Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

dfbovey wrote in post #16465493
I'll put it to you this way, the Sigma 150-500 is 200mm longer than the Canon 300 f/4L. But I'd take the 300 f/4L and a 1.4 TC over the Sigma any day. Because it produces better images.

Probably true for the 150-500, but try the 50-500; it's better. If Tamron's 150-600 is just as good as the 50-500, or a little better at the long end, I'll be all over it.

HokkaidoStu wrote in post #16465356
The main assumption is that it is going to be any good over 400 which some posters seem to be taking for granted. I'm just saying it may not be so good, that's all. Of course I may be totally wrong .

If it's not at least "pretty good" between 400 and 600, then it's probably dead in the water. I don't really care how good it is from 150 to 300 because there are a lot of other options in that range. But over 300, and especially over 400 is where it needs to be good, because that's where people who buy it will mostly be using it.

HokkaidoStu wrote in post #16465764
It does give me that budget Siggy vibe a little...............

For many of us, the budget Siggy is what we can afford. I am not a pro and I don't have the money to spend on an "L" lens. If I had unlimited funds, I wouldn't ever look at other manufacturers other than Canon, but I don't. I'll bet there are a lot of photographers like me out there.

The Sigma 150-500 is a good enough lens for me, but I would like the extra reach and, if it has it, faster focus of the upcoming Tamron lens.

Tim

archer1960 wrote in post #16466050
Probably true for the 150-500, but try the 50-500; it's better. If Tamron's 150-600 is just as good as the 50-500, or a little better at the long end, I'll be all over it.

Yeah, I'm just saying that the extra focal length doesn't mean it will be a better solution or a better lens compared to other options that are already available. It could be, but from what I've seen I'm not sure that will be the case.

As it is, I'm curious about the lens. May be interested once I see more evidence as to what it can produce. And... price.

Orogeny wrote in post #16466104
For many of us, the budget Siggy is what we can afford. I am not a pro and I don't have the money to spend on an "L" lens. If I had unlimited funds, I wouldn't ever look at other manufacturers other than Canon, but I don't. I'll bet there are a lot of photographers like me out there.

The Sigma 150-500 is a good enough lens for me, but I would like the extra reach and, if it has it, faster focus of the upcoming Tamron lens.

Tim

I bought my 400 f/5.6L for $125 more than what I bought the Sigma 150-500 for. Definitely understand the budget. I wish I had been more patient when I was first getting started and had just saved a little longer for the 400 f/5.6L right off the bat.

Orogeny wrote in post #16466104
For many of us, the budget Siggy is what we can afford. I am not a pro and I don't have the money to spend on an "L" lens. If I had unlimited funds, I wouldn't ever look at other manufacturers other than Canon, but I don't. I'll bet there are a lot of photographers like me out there.

The Sigma 150-500 is a good enough lens for me, but I would like the extra reach and, if it has it, faster focus of the upcoming Tamron lens.

Tim

A friend who has the Sigma 150-500 reckons it's OK at 400mm stepped down to f8. So applying slightly dodgy logic it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the new Tamron, even if it is in the 'budget' category, to perform well at say 500mm also stepped down a bit.

The 200-500 Tamron didn't have a good reputation but some of their other newer zooms do (the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 ones) so it could go either way. If it is any good I'd expect it to come in at a much higher price than the Sigma though, probably around $2000 or even higher.

dfbovey wrote in post #16466153
I bought my 400 f/5.6L for $125 more than what I bought the Sigma 150-500 for. Definitely understand the budget. I wish I had been more patient when I was first getting started and had just saved a little longer for the 400 f/5.6L right off the bat.

I have not had the chance to use the 400 f/5.6L, but I love the photos I see from it. But it doesn't have IS and it really sucks at 150mm.

Tim

HokkaidoStu wrote in post #16466155
A friend who has the Sigma 150-500 reckons it's OK at 400mm stepped down to f8. So applying slightly dodgy logic it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the new Tamron, even if it is in the 'budget' category, to perform well at say 500mm also stepped down a bit.

I find that it is good at 500 stopped down to f/8. I don't compare it to any of the Canon primes because that isn't a fair comparison. It allows me to get most of the shots I want to get. My only issue with it is the focusing speed, which isn't good.

Tim

archer1960 wrote in post #16466056
If it's not at least "pretty good" between 400 and 600, then it's probably dead in the water. I don't really care how good it is from 150 to 300 because there are a lot of other options in that range. But over 300, and especially over 400 is where it needs to be good, because that's where people who buy it will mostly be using it.

Great point. Like me I am only looking forward of the image quality between 400-600 range since I already own 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC I have been wanting to upgrade to 400f5.6 but I like my current combo so far but if this lens any better with 400-600mm range this could be my next lens.

archer1960 wrote in post #16466056
If it's not at least "pretty good" between 400 and 600, then it's probably dead in the water. I don't really care how good it is from 150 to 300 because there are a lot of other options in that range. But over 300, and especially over 400 is where it needs to be good, because that's where people who buy it will mostly be using it.

Well said. For me too it's the long end of the Tamron that matters. If it's good the 400/5.6 can go but I will hang on to my 300/4 that is perfect for my larger city birds and is still most excellent with a 1.4TC, and is lightweight and just lovely. A lot has to happen before I give up that lens.

Orogeny wrote in post #16466208
I have not had the chance to use the 400 f/5.6L, but I love the photos I see from it. But it doesn't have IS and it really sucks at 150mm.

Tim

I've never really had any issues related to not having IS with the 400. Using it for birds in flight I normally have the shutter speed cranked to 1/1600 and sometimes higher.

When I need 150mm I use my 70-200 (when I was first getting started on a budget, I used the 55-250 which to my eye was better than the Sigma in the overlapping focal ranges) I found that shooting wildlife/birds it's a rarity to shoot in those lower mm's. Even when I had the Sigma 150-500 I was always shooting at 500mm 99% of the time.

Orogeny wrote in post #16466208
I have not had the chance to use the 400 f/5.6L, but I love the photos I see from it. But it doesn't have IS and it really sucks at 150mm.

Tim

It's definitely nice to have IS, but I rarely miss it for birds. And one is seldom too close. Like others have said, you have a 100-400 or a 150-500 or whatever telephoto zoom, you will find yourself most always at the long end, which is why I prefer primes as they give you better IQ. And the occasions where it's too long, well, take portraits, or pull a Brenizer, like so:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #16466481
It's definitely nice to have IS, but I rarely miss it for birds. And one is seldom too close. Like others have said, you have a 100-400 or a 150-500 or whatever telephoto zoom, you will find yourself most always at the long end, which is why I prefer primes as they give you better IQ. And the occasions where it's too long, well, take portraits, or pull a Brenizer, like so:

I agree that one is seldom too close, especially for birds, but sometime you are. Depending on where I am or what kind of bird I am photographing, I may or may not need IS (OS in the case of the Sigma), but it is good to have when I need it. Sometimes, though, I find other things to shoot other than birds.

Sigma 150-500, 247 mm:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/orogeny/6067543​984/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/orogeny/8512147​062/

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #16466481
...And the occasions where it's too long, well, take portraits, or pull a Brenizer, like so:

Nice shot.

The geek in me is wondering what the subject distance and fstop was?

If it was f4 (300/4=75mm aperture) and you were something like 4 meters away then that would give a 32cm tall field of view (on a full frame body).

I see your notes indicate about 1/3 of him fitted in the frame, so I'd take a wild guess of maybe an equivalent focal length of 100mm to get a 96cm tall field of view.

If I understand correctly, that means your Brenzier is similar to a (100/75=1.33) -> 100mm f1.4 lens

sploo wrote in post #16466667
Nice shot.

The geek in me is wondering what the subject distance and fstop was?

If it was f4 (300/4=75mm aperture) and you were something like 4 meters away then that would give a 32cm tall field of view (on a full frame body).

I see your notes indicate about 1/3 of him fitted in the frame, so I'd take a wild guess of maybe an equivalent focal length of 100mm to get a 96cm tall field of view.

If I understand correctly, that means your Brenzier is similar to a (100/75=1.33) -> 100mm f1.4 lens

Oh dear, technical stuff! You have no idea how intuitive a shooter I am and how much your reasoning goes over my head. But the outcome I do understand and my, that does sound nice!