• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

tamron bigron 150-600mm

twinrider1 said:
How do you say free iPad in French?
Click to expand...
LOL.... iPad gratuit! sorry, did not mean to come off as spammy or anything like that. seriously though, awesome pics to check out there.

for example:

12403438185_6c949efcfb_h.jpg


edit: it may be that i just think they are awesome because they are way beyond my level .... 😛
 
I've heard mixed opinions. Professional opinions, based upon the technical abilities of the glass, offer much praise.

But it seems putting it into real life, there is a noticeable issue with autofocus capability.

However - you MUST expect that. Shooting in telephoto at f5 isn't exactly letting in a flood of light for the AF electronics to work with. That makes me worry about it - I'm not sure just WHERE I want to make my trade-offs when it comes time to purchase my first "prosumer" quality telephoto zoom glass. I will have to get something to work with at first to at least get any kind of material to sell or use professionally before I could even afford the more professional glass, but... what trade-offs will be easier to work around? Missing shots due to slow AF sounds terrible - but not being able to reach far enough or having a lens with bad distortion isn't desirable either.
 
destrekor said:
I've heard mixed opinions. Professional opinions, based upon the technical abilities of the glass, offer much praise.

But it seems putting it into real life, there is a noticeable issue with autofocus capability.

However - you MUST expect that. Shooting in telephoto at f5 isn't exactly letting in a flood of light for the AF electronics to work with. That makes me worry about it - I'm not sure just WHERE I want to make my trade-offs when it comes time to purchase my first "prosumer" quality telephoto zoom glass. I will have to get something to work with at first to at least get any kind of material to sell or use professionally before I could even afford the more professional glass, but... what trade-offs will be easier to work around? Missing shots due to slow AF sounds terrible - but not being able to reach far enough or having a lens with bad distortion isn't desirable either.
Click to expand...

this is some interesting insight that i hadn't really thought about, thank you for that.
 
zCypher said:
this is some interesting insight that i hadn't really thought about, thank you for that.
Click to expand...

After further research, it might not be as large of an issue as I had been led to believe. It might be respectfully fast.

It's not widely available yet, so I may not have read accurate opinions. One very difficult to follow review, from bad English from a Honk Kong reviewer, seems to suggest the autofocus is pretty fast.

I think it will take this getting into more hands to really get a good feel for the real-world autofocus performance. Is it fast enough to keep up with fast action or will it cause key shots to be missed? (at least, compared to other telephoto, likely zoom (non-prime) glass in the $1000-2000 bracket for honest comparisons)

Here's a technical review. At least based on their tests, it's most significant as an overall package when mounted on FF bodies.

It stands to reason the Nikon mount should be technically identical, at least I would hope so. As long as it keeps up, in terms of autofocus speed, this might truly be my next lens, though something better will probably be out by time I can afford it unless something changes. Considering some of the things I really want to focus on, having that range on a single body, with acceptable final image quality, would be a major boon.
 
I was contemplating the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport Sigma, but now the 150-600mm Tamron will be my soccer lens.
 
iGas said:
I was contemplating the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport Sigma, but now the 150-600mm Tamron will be my soccer lens.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity how are you making that jump? There's a relatively massive difference between a F2.8 lens and this one. Or did you not choose the first one based upon aperture? The Sigma is almost a $4000 lens and comparing the two is interesting.

One thing about the Tamron is that you are not going to be using AF with a TC. If you buy something like the 400mm F4 you can get to 800mm at F8. The Sigma is at 600mm at F5.6.
 
AViking said:
Out of curiosity how are you making that jump? There's a relatively massive difference between a F2.8 lens and this one. Or did you not choose the first one based upon aperture? The Sigma is almost a $4000 lens and comparing the two is interesting.

One thing about the Tamron is that you are not going to be using AF with a TC. If you buy something like the 400mm F4 you can get to 800mm at F8. The Sigma is at 600mm at F5.6.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a big different in price, and background separation between the 2 lens. However, the quality is roughly equal in term of sharpness (and I think AF will be similar), but the 150-600mm provide the critical focal length of 400-500mm that I need. A big concern for me is that the 150-600mm weight 30% less that will let me handheld it with out a mono pod.

I also looked at the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime, but is not as versatile as a zoom. The 300mm f2.8 prime is a bit out of my price range (for a weekend warrior), and it require a TC as well as not as versatile.

The Tamron is more than doable for my budget at $1K to try it out. And, I can always get rid of it fast for $800 to upgrade to the 120-300.
 
Last edited:
Well to go the other way consider that at F2.8 you can do astrophotography with that telephoto which is a nice bonus on top of the depth of field. It's also useful for low light sports events.

I'm going to assume you want to do birding or wildlife photography though.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of the sharpness numbers compared. At that price it would be a hell of a lens for a safari.
 
AViking said:
Well to go the other way consider that at F2.8 you can do astrophotography with that telephoto which is a nice bonus on top of the depth of field. It's also useful for low light sports events.

I'm going to assume you want to do birding or wildlife photography though.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of the sharpness numbers compared. At that price it would be a hell of a lens for a safari.
Click to expand...
A fast lens will be great for low light, but I don't need it that often for kids sporting events. At f5~6.3 I will need to crank the ISO up to 1000~6400 ISO for stop action shots which is doable on a 5D mkII (soccer season happened to be in raining season in my area).

Perhaps I will get into wildlife and birding, but that is something that I never got into even those I owned a 500mm mirror lens for several years in the past.
 
It seems the Nikon mount version of this will be on the market in a week or so.

Now I've got some serious considerations to do.

Also, let's go ahead and think about all sports and journalistic purposes for this comparison. Indoor or outdoor, basketball or soccer, racing, random journalism-style work... glass like this is going to be for focusing on portfolio work of that nature

Would I be losing significant sharpness, or otherwise throwing away the potential for more tack-sharp photos, by choosing the Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3, over, say, an older non-IS/VR, screw-drive Nikon AF 80-200 F2.8 coupled with a 1.7x or even 2x TC? My brain tells me I'll very much miss the extra range on the Tamron. But it's not just the overall range, but how useful the results will be.
Can we get photos of the 150-200mm range at F5 (or thereabout) that will be pretty damn close to the sharpness from the Nikon?

dxomark says the 150-600 basically outperforms Canon's 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L - but I'd expect the big-name 70-200 (or 80-200) lenses thoroughly outperform non-constant-aperture zooms with longer total range.

Is the 200-400 range of the 150-600 serviceable to the point that it's sharpness could still be good enough to earn money? Be it news print or selling online... ultimately, that's the main question: can this lens do enough good work to earn money? (if the eye and post-processing efforts are willing to cooperate in that goal, at least)

Obviously, as I build a portfolio, the potential for income can increase... and the end goal will be to afford much better glass over the long-haul. But ultimately, I just want to make sure I invest in the best tools I can afford at this point, in order to best serve those goals. I could wait forever and a day until I can afford a better telephoto, or I could get something that will be close enough, so long as close enough will suffice for everything but the top art galleries and nat geo.

The rest of my bag:
D600
Tokina 16-28mm F/2.8 Pro FX
Nikon 50mm F/1.8G AF-S
Nikon 85mm F/1.8G AF-S
 
It's still a new lens so it might take some time before it's available, but in your case it seems to me like it would be worthwhile to rent the lens for a little while to try it out and see if it fits your needs.
 
Fardringle said:
It's still a new lens so it might take some time before it's available, but in your case it seems to me like it would be worthwhile to rent the lens for a little while to try it out and see if it fits your needs.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm going to do.

I forgot about the rental option. I rented a 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II for when I went up to the Detroit Grand Prix last summer (and a 1.7x TC).
On that... I was prepared with gear for rain all weekend - it turned out to be dry... and sunny. Very sunny. I had no lotion, or hat. Ouch. D:
 
destrekor said:
Would I be losing significant sharpness, or otherwise throwing away the potential for more tack-sharp photos, by choosing the Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3, over, say, an older non-IS/VR, screw-drive Nikon AF 80-200 F2.8 coupled with a 1.7x or even 2x TC? My brain tells me I'll very much miss the extra range on the Tamron. But it's not just the overall range, but how useful the results will be.
Can we get photos of the 150-200mm range at F5 (or thereabout) that will be pretty damn close to the sharpness from the Nikon?
Click to expand...
AF with the Nikkor 70-200mm VR II + 1.7X TC will be considerably slower (older lenses would suffer much more AF speed lost), and highly likely that it will be slower AF than the 150-600mm Tamron.

And, the IQ of the Tamron at 300~400mm absolutely out shine the Nikkor 70-200mm +1.7x & 2x TCs, even when you close down the Nikkor to F/8 vs. the Tamron wide open at F/5.6.

Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality vs. Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8G AF-S VR II
 
Last edited:
iGas said:
AF with the Nikkor 70-200mm VR II + 1.7X TC will be considerably slower (older lenses would suffer much more AF speed lost), and highly likely that it will be slower AF than the 150-600mm Tamron.

And, the IQ of the Tamron at 300~400mm absolutely out shine the Nikkor 70-200mm +1.7x & 2x TCs, even when you close down the Nikkor to F/8 vs. the Tamron wide open at F/5.6.

Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens Image Quality vs. Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8G AF-S VR II
Click to expand...

Hmm, you have given me a new website/tool. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top