Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
reisetasche

Tamron SP 5-6,3/150-600 mm Di VC USD G2

8 posts in this topic

I would like to know if someone has experience with this lens?

I have the old Canon lens 100- 400, which is very good, but sometimes not long enough. So I am thinking of buying the new Tamron 150- 600 for my Canon 7D Mark II.

Would like to hear your opinion.

Thanks Lili

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have used my Tamron SP 5-6,3/150-600 mm Di VC USD G2 with great success for my wildlife photography. In my opinion it is an excellent lens for the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not used personally but read a lot about it. The only flaw is the quality control level, expected for such price. Thus do take your time and test lens to prove it before buying it.

 

In comparison to 100-400f/4 it is a slower lens (f/6.3) and at longest reach and crop factor of 1.6 almost at 1000 mm FOV which in itself brings some problems into photography, like the need of much better handholdling technique, use of sturdier tripods and better headballs, and more exaggerated impact of weather caused disturbances.

 

If it would be for a full frame camera I would have o objections on moving the lenses. On crop camera, it might be a struggle to handle it properly at the beginning.

 

Just my thoughts, more on the lenses max zoom reach then on its IQ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an alternative to consider the Canon 100-400 MK2 is a cracking lens, pin sharp and fast to focus too. I recently bought a 7D2 so I haven't, as yet, had much chance to try the combination but if you are prepared to sacrifice AF speed for reach you can stick a 1.4xTC on and the IQ is still very good indeed. Effectively that is 400 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 896mm which you can crop still further in PP.

As @@xelas has pointed out already though, the smaller the aperture the less light and the only alternative is to bump the ISO or decrease the shutter speed. On a sunny day not a problem hand holding , on a dull day you need to steady the set up with a tripod or bean bag otherwise the slightest movement is exaggerated the more you magnify the pixels.

Overall though, when it comes down to price the Tamron appears to be at least half the price of the Canon if not 40%, a not inconsiderable amount! So how come it's cheaper ? Has to be build quality I would have thought, it weighs 500g less than the highly rated Sigma Sport ( 2860gms) equivalent so the weight saving must come from materials. For easy hand holding (1570 vs 2010gms ), consistent results and overall quality the 100-400 Mk2 wins but it is a lot dearer.

Another benefit of the Canon lens is the minimum focus distance of 0.98m vs 2.70m for the Tamron. That makes it a pretty good macro lens if you want to dabble without buying a specialist lens so you can consider that a saving!

In the longer term I think the Canon is a better bet as it's a proven winner, highly rated and will hold it's value better.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an alternative to consider the Canon 100-400 MK2 is a cracking lens, pin sharp and fast to focus too. I recently bought a 7D2 so I haven't, as yet, had much chance to try the combination but if you are prepared to sacrifice AF speed for reach you can stick a 1.4xTC on and the IQ is still very good indeed. Effectively that is 400 x 1.4 x 1.6 = 896mm which you can crop still further in PP.

As @@xelas has pointed out already though, the smaller the aperture the less light and the only alternative is to bump the ISO or decrease the shutter speed. On a sunny day not a problem hand holding , on a dull day you need to steady the set up with a tripod or bean bag otherwise the slightest movement is exaggerated the more you magnify the pixels.

Overall though, when it comes down to price the Tamron appears to be at least half the price of the Canon if not 40%, a not inconsiderable amount! So how come it's cheaper ? Has to be build quality I would have thought, it weighs 500g less than the highly rated Sigma Sport ( 2860gms) equivalent so the weight saving must come from materials. For easy hand holding (1570 vs 2010gms ), consistent results and overall quality the 100-400 Mk2 wins but it is a lot dearer.

Another benefit of the Canon lens is the minimum focus distance of 0.98m vs 2.70m for the Tamron. That makes it a pretty good macro lens if you want to dabble without buying a specialist lens so you can consider that a saving!

In the longer term I think the Canon is a better bet as it's a proven winner, highly rated and will hold it's value better.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

+3. I own the 100-400 Mark II and find it the ideal safari lens, especially when used with the 7D Mark II. I have pro photographer friend who tried the Tamron and promptly sold it on eBay because of the poor resolution past 150mm. Maybe the quality control already mentioned?

Edited by AKChui

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank you all for your assessments and opinions. Its really difficult to decide. Thanks Dave for your proposal buying the 100 - 400 Mark II with 1, 4 x TC. Its more expensive but will give more possibilities.

Thanks again Lili

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


© 2006 - 2017 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.