New Tamron 150-600 G2

dochollidayda wrote in post #18128478
What you just wrote is why refrain from Sigma. Nothing against 3rd party, hell I'd even buy a Rokinon since it gets the job done without grief. IIRC Dustin Abbot or someone did a full on review/comparison of the 150-600 and even he concluded that Sigma missed focus more than the Tamron.

Hey there's a reason they sell another component (dock) that is supposed to fix what shouldn't be broke in the first place.

Again I hear you Within 1 meter of where I type are 8 (eight) Rokinons and woohoo soon to add the Rok for EOS-M mount. Hey, just remember FUN!
Don't let all this internet/forum mumbo jumbo take the little kid out of it You know the world is changing-and quickly. There might come a time when all
this digital stuff just don't matter.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18128478
Hey there's a reason they sell another component (dock) that is supposed to fix what shouldn't be broke in the first place.

Right and why again did Canon put in the ability to micro adjust into their cameras? They don't even have to reverse engineer the AF algorithms and they can't get it right enough to where they felt the need to provide AFMA.

FEChariot wrote in post #18128513
Right and why again did Canon put in the ability to micro adjust into their cameras? They don't even have to reverse engineer the AF algorithms and they can't get it right enough to where they felt the need to provide AFMA.

I have never had to adjust a Canon lens on any of their bodies. I am sure for some large aperture lenses some pixel peepers make adjustments.

In any case, its not an apples to apples comparison since there aren't threads of Canon lenses crapping focus in bright light.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18128383
Doch, I'm with you. I know Sigma can do great things. I have the 35Art, but for me Tamron is the current 3rd party candidate. Tamron first to AF my EF lenses via Metabones on the Sonys. Tamron never let me down with the super wide angle....The Sigma 12-24 was a constant disappointment. Sigma 70-200, my copy, dog poo. Tam 70-200 as sharp as my FE 70-300. Just me I bet but like eating bad oysters, it will be a while before I have them again.

Tamron I agree has a very good set of "alternatives" for the standard lenses, I have the 24-70VS and 70-200VC and do not miss my Canon L in these ranges.


SIGMA however has often been far ahead in the long lens category. Tamron's first and only inroads into besting SIGMA in this category was the 1st version of the very lens this thread is about. (ie: the first -600mm zoom) But one has to acknowledge that the two SIGMA's that came later did step ahead of the initial Tamron offering.

SIGMA's long lens contributions go back many years. SIGMA was the only 3rd party with AF fast enough to count for over a decade, SIGMA was the manufacturer with a number of -400mm and -500mm zooms, SIGMA was first with a 3rd party version of IS, and of course to this day, only SIGMA has lenses like the 120-300mm f/2.8 and 300-800mm.

And don't forget the only 3rd party options for super telephoto primes come from SIGMA, in 300mm f/2.8, 500mm, and 800mm.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18128534
I have never had to adjust a Canon lens on any of their bodies. I am sure for some large aperture lenses some pixel peepers make adjustments.

In any case, its not an apples to apples comparison since there aren't threads of Canon lenses crapping focus in bright light.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1460294

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1460039

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1454751

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1427525

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1431498

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1399460

Nope nobody ever whines about focus issues with Canon glass here. Let's see for me I have sent in a 50/1.8 to Canon to fix the AF for back focus, my 24-105 and 85/1.8 first copies were returned due to inconsistant focus and the second copies were fine. My 70-200/4 IS and 60/2.8 both need a +5 adjustment.

Now while I would much rather put my money on Canon glass over third party for best focusing results, lets not kid ourselves into thinking Canon is perfect.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18128311
Really, I have not read about any inherent problems with the SIGMA C? The dedicated thread is chock full of happy owners with fantastic examples.

I'm one of them. I have the Sigma 150-600c and even at 600mm it can produce stunning images of top quality IQ and colour. It's a great lens and priced fairly. Focussing has never been a problem for me. It's all down to the user IMO.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #18128995
I'm one of them. I have the Sigma 150-600c and even at 600mm it can produce stunning images of top quality IQ and colour. It's a great lens and priced fairly. Focussing has never been a problem for me. It's all down to the user IMO.

Or the sample of the lens. Someone mentioned the review by Dustin Abbott. The Sigma C that he had to test was a focusing mess.

pknight wrote in post #18129038
Or the sample of the lens. ....

Yes of course, any model can have some bad ones. My only point was that for this model lens we have not seen any thing like a group of problematic threads on it. It seems to be a very stable design.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18128534
I have never had to adjust a Canon lens on any of their bodies. I am sure for some large aperture lenses some pixel peepers make adjustments.

In any case, its not an apples to apples comparison since there aren't threads of Canon lenses crapping focus in bright light.

MFA is just really small adjustments, if you dont need MFA, then small adjustments dont matter much to you, so sigma being bad to you, they must be missing well out of the MFA range

Either way, more competition the merrier, I couldnt care if sigma/tamron made more lenses, it's good that they do, even if some dont meet expectations.

Jake can't argue against any of your accurate and valid points and Sigma is completely unique in the 300-800mm you mentioned and in that gargantuan lens that cost 25K or is it more.
I wouldn't mind that 300-800.
Now back to the Tam G2, in 13 days ish I hope to see if MFA is needed.
And while I'm on a roll how about a thank you to sigma and tamron for either of the 150-600s, even if I could afford the 600 or 800L I can't carry them.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18128478
What you just wrote is why refrain from Sigma. Nothing against 3rd party, hell I'd even buy a Rokinon since it gets the job done without grief. IIRC Dustin Abbot or someone did a full on review/comparison of the 150-600 and even he concluded that Sigma missed focus more than the Tamron.

Hey there's a reason they sell another component (dock) that is supposed to fix what shouldn't be broke in the first place.

If what you say is correct, why did Canon introduce MFA?

The dock is not just for focus calibration. It allows firmware updates and also customisation with regards to stabilization and focus limit distances.
In my opinion that puts Sigma ahead of Canon for features. I had a Sigma 150-600 Sport and did not find the need to make any focus adjustments. It just worked and it worked very well.

MedicineMan, I see no reason to make any focus adjustments until or unless a problem is identified. I'm not saying your enthusiastic approach to using Reikan FoCal is wrong. For me, I just take pics and if I feel images are not as sharp as they should be I then do some testing and adjust.

My 100-400 II is a little off at close to MFD but at more typical shooting distances it's good so I have not done any MFA.
With a Sigma or Tamron lens with the same situation I would adjust at MFD and only MFD.

Choderboy wrote in post #18129730
MedicineMan, I see no reason to make any focus adjustments until or unless a problem is identified. I'm not saying your enthusiastic approach to using Reikan FoCal is wrong. For me, I just take pics and if I feel images are not as sharp as they should be I then do some testing and adjust.

My 100-400 II is a little off at close to MFD but at more typical shooting distances it's good so I have not done any MFA.
With a Sigma or Tamron lens with the same situation I would adjust at MFD and only MFD.

Dave we only FoCal'd one time in last 3 years, but yes we were enthusiastic at the time of doing, that or fall asleep=not exactly an exciting process

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18129707
Jake can't argue against any of your accurate and valid points and Sigma is completely unique in the 300-800mm you mentioned and in that gargantuan lens that cost 25K or is it more...

That price you must be referring to the insane 200-500mm f/2.8

The 300-800mm is more like $7k these days.

I had one for a few years, and paid $2K new!


I have the DOCK for the SIGMA 150-600mm, but have not felt the need to use it for any lens calibration. Nor have I MFA'ed using the tools built into the 7D2/5D3.

Perfectly Frank wrote in post #18117728
I use the lens handheld, so I cut off the foot ring with a sawzall.

You didn't?