New Tamron 150-600 G2

I think I discovered Tony Northrup because of this video. (:

While Tamron isn't the sharpest of the bunch, it focused more accurately than Sigma. The MK 100-400 II is of course in a league of its own. I might end up going that way but would like to at least evaluate Tamron's new offering.

I had the G1 for about 2 weeks. I enjoyed it, the VC was great and it was plenty sharp. I just couldn't deal with the weight of it. So I returned it and got a 70-200 f4. Not ideal for bird photography but I've managed to get a few decent shots with it and it makes a much better walk around lens than the Tamron. I'm starting to look around for more reach though and will likely add either the 100-400L V1 or the 400L 5.6 in the next few months.

shane_c wrote in post #18141068
I had the G1 for about 2 weeks. I enjoyed it, the VC was great and it was plenty sharp. I just couldn't deal with the weight of it. So I returned it and got a 70-200 f4. Not ideal for bird photography but I've managed to get a few decent shots with it and it makes a much better walk around lens than the Tamron. I'm starting to look around for more reach though and will likely add either the 100-400L V1 or the 400L 5.6 in the next few months.

I know what you mean. I have used 70-200 on a crop body for birding, not ideal but sometimes with luck you can get close enough. I have made some decent shots over the years.

Now on a FF the 70-200 is magical but definitely can't do birding, can't even get in the vicinity unless one is using the 5DS and is then able to crop the hell out of it.

Been seriously looking at both options. Other thing I like about 100-400 is that it pretty much fits in most camera bags.

I had the 100-400 (original), and now the Tamron G1, both on crop bodies. That extra 200mm makes a big difference (640mm vs. 960mm equivalence). My Tamron is quite sharp, and the AF and VC (vibration control) work great. Aside from being longer (better) for birds, I noticed little difference between the two lenses. I understand the weight issue, but you aren't going to get any lighter at 600mm.

pknight wrote in post #18141165
I had the 100-400 (original), and now the Tamron G1, both on crop bodies. That extra 200mm makes a big difference (640mm vs. 960mm equivalence). My Tamron is quite sharp, and the AF and VC (vibration control) work great. Aside from being longer (better) for birds, I noticed little difference between the two lenses. I understand the weight issue, but you aren't going to get any lighter at 600mm.

Whether its the 1st gen Tam 150-600, the G2, or either of the Sigmas I think it is remarkable to be able to carry this range. I just can't carry the EOS 600mm+ over terrain. Not that
I want to fall and trash any camera kit but life happens. Besides I've seen amazing photos from all of these lenses. I just ponied for overnight via B&H, so if I'm in the first round should
be here Thursday. Leaving for a trip that afternoon but should at least get a shot or two off in the backyard.

shane_c wrote in post #18141068
... either the 100-400L V1 or the 400L 5.6 in the next few months.

Both of these are MUCH lighter than the 600 zooms, and lighter than the current MkII 100-400mm, but the 400mm prime in particular is the easiest pointing 400mm lens around!

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18141200
Whether its the 1st gen Tam 150-600, the G2, or either of the Sigmas I think it is remarkable to be able to carry this range. I just can't carry the EOS 600mm+ over terrain. Not that
I want to fall and trash any camera kit but life happens. Besides I've seen amazing photos from all of these lenses. I just ponied for overnight via B&H, so if I'm in the first round should
be here Thursday. Leaving for a trip that afternoon but should at least get a shot or two off in the backyard.

Look forward to your thoughts and results with it.
Been pretty happy with my 1st gen, but the Af freeze common with the Nikons is something i worry about going forward. It doesn't happen often but i hear it gets worse with use.

This looks interesting. Tried the 150-600S....kind of heavy. Long day and your gonna be hurting and hand holding.

Rented the Tammy 150-600...images were pretty good but the lens felt CHEAP and the lens hood would not stay on the dam thing unless I Taped

Waiting on the Sigma 500F/4 report

will look at this tammy. Honestly, if it wasnt for crappy build, i might already have one.

Siggy 500F4 is on my radar. It its anything like the 15-600 sport, its gonna be a canon killer

Some wide open shots @ 600mm straight out of 5D mark III can be downloaded at link below. They look promising but I need more reviews to be convinced. It's good to know the aperture is still f/5.6 at 400mm like G1. I sold my 400mm f/5.6 prime for more reach and image stabilization and I hope this can be it.

Dcfever Tamron 150-600 G2 review

umphotography wrote in post #18141315
This looks interesting. Tried the 150-600S....kind of heavy. Long day and your gonna be hurting and hand holding.

Rented the Tammy 150-600...images were pretty good but the lens felt CHEAP and the lens hood would not stay on the dam thing unless I Taped

Waiting on the Sigma 500F/4 report

will look at this tammy. Honestly, if it wasnt for crappy build, i might already have one.

Siggy 500F4 is on my radar. It its anything like the 15-600 sport, its gonna be a canon killer

Realy, I did not think the G1 Tammy build was bad considering the price, had absolutly zero problems with the hood mount also; something must have been wrong with your one if you had to tape it.

pknight wrote in post #18141165
I had the 100-400 (original), and now the Tamron G1, both on crop bodies. That extra 200mm makes a big difference (640mm vs. 960mm equivalence). My Tamron is quite sharp, and the AF and VC (vibration control) work great. Aside from being longer (better) for birds, I noticed little difference between the two lenses. I understand the weight issue, but you aren't going to get any lighter at 600mm.

I agree, the thought of trying to manage with 400mm again is not one I can consider, even with 600mm I am having to crop in, it is generally hard to approach small birds in the UK, tend to be wary except for the odd place where dogs are not allowed.

A big advantage of the reach is control over the placement of the focus point, even a sharper and more cropable lens will not help in a situation of clutter etc.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18141618
Realy, I did not think the G1 Tammy build was bad considering the price, had absolutly zero problems with the hood mount also; something must have been wrong with your one if you had to tape it.

I agree. I have never heard complaints about the build of this lens before. In general, Tamron hoods are much more secure than any Canon hoods I have used.

pknight wrote in post #18141681
I agree. I have never heard complaints about the build of this lens before. In general, Tamron hoods are much more secure than any Canon hoods I have used.

I rented the lens from lens rental.com......that might explain. Had to tape it on the entire trip

In general. For build i thought it was subpar......BUT....I was comparing to the 70-200L, 100-400 and 300F/2.8L that was also in the bag

I get price. Great price. But If I am decking out that kind of $$$ on a lens I want a fairly decent build.

The 150-600 Sigma sport is built like a tank. So when you try to compare you quickly realize there is NO COMPARISON and you have to determine what your willing to give up for the reach. I would choose the Siggy sport over both the cheaper versions of the Tammy and the Siggy OS ... both of the cheaper versions feel cheap and TOYish to me........But I tend to step up for the super teles

umphotography wrote in post #18141777
I rented the lens from lens rental.com......that might explain. Had to tape it on the entire trip

In general. For build i thought it was subpar......BUT....I was comparing to the 70-200L, 100-400 and 300F/2.8L that was also in the bag

I get price. Great price. But If I am decking out that kind of $$$ on a lens I want a fairly decent build.

The 150-600 Sigma sport is built like a tank. So when you try to compare you quickly realize there is NO COMPARISON and you have to determine what your willing to give up for the reach. I would choose the Siggy sport over both the cheaper versions of the Tammy and the Siggy OS ... both of the cheaper versions feel cheap and TOYish to me........But I tend to step up for the super teles

You must be young and strapping
I have a few big white heavies and sometimes I just don't want to deal with the weight.
Wieldability decreases with decreasing muscle mass and tendon/ligament tension.
In that vain fantastic build quality can be a detriment.

Then there is the rare me that gets a wild hair and goes up and down a couple thousand feet of terrain and my willingness to risk a tumble of me and kit but
not to the tune of 15 grand. Not that trashing $1500 is idea, just risk management.

Regarding all models of the Sig I've seen stellar shots. I've also seen stellar shots with the Tam. I think a lot of people shooting 600mm think they suddenly
have a different sensor and even though 600mm was way way not enough they still do a super crop and then frown on the results when simply getting 20 feet
closer would have made a huge difference.
Tony Northrup (yes I know) made a point about wearing camo and getting 25% closer to wildlife, I've lived it using blinds.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18142472
You must be young and strapping
I have a few big white heavies and sometimes I just don't want to deal with the weight.
Wieldability decreases with decreasing muscle mass and tendon/ligament tension.
In that vain fantastic build quality can be a detriment.

Then there is the rare me that gets a wild hair and goes up and down a couple thousand feet of terrain and my willingness to risk a tumble of me and kit but
not to the tune of 15 grand. Not that trashing $1500 is idea, just risk management.

Regarding all models of the Sig I've seen stellar shots. I've also seen stellar shots with the Tam. I think a lot of people shooting 600mm think they suddenly
have a different sensor and even though 600mm was way way not enough they still do a super crop and then frown on the results when simply getting 20 feet
closer would have made a huge difference.
Tony Northrup (yes I know) made a point about wearing camo and getting 25% closer to wildlife, I've lived it using blinds.

In some places in the world camo is a very very bad idea, they might think you are a terrorist!