New TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD A011 - Tests.

12467

Comments

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,413Member
    edited May 2014
    I cropped these three images out of Coastalconn's downloaded image to see how it would look with my normal preferred coloring, contrast and sharpening. When you zoom in you can see the eyelashes/eyebrows reflecting in the eye. Quite amazing 600mm wide open for the price.

    DSC_5604editedA

    DSC_5604editedB

    DSC_5604editedC
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    New observation, this lens is horrible on my D300.. Focus acquisition is non existent at 600mm and ho hum at 400mm.. Tracking was sub par and it was soft, even with fine tuning.. My D300 is old and beat up at 150k so perhaps it is my specific body.. I just wanted to share my experience.. On the D7100 AF is quite snappy fast and accurate and it tracks very well. The D600 is not as fast in acquisition but still tracks ok.. IQ is a little better on the D600 but after cropping that advantage disappears a little bit..

    @donaladejose Thanks for sharing your observations: )
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,413Member
    Question? How does it perform at f8? Usually a stop down from full open increases sharpness. I am thinking: set it to f8 for increased sharpness and use Auto ISO. I am wondering if you gain more from that one stop down than you lose in increased ISO? But maybe not? Any experience trying this?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,475Member
    edited May 2014
    New observation, this lens is horrible on my D300.. Focus acquisition is non existent at 600mm and ho hum at 400mm.. Tracking was sub par and it was soft, even with fine tuning.. My D300 is old and beat up at 150k so perhaps it is my specific body.. I just wanted to share my experience.. On the D7100 AF is quite snappy fast and accurate and it tracks very well. The D600 is not as fast in acquisition but still tracks ok.. IQ is a little better on the D600 but after cropping that advantage disappears a little bit..
    That sounds reasonable, since the older bodies with the 51 point system are likely to have trouble achieving focus acquisition beyond F5.6 vs F8 on the post D4 51/39 point system bodies.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    I just found my copy is already getting dusty between the first and second glass. After some checking, I think there is a paper thin gap beneath the ring that holds the first glass. That ring is attached to the barrel with a few screws. But there is probably no filler material bewteen. So my 2 week old copy is already dirtier than my 2 year old 300 f/4. This is sloppy industrial design. I may have to send mine in for service soon.
  • dgmosbydgmosby Posts: 1Member
    Shooting with a D5100, I have had quite good results. So far, I have had none of the problems mentioned by other posts. I am getting as of results with the D5100 and this lens as I was able to get with my Nikon ED 80-400, and this lens has auto focus on the "lower" class of Nikon DSLRs.
    My initial shots with the D600 have also been quite satisfactory. What the D600 lacks in the 1.5 multiplication factor seems to be evened out with the high pixel count. Overall, I am quite happy with this lens.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,233Member
    Coastalconn, do you own any of the Nikon 1 cameras? I wonder how this lens would perform with those bodies. You'd get some crazy reach too.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    @NSX, I did get a J1 over the winter, but I just wasn't a big fan. I found I got better results cropping from the D7100. Plus I hate using tripods... Ended up selling it. From what I have read it is manual only because the FT-1 doesn't support the Tamron protocol..
  • michael66michael66 Posts: 231Member
    edited June 2014
    I uploaded a raw file here if anyone wants to see what it looks like.. Wide open at 600 with the D600
    Many thanks! I just got mine on Sunday and was disappointed. So the question is, did I get a bad copy or are my skills with these massive lenses at fault. I am pretty certain it is me, as I am beginning to get some nice shots with the Nikon 80-400.

    This is a tight crop;
    _MCD2070_DxO_crop

    From this shot, taken with the Nikon;
    _MCD2070_DxO

    My initial shots with the Tamron look like my first shots with the Nikon; blurry and murky. I'll need to put it on a tripod and see if I can get something similar out of it. Then I have a lot of work getting my technique up to par.

    Post edited by michael66 on
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    Can you post images or a link? I will take a look-see...
  • MeinradMeinrad Posts: 20Member
    Coastalconn wrote: New observation, this lens is horrible on my D300.. Focus acquisition is non existent at 600mm and ho hum at 400mm. -
    Does anyone have experience with this lens on a D700? It has the same autofocus module as the D300. I have preordered the big Tammy for my D700, but have second thoughts now.
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    @Meinrad I really suspect my D300 is just cooked.. IQ is horrible with any lens I stick on it.. It sat around for 6 Months after I got the D7100 and it seems something happened to it.. with a 148K on the shutter it's not even worth sending in... I have seen no other reports of the issue..
  • MeinradMeinrad Posts: 20Member
    Thanks, Kris. I will try it out in the store at 600 at various distances. If it snaps to good focus, I'll take it, or else, they will give me my deposit back.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,413Member
    edited June 2014
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    @donaldjose Did you compare it directly to the 80-400G? At 400, resolution looks identical to me. I think that is pretty good achievement for $1600 less. I'm still very happy with mine... I also have not noticed the CA that they think is so prevalent..
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,413Member
    Yes Chris, I do admit two things:

    First, sharpness of the Nikon 80-400 G is no better for more than twice the price.

    Second, the photos you took, and I worked with (posted above), are impressively sharp which contradicts the dpreview article.

    It's just me. Currently I have no need for any lens beyond 200mm. If this one was stunningly sharp it would be on my "to buy sometime" list (even though I don't need it) just because it is so awesome for the price. My current "to buy sometime" list now includes the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art which I will use more often and the D810 which I think will have the greatest dynamic range of all Nikon bodies and will also have the greatest sharpness of all Nikon bodies when used with lenses such as the Sigma f1.4 Art.

    The Tamron 150-600 does remain a "best bang for the buck" for people who need more than 200mm. If you can stay under 200mm I think the Nikon 70-200 f4 is the best "bang for the buck."
  • SportsSports Posts: 365Member
    Has anyone been thinking what if Tamron made a 600mm/f5.6 (no zoom)?
    I'm sure they could optimize sharpness (not that I'm saying the 150-600 is bad).
    With lower sales numbers, the price would probably be higher, but it could still be really attractive compared to the existing super teles on the market, couldn't it?
    What could Tamron do to differentiate them, so they wouldn't cannibalize too much from one another?
    D300, J1
    Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
    Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
    1 10-30, 30-110
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,475Member
    Even Tamron did make a 600mm F5.6, don't expect a price tag below $3k.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JonMcGuffinJonMcGuffin Posts: 312Member
    @Sports.

    I'd rather frankly Tamron went after a 80mm - 400mm F4-F5.6 and really go right after the Nikon. Offer something similar in size/weight but undercut that lens by more than half as they've done here. Then Nikon would have a problem on their hands.

    I, for one, am quite impressed with what I'm seeing posted in here in regards to this lens at 600mm. My issue with this lens is that I don't need/want 600mm. The wide end ads much more versatility to me but nonetheless, this lens is on the short list.
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    Even Tamron did make a 600mm F5.6, don't expect a price tag below $3k.
    I would settle for a 400 5.6 or 500 5.6. Just make it with VR and put it at $1K with excellent sharpness and I will be a buyer for sure. The Canon 400 5.6 at $1K is great minus the lack of VR. If Tammy can put out a modern tele prime with VR and lens coatings for Nikon at $1K it would be awesome.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,475Member
    Even Tamron did make a 600mm F5.6, don't expect a price tag below $3k.
    I would settle for a 400 5.6 or 500 5.6. Just make it with VR and put it at $1K with excellent sharpness and I will be a buyer for sure. The Canon 400 5.6 at $1K is great minus the lack of VR. If Tammy can put out a modern tele prime with VR and lens coatings for Nikon at $1K it would be awesome.
    Keep in mind that the 400mm F5.6L is an old design. I think the rumored update would push it into the $2.5k range. I doubt you'd see any first or third party manufacture offer a modern design for less than $2k.

    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited July 2014


    I must admit, many of those plane images are far from being "sharp." Thus, I question Larry's skills.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    Photographylife review: Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Review.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • CoastalconnCoastalconn Posts: 527Member
    I really think Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for the price tag of the 80-400 G VR.. For the same price you can get the 150-600 and the Tamron 70-200 VC... The more I have shot the Tamron, the more I love it. I have not shot the new 80-400, but I can say that sharpness is pretty close at 420 compared to the 300 F4 with 1.4c TC. I really don't think its bad at 600 wide open like this shot at 1/320th handheld on the D7100. And this was about a 55% crop.. Also, at 600mm, magnification is about 1:4.2
    Catbird 1 6/29
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited July 2014
    Nice shot Costal. Truth be told, I really don't think you are capable of getting a bad bird shot....regardless of lens :P
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
Sign In or Register to comment.