Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

RayJ68 wrote in post #16713501
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.

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

gjl711 wrote in post #16714709
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.

RayJ68 wrote in post #16713501
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,

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.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16714829
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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16715898
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.

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.

LV Moose wrote in post #16715925
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.

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.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16718769
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.

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.

LV Moose wrote in post #16718794
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.