New Tamron 150-600 G2

Straight out of camera moons. Canon 5dmk IV

These two were taken well after dusk straight out of the camera. Shutter speed was way to slow on the bike one but it focused instantly. Never had any problem with the lens focusing in the low light.
I had the Canon 300 2.8L is for several years and used it with the 2x converter. This lens focuses faster than the 300 with
the 2x did. Don't think i will have any problem getting BIF shots with this.

I had the first Tamron 150 600 for about 3 days in 2014 but took it back due to the slow focusing and plastic build. Ive used the 100 400ii ever
since then & its a great lens. This new Tamron is built solid & focuses fast. Forgot to put my op tech strap loop on the new body so i carried this by the tripod collar base this evening, makes a great handle.
I will try it with the 7dmkii tomorrow on birds flying.

I have been trying to decide between this lens and the 100-400ii, these past few shots are leading me towards this lens. There's just not too many examples out there yet

I've been looking at this lens and/or the 100-400 ii as well. To complement my 500 /4. Mainly since it's so heavy sometimes and lose the zoom ability / close focusing.

I'd mainly use my 500 yet, but I'd want to use one of these Zooms for bif sometimes or scouting a spot / traveling. Etc.


Thoughts ? Thanks!

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #18210673
I've been looking at this lens and/or the 100-400 ii as well. To complement my 500 /4. Mainly since it's so heavy sometimes and lose the zoom ability / close focusing.

I'd mainly use my 500 yet, but I'd want to use one of these Zooms for bif sometimes or scouting a spot / traveling. Etc.


Thoughts ? Thanks!

I'd think if size is a major factor then the 100-400 would be the way to go. You are not losing a lot on the long end. If the G2 is like my original then IQ really drops off fast after 500mm.

Rod

Thanks! Yeah. The 100-400 would crop to the same detail as the tamron at 600 probably. Just Lower MP image.

I mainly hesitate on the canon because of price and f/8 with an extender, where the tamron would be slightly faster at 6.3.

But the canon would be more reliable probably, and smaller , lighter, sharper, focus in 1/2 the min distance and so on.

I have some very sharp images with my first tamron before I sold it. But the auto focus on the first lens was horrible at first, then ok-ish after a firmware update. Still kinda slow.

I guess I'm kinda answering my own question. Haha. That canon lens is nice... just gotta pay like 400-600$ more....

Well and then the sigma 150-600 C with the console is 800-900$ new now too.

Used the new Tamron the last 4 days and I have decided to return it. The autofocus is fast but my 100-400 ii did much, much better with fast flying gulls today. Pretty much every shot at 600mm f6/3 with the Tamron was soft. It did focus fast with both the 7d2 and 5d4 though. The Canon was faster & more accurate & with the extender the Canon was still sharper.

With the 5d4 the Tamron focused fast even at first light. I jumped up a herd of deer in the marsh at 9:15 am great light & got the Tamron on them but not one jumping deer was in focus & the camera was set right. With the 300 2.8 + 1.4ex or 100-400ii those shots are no problem.

Every time the Vc engaged on the Tamron(mode 1) the viewfinder jerks to the left & I had to turn the vc off with the Tamron for the birds flying. The Tamron is well built and I like the sliding lock on the lens but everything with the 100-400 ii is much smoother including the image stabilization. The 100-400 ii is also way easier to carry around & handle. I use my kayak a lot to get to good spots & the 100-400 ii doesn't take up much space.

I'm gonna return the Tamron & look into getting the 400 DO ii. I used the older 300 2.8 is for years but sold it after I got the 100-400ii. Got a lot more keepers handheld with the 100-400 ii due to it being so light. I do miss the 600mm with the 2x extender on the 300 2.8 though.

I used the Tamron to video an Otter family playing on a beaver lodge & you can really hear the af working in the video. Was louder than the Canon. The video looked good though.

If you are trying to choose one the Canon 70-200 2.8ii is also a great choice. I have pictures of the same beaver lodge taken in the same spot/ light with the 1.4x III on the 70-200 that were much better than the Tamron of the same scene. 280 mm and better than the 600mm Tamron.

My advice is to save up for the 100-400ii. Much better lens & even has the close minimum focus. nothing like taking pictures of Cottonmouths from 3 feet something haha. Hope this helps someone.

That was my observation. Over 450mm and they go downhill.

Otters
7dmarkii 600mm
They were about 60 yards, small crop

Pretty much mirrors my experience with the G2

Cal47 wrote in post #18211705
That was my observation. Over 450mm and they go downhill.

The max aperture gets larger though, as you zoom all the way in, so in low light, you get less subject-level noise with the same shutter speed. That allows you to sharpen more than a 400/5.6, with or without a TC. Of course, a very sharp 400/5.6 can be sharper at 560/8 than the Tamron at 600/6.3, but it is still collecting less light with the same shutter speed.

Of course, the 400/4DO II IS with a 1.4x kicks all their butts (but can't zoom out). This lens is still pixel-sharp on a 7D2 with a 2xIII (f/8 AF tends toward hunting in complex-depth scenery like bushes, though, and at least 9-point AF at f/8 in a camera, which the 7D2 doesn't have, would prevent a lot of that).

This is just a jpeg straight out of the camera. Just sharpened it a little. No crop

Another one just a little sharpening. Both gulls were 600mm

Here's the video of the Otters playing with the Tamron.
https://youtu.be/P3rQ7​OJct7o