First saw this lens at the Birmingham show early 2015 with a friend, we tested it on her 5dmk111.... very impressed with shots taken indoors that she bought it there and then with a 5yr warranty being the clinch to the deal....
I then purchased one but in Canada (better rate of exchange) when over there for holiday that April... (but be warned it comes with just 1yr warranty though, which you only find out when registering it....non EU country!!!)
Use mine on 5dmk111 & 5DS for wildlife shots......I have found for me personally that F8 is the sweet spot at around 250-350mm range ...very sharp.
OS works well & happy to use hand held for short periods ...have captured shots at 1/200 @ 300mm with NO BLUR hand held....great :)
Simply for the money....this is a great lens which neither my friend or I have ever regretted purchasing...

I picked this lens up a few months ago to use in my Moose Photography workshops and as a wildlife lens. This lens is light enough to shoot hand-held, and for the focal length range covered, it's quite usable shooting hand-held. I do, however, recommend using a monopod at least, or if practical a tripod.

The autofocus is reasonably fast and accurate, the lens doesn't make noticable noise when focusing or stabalizer kicks in.

Primairly, this lens sits on a full frame Canon body (6D, 5D MIII), but I've used it on the Canon 7D.

My preference is to use this lens on the full frame body. Images are plenty sharp and I'm getting a good keeper rate at all focal lengths.

Using this lens on the crop sensor 7D is a little less rewarding. The 1.6x focal length multiplier of the crop body makes it a bit more difficult to hand-hold and results aren't as good.

I've used it in below freezing temps, rain, snow, sunshine and it's never had a problem functioning properly.

Why this lens was not tested at 500mm? ( I see 400 mm and then 600 mm in the chart).

I bought mine about 6 weeks ago. The first one just was not sharp, and I sent it back after two days. The second one was very sharp. I have used it on my Nikon D700, and also on a D5300. I have been getting very nice results even at the 600mm setting. I shot many eagle photos this past week, and am still editing. But my initial reaction is that I find the images stunning. I owned a Sigma 150-500 that I recently sold (to help fund this purchase.) That lens was always a disappointment. My images with the D5300 have been so sharp that I am not using it much on the D700, where the image quality is still superb. I like the additional reach with the D5300. I am going to sell my older Nikon 500 P F4 lens.

I am new here so ....greetings to all.
The messages are very confusing and probably from people who just shoot brick walls and charts just to test the sharpness of the images.
I just unpacked the Tamron 150-600 after a very positive experience with the 15-30 little brother.
The lens is very sharp, the stabilizing works and considering its price, a great deal.
Yes, some images will be better than others but the lens will do well what you want it to do. Distant images will be hazy due to the whatever humidity on the air but I am very happy with the results.
If anybody wants sample images, I will be happy to post some

I have only had my Tamron 150-600 2 weeks after having waited for 3 months for delivery & honestly I could not be happier with it, I use it on my D7100 for birding & taking Cricket shots of bowlers ,batsmen etc, IMHO for just over a $1200 (Au) with a range up to 600mm this is an absolute bargain, whilst it will never match a prime 600mm (it also does not cost 10,11 or 12 thousand dollars) it provides an extremely useful FL range & even at 600mm wide open at 6.3 provides very good quality images, from some of the comments I just might have a very good copy? Focusing is also fine on the D7100 thanks to it's very good 51 point focusing system, I love it!

I recently bought one of these lenses in order to go to the Kruger Park. I really enjoyed the 600mm of magnification it was great and I got some magnificent shots. In my decision to buy I was confronted with past experience with Tamron which was over 30 years ago. This was not good. The price of the lens was good but the Quality was not. Back then I decided not to buy Tamron again. I spoke to several people in the industry and my conclusion was that Tamron had improved their offering and was on a par with other third party manufactures. On my return from the Kruger Park I cleaned up my lens only to find dust behind the first element, disappointedly i took the lens back to the supplier only to find that several other photographers had had the same problem. They offered to send the lens in to the agent which was great except that it would cost about $75 and the grantee does not cover dust or moisture. Disappointedly I realised that I was right in my estimation of Tamron 30 year ago.

Can someone please explain why the lens has great sharpness with FF and almost blind with crop cams ?
so if I buy this lens, is it a must to use it with FF ?

after seeing the shots Kristofer Rowe took with the Tamron 150-600mm i did ordered the Tamron today.

ok, so it`s sharp. I have mine for Nikon on the D4s. Problem is, now the autofocus have begun to freeze up, and checking into it, i`m not the only one having the problem. So i call the service-guy and he could tell me that this had been an issue on more lenses than just mine. So i`m fixing my lens now, guarantee-repair, and selling it. I think i will get the new nikkor 80-400. Loosing some reach, but gaining some quality.

I hired one this weekend, with a view to purchase at a later date, and I am very impressed with the 'test shots' I have taken so far. Amazing lens.

Dear friends,

I hope the following may be of some value. Mounted to Sony A900; 850 as well as A77 bodies, I initially experienced very, very frustrating problems with sharpness at 400-600mm - especially at long exposures. 2 weeks ago (out of desperation) I bought a Manfrotto MVA513WK Sympla support, and strapped the lens barrel onto the support. The results are truly amazing. Almost every shot - including exposures exceeding 3 minutes - are now pin sharp. I reckon that the real issue is that the barrel (when extended) is simply too long to be stable - so even the slightest vibrations introduce distortions.

I have a pretty hard time believing this in real life, quite honestly. I think the Nikon 80-400 G stomps it in just about every way. I got to do a nice comparison and purchased the Nikon. It's sharper at every common focal length and the AF was much better (at least on my D7100) It was faster with little hunting and much sharper wide open at 400mm.. Note that I do handhold the Nikon most of the time but when comparing these too, I used a Gitzo tripod with a Wimberley Gimbal. I have been shooting long lenses including some pro lenses like the 200-400 F4 and 500mm F4.
Of course, the Nikon costs a lot more, comes with a crappy tripod collar and only has a 400mm reach. Still, I greatly prefer it.

In general, I have not had any luck with Tamron lenses. I am now buying Sigma lenses like the 18-35 and 50mm Art prime instead of Nikon because I think they are better. After testing a couple of Tamrons I have always returned them. Maybe I am consistently unlucky with the samples.

The swedish photomagazine FOTO has published an extensive review on their website, with MTF data measured on the lens itself, without the need of a camera being involved in the process. They do it in cooperation with Hasselblad who use an advanced optical bench. Seems to correspond rather well with DP Reviews findings. FOTO is rather pleased with the quality. There are also some actual high resolution pictures. The text is in swedish but Google Translation makes most of it understandable. And the diagrams speak for them selves.
http://tidningenfoto.se/test-av-tamron-sp-150-6005-63-di-vc-usd-en-riktig-superzoom/

Yesterday we had the chance to test this Tammy in a shop in Frankfurt (Germany) both with our Canon and Nikon gear and bought a copy with Nikon mount. AF performance with the Nikon (D300S) was quite good out of the box. With our Canons it was a mixed bag. AF performance of the test copy was overall okay with our 7D, but not with our 5D3.

Checking the test images I noticed that the lens was heavily backfocusing on the long end with the 5D3 and would have needed severe microadjustment. I remembered that Bryan Carnathan reported the same issue in his great review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-Di-VC-USD-Lens.aspx

Overall I agree with Brian's findings after this brief test. The Tammy is no match for a good prime supertele on the long end, but delivers surprisingly decent IQ in the 200-500 mm range. One big plus over the Bigma: f = 5.6 already @ 400 mm available. If AF issues can be solved it is definitely a great travel zoom for wildlife shooters.

I have another perspective, to help understand if the lens performs better on DX or FX - IF WE REQUIRE EXTRA REACH, i.e. 1.5x crop mode.

For example, Nikon D610 has 10MP in 1.5x crop mode. You upsize this image to 24 mp and compare the upsized image against 24mp image from D7100 (both images from Tamron 150-600 with same exposure and same conditions)

If this test shows that the upsized iamge is better than the image from D7100, then only one can conclude that the lens performs better on FX FOR TELEPHOTO applications.

I've had the 150-600mm for about a month and use it on a d610. It is exactly what I needed to capture the big birds along the lower Ct. river. I've yet to get a good eagle shot, but with this lens my hopes are high. I have posted my first pictures here: http://www.crowsandsquirrelsarefree.com/new-lens-test-pictures.html
I am a complete novice with a long lens and have had incredible luck for the first couple of times out. Especially so with birds in flight and all hand held.
And yes, the moon shot is hand held!

I had new Nikon 80-400
300mm f4 beated it
i have Canon 400mm 5.6 also
d800 with 300mm f4 is almost same as 5dm3 with 400mm 5.6
i prefer 300mm f4 cos it has wider angele and exactly same details as 400 5.6 offers
i wait for Canon 36-50Mp camera to get full performance for 400mm 5.6
no slow zoom can compete with 400m or 300mm prime lens in shrapness

u may compare tamron 150-600 and canon 400mm 5.6, canon wins easily
and there is dimension and weight that is very important
its joy to use 400mm 5.6 u can follow all birds in flight
try it with 150-600mm zoom
no zooms!

there is also no point for teleconverters cos even 1.4 makes image so much softer that its no way better than it wud be without converter
i know i have tested all
only way to go is prime lense
i dont have 500, 600 and 800mm prime, cos i dont want to spend money for that
i better invest it elswhere
and be happy with 400 5.6

For all birders and wildlife photographers: in Scandinavia, after shooting atlantic puffins, I had a brief talk with a guy using the Tammy with an EOS 7D. Overall he was quite happy with this lens and its IQ, in particular in terms of price-performance ratio. The only drawback is AF performance. He said that he had completely given up to try birds in flight with this lens. I have to add that even with a Canon supertele it is a real challenge to get a good BIF pic of those speedy little puffings (they fly with about 80 km/h), but it is not impossible.

So the AF performance of the Tammy is a limitation at least birders should be aware of. Otherwise this lens is so attractive that I personally still think about getting me a copy for those trips I can't take my 500 mm prime with me/ I want zoom flexibility.

I have had the Tamron 150-600 for 3 months and taken over 3000 photos with it. I initially had some softness issues but changing to a Canon 70D and using the AF micro-adjustment to adjust for both the wide and long range ends of the lens, essentially eliminated the softness issue.

I know put most of my focus issues down to operator error and are extremely happy with the images I get.

If only Tamron would make this for the FE mount instead. That would be awesome.

A bit of exploring DxO's results shows it outperforming (slightly) Canon's old 100-400mm L, and being outperformed (slightly) by Nikon's new (and horribly expensive) 80-400mm. Seems like a very good deal to me.

I am a bit puzzled that the sharpness seems to decline so much between 400mm and 600mm on DX but hardly at all on FX. I guess it has to do with the pixel density of the DX camera used (presumably something with a 24MP Sony sensor in it).