# First reviews for the new Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 are poping up



## ruifo (Jan 27, 2014)

Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD lens announcement


The initial reviews for the brand new 'Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3' are starting to pop up:

________________________________________________________

(1) Several close up photos of the new lens and several sample shots can be found in here:

Page 1: http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/
Page 2: http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/2/
Page 3: http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/3/
Page 4: http://it.wyswig.com/2014/01/02/review-tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-english-review/4/




> *Final comment :*
> A good value lens appear in the market ! 600mm reach , F6.3 does not a matter for DSLR nowdays which have good ISO , fast focus , light weight (1.9KG with tripod mount), also a very long warranty period  (3-6 years as i remember in Hong Kong  )  . I am very impressive with this lens .



________________________________________________________

(2) The ePhotozine review of the lens, with initial performance tests and sample shots:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-di-vc-usd-lens-review-23866




> *Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Verdict*
> With this lens, Tamron have created something that offers more reach at the telephoto end than equivalent lenses, whilst still being able to deliver good sharpness for a reasonable price. The launch price of £949 makes this lens pretty much the only option for photographers looking for a 600mm lens for under £1000.



________________________________________________________


(3) The LensRental.com review, with some comparison with other similar lenses:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout




> *Summary*
> 
> Its pretty obvious that the Tamron has both 600mm range and the lowest price. These tests, and everything I see from photographers using the lens in the field, support that its of at least equal image quality. Some people will prefer the extra wide range of the Sigma, others the lighter weight of the Canon. But for a lot of people, the Tamron is going to be the best bang for the buck.



________________________________________________________

(4) The CanonWatch review, with several video-review on it:

http://www.canonwatch.com/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-di-vc-usd-review-sample-pics/

________________________________________________________




And so on and so forth. If you know of any other reviews, share here with us!!


----------



## ruifo (Jan 27, 2014)

One more review, now from Canada:

Special Review ? Tamron 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD lens



> All of these things pale in comparison to the most important question: &#8220;Is the image quality any good?&#8221; Prepare to be impressed, because this lens delivers an image quality far above its price point. It ticks all the right boxes. Sharpness? Check! The lens is incredibly sharp throughout almost all the focal lengths. It is slightly less sharp at 600mm wide open, but stopping down even a half stop to f/8 restores excellent sharpness. Color rendition is excellent. Even the bokeh (out of focus area) in both the highlights and transition zone is very good. Flare resistance is also very strong. This lens is capable of taking beautiful photos, period.
> 
> 
> Game-changer? Absolutely! If you are in the market for a long range lens but have a short range budget, you simply have no better option than the brand-new Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD lens.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 27, 2014)

And another one:

First review: Tamron's new 150-600mm lens - National Photography | Examiner.com



> Overall conclusion? According to Cicala, don't go making a purchase based on resolution tests as, more often than not, technique and environmental conditions play a larger role in making for a good (or bad) picture at such extreme focal lengths. Additionally, the in-hand feel should also be a consideration when making a purchase, too.
> 
> 
> However, when it comes to bang for buck, the Tamron 150-600 offers more than the Canon or Sigma.
> ...


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 27, 2014)

The English in the first one, oh my lawd.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 27, 2014)

It looks like it was written in Chinese and auto-translated...


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 27, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> The English in the first one, oh my lawd.



Didja happen to notice the 'HOME&#27599;&#26085;&#26032;&#32862;&#29986;&#21697;&#28204;&#35430;DigitalIT&#21451;&#31449;  &#23637;&#35261;&#24555;' on the page?  It's translated into English..........


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

The thing that impresses me the most about the sample photos is the quality of the bokeh...I think this lens creates a "prettier" defocused backdrop than any other long, slow tele-zoom I have seen.

I think Tamron has yet another instant classic, like their 90mm AF-SP Macro has been for them for so many years...they really seem to have delivered a fine product once again.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 28, 2014)

That's my feeling too, Derrel.
I will wait for the Nikon release and some reviews on Nikon bodies, to see how it behaves.
I am really interested in a longer zoom, 400mm or above, and that one seems to be a great contender for the choice I will have to make in the next months.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 28, 2014)

*AF speed test for the Tamron 150-600mm*


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 28, 2014)

Nice,

The most important question now is,
who's gonna buy me one ?  :lmao:


----------



## badrano (Jan 28, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Nice,
> 
> The most important question now is,
> who's gonna buy me one ?  :lmao:



I'll buy you one if you buy me one :smileys:


----------



## Braineack (Jan 28, 2014)

I really want my next lens to be the Tamron 70-200 2.8, but this thing has got me very tempted.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 28, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The thing that impresses me the most about the sample photos is the quality of the bokeh...I think this lens creates a "prettier" defocused backdrop than any other long, slow tele-zoom I have seen.
> 
> I think Tamron has yet another instant classic, like their 90mm AF-SP Macro has been for them for so many years...they really seem to have delivered a fine product once again.



The bokeh in the meerkat shot and the bird-birdfeeder....insane.  I am no expert, but those look amazing.


----------



## krbimaging (Jan 31, 2014)

I plan on being an early adopter of this lens when it makes it's way out to the general public. I got to play with it at Imaging in Phoenix and I was impressed. I was going to be saving up for the Canon 600 super but I am going this route instead.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 31, 2014)

The preview shots and reviews are looking good!


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 31, 2014)

This one is seeming like a no brainer already.  I have a trigger finger on selling my 300f4.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 31, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> I plan on being an early adopter of this lens when it makes it's way out to the general public. *I got to play with it* at Imaging in Phoenix and I was impressed. I was going to be saving up for the Canon 600 super but I am going this route instead.




Good to know someone from the forum already payed with it.
Please share any impressions.

I am more and more convinced to enter the buying list for this new lens too.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 31, 2014)

[h=1]Tamron 150-600mm unbox and first touch[/h]


----------



## badrano (Jan 31, 2014)

Wow!  Seeing the lens attached to a camera and be handled by a human really gives a good perspective on the size of this lens.

Given some other recent posts, it could be hard to justify being an amateur photographer if caught with this lens in our possession. :mrgreen:

"I swear ociffer, I know the lens is big, but I'm just an amateur"  And, yes, I purposely misspelled officer.

Awesome video ruifo!


----------



## Propsguy (Jan 31, 2014)

Way too much compromise between aperture and focal length.... variable zooms are annoying and only getting 6.3 at the long end of this means having to crank up the iso for anything that moves.  Most (or many, at least) hobbyist photographers have up to 300mm covered with variable zooms already, and I wonder if they could produce a 400 - 600 F4 for something relatively close to the price of this... it would be a much better addition to the typical lens lineup that people already own.  My bet is that this lens will sell well, but it's limitations will have it living in the photographers' closet before very long.


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 1, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> Way too much compromise between aperture and focal length.... variable zooms are annoying and only getting 6.3 at the long end of this means having to crank up the iso for anything that moves.  Most (or many, at least) hobbyist photographers have up to 300mm covered with variable zooms already, and I wonder if they could produce a 400 - 600 F4 for something relatively close to the price of this... it would be a much better addition to the typical lens lineup that people already own.  My bet is that this lens will sell well, but it's limitations will have it living in the photographers' closet before very long.


A 400-600 F4 for a grand? your crazy!  Nikon 200-400 F4 = 6K, canon 200-400 F4 = 12K canonikon 500 or 600 f4 = 8K--12K!  You are only talking 1.3 stops slower and less than 1/8 the price.  With todays cameras "cranking up the ISO" isn't too bad.  Many people shoot with the 50 or 150 - 500 Sigmas quite regularly so I don't think this lens is very limiting at all for wildlife photographers on a budget.   This lens appears to have fast AF, (accuracy is unknown at this point), good stabilization, respectable optics and a 6 year warranty.  There isn't much to not like about this lens.  It will perform every bit as well as the 2.7K Nikon 80-400 AF-S but give the bonus of an extra 200mm ... just my humble opinion...


----------



## Braineack (Feb 1, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> Way too much compromise between aperture and focal length.... variable zooms are annoying and only getting 6.3 at the long end of this means having to crank up the iso for anything that moves.  Most (or many, at least) hobbyist photographers have up to 300mm covered with variable zooms already, and I wonder if they could produce a 400 - 600 F4 for something relatively close to the price of this... it would be a much better addition to the typical lens lineup that people already own.  My bet is that this lens will sell well, but it's limitations will have it living in the photographers' closet before very long.



oh no!  you gotta crank up the ISO!!!  That's 1/3 of a stop above 5.6 at the 300mm most hobbyist photographers are shooting at. This lens at 300mm is at 5.6 as well, and you're barely losing anymore light at another 300mm of reach.  Yeah, so, you'll have to crank 1/3 of a stop of out your iso for anything that moves.

400-600 f/4 would be huge and a few thousand dollars.

I bet this lens will sell well and be living on a lot of cameras in the field taking amazing pictures.


----------



## DarkShadow (Feb 1, 2014)

My Next lens on the list is looking pretty sweet.Thanks for sharing the reviews.


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 1, 2014)

.... OK so F4 is a stretch anywhere near this pricepoint... that's pretty obvious.   But, the question is, if they made the lens simpler, used similar materials etc... could they trade off the low end of zoom range and gain some aperture to produce a lens costing "something relatively close to the price of this"?.... can they apply whatever voodoo and black magic they used to make this lens affordable to a lens that offers more aperture and less range?  

If cranking up the iso was a non issue in photography, then we wouldn't spend the money on fast lenses.  Take this lens into the forest where everything is bathed in shadow and tell me that having a lowest aperture of 6.3 at the long end isn't limiting...  take this lens to the racetrack on a rainy day... take this lens to an indoor equestrian show or a hockey game... take it to the opera or any live stage show... take this lens anywhere where lighting is not ideal and it's limitations will become extremely evident.... especially when attempting to shoot at 600mm and you have to increase your shutter speed.

No doubt this lens offers great value for what it is, and it's great to see that it's sharper than expected and that it renders out of focus areas very nicely, but the fact is, the long end of this lens is what is actually appealing to people, and it would be more interesting to see manufacturers putting their R&D energy into figuring out how to give photographers affordable fast lenses... and in this case, taking away a portion of zoom range could be an approach that might begin to make that possible.

Maybe the good stabilization performance of this lens will make it more useful than I suspect... but I suspect that most of the people who purchase this lens will have buyers remorse before long.  I know that for my style and my needs, I give it a pass...


----------



## ruifo (Feb 1, 2014)

If you think in incremental steps, this is a great move already. Nothing that affordable, that long, and that fast was ever released before.
Let Tamron and other work their magic and see how this move can advance in the future, that does not cost USD $25,000/$26,000, like the Sigma APO 200-500mm F2.8.


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 1, 2014)

ruifo said:


> If you think in incremental steps, this is a great move already. Nothing that affordable, that long, and that fast was ever released before.
> Let Tamron and other work their magic and see how this move can advance in the future, that does not cost USD $25,000/$26,000, like the Sigma APO 200-500mm F2.8.



But I want a 400 - 800 F2 VRII for $1200.00 RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT!!...


----------



## ruifo (Feb 1, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> ruifo said:
> 
> 
> > If you think in incremental steps, this is a great move already. Nothing that affordable, that long, and that fast was ever released before.
> ...




hehehe

You will need something like that:
http://www.megapixel.co.il/mega/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Zeiss-big-lens.jpg


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 1, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> .... OK so F4 is a stretch anywhere near this pricepoint... that's pretty obvious.   But, the question is, if they made the lens simpler, used similar materials etc... could they trade off the low end of zoom range and gain some aperture to produce a lens costing "something relatively close to the price of this"?.... can they apply whatever voodoo and black magic they used to make this lens affordable to a lens that offers more aperture and less range?


300 F4 is doable and has been at this price point for a long time at 300mm..  Canon and Nikon both make them.  Next stop Canon 400 F5.6, 100-400 or Nikon 80-400 AF-S , APX 1300, 1600 and 2700...  "Gaining aperture" requires more glass and Bigger glass, therefor more money...



Propsguy said:


> If cranking up the iso was a non issue in photography, then we wouldn't spend the money on fast lenses.  Take this lens into the forest where everything is bathed in shadow and tell me that having a lowest aperture of 6.3 at the long end isn't limiting...  take this lens to the racetrack on a rainy day... take this lens to an indoor equestrian show or a hockey game... take it to the opera or any live stage show... take this lens anywhere where lighting is not ideal and it's limitations will become extremely evident.... especially when attempting to shoot at 600mm and you have to increase your shutter speed.
> 
> No doubt this lens offers great value for what it is, and it's great to see that it's sharper than expected and that it renders out of focus areas very nicely, but the fact is, the long end of this lens is what is actually appealing to people, and it would be more interesting to see manufacturers putting their R&D energy into figuring out how to give photographers affordable fast lenses... and in this case, taking away a portion of zoom range could be an approach that might begin to make that possible.
> 
> Maybe the good stabilization performance of this lens will make it more useful than I suspect... but I suspect that most of the people who purchase this lens will have buyers remorse before long.  I know that for my style and my needs, I give it a pass...


I shoot a 120-300 F2.8 Sigma and often (almost always) shoot with a 2x TC So it is effectively 600mm F5.6.  The TC degrades IQ a touch so I generally shoot at F8.  I have no problems in deep woods with very little light using higher ISO on the D7100...
ISO 1600, F8, 1/500th HH



Golden Crowned Kinglet by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr
ISO 3200 with a Sigma 150-500 @F9 1/250th HH



Doe High ISO 1 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr
ISO 6400 F9 1/250th (OK not in the deep woods but very dark)



Starling ISO 6400 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr

If it was a rainy day, this lens would probably be too slow at a racetrack.  It is more of a fair weather lens, I will give you that.

I would say when this lens was designed no one was thinking hockey or indoor equestrian, My 120-300 would work for that but it is more that twice the price of the Tamron..

This lens would be ridiculously silly at and opera or live stage show.  Its almost 2 feet long and again NOT designed for that application.  Think 70-200 F2.8

I don't really know of anyone thinking this is a one lens solution.  It's why we have interchangeable lenses  

Again there is no way to take away zoom range to make it more affordable.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 3, 2014)

I shot some deer on Sunday at f/8, with my 300mm f/5.6, just in spite of Props.  My ISO "cranked up" from 900 to 1100.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 3, 2014)

I've been contemplating going to 500 or even 600 with this lens.
I need something with AF for wildlife to replace my coffeecan 500mm Nikon Reflex - it's served it's purpose.  Plus a few other things that I can sell to make the price more bearable.    On a 1.5x crop, this should be an incredible lens.  The aperture doesn't bug me .. the d7000 and d600 are great with their ISO.


----------



## lambertpix (Feb 3, 2014)

You guys are killin' me with this thread.  I thought I'd just about talked myself into staying put with my current lens lineup for a while, but I keep thinking about haulin' this bad boy out to the race track...maybe an air show or two......

I think I need an intervention.


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 3, 2014)

I generally get all twitchy inside if I set my ISO above 800...  My D700 gets noisy above that, and my D7000 doesn't do very well above 1250 (to my eye)... I have a select few photos at around ISO 2000 that I can live with, but I find any amount of noise annoying in my photos  (probably because most of my work is highly controlled studio work that takes weeks of preparation)  .  I didn't really have this problem with film... something about knowing that ISO 1600 film would have grain to it gave it license to have that look, but in this digital age, any of my photos that are noisy are put into the discard pile immediately.


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 3, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> Propsguy said:
> 
> 
> > .... OK so F4 is a stretch anywhere near this pricepoint... that's pretty obvious.   But, the question is, if they made the lens simpler, used similar materials etc... could they trade off the low end of zoom range and gain some aperture to produce a lens costing "something relatively close to the price of this"?.... can they apply whatever voodoo and black magic they used to make this lens affordable to a lens that offers more aperture and less range?
> ...



Very impressive noise levels at the given ISO...  I haven't been able to produce those kind of results with either of my cameras without a ton of post processing, and even then, not as clean as these....


----------



## annamaria (Feb 3, 2014)

Is it compatible for the Nikon D5100?


----------



## ruifo (Feb 3, 2014)

spanishgirleyes said:


> Is it compatible for the Nikon D5100?



Yes, but the Nikon version will be released after March.


----------



## runnah (Feb 4, 2014)

This has been added to my BH wish list!


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 4, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> I generally get all twitchy inside if I set my ISO above 800...  My D700 gets noisy above that, and my D7000 doesn't do very well above 1250 (to my eye)... I have a select few photos at around ISO 2000 that I can live with, but I find any amount of noise annoying in my photos  (probably because most of my work is highly controlled studio work that takes weeks of preparation)  .  I didn't really have this problem with film... something about knowing that ISO 1600 film would have grain to it gave it license to have that look, but in this digital age, any of my photos that are noisy are put into the discard pile immediately.


If you are shooting in a studio I would think you would mostly be shooting at base ISO with strobes?  I don't know I'm purely a wildlife guy, so I'm more about natural light..  With the D7100 with good exposure and a touch of NR the images clean up really well..
This chickadee was shot at ISO 2200 with my 120-300 with a 2x TC at F6.3 1/320th



Chickadee in the snow by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr
No NR default sharpening in LR5.  I hope the 150-600 is this sharp as you can see a 100% crop is massive on a D7100...


----------



## Radical (Feb 5, 2014)

Well I ordered the Tamron 150-600mm Sunday and hope it turns out alright. I have to go through hip surgery on the 17th. so I won't be able to use it until March I think.


----------



## Radical (Feb 5, 2014)

Hey coastalconn, didn't you used to shoot a Tamron lens a while back?


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 5, 2014)

Radical said:


> Hey coastalconn, didn't you used to shoot a Tamron lens a while back?


You mean the 200-500 that everyone proclaimed as crap?  Yup, sure did, it won POTY last year with my Osprey shot, and got me into the top 100 in the Audubon magazine in 2012 and 2013   I always thought it was very good for what it was.  That's why I think the new one will be pretty awesome sense everything about it is supposed to be better.  I have seen many sample shots with bad results, but there seems to be "user error"...
Here's one from the ol' Tamron 200-500..  Seemed pretty sharp to me, even wide open when you filled the frame..
Sorry to all the TPF bunny lovers 



Red Tail Hawk Vs The Bunny 5 by krisinct- Thanks for 1 Million + views!, on Flickr


----------



## Radical (Feb 5, 2014)

Oh man! I can't wait!


----------



## Tailgunner (Feb 5, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> Radical said:
> 
> 
> > Hey coastalconn, didn't you used to shoot a Tamron lens a while back?
> ...



Oh WOW, Cool Photo Coastalconn!


----------



## ruifo (Feb 5, 2014)

Very nice, Coastalconn.


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 5, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> Oh WOW, Cool Photo Coastalconn!






ruifo said:


> Very nice, Coastalconn.


Thanks, it was probably one of the coolest things I have observed in my wildlife journey.  Saw the kill and spent 30 minutes with this hawk about 10 feet away, laying on a frozen rocky beach last winter.  The rest of the set is here if you have never seen it...  RT Hawk vs The Bunny - a set on Flickr


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 5, 2014)

Ugh
poor bunny


----------



## yioties (Feb 18, 2014)

That's a great set of pics coastalconn! I was looking to get the 150-500 Sigma but I might have to wait to see how you rate the Tamron!


----------



## krbimaging (Feb 19, 2014)

UGH....So my lens was shipped from BH 2 1/2 weeks ago. Last week Thurs. it was declared lost by UPS. The day it showed back up on the tracker (Friday) it was at my local UPS. At this point BH did a recall on it so I couldn't get it. Of course it was still on backorder at BH and they couldn't ship a replacement. Today the lens made it back to BH and tomorrow they are supposed to reship it back out to me. Lets hope it makes it this time. I'm hoping all the time in shipping doesn't cause harm to it. What a trail


----------



## ruifo (Feb 19, 2014)

What a story...
Good luck


----------



## ruifo (Feb 24, 2014)

One more short review, now from Matt Granger (aka _"__that nikon guy"_):


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 25, 2014)

ruifo said:


> One more short review, now from Matt Granger (aka _"__that nikon guy"_):



Just found out Wifey ordered this on January 22nd.  Now I will be responsible for crashing Adorama's website checking status every 5 or 6 seconds. :waiting:


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 25, 2014)

errr how did he get a Nikon mount...


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 25, 2014)

An exciting lens indeed.


----------



## ruifo (Feb 26, 2014)

coastalconn said:


> errr how did he get a Nikon mount...




Looks like he did this video last week in Tokyo, in some photography fair/exposition...
Not sure...


----------



## ruifo (Feb 26, 2014)

One more review, now from India with a Canon mount:


----------



## ruifo (Feb 26, 2014)

And another one:


----------



## Braineack (Feb 26, 2014)

first looks and regurgitating spec sheets is not a review.


----------



## ruifo (Feb 26, 2014)

Braineack said:


> first looks and regurgitating spec sheets is not a review.




Of course...


----------



## Radical (Feb 27, 2014)

I WANT MY LENS!!!!


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 27, 2014)

My one concern: I'm planning on getting the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II once I can scrape together the cash. 

Assuming I have that lens, adding a 2x and 1.4x teleconverter (which themselves cost only a bit less than the Tamron lens) would make it a ~200-560mm f/5.2.

With the teleconverters I could carry less gear to have the range without not carrying what I hope will be a favorite lens (my 70-200 F/4L is my current fav). I'd also have more flexibility (as the tc's can be used on other lenses). OTOH: well, I'm just not sure which way I want to go. I am really excited by the Tamron.


----------



## Braineack (Feb 27, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> My one concern: I'm planning on getting the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II once I can scrape together the cash.
> 
> Assuming I have that lens, adding a 2x and 1.4x teleconverter (which themselves cost only a bit less than the Tamron lens) would make it a ~200-560mm f/5.2.



70 x 2 = 140
200 x 2 = 400
f/2.8 x 2 = f/5.6

a 2x TC would equal _exactly_ a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 27, 2014)

Braineack said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > My one concern: I'm planning on getting the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II once I can scrape together the cash.
> ...


70 x 2 x 1.4 = ~200
200 x 2 x 1.4 = 560
f/2.8 + 2f +1f = f/6.8? (so yea, didn't add enough f-stops for stacked teleconverters)


----------



## Braineack (Feb 27, 2014)

Oh, I've never heard of anyone stacking TCs.  Didn't think of that, is that even a valid solution?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Oh, I've never heard of anyone stacking TCs.  Didn't think of that, is that even a valid solution?



Yes, stacking teleconverters HAS been done before. It's pretty much a desperation measure though, and with today's high-MP count sensors of 24MP on APS-C, it's sort of a silly idea. But yes, it has been done, even though the magnification achieved by using a 2x AND also a 1.4x converter is EASILY bettered by a modest crop-in at the computer. A good example might be for a news assignment where, let's say there's a fire and the FD and police have the area cordoned off with a 1/4 mile perimeter...you might HAVE to use whatever you have. And sometimes ANY shot is better than "no shot whatsoever". Some of the paparrazi images take on beaches, for example, on the big celeb sites, are taken with God-awful lash-ups like a zoom + two TC's.

I feel the same way about the 2x converter; unless the converter is EXCEPTIONALLY well-matched to the lens, and there are such pairings, I think it's better to use a 1.4x converter, then crop-in a bit at the computer, rather than lose a full two f/strops worth of light or speed in the field.


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 27, 2014)

There's a nice write-up with pics here: Tale of Two Teleconverters

Stacking does indeed seem to be of dubious usefulness; though the 2x teleconverter on its own seems excellent.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> There's a nice write-up with pics here: Tale of Two Teleconverters
> 
> Stacking does indeed seem to be of dubious usefulness; though the 2x teleconverter on its own seems excellent.



Great link, Jerry! THIS single image pretty much shows why adding that second converter is a baaaaad idea:  2.jpg


----------



## JerryLove (Feb 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > There's a nice write-up with pics here: Tale of Two Teleconverters
> ...


 Thank you for bringing up the concern. I'd like to think I would have eventually figured out to go look at comparisons, but I'm not sure I would have. It makes deciding to get the Tamron easier.


----------



## krbimaging (Feb 27, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> UGH....So my lens was shipped from BH 2 1/2 weeks ago. Last week Thurs. it was declared lost by UPS. The day it showed back up on the tracker (Friday) it was at my local UPS. At this point BH did a recall on it so I couldn't get it. Of course it was still on backorder at BH and they couldn't ship a replacement. Today the lens made it back to BH and tomorrow they are supposed to reship it back out to me. Lets hope it makes it this time. I'm hoping all the time in shipping doesn't cause harm to it. What a trail


Yesterday I picked up the lens from UPS. Tonight I will have the first chance to try it out. Looking forward to getting some shots up with it. I have to admit, the packing is rediculously cheap from Tamron.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 27, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> krbimaging said:
> 
> 
> > UGH....So my lens was shipped from BH 2 1/2 weeks ago. Last week Thurs. it was declared lost by UPS. The day it showed back up on the tracker (Friday) it was at my local UPS. At this point BH did a recall on it so I couldn't get it. Of course it was still on backorder at BH and they couldn't ship a replacement. Today the lens made it back to BH and tomorrow they are supposed to reship it back out to me. Lets hope it makes it this time. I'm hoping all the time in shipping doesn't cause harm to it. What a trail
> ...



Pics of the packaging?  Please.  I feel the need to be teased.


----------



## MGRPhoto (Feb 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've never heard of anyone stacking TCs.  Didn't think of that, is that even a valid solution?
> ...



From most results I've seen it's worth picking up a cheap Nikon 1 and using the adapter with a 300mm f/4 or 80-400. The N1 results look far better than almost all stacked TC results I've seen. I don't think non Nikon lenses AF on the 1 series though. It'd be nice to have this at 500-600 with 2.7x crop :mrgreen:


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I've never heard of anyone stacking TCs. Didn't think of that, is that even a valid solution?
> ...



See, usual doom and gloom stuff from Derrel.  Of course you can stack teleconverters.  I've got a couple of great shots here - the first is of an eagle, it was taken with 2 teleconverters stacked together:





The second one is a squirrel - taken with 2 2X teleconverters and a 1.4 x teleconverter - sure, it was F/22 but hey, 2400 mm baby!





Ok, so maybe the dynamic range on these isn't quite as good as they would be without stacked TC's..  lol


----------



## manicmike (Feb 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Ok, I'll admit you got a little laugh out of me on this one.


----------



## krbimaging (Feb 28, 2014)

I tried playing with the lens last night. To my horror, *I discovered that the Canon 2X III that I have will not mount to it.*  This is a big deal for me, I wanted the extra length for moon shots being at 12f or higher was fine for moon work.

On the 2X there is a black inner ring that protrudes into the lens and it bottoms out in the Tamron. This is what appears to be the reason I can't connect the two. 

So before you folks buy, note that the 2X doesn't fit. I don't have a 1.4 X to test fit.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 28, 2014)

manicmike said:


> Ok, I'll admit you got a little laugh out of me on this one.



Mission accomplished then.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 28, 2014)

krbimaging said:


> I tried playing with the lens last night. To my horror, *I discovered that the Canon 2X III that I have will not mount to it.*  This is a big deal for me, I wanted the extra length for moon shots being at 12f or higher was fine for moon work.
> 
> On the 2X there is a black inner ring that protrudes into the lens and it bottoms out in the Tamron. This is what appears to be the reason I can't connect the two.
> 
> So before you folks buy, note that the 2X doesn't fit. I don't have a 1.4 X to test fit.



I remember reading somewhere that someone with a Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 ran into a similar problem and someone else had mentioned that they use a TC made by bower that did work with their Tamron lens.  Might be worth researching.


----------



## astroNikon (Feb 28, 2014)

i just stick the camera on my telescope and I can have non-magnified 2,000mm all day.
I've taken the telescope off of the mount and just stuck it on my heavy-duty tripod too, not bad at all.


----------



## krbimaging (Feb 28, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> i just stick the camera on my telescope and I can have non-magnified 2,000mm all day.
> I've taken the telescope off of the mount and just stuck it on my heavy-duty tripod too, not bad at all.



I only wanted to get a few shots of the Lumar light (careful not to say full moon ) So a telescope isn't practical. Also wanted to be able to reach out and touch the wild life on the cheap.


----------



## coastalconn (Feb 28, 2014)

Wow, anyone check out the digital picture yet? check this out...   vs Nikon 80-400 af-s wide open at 400... Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Lens Image Quality  you can select different lenses and move your mouse back and forth...


----------



## ruifo (Mar 1, 2014)

The DxoMark review for Canon bodies is out:


Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon mount lens review: New contender - DxOMark


*******

*Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon mount lens review: New contender*

*By Kevin Carter - **Wednesday, February 12, 2014
**Lens Review*



Introduction | Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD lens performance on 5D Mark III | Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD lens performance on 7D | Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD vs. Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM vs. Canon EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS mounted Canon EOS 5D Mk III: Good overall IQ | Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD vs. Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM vs. Canon EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS mounted Canon EOS 7D | Conclusion
​
Tamron has released a new modestly priced, stabilized super-telephoto zoom for both full-frame and APS-C cameras, the SP 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD. How does this $1,100 model compare against the slightly shorter-range Sigma and Canon offerings? 

Aimed at wildlife, bird and action photographers, the newly designed super-telephoto Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD zoom looks to be a promising update to the non-stabilized 200-500mm f5-6.3 Di LD [IF] (A08) model it replaces. As well as the longer range and built-in stabilization the new model also features an ultrasonic type AF motor and adds the firms new eBAND (Extended Bandwidth & Angular Dependency) coating to their existing BBAR (Broad-Band Anti-Reflection) coatings to reduce flare and ghosting. The new model boasts a complex optical construction consisting of 20 elements in 13 groups including three LD (Low Dispersion) elements to reduce CA as well as a 9 blade circular aperture for softer transitions to out-of-focus areas. 

Measuring 10.1 in (257.8mm) and weighing 68.8 oz (1,951g) the new model is just over 1-inch longer but around 60% heavier than its predecessor. The earlier iteration also focused to just 98.4 in (2.5m) whereas this lens has a minimum focus distance of 106.3 in (2.7m) although both are quoted as having a magnification ratio of 1:5. Priced at $1,069, the new lens is available in Canon mount only to begin with, though Nikon and Sony A mount versions will follow.

*Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD lens performance on 5D Mark III*

*Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD lens performance on 7D*

*Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD vs. Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM vs. Canon EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS mounted Canon EOS 5D Mk III: Good overall IQ*

*Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD vs. Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM vs. Canon EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS mounted Canon EOS 7D*

*Conclusion*


----------



## ratssass (Mar 2, 2014)

WOOHOO!!!!.....cleared the biggest hurdle between me and this lens.Got the bride's blessings!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 2, 2014)

ratssass said:


> WOOHOO!!!!.....cleared the biggest hurdle between me and this lens.Got the bride's blessings!!!


----------



## ratssass (Mar 2, 2014)

...you always have the best emoticons,spark!!


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 4, 2014)

I actually got to play with one today!  There was a noob shooting eagles in one of my spots with the Tammy attached to a T3i.  AF was super fast and quiet, reminded me of the 400 F5.6 speed that I shot with once.  Locked on to eagles no problem at 600mm and tracked them smoothly.  VC engaged smoothly..  I didn't get to review any images.  The lens is so light compared to my sigma.  Tamron better hurry the hell up, I am super anxious now..


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 4, 2014)

ratssass said:


> ...you always have the best emoticons,spark!!



I have low friends in high places.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 4, 2014)

ratssass said:


> WOOHOO!!!!.....cleared the biggest hurdle between me and this lens.Got the bride's blessings!!!



How soon can I borrow it?  I will get a Nikon instead of the lens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacaranda_wifey (Mar 4, 2014)

I've been on the wait list for almost 2 months for this lens,,,,,,,,,still waiting    *sigh*


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 4, 2014)

ratssass said:


> WOOHOO!!!!.....cleared the biggest hurdle between me and this lens.Got the bride's blessings!!!




Umm.. you mean yours, right?  Because I can tell you from experience getting someone else's to write you a note does not fly.  Not at all.. lol


----------



## ratssass (Mar 5, 2014)

Jacaranda_wifey said:


> I've been on the wait list for almost 2 months for this lens,,,,,,,,,still waiting    *sigh*



...has it not been released for CANON already?I was under the impression it was.HMMMMMM.........I haven't actually pulled the trigger yet,merely secured the investors/funding.Do you think this is something Tamron needs lead time on?I read they were looking at a late April/early May release for the Nikon version.I was hoping to just stroll in the store and walk out with one by then.The reason I ask,is,I have Pre-ordered other items,only to have been able to pick the item up at the store,before my pre-ordered item ships to me.....


----------



## ruifo (Mar 17, 2014)

Matt Granger just released his review (17/Mar/2014):






Source:
Matt Granger - Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3 - Complete Review


----------



## ruifo (Apr 25, 2014)

Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD for Nikon to start shipping on April 30 | Nikon Rumors


----------



## ruifo (Apr 26, 2014)




----------



## ratssass (Apr 27, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD for Nikon to start shipping on April 30 | Nikon Rumors


....'bout effin' time......maybe have it by mid May :madmad::madmad:


----------



## Radical (Apr 30, 2014)

I emailed a Tamron rep and she stated that they won't shipping into states for Nikon mounts until mid May.


----------



## nzmacro (May 1, 2014)

We've been very fortunate to see this lens in Jaca's hands in the wildlife forum. Certainly is one heck of a birding lens in the right hands, no doubt about that at all, its darn sharp.

So who will be getting this lens for other than wildlife ??. Interested to know if some will be getting this for sports primarily or will it be a combination ..... or just nature wildlife ??.

All the best and just being curious.

Danny.


----------



## hamlet (May 1, 2014)

This is one impressive lens, but i'm still pondering about the aperture. Is an f/5-6.3 not something to worry about when buying this lens? What do you think?


----------



## badrano (May 1, 2014)

nzmacro said:


> We've been very fortunate to see this lens in Jaca's hands in the wildlife forum. Certainly is one heck of a birding lens in the right hands, no doubt about that at all, its darn sharp.
> 
> So who will be getting this lens for other than wildlife ??. Interested to know if some will be getting this for sports primarily or will it be a combination ..... or just nature wildlife ??.
> 
> ...



I'm looking at this lens for air shows as well as wildlife.  I'm a little bit of an airshow junkie.  I had a Tamron 70-300 (some how something broke inside and the lens is too old to be repaired, according to Tamron) and even at 300mm, I would have liked gotten some closer pics without having to crop the photo.  

I don't have the money for the Nikon 80-400 and the only next in line lens within my budget is Sigma's 120-400 or 150-500....so for another $100  or so I can get the Tamron 150-600.  I'm probably going to rent the 150-600 first to try it out.


----------



## nzmacro (May 2, 2014)

hamlet said:


> This is one impressive lens, but i'm still pondering about the aperture. Is an f/5-6.3 not something to worry about when buying this lens? What do you think?



Depends on the lighting conditions. With the bird shooters on here that know what they are doing its easy to see by the shots that its not a problem. I shoot with the sun at my back and F/5.6 I can hit at ISO 400 at 1/4000, that's on APS-C. On FF using ISO 800, well its pretty easy. Under dull lighting conditions or in shade, lowering the shutter speed would be a good option or raising the ISO. At F/6.3, its certainly not bad at all. 

For that cost and from what we have seen so far on here, its sharp and a bit of a bargain IMO.

All the best.

Danny.


----------

