Jump to content




See all Safaritalk Special Offers

Message to Guests.

Welcome to Safaritalk where we have been talking Safaris and wildlife conservation since 2006. As a guest you're welcome to read through certain areas of the forum, but to access all the facilities and to contribute your experience, ask questions and get involved, you'll need to be a member - so register here: it's quick, free and easy and I look forward to having you as a Safaritalker soon. Matt.


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 reisetasche

reisetasche

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Local time: 11:08 AM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mannheim
  • Category 1:Tourist (first-time visitor)
  • Category 2:Tourist (first-time visitor)

Posted 11 January 2017 - 09:11 AM

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



#2 MelissaTheil

MelissaTheil

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Local time: 05:08 AM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:Wildlife Photographer/Artist

Posted 11 January 2017 - 12:36 PM

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.



#3 xelas

xelas

    Order of the Pith

  • Members
  • 2,209 posts
  • Local time: 11:08 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 12 January 2017 - 12:14 PM

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.
  • Dave Williams likes this

#4 Dave Williams

Dave Williams

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 384 posts
  • Local time: 10:08 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Wales
  • Category 1:Tourist (first-time visitor)
  • Category 2:Wildlife Photographer/Artist

Posted 13 January 2017 - 01:06 PM

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.


  • JohnR, AKR1 and xelas like this

#5 AKR1

AKR1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,340 posts
  • Local time: 06:08 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City area, USA
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 13 January 2017 - 06:13 PM

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

#6 JohnR

JohnR

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,884 posts
  • Local time: 10:08 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England
  • Category 1:Tourist (regular visitor)
  • Category 2:---

Posted 13 January 2017 - 11:30 PM

+2


What pays stays.
 

#7 AKChui

AKChui

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Local time: 02:08 AM
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alaska
  • Category 1:Wildlife Photographer/Artist
  • Category 2:Tourist (regular visitor)

Posted 14 January 2017 - 12:42 AM

+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, 14 January 2017 - 12:52 AM.

"I always thought good photos were like good jokes--if you have to explain it, it just isn't that good"  (Anonymous)


#8 reisetasche

reisetasche

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Local time: 11:08 AM
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mannheim
  • Category 1:Tourist (first-time visitor)
  • Category 2:Tourist (first-time visitor)

Posted 15 January 2017 - 02:33 PM

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







© 2006 - 2016 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.

Welcome guest to Safaritalk.
Please Register or Login to use the full facilities.