Tamron SP 150-600mm Di VC USD

This shot was very unplanned/no time to prepare to take the shot really. I was capturing a Hawk in a tree, then decided to try and get some shots of this plane as it went overhead. I didn't expect them to even turn out, but they ended up being pretty decent. Normally I shoot at F/8 now to get the best overall sharpness. F/7.1 is still not bad.

However, I just did a test at 400,500 and 600. Even at 400 F/5.6, it's very very sharp. It noticeably softens from there to 600. But F/8 at 600 gives sharp results. F/9 might be a tad better, but then you lose more light. I'm going to test now and see if I can crop the 400 shot at 5.6, to match the 600, and see if it still appears sharper.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696820
However, I just did a test at 400,500 and 600. Even at 400 F/5.6, it's very very sharp. It noticeably softens from there to 600. But F/8 at 600 gives sharp results. F/9 might be a tad better, but then you lose more light. I'm going to test now and see if I can crop the 400 shot at 5.6, to match the 600, and see if it still appears sharper.

That's exactly what I found when I had the Tamron (for a week).
If you get closer and can zoom back to 400mm, shooting wide open is good and sharp.
Even 500mm wide open (f/6.3) is pretty good. But if you need every mm of reach (600mm), it's better to stop down to 7.1 or 8.

A couple for this weekend. Even with 600mm sometimes I think I just need a Hubble to get the shots I'd want

Bald Eagle
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/640s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso4000

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696902
That's exactly what I found when I had the Tamron (for a week).
If you get closer and can zoom back to 400mm, shooting wide open is good and sharp.
Even 500mm wide open (f/6.3) is pretty good. But if you need every mm of reach (600mm), it's better to stop down to 7.1 or 8.

Yep. Pretty much right on. However, if you nail focus/have a high enough shutter speed, and/or stable tripod/setup, the 600 can match or beat the 400, at F/8. But it's much more difficult to do. This is what I just found in some tests I just did.

So it might be worth saying, if you can get away with it, 400mm should also give you a higher keeper rate/better results, depending on what I said above.

palmor wrote in post #16696985
A couple for this weekend. Even with 600mm sometimes I think I just need a Hubble to get the shots I'd want

Bald Eagle
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/640s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso4000

Merganser
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/800s f/7.1 at 600.0mm iso1000

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/3200s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso640

Nice shots!

A couple for this weekend. Even with 600mm sometimes I think I just need a Hubble to get the shots I'd want

Bald Eagle
Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/640s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso4000

Good shots.

But, I used to have a 70-300 IS that was soft at 300. It was a pain to deal with, IMHO. I don't understand why a lens company just wouldn't make a 200-600 or a 300-600 that is sharpest at the long end.

Canon had the right idea with the 200-400, but as you know it's a bit pricey.

Yeah, it's unfortunate... If you want the best results, you have to pay a drastic increase in price. Buy a new car, or buy a lens....hmmm, haha.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16696991
Nice shots!

+1. Palmor.

From yesterday outing from our local park.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591299155/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591731494/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591329575/

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16697081
Yeah, it's unfortunate... If you want the best results, you have to pay a drastic increase in price. Buy a new car, or buy a lens....hmmm, haha.

If you want the best of just about anything, you have to pay more for it. Why should lenses be any different?

palmor wrote in post #16696985
A couple for this weekend. Even with 600mm sometimes I think I just need a Hubble to get the shots I'd want

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
1/3200s f/8.0 at 600.0mm iso640

This is impressive. I like it a lot.

Peter2516 wrote in post #16697156
From yesterday outing from our local park.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591299155/
1402_untitled_00096 by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591731494/
1402_untitled_00158-Edit by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …eterbangayan/12​591329575/
1402_untitled_00166 by Peter Bangayan, on Flickr

Nice! Are these from the park down the road, near downtown Kirkland? With the moss covered archway?

gabebalazs wrote in post #16696503
So again, most of the time I shoot I'm already dancing on the edge of the slowest acceptable shutter speed, while using my desired aperture (that could be already at wide open). I can't go slower, so if I wanted to ETTR, the only option would be to bump the ISO and pull back in post, which would result in no improvement, except my DR would be less a tiny bit due to shooting at a higher ISO.

Yes, this is a situation I often find myself in too. I don't like to take the 1D II N above ISO 800 but if I am at the lowest possible shutter speed but the shot at ISO 800 will be slightly underexposed I will go to ISO 1600 and end up with a cleaner shot then if I take the shot at ISO 800 and have to add light in post. But I definitely am a fan of ETTR and shoot everything slightly to the right if I can.

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #16697201
Nice! Are these from the park down the road, near downtown Kirkland? With the moss covered archway?

Thanks Matt. No this is the same spot where you are yesterday. I moved over there when I saw the Eagle perched on the tree near the viewing deck.