# Tamron 150-600, help needed



## Ted Evans

I am looking for some help with the Tamron 150-600. Using a Nikon D7100 and a D800e, I get very good images up to about 50-75 feet but anything beyond that, the resolution is terrible. I am using a Gitzo tripod with VC off and ISO of 400-1000, F8 & SS of 600-1500. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Braineack

have examples?

I've used to shoot things from great distant and came back with great results:




Boeing B-29 Superfortress &quot;FiFi&quot; by The Braineack, on Flickr

even these planes which were much further away and I cropped down, rendered great when you view at 100%:




North American P-51 Mustangs over D.C. by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## astroNikon

^^ not much prop blur ??  

I use the same lens on a d7000 and now a d600 with no issues.
I use mine for soccer, flying aircraft, the moon and a bunch of other things.  And other than the hiccup below I have no issues.

Sometimes the AF doesn't work and seems to stop working from time to time.  You have to disengage the lens from the body.  Then it starts working again.

From your description is it not autofocusing?
can you manually focus something past 75 feet?


----------



## Ted Evans

The first one is approximately 30', 1/1000, f8, ISO 400, 600mm, D800e on tripod, VC off.



This one is about 150',  1/1000, f8, ISO 400, 600mm, D800e on tripod, VC off.




The focus point of both images is on the eye and I have had the same experience with other subjects. There must be something that I am doing wrong. I will try it today using manual focus and see if that makes a difference.


----------



## JacaRanda

I don't see anything wrong with the first image.  The eye is sharp.  Are you concerned that the shoulder and rest of the right wing are not?
The second one is a tougher call, but unless the atmosphere is super clear between you and the subject at that distance - typical with that lens (in my experience).

Have you done micro adjustment on the lens?


----------



## Ted Evans

JacaRanda said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the first image. The eye is sharp. Are you concerned that the shoulder and rest of the right wing are not?
> The second one is a tougher call, but unless the atmosphere is super clear between you and the subject at that distance - typical with that lens (in my experience).
> 
> Have you done micro adjustment on the lens?



I have been very satisfied with the images out to 30-40', it is only the ones at some distance that are unsatisfactory. I am happy with the first image as it is, the second one I am not at all happy with and it was a clear morning. Yes, I have fine tuned the AF. Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Ted Evans

Braineack said:


> have examples?
> 
> I've used to shoot things from great distant and came back with great results:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing B-29 Superfortress &quot;FiFi&quot; by The Braineack, on Flickr
> 
> even these planes which were much further away and I cropped down, rendered great when you view at 100%:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North American P-51 Mustangs over D.C. by The Braineack, on Flickr



I would be thrilled to get images this good. The resolution on mine at any distance beyond about 40' is terrible.


----------



## Braineack

i have no issues with same subject/distance:




Blue Heron by The Braineack, on Flickr


although it wasn't very sharp at 100%:


----------



## jsecordphoto

I notice the same thing with mine, closer subjects are nice and sharp but at a distance, not so great.


----------



## Braineack

ill fool around with it this weekend.  ill be taking it to the zoo on columbus day weekend as well.


----------



## astroNikon

That second one you are right.  It looks like you took a photo through glass.
The tree branches when you zoom in looks like it has duplicate ghost branches.  But at shutter 1/1000, f/8, 600mm, -0.5step  it shouldn't do that.


----------



## Braineack

was VC still active at the 1/1000sec shutter speed?


----------



## JacaRanda

Ted Evans said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with the first image. The eye is sharp. Are you concerned that the shoulder and rest of the right wing are not?
> The second one is a tougher call, but unless the atmosphere is super clear between you and the subject at that distance - typical with that lens (in my experience).
> 
> Have you done micro adjustment on the lens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been very satisfied with the images out to 30-40', it is only the ones at some distance that are unsatisfactory. I am happy with the first image as it is, the second one I am not at all happy with and it was a clear morning. Yes, I have fine tuned the AF. Thanks for the comments.
Click to expand...




Braineack said:


> was VC still active at the 1/1000sec shutter speed?



He mentioned VC was off on both shots.

It may be time to send it in.  FWIW, I have sent mine in twice for firmware updates and the turnaround times have been satisfactory.


----------



## 480sparky

Has anyone suggested it might be either atmospheric haze or turbulence?


----------



## Ted Evans

Braineack said:


> was VC still active at the 1/1000sec shutter speed?




No, I turn off VC when it is on a tripod. I do not understand why it can be so crisp at close distances and be so muddy at longer distances. It has always been that way but I assumed it was just my technique.  The lens was sent back to Tamron when the AF failed and that feature has worked very well since. The AF fine tune was +16 before and now it is +2.


----------



## Ted Evans

480sparky said:


> Has anyone suggested it might be either atmospheric haze or turbulence?



The morning was clear and calm.


----------



## Derrel

jsecordphoto said:
			
		

> I notice the same thing with mine, closer subjects are nice and sharp but at a distance, not so great.



Thom Hogan's review of the 200-400 VR Nikkor also mentions the same thing; he lists the example of say bears and birds; at closer ranges, very sharp, but at longer ranges, the bear fur starts to be blurred, not resolved very well. In the OP's second great blue heron shot, it looks to me like the focus is behind the bird, a little bit. In the first heron shot, YES, the focus point on the eyeballs is NAILED, but it's obvious that the DOF band does not extend even to the bird's wing.

I have noticed a similar thing with the 300/4 AF-S and other lenses too; at longer distances, it's possible to miss the focus on smaller subjects/targets. At 100% you can see a focusing "miss" of even a foot at 70,80,90,100 feet with my 300 or my 400mm lenses, same with the 70-200 or 70-300...at those intermediate ranges of say 60 to 200 feet, the focus squares can "miss" the target a bit, most often back-focusing just a little bit.

I would do a focusing microadjust check on a good, high-contrast target. The issue with something like a GBH...at that range, the head and eye is going to be a VERY small,small target...in fact, it's extremely likely that the AF square in use will actually cover, and in fact overlap the target area, the way an iron rifle sight will cover the entire head--and more!-- of a woodchuck at say 75 yards...*your "sight" is in fact, bigger than your target*...sometimes you will miss.


----------



## JacaRanda

480sparky said:


> Has anyone suggested it might be either atmospheric haze or turbulence?



Sort of.


----------



## Ted Evans

Here is the focus point on the second image.




When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, would not something be sharp?


----------



## wezza13

I too think exactly the same with my 150-600 on my D600 and D7000.

Up close-ish it's fine, but at a distance it isn't the best.

Then again, I've never tried adjusting the micro-focus as not too sure how to do it properly.

Anyone know a reliable way to do it?


----------



## 480sparky

Perhaps it's moisture rising from the water.


----------



## JacaRanda

480sparky said:


> Perhaps it's moisture rising from the water.



Sounds like he is experiencing the issue on most if not all images shot beyond a certain distance.  
With a different camera I have experienced the same thing, but only on occasion.   For me, I just chalk it up to user error (I still make lots of them), and having a $1000 super zoom lens.


----------



## Derrel

Ted Evans said:


> Here is the focus point on the second image.View attachment 108722
> 
> When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, *would not something be sharp?*



In this scenario, it looks almost like the reflection is sharper than the bird is...meaning about 18 inches behind the bird; the focus distance on a reflection is mirror to subject to focal plane...so 10 feet away from a mirror, the focus distance is 20 feet. But to answer the question in this scenario--NO...there is NOTHING that would show missed focus by being sharp, because the target has nothing but AIR behind it, until it gets to the reeds...

Look at your first shot as a guideline: you have the bird's near wing OOF, but the head is sharp...the AF squares in the camera are not exactly in dicative of what the AF sensor actually "sees". Looks to me like the second shot is front-focused by a foot and a half or so....look at the water...the front of the bird's breast is the sharpest spot...there's something white on the water's surface, hard to tell due to compression how far in front that is, but it might be 5 feet or so...the focus looks in FRONT OF the bird to me, and the body is just at the back of the DOF plane.

Shooting over water and air, it's hard to tell focus point except RIGHT AT the water's surface. At 150 feet at 600mm, you have 9'3" total DOF, with 1/8 of the DOF about a foot deep.Depth of Field, Angle and Field of View, and Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography

If you have 9-point or 11-point or 21 point AF enabled, the system might be factoring in just a tiny bit of the area around the "active" AF point. Again, the AF brackets are NOT the actual, precise, exact physical location the sensors see; in many critical lab test, you'll see that the AF system's sensor actually reads a bit low in the bracket in horizontal mode, and I've also seen them be a bit to the outside edge of the far-side brackets. Not sure what AF mode you're in...9?11?21? Single?

Thom Hogan's sit had an article on this 5,6 years ago, and he used small metal poles in the ground as test targets, about two-inch diameter pipes. A GBH's bill is about 1 and 3/8 inches high; do you think the AF square in the finder can actually lock in on that small a target, reliably, at 150 feet. That is an incredible degree of precision; you would do far better to use 9-point AF and aim for the body. Again, the target is VERY,very small at 150 feet.

If you want to test the focus, you will need a different test platform than open water. There are a number of factors that COULD be at play! The lens might not be well-calibrated to the camera. if this is a consistent issue, it could be in how you are using the camera; for example, SINGLE-point AF on a bird's head at 150 feet is very likely to have bigger error chance than 9- or 11-point, and allowing the camera to sample a bigger physical area, so it can compare data points.

I saw this issue 10 years ago on sports shots with a 300mm lens and low-contrast jerseys; the lens could NOT focus...when ALL the AF points were activated (D1h), the multiple points gave lock-on in 3/4 second, for hundreds of frames per day; with the next camera and 70-200, multi-point group dynamic AF made it possible to focus on almost anything, with almost no effort (D2x). But SINGLE point AF is like a rifle; hit clean, or miss clean. One, single, small data point can miss the target, easily, when the target is far away, and small.


----------



## JacaRanda

Ted Evans said:


> Here is the focus point on the second image.View attachment 108722
> 
> When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, would not something be sharp?



I would think yes.  I can't find anything in focus at all.  
Do you have the focus limiter set to 15m or full?  Could it possibly have been super confused when going from a close distance to the 150' and decided not to do anything?
I mentioned something like that when I first got mine, and Derrel responded with some information regarding many lenses of the type having similar issues.


----------



## JacaRanda

Derrel said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the focus point on the second image.View attachment 108722
> 
> When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, *would not something be sharp?*
> 
> 
> 
> SINGLE-point AF on a bird's head at 150 feet is very likely to have bigger error chance than 9- or 11-point, and allowing the camera to sample a bigger physical area, so it can compare data points.
Click to expand...


^^^Super important.    It's often a waste of time and effort to try to find the head with a background full of foliage.  At that point it's all about the body.


----------



## Braineack

Yeah when I'm dealing with a tough target, I try to aim for most contrasted spot on same plane.  A lot of times the edge of a subject against a clean bg.

using tapatalk.


----------



## Ted Evans

Derrel said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the focus point on the second image.View attachment 108722
> 
> When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, *would not something be sharp?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this scenario, it looks almost like the reflection is sharper than the bird is...meaning about 18 inches behind the bird; the focus distance on a reflection is mirror to subject to focal plane...so 10 feet away from a mirror, the focus distance is 20 feet. But to answer the question in this scenario--NO...there is NOTHING that would show missed focus by being sharp, because the target has nothing but AIR behind it, until it gets to the reeds...
> 
> Look at your first shot as a guideline: you have the bird's near wing OOF, but the head is sharp...the AF squares in the camera are not exactly in dicative of what the AF sensor actually "sees". Looks to me like the second shot is front-focused by a foot and a half or so....look at the water...the front of the bird's breast is the sharpest spot...there's something white on the water's surface, hard to tell due to compression how far in front that is, but it might be 5 feet or so...the focus looks in FRONT OF the bird to me, and the body is just at the back of the DOF plane.
> 
> Shooting over water and air, it's hard to tell focus point except RIGHT AT the water's surface. At 150 feet at 600mm, you have 9'3" total DOF, with 1/8 of the DOF about a foot deep.Depth of Field, Angle and Field of View, and Equivalent Lens Calculator - Points in Focus Photography
> 
> If you have 9-point or 11-point or 21 point AF enabled, the system might be factoring in just a tiny bit of the area around the "active" AF point. Again, the AF brackets are NOT the actual, precise, exact physical location the sensors see; in many critical lab test, you'll see that the AF system's sensor actually reads a bit low in the bracket in horizontal mode, and I've also seen them be a bit to the outside edge of the far-side brackets. Not sure what AF mode you're in...9?11?21? Single?
> 
> Thom Hogan's sit had an article on this 5,6 years ago, and he used small metal poles in the ground as test targets, about two-inch diameter pipes. A GBH's bill is about 1 and 3/8 inches high; do you think the AF square in the finder can actually lock in on that small a target, reliably, at 150 feet. That is an incredible degree of precision; you would do far better to use 9-point AF and aim for the body. Again, the target is VERY,very small at 150 feet.
> 
> If you want to test the focus, you will need a different test platform than open water. There are a number of factors that COULD be at play! The lens might not be well-calibrated to the camera. if this is a consistent issue, it could be in how you are using the camera; for example, SINGLE-point AF on a bird's head at 150 feet is very likely to have bigger error chance than 9- or 11-point, and allowing the camera to sample a bigger physical area, so it can compare data points.
> 
> I saw this issue 10 years ago on sports shots with a 300mm lens and low-contrast jerseys; the lens could NOT focus...when ALL the AF points were activated (D1h), the multiple points gave lock-on in 3/4 second, for hundreds of frames per day; with the next camera and 70-200, multi-point group dynamic AF made it possible to focus on almost anything, with almost no effort (D2x). But SINGLE point AF is like a rifle; hit clean, or miss clean. One, single, small data point can miss the target, easily, when the target is far away, and small.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the suggestions Derrel.

OK, this first image is about 120', 600mm, f11, 1/30, ISO 200, mirror up, remote shutter release and AF.




This appears to be somewhat front focused to me, what say you?

This one is identical except, manual focused in live view expanded.




Focus point at end of red line. Overcast and calm condition.

They still do not seem sharp to me and the definition is not very good.


----------



## Ted Evans

This is a different subject and very poor definition IMO. The first image is about 130', 600mm, f11, 1/30, ISO 200, mirror up, remote shutter release and AF.



This one is the same but with manual focus in live view expanded.





Red line end is focus point.


----------



## Ted Evans

JacaRanda said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the focus point on the second image.View attachment 108722
> 
> When looking at the RAW image at 100%, I see nothing in the frame that is clear. If it was a focus problem, would not something be sharp?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think yes.  I can't find anything in focus at all.
> Do you have the focus limiter set to 15m or full?  Could it possibly have been super confused when going from a close distance to the 150' and decided not to do anything?
> I mentioned something like that when I first got mine, and Derrel responded with some information regarding many lenses of the type having similar issues.
Click to expand...


It was set to 15m and there were a number of images taken in a span of a few minutes at the same distance.


----------



## Derrel

Good focus on the rock! Shows exactly just how very limited the depth of field band truly is! As far as poor definition...yeah...not that great. But in fairness, this lens is KNOWN for its loss of sharpness above 500mm, and also, f/11 is a very small aperture that will show the softening effects of diffraction on a high-MP sensor with those teeny-tiny little pixels. That is simply, too small an aperture opening NOT to cause light squeezing through it to be diffracted. As some reviewers have pointed out, this lens loses quality at the longer end, and it might be an option to shoot at 500mm and crop in later at the computer. STILL--this is a better quality image than many people would be able to get with say a cheap 300mm zom lens and a 2x converter...these images seem pretty free of CA, and the corners are not absolutely God-awful...the image quality looks "okay". even out to the corners, and things are not riddled with horrific green- and purple- fringing. A,lso, 1/30 second with a 600mm lens...man, that is one HECK of  test of tripod/head/stability and oscillation resistance....that is a very sketchy speed for a 600mm lens on anything except the absolute BEST legs and the BEST tripod head...and 1/30 second is just about the WORST possible speed you could use...it's too slow AND it's too fast for maximum possible image quality...1/30 means that ANY shutter slap, or ANY mirror vibration, or ANY harmonics in the pod or the body or the lens will be present, probably for the entire length of the exposure...a 1- second exposure might actually be sharper. Seriously. Maybe even 2 seconds! 1/30 is one of the most0-dangerous speeds for sharp images. Nothing will "dampen down" during the exposure...if the van is rocking...don't come a...

The test shots were made under VERY challenging situations and settings, as far as bringing in a killer-sharp shot: zoom lens, at the maximum zoom, at too small an aperture to NOT be impacted by diffraction (every singe frame shot at f/11 will suffer from diffraction), and the 1/30 second speed is going to be VERY demanding of all conditions...not criticizing, just pointing out that this is the lens at its extremes, at a marginal speed, in the real-world. On the plus side, LOW color fringing, and pretty good image quality across the entire frame on a high-MP sensor! THis is four and a half to five stops below the minimum safe speed for a 600mm lens--but then again, it looks like a dull, overcast day, with flat lighting; flat lighting ALSO contributes to lower contrast.

The last image cleans up pretty well with some unsharp masking applied and a micro-tweak of the curves...and it looks to me like the focusing is on-target.


----------



## Ted Evans

Derrel said:


> View attachment 108767
> 
> The test shots were made under VERY challenging situations and settings, as far as bringing in a killer-sharp shot: zoom lens, at the maximum zoom, at too small an aperture to NOT be impacted by diffraction (every singe frame shot at f/11 will suffer from diffraction), and the 1/30 second speed is going to be VERY demanding of all conditions...not criticizing, just pointing out that this is the lens at its extremes, at a marginal speed, in the real-world. On the plus side, LOW color fringing, and pretty good image quality across the entire frame on a high-MP sensor! THis is four and a half to five stops below the minimum safe speed for a 600mm lens--but then again, it looks like a dull, overcast day, with flat lighting; flat lighting ALSO contributes to lower contrast.
> 
> The last image cleans up pretty well with some unsharp masking applied and a micro-tweak of the curves...and it looks to me like the focusing is on-target.



Thanks a million Derrel and just as I thought, lack of proper technique. I will make some adjustments on AF fine tune and keeping the information that you provided in mind, will make some more tests....and practice. Thanks again, much appreciated.


----------



## wfooshee

I have to tell you, getting _anything_ useful at 1/30 at 600mm is an accomplishment! That's not a setting to use for judging glass sharpness....

Don't be afraid of ISO on that 800e! I've not used one but a local friend had an 800, and now an 810, and the 5-digit-ISO shots he posts are miles beyond anything I could hope for at even ISO 800 on my D7000.

Beyond that, I'll just echo what everyone else has said, that reviews of that lens are pretty consistent in saying that its sharpness falls off quickly (I resisted the urge to say "sharply"  ) when over 500mm zoom.


----------



## Braineack

I'm completely satisfied with it at 600mm  I have plenty of sharp examples:

view the original size of these:




Cat Bird Cleaning by The Braineack, on Flickr




Belle Profile by The Braineack, on Flickr




Morning Dove by The Braineack, on Flickr


it's not the absolute greatest, but it's still not bad--especially for the price.


----------



## Ted Evans

Braineack said:


> I'm completely satisfied with it at 600mm  I have plenty of sharp examples:
> 
> view the original size of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cat Bird Cleaning by The Braineack, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belle Profile by The Braineack, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morning Dove by The Braineack, on Flickr
> 
> 
> it's not the absolute greatest, but it's still not bad--especially for the price.



They look great to me. I have a number of images taken at 40' or less that I am completely satisified with such as the one below but I have none that were taken over 75' that were acceptable. My thinking is it is ignorance on my part.

This was handheld with a D7100 @600mm, f9, 1/1000 ISO 2000 and is not perfect but I can live with it. However, I did not get the lens to be limited to 50' or less.


----------



## Ted Evans

Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.


600 = +8

500 = +2

400 = +4

300 = +4

200 = -2

150 = -4


From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.


----------



## Braineack

I was going to do some tests over the weekend, but the weather was so crummy.

Shot the moon last night at 600mm, I'll have to see how those turned out.


----------



## JTPhotography

I have this lens as well, and no issues at all. As others have said, your problem is focus, not the sharpness of the lens. The focus can be slow and will miss occasionally. Play with manual focus and fine tune, see what happens. I use one focus point and toggle it around to where I need it to get sharp images. I don't trust the camera most of the time, unless I am shooting a moving subject, then I expect more missed shots.


----------



## Ted Evans

JTPhotography said:


> I have this lens as well, and no issues at all. As others have said, your problem is focus, not the sharpness of the lens. The focus can be slow and will miss occasionally. Play with manual focus and fine tune, see what happens. I use one focus point and toggle it around to where I need it to get sharp images. I don't trust the camera most of the time, unless I am shooting a moving subject, then I expect more missed shots.



Thanks JT, I have been doing some testing with the lens and found out that I had performed AF fine tuning on the D7100 but had not on the D800e. There is a substantial spread within the different focal links of the lens and I agree with you that manual focus is more dependable when it is an option. It was disturbing to me that most of my short range images were good and none of the longer ranges ones were. I also use the single focus point perhaps 90% of the time.


----------



## Braineack

This is where the sigma is a better buy.

using tapatalk.


----------



## JacaRanda

Ted Evans said:


> Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.
> 
> 
> 600 = +8
> 
> 500 = +2
> 
> 400 = +4
> 
> 300 = +4
> 
> 200 = -2
> 
> 150 = -4
> 
> 
> From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.



I can't remember which instructions I used to micro adjust, but I'm pretty sure it did not recommend using all 6 focal lengths.  Now I'm curious.  I may have done 150 & 600 and split the difference.


----------



## Ted Evans

JacaRanda said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> Testing with the AF fine tune feature with the Tamron 150-600 is somewhat discouraging. Using a Gitzo tripod with Arca-Swiss ball head, mirror up, remote shutter release and using the minimum aperture, 5-6.3, I found these settings resulted in the sharpest images for me.
> 
> 
> 600 = +8
> 
> 500 = +2
> 
> 400 = +4
> 
> 300 = +4
> 
> 200 = -2
> 
> 150 = -4
> 
> 
> From -4 to +8 seems to me to be a substantial spread. The best results at 600mm, was using manual focus in live mode but that does not seem feasible for what this lens is mainly used for. This was by no means exhaustive but it gives me a starting point for further testing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember which instructions I used to micro adjust, but I'm pretty sure it did not recommend using all 6 focal lengths.  Now I'm curious.  I may have done 150 & 600 and split the difference.
Click to expand...


I went by the book when I fine tuned the lens with the AF tune graph to my D7100 and I believe it was 600 @ 6.3 @ about 20'. The above readings are from an object 90-100' using the D800e which is a more practical distance for me and I wanted to see how each focal length did at that range. I have set on a +4 at least until I can do more testing. I also want to test it using 7.1 to 8 which I normally try to shoot at, conditions permitting.


----------



## wezza13

Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.

Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin. 

Did you ever sort the problem?


----------



## PaulWog

wezza13 said:


> Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.
> 
> Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.
> 
> Did you ever sort the problem?



I would recommend making your own thread, with examples (photos) uploaded. 

Have you tried taking test shots and using live view focus to see if there's any focus inaccuracies?


----------



## Ted Evans

wezza13 said:


> Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.
> 
> Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.
> 
> Did you ever sort the problem?



Most of my issues seemed to be caused by atmospheric conditions with some being just limitations of a $1k 600 mm lens. The fine tuning helped but did not solve the IQ problem completely.

I found an old D model 400 f/2.8 that I use with a TC-14e and TC-17e with much superior IQ. Before getting the 400, I got the Nikon 200-500 but have some of the same issues with it as with the Tamron. Before the 400 or the 200-500, I got a used 300 f/4 with a TC-14e II for $1k that has great IQ but of course it is only 420 mm.  If I had it to do over and was limited to under a $1500 budget, I would go the 300 f/4 used with a TC of course, none of this helps you with the Tamron, sorry.


----------



## wezza13

Ted Evans said:


> wezza13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.
> 
> Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.
> 
> Did you ever sort the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my issues seemed to be caused by atmospheric conditions with some being just limitations of a $1k 600 mm lens. The fine tuning helped but did not solve the IQ problem completely.
> 
> I found an old D model 400 f/2.8 that I use with a TC-14e and TC-17e with much superior IQ. Before getting the 400, I got the Nikon 200-500 but have some of the same issues with it as with the Tamron. Before the 400 or the 200-500, I got a used 300 f/4 with a TC-14e II for $1k that has great IQ but of course it is only 420 mm.  If I had it to do over and was limited to under a $1500 budget, I would go the 300 f/4 used with a TC of course, none of this helps you with the Tamron, sorry.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply, Ted.

I do actually have the 300mm f/4 with the 1.4x tc. It's a very good combo but, as you say, you're lacking in reach. I also have the 2x tc but. it's pretty unusable with the 300mm as the iq is shockingly bad. I recently hired a 500mm f/4 and the AF on that beast really puts the 300mm f/4 to shame! 

The 400 f/2.8 w/tc sounds like a good idea. It may be a cheaper option than the 500mm f/4 I was planning on saving for.


----------



## Ted Evans

wezza13 said:


> Ted Evans said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wezza13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to necro an old thread but this is exactly what I am getting with this lens on my Nikon D810.
> 
> Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.
> 
> Did you ever sort the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of my issues seemed to be caused by atmospheric conditions with some being just limitations of a $1k 600 mm lens. The fine tuning helped but did not solve the IQ problem completely.
> 
> I found an old D model 400 f/2.8 that I use with a TC-14e and TC-17e with much superior IQ. Before getting the 400, I got the Nikon 200-500 but have some of the same issues with it as with the Tamron. Before the 400 or the 200-500, I got a used 300 f/4 with a TC-14e II for $1k that has great IQ but of course it is only 420 mm.  If I had it to do over and was limited to under a $1500 budget, I would go the 300 f/4 used with a TC of course, none of this helps you with the Tamron, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply, Ted.
> 
> I do actually have the 300mm f/4 with the 1.4x tc. It's a very good combo but, as you say, you're lacking in reach. I also have the 2x tc but. it's pretty unusable with the 300mm as the iq is shockingly bad. I recently hired a 500mm f/4 and the AF on that beast really puts the 300mm f/4 to shame!
> 
> The 400 f/2.8 w/tc sounds like a good idea. It may be a cheaper option than the 500mm f/4 I was planning on saving for.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on the 300 and TC-20, I did not even try the 17 on it. The 500 is an extremely popular lens but unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to use one. So far, the 400 with the TC 14 and 17 have worked well for me. I am thinking of getting the TC-20 to try. If only I could afford a caddy to carry it for me. The 200-500 is much more compatible with an old man but I have many more keepers with the 400. If one could find a used 500 f/4 in excellent condition, that may be even better, especially for birds and small animals but I will have to be satisfied with what I have. Good luck in getting one that you will be happy with.


----------



## Braineack

wezza13 said:


> Under 500mm it's nice and sharp. Anything over about 40 ft with 600mm at f6.3 or f8 just looks like crap and goes straight in the bin.
> 
> Did you ever sort the problem?



I see the same thing.  Methodology helps a lot, but that lens does_ much better_ with things closer; once you try to capture objects far away, the image quality kinda gets a bit trashy.


----------



## nexus7

Hello Ted
Sorry for the delayed response.
Here is an image I took with a D7100 and Tamron 150-600 a while ago which shows all of your problems. I took about 100 similar images that day.





This was on Manfrotto tripod (loose), Mirror up, radio remote, no wind.
ISO 400,F6.3,SS 1/1250 at 600mm
You will see that neither your mage or mine is focused, either back focused or front focused. It's just blurry.
Given you also  also used a D810, then we can look at the lens, not the camera.
I used back button focus, so the focus mechanism should be still.
I used VR OFF, so VR should be still.
Both photos have water and grass/reeds  - maybe this is an issue.
But I suspect VR was still 'moving' and not locked off.  Or else the lens was trying o focus?
I have carefully checked my lens for front or back focus, but it looks good.
I had has no further problems since then.
Your thoughts?
Mike


----------



## astroNikon

nexus7 said:


> Hello Ted
> Sorry for the delayed response.
> Here is an image I took with a D7100 and Tamron 150-600 a while ago which shows all of your problems. I took about 100 similar images that day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was on Manfrotto tripod (loose), Mirror up, radio remote, no wind.
> ISO 400,F6.3,SS 1/1250 at 600mm
> You will see that neither your mage or mine is focused, either back focused or front focused. It's just blurry.
> Given you also  also used a D810, then we can look at the lens, not the camera.
> I used back button focus, so the focus mechanism should be still.
> I used VR OFF, so VR should be still.
> Both photos have water and grass/reeds  - maybe this is an issue.
> But I suspect VR was still 'moving' and not locked off.  Or else the lens was trying o focus?
> I have carefully checked my lens for front or back focus, but it looks good.
> I had has no further problems since then.
> Your thoughts?
> Mike


You cannot insert an image from your Desktop.  Use the "Upload a File" below next to the Post Reply, More Options.


----------



## nexus7

Thank you Astro.  Here is my second try at posting the image
Mike


----------



## astroNikon

Well it's definitely not shutter speed that is the problem.
any Shutter Speed above 1/500 generally you need the VR/VC turned off

Did you have the VC turned on? Try again with it turned off at that high of Shutter Speed.

Another is to learn how to set your focus point and not allow the camera to do it.

There is AF-S, AF-A and AF-C.  You want to try on steady objects AF-S or on moving object AF-C.
You do this by pressing the button on the front left (the button is inside the lever that turn on AutoFocus and turn it off).  Then rotate the front dial to change the Focus Mode.

Then if you press that same button rotate the rear dial to go from Single Focus point, to 9pt, 15pt, 39pt, 3D, etc.   Try the single focus point or 9pt.

If you are too far away aim for the body and not the head otherwise it may get focus on something beyond the subject.

Artist: *Mike Alexander*
Camera: Nikon D7100
Lens: 600 mm
(Max aperture f/6.3)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/8,000 sec, f/8, ISO 320, Compensation: -3
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: At 150m, with a depth of field of about 20m, (from about 9.3m before the focus point to about 11m after)
User Comment: COPYRIGHT Mike Alexander


----------



## coastalconn

nexus7 said:


> Thank you Astro.  Here is my second try at posting the image
> Mike


Do you have a filter on the lens?  Also you can't expect much at infinite and 3 stops underexposed.


----------



## nexus7

Hello guys. Thank you for your responses.
Just to answer:-
No filter on the lens
Single point focus (on the birds eye)
AFContinuous
VC was off
Sun behind me
Manfrotto 055 tripod (loose)
Remote radio release
Mirror up
ISO 1200
1/1250th

So all should have been good.
I suspect that the lens was either still trying focus or the VC was 'still on'.
As I say, it only happened one day on about 100 images, but has not happened since.
Mike


----------



## astroNikon

nexus7 said:


> Just to answer:-
> Single point focus (on the birds eye)
> AFContinuous
> VC was off
> Manfrotto 055 tripod (loose)
> Remote radio release
> Mirror up
> ISO 1200
> 1/1250th
> 
> So all should have been good.
> I suspect that the lens was either still trying focus or the VC was 'still on'.
> As I say, it only happened one day on about 100 images, but has not happened since.
> Mike


Mirror Up taking photos of something moving?
When the mirror is up the camera has stopped any Focusing process.  The mirror reflects the image to the AF sensor. Go 1/4 down to the picture examples ==> How Autofocus (Often) Works

Thus the longer between the Mirror UP and the shutter release the more distant the moving object will be from the focus point.  It may not even be in focus any more.

what is a "loose" tripod ?


----------



## robbins.photo

Ok, so first recommendation.. stop aiming for the birds eye.  Odds are good at that distance any even minute motion of the camera or the bird and you'll miss such a small focus point.  Try aiming for his neck instead.


----------



## nexus7

OK - aim for bird's neck. Thanks.
Swans were not moving.
I meant 'loose' Lensmaster RH2 gimbal head - loose as in 'loose enough to pan, but not locked down.


----------



## wezza13

It happens with my Tamron 150-600 too. It's just not good at pictures beyond about 40 ft. Just stay in that range, that's what I do now.


----------



## Braineack

It's true these budget long-telephotos don't render details as well at far distance, but it shouldn't look like that!!!

this shot is at 600mm, of considerable distance, and cropped in.  It was still sharp:




Blue Heron by The Braineack, on Flickr


----------



## astroNikon

I also use this lens for object greater than 40 ft away.  Mostly at a couple hundred feet away to say 14 miles away, and at high speeds.
all at 600mm
at least 100% cropped, probably 60 feet away



20160528_AA-19 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr



20160528_AA-16 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr

150% cropped



201609-1 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr


and this was about 7-1/2 miles, heavily cropped



Air20160506-3 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr


----------



## wezza13

One thing I will say is that Braineack and AstroNikon have shown really good examples @ 600mm on D600's.

When I had my D600 I never noticed a problem with my lens. After the D600 I bought a D810 and then realised there was an issue. Same for my D500.

Is there anything specific that these last two, newer, cameras have that could cause this issue?

Food for thought.


----------



## astroNikon

wezza13 said:


> One thing I will say is that Braineack and AstroNikon have shown really good examples @ 600mm on D600's.
> 
> When I had my D600 I never noticed a problem with my lens. After the D600 I bought a D810 and then realised there was an issue. Same for my D500.
> 
> Is there anything specific that these last two, newer, cameras have that could cause this issue?
> 
> Food for thought.


interesting question.  I haven't used the 150-600 on my newer d750 much.  I think I'll try a test.


----------



## JTPhotography

Had that lens and sold it. I was able to get a very nice sharp shot occasionally, but too often I got crappy inconsistent results. I fine tuned AF extensively with no imorovement in results. I think it was a combination of inaccurate autofocus and general weak image quality. I switched over to the sigma equivalent and the results were 1000% more consistent. 

I realize there may have been something wrong with my copy, so I don't mean this post to be a bash of the lens.


----------

