all honesty, I really didn't notice much change.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dfbovey
Goldmember
1,602 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jan 24, 2014 07:46 |  #2744

sploo wrote in post #16632337 (external link)
Impressive if that's true (as it'd be focussing at f/8, whereas the Tamron would be [at worst] at f/6.3). I do understand the 400/5.6 is an AF speed demon though.

Yeah, first, it's a prime. And it doesn't have IS to slow it down. The f/6.3 vs f/8 figure isn't the whole story. The Sigma 150-500 is also 6.3 but I would guess that the AF on the 400 is 2-3 times faster to focus. Even with a TC on from my experience.

I know that the Tamron is better than the Sigma, including being faster to focus, even though they are both f/6.3.


Flickr (external link)
Canon 1D markIV - Canon 1D markIII - Canon 6D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L - Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L - Canon EF 500mm f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
Jan 24, 2014 08:16 |  #2745

IS when handheld matters a LOT and not just on the exposure; holding the composition for framing purposes is a big deal too, and it's very noticeable even on a 70-200.

If you have a tripod or monopod it matters much less, but without it I find IS to be insanely-useful even for moving subjects (even though it does not mitigate SUBJECT movement) simply for the improvement in framing that it offers. The more of the frame you fill with the subject on a long lens (e.g. the more native composition you rely on rather than PP cropping) the more-important this becomes.

I didn't think I'd really find IS all that important on the 70-200, coming from film where I used to shoot that length of lens all the time without any such nonsense. Wrong.


Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

615,713 views & 5 likes for this thread
Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is astrobalcony
920 guests, 235 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.