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

 
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,425 posts
Likes: 2386
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 08, 2013 08:42 |  #31

Talley wrote in post #16434404 (external link)
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.

If the lens is reporting a mac of f/5.6, you can't draw that conclusion. What you do know is that it is at minimum f/5.6 but may already be f/6.3 as well, just reporting f/5.6.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
THREAD ­ STARTER
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,207 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2658
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Nov 08, 2013 09:43 |  #32

gjl711 wrote in post #16434449 (external link)
If the lens is reporting a mac of f/5.6, you can't draw that conclusion. What you do know is that it is at minimum f/5.6 but may already be f/6.3 as well, just reporting f/5.6.

exif would report at f6.3 thought if it is at f6.3...assuming it's like the sigmas...


and the slowness of the lens makes total sense...have you seen the size/price of the 200-400f4 lens? with the ISO capabilities of todays cameras a slow lens isn't as big of a hindrance as it was in the past

weight could be an issue, i had no clue how heavy in lbs my 150-500OS was until right now...this thing would be about .6lbs heavier, which could get tiring after a full day of using it handheld...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
w0m
Goldmember
1,110 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2011
     
Nov 08, 2013 09:59 |  #33

DreDaze wrote in post #16434618 (external link)
exif would report at f6.3 thought if it is at f6.3...assuming it's like the sigmas...


and the slowness of the lens makes total sense...have you seen the size/price of the 200-400f4 lens? with the ISO capabilities of todays cameras a slow lens isn't as big of a hindrance as it was in the past

weight could be an issue, i had no clue how heavy in lbs my 150-500OS was until right now...this thing would be about .6lbs heavier, which could get tiring after a full day of using it handheld...

even on Ff; 150mm on the short end would be a bit much as a walkaround to me. If hiking/birding; i'd be sure to use a monopod; likely with a tripod collar... would keep shutterspeed reasonable in shadows also @ f/6.3


[6D]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:09 |  #34

I think they might as well have made it a 200-600 or even 300-600mm, but maybe that wouldn't drop weight as much as I think.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,425 posts
Likes: 2386
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:11 |  #35

tkbslc wrote in post #16434678 (external link)
I think they might as well have made it a 200-600 or even 300-600mm, but maybe that wouldn't drop weight as much as I think.

Maybe not, but generally when you limit the zoom range of a lens it is easier to optimize it for the remaining focal lengths. I would think that a 300-600 lens might be better across it's range than a 150-600.


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
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2774
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:13 |  #36

gjl711 wrote in post #16434685 (external link)
Maybe not, but generally when you limit the zoom range of a lens it is easier to optimize it for the remaining focal lengths. I would think that a 300-600 lens might be better across it's range than a 150-600.

But for an amature sports lens a 300-600 doesn't appeal to me as much as a 150-600 does. I could cover my kids sports easy with this lens, just not get that DOF that a F4 would give


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,645 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 458
Joined Mar 2008
Location: London, Ontario
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:27 |  #37

1Tanker wrote in post #16432336 (external link)
I'd rather it be a 150-500/5.6. That damned f/6.3 starts messing things up (AF on certain bodies)

regardless of which body it is mounted to, the AF is done with the lens wide open (5.6 in this case) at any range... aperture doesn't close down until the shutter is pressed all the way - or you hit the aperture preview button on the body


EOS R / 7D2 / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
Sig35A, Sig50A, Sig85A, Sig14-24A, Sig24-105A, Sig70-200S, Sig150-600C
100-400L, 100L, 300 2.8L, 1.4x II / 2x II
600EX-II X3, 430EX-III X3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:33 |  #38

gjl711 wrote in post #16434685 (external link)
Maybe not, but generally when you limit the zoom range of a lens it is easier to optimize it for the remaining focal lengths. I would think that a 300-600 lens might be better across it's range than a 150-600.

Super-zooms have 10:1 or even bigger zoom range, despite the big problem of covering both wide and tele.

I don't think 2:1 would make much improvement to weight and IQ compared to 4:1. But it is way easier to find customers for a zoom that covers the wider range. And this is a big investment for a not so large company - they need lots of customers to cover their R&D costs.

150-600 gives a perfect overlap with a 70-200 lens - you don't get in a situation that you switch just to notice it was wrong and have to switch back.


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
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 08, 2013 10:38 |  #39

SMP_Homer wrote in post #16434727 (external link)
regardless of which body it is mounted to, the AF is done with the lens wide open (5.6 in this case) at any range... aperture doesn't close down until the shutter is pressed all the way - or you hit the aperture preview button on the body

Just that the focusing can only happen at f/5.6 if the lens is able to open as wide as f/5.6 at the currently selected focal length. So wide open will not be f/5.6 at 600mm, even if the lens might lie to the camera about actual aperture.


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
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,425 posts
Likes: 2386
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:11 |  #40

SMP_Homer wrote in post #16434727 (external link)
regardless of which body it is mounted to, the AF is done with the lens wide open (5.6 in this case) at any range... aperture doesn't close down until the shutter is pressed all the way - or you hit the aperture preview button on the body

I think Tanker was refering to the fact that most Canon bodies will not AF with lenses that have a minimum aperture greater than f/5.6. However, as I mentioned, this should not be a problem as I'm sure the lens will report back to the body that it is at f/5.6 even though the real aperture may be at f/6.3. From the bodies point of view, it still falls within the AF aperture range.


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
sploo
premature adulation
2,415 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 465
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:11 as a reply to  @ pwm2's post |  #41

Interesting. Could be a good "zoo wildlife" lens.

The AF speed would have to be reasonable though - at 600mm @ f6.3 for a subject at 5m (16') distance you've got <3cm (~1") of DOF on a full frame body. It wouldn't take much for a subject to move out of the plane of focus (if the AF couldn't keep up).

Random thought: if the lens would report to the body as an f5.6 at the long end, then I wonder how it would work on a 5D3 with a 1.4x TC? (840mm f8 [ok, nearer f9] with AF ;))


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,174 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 270
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 08, 2013 11:12 as a reply to  @ Talley's post |  #42

DreDaze wrote in post #16434618 (external link)
and the slowness of the lens makes total sense...have you seen the size/price of the 200-400f4 lens? with the ISO capabilities of todays cameras a slow lens isn't as big of a hindrance as it was in the past

I agree, and have been stating similar thoughts here for quite some time. The high ISO capabilities of today's bodies opens up new lens options for certain shooting situations. For example, I can now use my 70-200 f/4 IS to shoot indoor ice hockey -- something I could never do with my old Rebel XT or 40D, as I need an ISO of 6400 for the rink I shoot in.

tkbslc wrote in post #16434678 (external link)
I think they might as well have made it a 200-600 or even 300-600mm, but maybe that wouldn't drop weight as much as I think.

I'd rather have a telephoto zoom that goes wider. When I travel, I will not bring along two telephoto lenses for my wildlife needs -- it is just too much gear, especially if traveling by air. A 300-600mm zoom would require me to also pack a 70-200 lens. Right now, I take either my 100-400L or 70-200 f/4 IS, depending on my anticipated reach needs and size/weight requirements.

If the wide end is going to be around 300mm, they may as well just make it a 600mm prime lens, IMO.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,088 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6804
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Nov 08, 2013 13:09 |  #43

I am very curious about this one..
A small zoom longer than my super telephoto prime? Only 4 pounds? (about half what the 500mm prime weighs)
Could be very interesting indeed.
For a long time we've been asking for a slow/lighter weight/cheaper 500mm or 600mm prime,. I'd still prefer that. But zooms are getting better every few years.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,521 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 594
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 08, 2013 13:26 |  #44

oscardog wrote in post #16433899 (external link)
I just wish somebody made a prime longer than the 400 5.6 without being too much more expensive. Although for now i really love that lens. But if this Tamron lens was good enough IQ wise i might consider it.

I've long felt that Canon has a big 'gap' in their supertele linup between the affordable 400/5.6L and then everything else from the 500/4L on up.

To my mind, what Canon really needs to offer is a 500/5.6L IS lens. This would (realistically) be a middling lens for 'big and heavy' between the 400/5.6 and a 300/2.8 (though more long and skinny than short and fat) but it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and lighter than a 500/4. With IS, this would be a birder/wildlife dream lens offering 500/5.6 and 720/8 performance with a 1.4X TC.

Also the AF might not come close to that of the canon's

Yeah, the reach on this Tamron is going to tempt a lot of wildlife shooters on a budget, but I wonder how well the AF will perform. The Tamron 120-400 is known for being slow as hell.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CORPY
Member
Avatar
94 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: UK
     
Nov 08, 2013 13:32 as a reply to  @ JeffreyG's post |  #45

I thought 120-400 was a sigma len's ?



Yeah, the reach on this Tamron is going to tempt a lot of wildlife shooters on a budget, but I wonder how well the AF will perform. The Tamron 120-400 is known for being slow as hell.[/QUOTE]




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

641,267 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 CoolGuy5Million
1051 guests, 279 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.