Tamron 150-600mm

[torch]

Interested in any thoughts on Tamron's new 150-600 mm lense. I ordered one yesterday with no delivery date yet in Canada for the Nikon mount. I think B&H are quoting late March for delivery. Interested to see how good a 600 mm lense might be - the price is certainly right - way less than you might expect for a 600 mm lense. I believe B&H have it for less than $1100. I have seen some handheld shots and they look acceptable sharp.

[Derf]

I too have been looking at this lens and I am very impressed with what I have seen so far

[gonzalu]

For the price, you can't beat it...

http://www.slrlounge.com/new-tamron-150-600mm-wildlife-photographers-dream-lens

[NIKV69]

For the price, you can't beat it...

Heck yea if the quality is any good at 500 or so it's worth it.

[RWB]

Looks interesting for the price. Flickr group for the lens http://www.flickr.com/groups/2470447@N21/pool/

[megatop412]

I will be interested in seeing it compared to the sigma 150-500mm- if good enough I may be tempted to convert

[captmjk16]

DPReview has a few massive threads on it with links to a bunch of early tests from the far east. I've added it to the watch list despite being a bit weak wide open at 600mm (though still quite strong at 500mm from all the reviews I've seen). I'm just hoping I can pick one up with a Nikon mount before airshow season.

[gonzalu]

While not as sharp as a $10,000 lens, this is an incredible picture...


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5537/12034060033_8ef413e6bd_c.jpg

Full size here
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5537/12034060033_05d401b138_o.jpg

[jack.torry]

I hope it can carry on the one aspect that the 200-500mm beats both Sigma's 150-500mm and 50-500mms - image quality at the telephoto end.

[megatop412]

I hope it can carry on the one aspect that the 200-500mm beats both Sigma's 150-500mm and 50-500mms - image quality at the telephoto end.

Interesting. I thought I remembered reading that the Sigma's IQ was well above that of the old Tamron 200-500mm.

[gonzalu]

All are somewhat soft (for me) at any FL and especially so at 400mm and above. I have tested them all and I find it is just hard if not impossible to get great glass manufacturing or corrective formulas at such low prices. Aspherical elements are very hard to make especially at very large sizes ...

If you're simply posting at 1024x768 on The Web, then they suffice. If you plan to enlarge (especially for selling) it will be challenging.

[megatop412]

All are somewhat soft (for me) at any FL and especially so at 400mm and above. I have tested them all and I find it is just hard if not impossible to get great glass manufacturing or corrective formulas at such low prices. Aspherical elements are very hard to make especially at very large sizes ...

If you're simply posting at 1024x768 on The Web, then they suffice. If you plan to enlarge (especially for selling) it will be challenging.

Manny, these lenses are fine for making spectacular 20x30 enlargements. Maybe not 200-400f/4 spectacular, but still crazy good. I know how much you care about quality and it shows, but beyond a certain point you're in diminishing returns range. Of course I would love to own that glass. But the truth is that I don't need its attributes 95% of the time.


I actually still have all the aviation posters that were on my walls as a kid, and recently had a look at them to see what set them apart from my own images. C-5's, SR-71's, F-16's, F-15's(especially F-15's), none of them were 'tack sharp', the standard by which everyone seems to judge a lens by these last few years. They are most certainly in focus, just not 'tack sharp'. There's even some noise visible in a few(oh the humanity). The thing is, I never looked at my posters up close, because they could only really be enjoyed from a distance. It was the content, and the composition, that caught my eye. But that's just me.

If times have really changed that much since we left film and all its lovely quirkiness behind to where clients are now demanding images with zero noise and absolute perfect sharpness you could cut Italian bread with, I think the whole point is getting a little lost. THAT is the main reason I cannot force myself to upload to anet, because the focus is not on the art, it has become a pi**ing match about sharpness and noise(and color- couldn't leave you out, Cary!:). Additionally, you can spend all the bread you want on top-shelf glass, but if someone don't have the eye and the talent to use it, who cares if they own the Holy Trinity. They still suck, and all the layer masking in the world won't cover up their lack of photographic intuition and skill.

It's like the same analogy people use with guitars....would you rather listen to some hack abusing a $3000 Les Paul Custom, or would you rather listen to Eddie Van Halen rock a $120 Fender Squire

[ANITIX87]

I find it is just hard if not impossible to get great glass manufacturing or corrective formulas at such low prices.
I don't know if it's impossible, but it certainly is deliberate. The opposite is true with Canon/Nikon, I believe - there's no reason for them to charge as much as they do, other than the brand name that comes with it, and a perceived increase in reliability and quality that I don't believe is there. Sigma (and Tamron, I assume) have the capability to make glass that rivals Canon and Nikon. My new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (which is priced way out of the normal "enthusiast" range) is far, far better than Canon's 100-400L and I would be hard-pressed to admit it isn't superior to Canon's 300mm f/2.8L. My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is far better than either of Canon's cheaper 50mm lenses. My business partner's Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is on-par with Canon's famous 85mm f/1.2L in terms of image quality, and far better in terms of focus speed (at half the price).

I'm really, really impressed with how far Sigma has come, and I'm sure Tamron isn't far behind. Canon and Nikon better re-think their pricing in the next couple of years because, as word gets out of how well third-party glass performs in the real world (forget "lab tests" or "sharpness tests") they will struggle to keep up.

[gonzalu]

Antonis,

I don't think you actually know what goes into making a lens of the type. If you think Canon and Nikon are just slapping their nametag/price on them, think again.

Do you know what it takes to make a 120mm Aspherical element? Seriously?

Alignment of all those elements and the assembly of the final product takes skilled labor.

Glass making is literally an art. No many can do it. Nikon is one, so is Zeiss, Schott a few others. The rest buy the glass already made in raw form from a very few remaining players. Glass formulas are very very specific for the quality being sought.

How the formula is arrived at is part science, part expertise, part labor all of which adds to cost. Price can only drop when there is a shortcut or a new revolutionary aspect of the process is found. Supply and Demand also add to the cost.

Back to quality glass. The CONTRAST of a specific glass compound and the TRANSMISSION of light through same is something most will never notice and yet is critically important. I can say with great certainty from actual personal testing that the expensive glass is better, period. Arguing that fact is not worth it.

Making excuses for shortcomings is not necessary. William has the right idea... and it certainly is how I think as well: I know what the best is and I chose to buy the lesser cost because of need and financial capacity vs. reward vs. desire etc.

I decided long ago to stop wishing and buying cheapest, cheaper, reasonable and then top of the line. I go straight to the top. It saves me mney and headache.

If what you WANT is the best, then save up and get the best.

Take a look at the links I posted where it shows the absolute quality of this lens. Yet you clearly see the great difference in the better manufacturer lens. I want that extra bit of quality. It saves me on editing, and it guarantees quality from edge to edge be it sharpness, lack of CA, Ghosting, Contrast, Color Accuracy etc.

--

William, you're right. Older posters were horrible compared ot today's standards. THat does not mean we can't get better today. I still see poorly made posters on bus stops out of what seems to be a Cell Phone JPG blown up. Shameful. But you do know there are those who use a Digital Back Leaf or Hassy and a super expensive lens and do produce BETTER results.

IF you ever see an Ansel Adams printed original, one done by him, you will drop a tear ... it is THAT much better than you can imagine. His 8x10 cameras were state of the art back then and his tripods, monstrosities ... and the results showed.

I have dedicated myself to the hobby and to absolutely achieving the best and highest quality I can get. I am not in it for a quick fix.

Your Guitar example is fine, but an outsider's point of view. You may ask the MUSICIAN himself (herself) if the prefer the Les Paul or the cheap $120 Sam Ash special. Same goes for Violins...

An original Antonio Stradivari is arguably better sounding than any other violin, and many have tried to duplicate it. I know for a fact that almost any violinist would prefer to play one than to simply dismiss it.

[ANITIX87]

I can say with great certainty from actual personal testing that the expensive glass is better, period. Arguing that fact is not worth it.
I would never argue that. My post wasn't meant to imply that a Canon kit lens uses the same glass as the top-of-the-line Canon L-prime, for instance. Or, more accurately, that the caliber of the glass in the top-end Sigma is the same as that in Canon or a Nikon's top performing lenses. However, I still stand by my statement that there is NO REASON a top-end Canon or Nikon L-lens should cost what it does, especially when they've been manufacturing their stuff for so long and, like you said, there are no new huge advancements that might dictate an enormous R&D initiative for production methods. The term "you get what you pay for" holds true in photography - I'm the first to admit that - but you can't possibly tell me that Nikon and Canon are 100% justified in charging what they do for a lens that likely costs 10% of that price to manufacture (or that it's not because of the brand name).


I decided long ago to stop wishing and buying cheapest, cheaper, reasonable and then top of the line. I go straight to the top. It saves me money and headache.
So do I - but I couple it with a lot of research, personal experience, and a total disregard for "lab tests" (I'm not saying you dont - I'm not accusing you of blindly buying Nikon "just because"). Every piece of literature said the Sigma I bought was less sharp and had less contrast than the Canon 300 f/2.8. But in my real-world experience (I rented both for spotting and for a wedding) I found the opposite to be true. Might I have gotten a lesser copy of the Canon, and a great copy of the Sigma? It's entirely possible. But the Sigma performed better than the Canon, at less than half the price, so I bought it and haven't looked back for a second.

[fk6065]

Berger Brothers in Syosset is hosting a Tamron Day this Sunday the 13th. Great opportunity to try out this lens

[fk6065]

http://fredkopf.smugmug.com/photos/i-jWxS7hN/0/M/i-jWxS7hN-M.jpg