Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

Ilovetheleafs wrote in post #16433921
has me debating if I should get this or an ultra wide lens :P as I have need of both.

i wouldn't expect this lens to be available for a solid 6+months...go for an ultra wide

DreDaze wrote in post #16433930
i wouldn't expect this lens to be available for a solid 6+months...go for an ultra wide

and I probably won't be able to afford a lens again until 6 months from now But I always like planning my purchases out for a few months. In fact it took me two years to decide on getting a Sigma 50mm.

Aperture of f/5 at widest and and f/6.3 on longest?

Wtf, which dumbass has such crappy ideas. I mean the range is great but i first guess the image quality must be totally terrible and f/5 at 150mm is terribly slow

davidfarina wrote in post #16434152
Aperture of f/5 at widest and and f/6.3 on longest?

Wtf, which dumbass has such crappy ideas. I mean the range is great but i first guess the image quality must be totally terrible and f/5 at 150mm is terribly slow

Nothing dumbass about it. It's a trade-off between cost and speed. 20 years ago, a huge number of tele lenses had this speed. Aperture directly decides the size of the front element. And also directly the manufacturing cost of the lens.

Next thing - a slower aperture doesn't give worse image quality. It just affects ISO/shutter time/DoF.

davidfarina wrote in post #16434152
Aperture of f/5 at widest and and f/6.3 on longest?

Wtf, which dumbass has such crappy ideas. I mean the range is great but i first guess the image quality must be totally terrible and f/5 at 150mm is terribly slow

Dear David,

Maybe they are thinking about the majority of photographers who have neither the money or nor the desire to spend $ 5000.00 for a lens that reaches 600MM?

Honestly, if you are even looking at the short range of this lens you really aren't looking at the lens at all, you are merely looking at specs and turning your nose up at it.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

davidfarina wrote in post #16434152
Aperture of f/5 at widest and and f/6.3 on longest?

Wtf, which dumbass has such crappy ideas. I mean the range is great but i first guess the image quality must be totally terrible and f/5 at 150mm is terribly slow

I highly suspect otherwise. I don't expect the same performance as their 70-200 VC that I own but I do firmly believe the IQ will not be far off. Only time will tell.

Here is a link to their MTF and sample images. Looks to me like they have a focus limiter which is great for the wildlife guys.

http://www.tamron.eu …roducts_pi6%5Bs​p%5D=false


Here is the MTF chart they posted compared to the only other lens I could find on their site was the 70-300 VC USD lens. You can see comparing 150 to 600 that the performance seems to be best on the long side which is EXACTLY why you want this lens. If you want 150mm performance buy a 70-200.

This thing weighs 4.3lbs, is 10" long, has a 95mm filter on the front. This thing isn't some cheap consumer lens, it definately has glass in it but the question is how good is this glass. My other concern is their USD focusing. The USD in the 24-70 is quiet but rather slower compared to the very snappy 70-200 USD. I hope this USD matches the 70-200 and if it does then I will buy this lens. So far the speculation is $1500 and I think that cost is fair and should be able to be had for around $1300 just a few months after release. It's not a fast lens but it's a long lens and for someone like me that likes to do aviation I'm shooting at F8 to get a slower shutter speed anyway. I was happy with my Sigma 70-200 w/ a 2X @ 400mm F8 so I really do think this lens will beat that at least

150-600

davidfarina wrote in post #16434152
Aperture of f/5 at widest and and f/6.3 on longest?

Wtf, which dumbass has such crappy ideas. I mean the range is great but i first guess the image quality must be totally terrible and f/5 at 150mm is terribly slow

Uh, it's a daytime lens.....

Like your 70-300, it gives up aperture for range..... I mean what type of egghead makes a non 2.8 zoom

1Tanker wrote in post #16432336
I'd rather it be a 150-500/5.6. That damned f/6.3 starts messing things up (AF on certain bodies), and starts cranking up the aperture when TC's are used...

They will most likly report back to the body f/5.6 so AF will be maintained. That is what the siggy long lenses do And I would expect the same from this one as well.

This lens could be interesting if the image quality and AF performance are similar to Tamron's other recent offerings. If it maintains an aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm, the lens could be a longer alternative to the Canon 100-400L. I'll anxiously be waiting for some reviews on this one.

gjl711 wrote in post #16434215
They will most likly report back to the body f/5.6 so AF will be maintained. That is what the siggy long lenses do And I would expect the same from this one as well.

The Canon 100-400 also partially lies about the aperture.

Yeah, I never had any problems with f/6.3 telezoom lenses (Sigma 150-500, Tamron 200-500). The camera "sees" it as f/5.6

pwm2 wrote in post #16434255
The Canon 100-400 also partially lies about the aperture.

Exactly.

Actually, as far as I know, lenses that do match the claimed aperture are quite rare. Usually the actual, measured T value is higher (i.e. worse) than the claimed one (even for a lens like Canon 24-70 2.8 II).

4.2 pounds....cannot equal a heavily glass laden unit.
But at that weight it might be worth a gamble....that saying that sometimes weight overcomes IQ when you physically have to move something over and over. You young strapping photographers don't understand that yet but if you live long enough

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16434306
4.2 pounds....cannot equal a heavily glass laden unit.
But at that weight it might be worth a gamble....that saying that sometimes weight overcomes IQ when you physically have to move something over and over. You young strapping photographers don't understand that yet but if you live long enough

Believe me my EGO weighs much more and I'll carry that around till I die

Scott M wrote in post #16434234
This lens could be interesting if the image quality and AF performance are similar to Tamron's other recent offerings. If it maintains an aperture of f/5.6 at 400mm, the lens could be a longer alternative to the Canon 100-400L. I'll anxiously be waiting for some reviews on this one.

Look at the samples in the link provided. They do show on the last shot 5.6 at 329mm but thats the most we know right now. I suspect it's 5.6 up to 350mm and 6.3 from there to 600.