Super Zoom? Tamron SP 150-600mm F5.0-6.3 Di VC USD Field Test

Something I find missing in most reviews of longer lenses is how well they stack up IQ-wise against a shorter reach lens combined with cropping or an extender to get a similar field of view. For instance, the Tamron 150-600mm versus the Canon 100-400mm IS II (both on a 5D Mk III in my case). The 100-400mm is mentioned in the review but not in terms of IQ at an effective 600mm. How much advantage (other than cost) does the Tamron 150-600mm used at 600mm have over cropped images from the Canon 100-400mm II?

I have read a lot of different opinions and even personally talked to a few people who have the Tamron 150-600mm lens. The pro reviewers tend to be a lot less polarized than amateur folks like me. My experience has been pretty good with this lens. I usually can tell a bit of difference between 500mm and 600mm but I have to crop in to see it. I have even done some astro photography with it. It is not as good for shooting planets and stars as my apochromatic refractor it still does a decent job with very little chromatic distortion. I have a Sony aps-c camera and this Tamron lens seems to work well with it. My next most powerful zoom is a 70 to 200 f/2.8 so 600mm has been a big adjustment for me. For me this lens has been worth every penny.

I got one before going to Kruger Park, ZA. Initial impressions: The lense is good whereas my skills are not. Most DSLR photographers had either this Tamron or the Canon 100-400. Which says something about how well it meets its target audience.

You get good pictures with this lens. True, the AF on 5D3 could be better and often needs manual override. True, at 600mm somebody jumping in the car ruins your shots. And you have to practice.

What would be the alternative in this price range?

I purchased a Tamron 150-600mm last February and used it with both a Nikon D800 and a Nikon D4. Not long ago, I upgraded to a Nikon D810. My Nikon dealer suggested I try a Tamron. I was hesitant at first, especially knowing how satisfied I was with my Nikon lenses.

I live in Jackson Hole, WY and go out almost every day of the week and take photos of the wildlife and scenery in the area. Each day, I post a few of them on my blog at www.bestofthetetons.com. Each month has a completely new set of photos from that month.

Even though I own a Nikon 200-400mm lens, I've had the Tamron 150-600mm on either of my two bodies almost exclusively since February.

Here's a link to the October Daily Updates and Photos: http://www.bestofthetetons.com/2015/10/01/october-2015-daily-updates-photos-for-grand-teton-national-park-jh-a-monthly-journal/

The same page has a set of links for all of the previous months.

You might enjoy seeing the lens in action. Mike Jackson

IM not impressed..... this lens has reach but as soft as lasts weeks over ripe peach. I'm not that fussy but am amazed at so many positive posts... This lens truly represents, you get what you pay for. I was considering this lens at one point, but every time I see the finished product, it tells me it is 1100 dollars poorly spent. This lens is more about bragging rights about owning a 600 mm lens , than actual sharp photographs.
BTW, I have no axe to grind with Tamron, I own several of their lenses.

So here are some questions and answers:
Is the Sigma for about twice the money and a lot heavier, a better lens? Well, I should hope so!
Will a larger heavier lens with less range but faster, and costing multiple times more, aimed for a specific purpose, do better for it's more focused purpose?
I appreciated the article and the pictures, because I could see the author, even a talented experienced shooter, was struggling with clarity issues at the long end of this lens. But from other pictures elsewhere, and a very few great shots of my own, I know the clarity is there...just not quite so easy to achieve.
I think maybe what might be really useful is the development of a list of thoughtful workarounds. Maybe even a short course on just the mechanical aspects of shooting long. Sort of a work flow for long shooting. A quick guide to getting us from fuzzy toward tack sharp at 600.

I bought this lens as my first venture into long telephoto shooting. It's good for that. Sometimes I can get really sharp images at 600 mm. I got a tack sharp moon shot. But mostly the lens has been teaching me the ups and downs of long tele shooting... using manual focus, countering camera movement, shutter shake, how to use the IS, best ranges for aperture and speed...all the things you have to get better about when you go long. I expect that as I get better with it, my pictures will get better. When I see the best of the pictures taken by others with this lens, I can see the lens is capable of superb images, and I think I will be able to achieve the same results...as I learn to work with it.
If ultimately I move on to another lens that has some particular better characteristics I feel I need... I'll be thanking Tamron every step of the way for making my entry into this field easier with such an economical but still incredibly versatile lens.

I used the Tamron extensively for a year before selling it in favour of the Canon 100-400mm II. On the one hand, this review doesn't do the Tamron 150-600mm justice as I have to agree with the comments that the reviewer has chosen sub-optimal settings for both the lens and the cameras, and the quality of his photos is poor compared with other published ones and even my own. For a start, the Tamron should be used at f/8 at 600mm (as well as below) where the images are much sharper than at f/6.3 and the iso values are rather high. On the other hand, although the lens is good on FF its IQ is weak on APS-C, which is much less tolerant to the imperfections of the lens. The VC s not 4 stops at 600mm but closer to the 3 measured by lenstip. I liked the Tamron and would recommend it. But, for Canon users the 100-400mm II is a far more expensive but better option in terms of image quality, even when using the 1.4xTC. And the one copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C I tried was better.

I have used this lens and love it, but I'm sorry, the photos in this article reflect rather poorly on the photographer. The composition, color and exposure of all of them are not very good

I don't see the point of posting the images on here. I'm sure they were much better than they appear on my screen. If that is how bad they really were I can't really see how it was the fault of the lens because I have seen superb images on Flickr with it. There just has to be a problem with DPR uploads. These look soft and lack contrast. I could get better shots of a bear with my mobile phone than that!

Tamron 150-600 .. the dust simulator ??

I've had great birding results with this lens on my D810 and D7200 (see gallery.) Found the image quality to be about equal to my 1st generation Canon 100-400 L lens. Did find it worked better to turn IS off at over 1/400 shutter speed. Get slightly better results with higher shutter speeds and IS off in general. Great lens value.

I used this lens on a Canon 5D MkIII in southern Africa for 7 weeks last summer and was very pleased with the sharpness of the results.

Since then I sold both the lens and camera and got a 7D Mk II and the 100-400 Mk II. The obvious-to-me comparison the review failed to make is to a Canon 100-400 Mk II on a 7D Mk II with a 1.4X TC III attached. The new Canon 100-400 Mk II was designed specifically to work with teleconverters and the resulting image is better quality than the old 100-400 mm lens.

The 7D Mk II + 100-400 Mk II +1.4X TC differs from the Tamron lens on a 7D Mk II in a couple of ways. (1) in the Canon setup focus is limited to a central spot, (2) maximum zoom is 560mm vs. 600mm and (3) maximum aperture is f/8 rather than f/6.3, and (4) price. However, the Canon is much more rugged, weatherproof, and much faster focusing.

I use this lens now on the Nikon 750 and D7200 and and very impressed with the results. No focus hunting like described in this review so i wonder if that is more a Canon compatibility issue? For the price the lens is nothing short of amazing!

...
I worked with both Sigma zooms too and have the Canon 5,6/100-400 mm L IS II – for me the clear winners are the Tamron and the Sigma Contemporary.
The Sigma Sport is far to heavy, it has even heavy loss of light and vignetting and isn’t optical any better then the cheaper zooms.
The Canon 100-400 mm is short and not bad with 1,4x extender and it has the best/most powerful image stabilization. If you can get close or have bigger, less dangerous animals – it is the best choice.
But still – there should be a 4,0/50-300 mm L IS lens – lighter and faster.
The industry thinks a 2,8/70-200 mm with extender should be enough – it is not! Animals always move around and in most situations you can’t move, so a zoom from 150 mm is problematic, especially at a crop camera.

The Tamron has a little dust problem it is not a perfect safari-lens.
But with 5-7 years warranty - Canon just 1 year - the Tamron is a clear winner.

Looks like you are using a Native Watercraft Kayak, very sable! Have had mine for years, and venture out with thousands of dollars of photo equipment without worry.

Good, practical review and very consistent with my own experience. I am VERY impressed that you: 1. Took this equipment into a kayak without accidentally testing its weather sealing in a flip-over, 2. Did so with a large, territorial, feeding bear nearby. My conclusions are: 1. You are much more skilled in a kayak than I am, 2. Much braver than I am, and 3. The Tamron really is a pretty good consumer lens and good enough for some professional use. I really identify with the agility/small size/lightness of the lens, as my main sports long gun is the 400mm f2.8 IS boat anchor. This agility makes it fun to shoot and encourages shots from new vantage points.

I want this lens for my Sony A7 , are they ever gonna do it ?
no adapters just straight fit with all the instant connections and full frame without crop or vignetting

Thanks for this review. As a photographer these field reports resonate with me more than lab tests.

I used the Tamron 150-600 on a Canon 5D MkIII for 6 weeks in southern Africa last summer. It worked very well, and it is hard for me to distinguish by quality which photos I took with that combination, and which I took with the Canon 7D + 500mm f/4 + 1.4X TC.

I sold my Tamron lens and 5D Mk III, and got in its place a Canon 7D Mk II and 100-400 Mk II. I have been exploring using the 1.4X TC with that combination and have been very pleasantly surprised with the image quality (which had been dreadful with the old 7D + 100-400). The 7D Mk II will still autofocus with the teleconverter, but you are limited to the central spot, whereas on the Tamron you have access to all the autofocus points. I like my Canon combination for durability, weather resistance and speed of focus. But this is all good gear.

A big agree from me that technique often/generally ends up being a much bigger factor in image quality at these extreme focal lengths than which of these lenses you have on your camera.

Does the author understand the meaning of the term "super zoom"? Not 4x range!

First, I wish you had written the 7DII review. It was so refreshing to see some positive reading points on a camera your colleagues considered pretty disappointing.

Just based on your sense of this lens and your experience, do you have any gut feel about this lens vis-a-vis a Canon 100-400 II with a Canon 1.4x III extender, which puts their long end reasonably close to each other? Obviously the Canon optics are going to be better, but the 1.4x is going to soften that somewhat, and impact its speed. If the Tamron was 95% as good vs. 75% as good, that could influence a buying decision.

Thanks for a thorough and insightful review -- and some incredible shots.

I can always use my 200mm and get closer to the subject... then get mauled by the bear.

A true test would be to take 15 photos of the same bear from the same distance with 15 different telephoto lenses/cameras and see which comes out the best overall.