New Tamron 150-600 G2

Cal47 wrote in post #18211916
Here's the video of the Otters playing with the Tamron.

I try to keep far enough away from wildlife that they can not play with my gear.

FEChariot wrote in post #18212030
I try to keep far enough away from wildlife that they can not play with my gear.

I hate when they change the diopter adjustment and smudge the LCD with their noses and paws.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18211870
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).

7Diii will AF at F8. I guarantee that until I finish this sentence, but I have high hopes.

I think we can all agree it's a money game.
400DOii for whatever it cost and I don't remember exactly right now but it should be leagues better.
The 100-400ii is what 700 more? or close to it? So again money talking loud.
I'm keeping the TamG2 for sacrificial reasons. I do value my 100-400ii and 400DOii over it but sometimes I have to traverse the craggy stuff and sometimes I go down. I want that option in what I will ruin or destroy.

OK, those of you who follow any of my posts/images know I'm fanboy of none and all. Me and the Mrs. play will all kinds of photo kit--just got his and hers M5's, waiting on two OMD M1ii's, got an a99ii last week; so I post the following pic not to support the TamG2, just posting it because I couldn't believe what I got from so far away. This bird lept off the branch and I was late hitting the shutter but the distance was 75 yards minimum...with the 1.4TC on a 5Dsr. Yep the 5Dsr can crop until the cows come and I know it's no 500/4 with 2.0 TC, but still

To all
Tamron G2 is no sharp as G1 ! Why ?
https://www.dxomark.co​m …DS-R__1751_1009_1263_1009
There needed to sell g1 for G2 ?

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18212591
I think we can all agree it's a money game.
400DOii for whatever it cost and I don't remember exactly right now but it should be leagues better.
The 100-400ii is what 700 more? or close to it? So again money talking loud.
I'm keeping the TamG2 for sacrificial reasons. I do value my 100-400ii and 400DOii over it but sometimes I have to traverse the craggy stuff and sometimes I go down. I want that option in what I will ruin or destroy.

OK, those of you who follow any of my posts/images know I'm fanboy of none and all. Me and the Mrs. play will all kinds of photo kit--just got his and hers M5's, waiting on two OMD M1ii's, got an a99ii last week; so I post the following pic not to support the TamG2, just posting it because I couldn't believe what I got from so far away. This bird lept off the branch and I was late hitting the shutter but the distance was 75 yards minimum...with the 1.4TC on a 5Dsr. Yep the 5Dsr can crop until the cows come and I know it's no 500/4 with 2.0 TC, but still

Hosted photo: posted by MedicineMan4040 in
./showthread.php?p=182​12591&i=i156375140
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

It is quite a good photo, I guess that the 500 might have been a little bit better, but I would love to get that with my 150-600 Tamron G1

davholla wrote in post #18221548
It is quite a good photo, I guess that the 500 might have been a little bit better, but I would love to get that with my 150-600 Tamron G1

Thanks. The distance really was crazy.

Thanks again for info.

Yeah, I'll have to think about it.

I looked at some shots just now that I took with the 100-400ii a while back, and also compared recent shots with the sigma 150-600 c, and honestly they are not much diff in real world in my case. But I think the canon was still a little sharper and a bit more reliable af. But the canon is also 2x the price. But also focuses much closer and is lighter.

If the 400 5.6 prime had IS, I'd maybe get that. Although I don't like the long min focus distance.

I guess I'll wait on it for now. Not in a rush. The tamron will drop in price soon I'm sure.

Crazy but I don't want IS in the 400/5.6. IS does me no good for things moving fast and it adds size and weight.

Back to the G2-

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QJMd​Cw

That looks really good, Robert. Amazing detail.
I still plan to buy one of the Tamrons this Spring. Since you have both, would you say the G2 is worth getting over the G1?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18235129
That looks really good, Robert. Amazing detail.
I still plan to buy one of the Tamrons this Spring. Since you have both, would you say the G2 is worth getting over the G1?

I have both but in different mounts, EOS and A-mount; that might make a difference?
I think if the G2 is sharper it is just barely so--nothing that can't be made up in post.
The G2 has it for 'looks', build quality is better. The built-in tripod mount is really nice.

The rub is that one can get a new 1st gen around $880, and the new G2 is what, 1300?
So if money doesn't matter the G2, if it does the 1st gen.
Leave the TC alone unless you just want to play with the impossible

Whichever I'm sure you'll get stellar shots. I've seen awesome shots from either and also the two Sigmas. I just stay away from Sigma because of their re-engineering process versus Tamron who actually pays up for the license and mount info....or so believe.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18235183
I have both but in different mounts, EOS and A-mount; that might make a difference?
I think if the G2 is sharper it is just barely so--nothing that can't be made up in post.
The G2 has it for 'looks', build quality is better. The built-in tripod mount is really nice.

The rub is that one can get a new 1st gen around $880, and the new G2 is what, 1300?
So if money doesn't matter the G2, if it does the 1st gen.
Leave the TC alone unless you just want to play with the impossible

Whichever I'm sure you'll get stellar shots. I've seen awesome shots from either and also the two Sigmas. I just stay away from Sigma because of their re-engineering process versus Tamron who actually pays up for the license and mount info....or so believe.

Yes, money matters. A lot. But I could cough up the money for the G2 if it's that much better. It's a tough call for me as I haven't shot with either one. After the winter I plan to visit my camera store, look at the two, take some shots with them and then decide. But your info is very helpful. Thank you very much, Robert.

I had the G2 for about two weeks when it first became available and I agree with Robert. Yes it is built better and looks nicer but I didn't notice any real difference in image quality between the original and the G2 so I sent the G2 back. The teleconverter that was designed for the G2 is a figment of Tamron's imagination as it would only AF in the brightest contrasty situations.

For what it is worth I have seen a good photo with the G1 and a teleconverter
https://www.flickr.com …/coastalconn/30​433530626/

https://www.flickr.com …10672462@N04/13​316860175/

I am not saying that it is a good idea, just that some people have done it

Thanks very much, Larry. That's helpful too.
I have to say I'm leaning more and more towards the first version now.