Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC PZD Macro

Picked up this lens on the way home from work. I was wondering if this would be a similar surprise that the 150-600 has turned out to be, which I do not have. I know of the inherent limitations of a superzoom, but the focal range is very convenient, and I had already accepted that like the 600, this would be most likely be a daytime light hungry lens (Animal Kingdom/zoo) which might have some issues with AF.

Build feels like a Tamron, nicer than the 28-75 I had previously. It has the new black matte look. Plastic bendy petal type hood included. Focus ring is backwards compared to Canon, but like the other Tamrons. It is "smooth" but not consistent throughout the range (35-135 seems the tightest). I havent really tested focus, but seems a little slower than the 300L and 15-85 I compared with. VC works, but I get the impression it is not as good as the 15-85, closer to the 300 (but much quieter).

Top Canon 300L, Bottom Tamron at 300mm. Both shot at ISO 2500, f/9, 1/1000. IS/VC off on tripod.

FOV is similar, if anything the Tamron looks a little shorter than the Canon, but I was expecting that they were rounding up.

Pixel peeping, especially in the leaves in the background, Canon is obviously sharper.

Similar set up, comparing 15-85 at 15mm and the 16mm on the Tamron.

Top Canon, Bottom Tamron. Both shot at ISO 2500, f/9, 1/800. IS/VC off on tripod.

Canon is obviously wider, I do not know if the difference is really 1 degree.

There is also visible differences in distortion on both ends.

Assuming those are 100% crops, the Tamron doesn't look half bad!

(referring to post 1)

Nope, straight OOC jpegs, no crops (top are at 300mm, second set at the widest end). Slight differneces in exposure is part lenses (Tamron seems like its 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker, based on multiple shots) and there is a storm moving in, Canon 15 was taken after the Tamron 16, from the clouds on the left of the screen.

It really is not that bad on its own, but definitely not the same level as the Canons. I was expecting that. Just need to wait for some good light, hopefully a trip to Central Park Zoo on Sat.

lilkngster wrote in post #16907127
Nope, straight OOC jpegs, no crops (top are at 300mm, second set at the widest end). Slight differneces in exposure is part lenses (Tamron seems like its 1/3 to 1/2 stop darker, based on multiple shots) and there is a storm moving in, Canon 15 was taken after the Tamron 16, from the clouds on the left of the screen.

It really is not that bad on its own, but definitely not the same level as the Canons. I was expecting that. Just need to wait for some good light, hopefully a trip to Central Park Zoo on Sat.

Ah, probably pretty soft at the long end then, especially the corners. Hard to tell in that scene, curious to see the zoo pics. Wide end looks good to me, distortion is to be expected with such a huge range.

At 300mm, Tamron has very very soft corners compared to Canon. Center is also softer when comparing side by side. Not unexpected. Seems like if you expose correctly, frame knowing the limitations of the lens, not expect L level AF, not a bad lens. I will guess that discussion of this lens will parallel the 150-600 to a degree, reasonable compromises for many to get a unqiue focal length/range

300mm, upper right corner 100% crops. Pretty obvious which one is which, both shot at f/9. Noise is because ISO 2500 on a 50d.
Just noticed the CA on the roof as well

300mm, center, 100% crops.

@ lilkngster - Did you get a chance to shoot in better light? Would love to see some more samples.

Filenest wrote in post #16912781
@ lilkngster - Did you get a chance to shoot in better light? Would love to see some more samples.

Yes, I did, spent a few hours with my 50d on Sat and 1d3 today with much better light. Getting a good feel for the lens. I wanted to exchange tomorrow because of a definite VC/?AF, what I will call quirk for now, and take spend some more time with it before I post samples here and comments in the lens thread.

Take home message: IQ wise, I know I am taking a hit for range, so far it is acceptable to me, and not a drastic improvement over the prior generations of superzooms based on my comparison withe lens sample threads. It is very light/ISO hungry, AF takes a hit, especially tracking. VC does not compare to current generation IS, but may be an issue with my sample. There is distortion. Nothing surprising.

Biggest selling point is the range. 300mm is a fraction of a degree narrower field of view compared to 270mm, but 16mm is about 6 degrees wider compared to 18mm.

Lesson of the day: I will stick with the Canon zooms for my wife's 5k and the kid's fun run.

lilkngster wrote in post #16907228
300mm, center, 100% crops.

Center sharpness looks pretty good to me.

I exchanged my lens today due to an issue with the VC. It seems that once in a while the entire image shifts while engaged and then reshifts after it disengages. I have lots of examples of before and during and following the shift. This is one of the worst cases with the first lens First picture is at maximum offset during VC and the second picture is after VC disengaged and the image returned back to my original composition (the second picture, there was no shift after VC reengaged).

The second lens also shifts on occasion but does not seem to be the same degree.

Flowers at Union Square, NYC.

top: 1/500, f/7.1, ISO 400, 124mm
bottom: 1/400, f/7.1, ISO 400, 300mm

The regulars at Union Sqaure, NYC

top: 1/320, f/7.1, ISO 400, 277mm
bottom: 1/200, f/7.1, ISO 400, 200mm

How do you like the lens?