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

 
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4223
Joined Dec 2008
     
Feb 24, 2014 17:57 |  #3391

RayJ68 wrote in post #16713501 (external link)
The thing is that I have read so many bad things about the Tamron.

Without weighing in on whether you should give up on it (totally your call), I've read every review I can find on it, and most speak of it glowingly.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,310 posts
Likes: 2341
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Feb 24, 2014 19:08 |  #3392

I have not seen many negative reviews as well especially for a $1000 lens.


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
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Feb 24, 2014 19:25 |  #3393

gjl711 wrote in post #16714709 (external link)
I have not seen many negative reviews as well especially for a $1000 lens.

Since it's basically sold "for free", it's very hard to not think you get a lot for the money. Anyone seriously comparing it to a $5000 lens and finding it not being up to the task is a person I wouldn't consider a good reviewer.

This just has to be the best bang-for-the-buck tele zoom in existence. The question is just if it is good enough or if the user needs to move to a more expensive lens. Alas, there aren't exactly a large number of more expensive lenses available.


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
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,283 posts
Gallery: 1696 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10665
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Feb 24, 2014 19:48 |  #3394

RayJ68 wrote in post #16713501 (external link)
The thing is that I have read so many bad things about the Tamron.I thought I'd give it a go because of the price.But tbh, I cannot be sending it back at £15-20 a shot .
I tried, it failed.
I'll stick with my 400L

By all means, please, post links to these negative reviews.

I would not trust a review comparing it to far more expensive, obviously superior optics. It clearly cannot compare to an F2.8 or even an F4 `L serious prime of 400mm and higher length. Of course, those also cost many times more in cash. So not a good comparison and so it's not a good testament to the Tamron. That's no different than comparing the 24-70 MKII to a 15-55 Kit lens. The Tamron is not a super quality lens. It's an affordable 600mm lens. I would expect it to perform like the 55-250 IS does. Performs great for it's cost, and gives you a feature rich lens, that is very capable, and very affordable, for what it is. The Tamron is like the 600mm version of the nifty-two-fifty to me. As for problems with the lens, there's no problem listed that isn't available on another lens when it was released either, plus copy variation. It's not perfect. No lens comes out perfect. There's stinkers in every lot. Even the good lenses have a few bad copies. Judging a new lens by a few bad copies in relation to the total number of people with the actual lens isn't a good review.

If you truly think the lens has bad things going on, take look at the image thread for the lens and ask those guys how they're able to take some great images at that focal length, given all these problems.

Not a super lens. It's a budget super telephoto. Keep expectations in the $1k context of a 600mm lens.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Feb 24, 2014 19:50 |  #3395

I don't mind a review that compares it to way more expensive lenses. On the contrary - such reviews lets the buyers see how large the difference is and if it is worth the money to take the step to the more expensive lens.

It's only if the review consider it a bad lens for not being able to match way more expensive lenses that the reviewer would show his/her logical oops.


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
sanil
Senior Member
Avatar
658 posts
Likes: 1550
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Hyderabad - Deccan
     
Feb 24, 2014 20:34 |  #3396

MalVeauX wrote in post #16714829 (external link)
By all means, please, post links to these negative reviews.

I would not trust a review comparing it to far more expensive, obviously superior optics. It clearly cannot compare to an F2.8 or even an F4 `L serious prime of 400mm and higher length. Of course, those also cost many times more in cash. So not a good comparison and so it's not a good testament to the Tamron. That's no different than comparing the 24-70 MKII to a 15-55 Kit lens. The Tamron is not a super quality lens. It's an affordable 600mm lens. I would expect it to perform like the 55-250 IS does. Performs great for it's cost, and gives you a feature rich lens, that is very capable, and very affordable, for what it is. The Tamron is like the 600mm version of the nifty-two-fifty to me. As for problems with the lens, there's no problem listed that isn't available on another lens when it was released either, plus copy variation. It's not perfect. No lens comes out perfect. There's stinkers in every lot. Even the good lenses have a few bad copies. Judging a new lens by a few bad copies in relation to the total number of people with the actual lens isn't a good review.

If you truly think the lens has bad things going on, take look at the image thread for the lens and ask those guys how they're able to take some great images at that focal length, given all these problems.

Not a super lens. It's a budget super telephoto. Keep expectations in the $1k context of a 600mm lens.

Very best,

Very well said ...:)


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/anilsarvepalli​/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jbrackjr
Senior Member
481 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Georgia, USA
     
Feb 24, 2014 22:46 |  #3397

Just some thoughts on comparing my 100-400 to the 150-600 that I wrote in another thread.

I really like my 100-400. I like the push pull zoom, the barrel tension/lock ring and the fact that it is reasonably lite and fast to use. It has first generation IS and focus is reasonably fast and accurate. I have had the Tamron for two weeks and haven’t used it that much. But it is 1/3 larger and heavier than the 100-400. Which makes it clunkier to use. It is slower to zoom with unless you use it as a push/pull ( I’m afraid that will damage it so I will not do so). AF appears to be the same speed as the 100-400 but not as accurate. It also hunts more than my 100-400. It would also appear that I need to use a much higher shutter speed (than anticipated) to ensure a sharp photo. For me, I think this lens is a trade off. I will miss some shots because I find it slower to use and the AF is not the best but I will gain some shots due to it being capable of 600mm. I suspect it will do very well at an airshow where the birds are a lot bigger:lol:.

I bought both from B&H new, paid $1250 (on sale) for the 100-400 & $1069 for the Tamron which for me puts them in the same price category. The Canon is built like a tank, the Tamron not so much and the hood is really cheap and flimsy. The Tamron is also exhibiting lens creep already and it's new, which will only get worse as it sees more use.

I'm good with the IQ of the Tamron, no complaints there for the money spent. The AF should be better IMO. YMMV as always.


Jim
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Illume
Member
149 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Virginia
     
Feb 25, 2014 05:53 |  #3398

I too own both the EF100-400 and the new Tamron. I see a bit better contrast and richer colors with my 100-400, although this can largely be equalized in post. I also find the 100-400 performs better than the Tamron on my 7D body. I also like the push/pull design, but I'm getting more competent with the Tamron's zoom ring. With the 6D I've been shooting with, I'll take the Tamron all day long. The extra reach is crucial (for me) and the AF and IQ are at least comparable to the 100-400.

I haven't used either lens for BIF, so I can't comment on that type of shooting, but I'm very pleased with the Tamron thus far for my uses. I can see keeping both lenses -- I'd choose the 100-400 for hiking around with the 7D taking handheld shots as it's lighter and seems to work better (than the Tamron) on my crop sensor body. For shorter hikes or other situations, I'd likely choose the Tamron and haul along a tripod. If I sell one, it will be the Canon.


Canon 6D | Sigma 35 1.4 | 40mm pancake | 16-35 f/4 | 24-105L | 100L 2/8 | Tamron 150-600 VC
Tamron 150-600 VC Images (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kickflipkid687
Senior Member
921 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Jan 2014
     
Feb 25, 2014 08:23 |  #3399

I actually WANT to see more comparisons against the expensive primes, like 600 F/4, and 400 2.8, just to see how much of a difference there is or isn't in image quality.


My Flickr page - https://www.flickr.com​/photos/86957042@N07/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4223
Joined Dec 2008
     
Feb 25, 2014 08:31 |  #3400

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16715898 (external link)
I actually WANT to see more comparisons against the expensive primes, like 600 F/4, and 400 2.8, just to see how much of a difference there is or isn't in image quality.

If I was on the fence about getting either of those, I would, too. But not having 11-12K to spend, I'm interested in comparisons that might affect my purchase of lenses in the same ball park of price and focal length.

I only wish I could afford one of those you mentioned. :D


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
treebound
Senior Member
Avatar
547 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 15
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Wisconsin
     
Feb 25, 2014 13:25 |  #3401

My preliminary daydreams of getting either the 150-600 or a used deal on a 100-400L have faded. Hopefully once the weather warms up I'll be able to barter/swap/sell stuff and work my way into one or the other lens. In the mean time I'm enjoying reading all the reports about this, and for me the images look great for the lens' price range.


=====
60D w/18-135 kit lens, 55-250mm, EF 50mm 1.8, 580EXII flash.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kickflipkid687
Senior Member
921 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Jan 2014
     
Feb 26, 2014 08:12 |  #3402

LV Moose wrote in post #16715925 (external link)
If I was on the fence about getting either of those, I would, too. But not having 11-12K to spend, I'm interested in comparisons that might affect my purchase of lenses in the same ball park of price and focal length.

I only wish I could afford one of those you mentioned. :D

Maybe I can see if the guy around here will do a quick comparison, to see how bad this lens may look against his 500 F/4, lol.


My Flickr page - https://www.flickr.com​/photos/86957042@N07/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,356 posts
Gallery: 207 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4223
Joined Dec 2008
     
Feb 26, 2014 08:22 |  #3403

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16718769 (external link)
Maybe I can see if the guy around here will do a quick comparison, to see how bad this lens may look against his 500 F/4, lol.

Meh. Another $10K lens

I mean, I wouldn't mind seeing the comparison, but it would have no bearing on whether or not I buy the 150-600.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,427 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 3910
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Feb 26, 2014 08:27 |  #3404

The Tamron won't be able to compete with the 500/4 any more than the 100-400L can. Under specific circumstances, I am sure either lens can produce images that would be indistinguishable from those taken by the 500/4 in a blinded test, but 90 times out of 100, the 500/4 would blow either lens away. This is of course preaching to the choir... nobody here I am sure seriously considers either of these zooms as a equal to the 500/4 for pure IQ.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 26, 2014 09:22 |  #3405

LV Moose wrote in post #16718794 (external link)
Meh. Another $10K lens

I mean, I wouldn't mind seeing the comparison, but it would have no bearing on whether or not I buy the 150-600.

Yup.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

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

636,931 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 qawsedrftg
1268 guests, 242 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.