Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

Talley wrote in post #16434404
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.

gjl711 wrote in post #16434449
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...

DreDaze wrote in post #16434618
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

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.

tkbslc wrote in post #16434678
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.

gjl711 wrote in post #16434685
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

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)

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

gjl711 wrote in post #16434685
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.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #16434727
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.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #16434727
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.

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 )

DreDaze wrote in post #16434618
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
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.

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.

oscardog wrote in post #16433899
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.

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.

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]