Tamron's G2 lenses have awesome stabilization!

Warkari

Leading Member
Messages
727
Solutions
1
Reaction score
469
I now own the G2 versions of both the 70-200 and 150-600 lenses. I have previously owned the 150-600 G1.

The VC on the G2 versions is simply awesome. I can take pictures at speeds at or less than 1/10s.

All these images were taken handheld while standing without any support. I fired a burst and the ratio rate of pretty sharp photos is over 80%. With a 600mm lens on D500, I am shooting effective 900mm at 1/10s and still getting a sharp picture. Love that VC

Amit

Tamron 70-200 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 200mm (300mm effective) at 1/6s from about 8 feet away

Tamron 70-200 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 200mm (300mm effective) at 1/6s from about 8 feet away

Tamron 150-600 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 600mm (900mm effective) at 1/10s from 8 feet away

Tamron 150-600 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 600mm (900mm effective) at 1/10s from 8 feet away

Tamron 150-600 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 600mm (900mm effective) at 1/10s from 85 feet away

Tamron 150-600 G2 on Nikon D500, handheld 600mm (900mm effective) at 1/10s from 85 feet away

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/warkari/
 
Last edited:
Hi Amit,

Those shots look pretty good. From some testing I did myself, I found the Tamron G2 VC to be way better than Sigma's (on 100-400) but not quite as good as Nikon's (on 200-500 and 300 PF).

This is harder to test than you think, though, since you can always get a lucky shot that is sharp at very slow speeds, even if the VR is not so great. The only way I know to test it systematically is by shooting a large number, so 20+ shots, and then counting how many of them are tack sharp. My definition is 'If more than half of the shots are still good, I'd consider that acceptable'.

Are the shots you shared the best out of many attempts? Any insights into at what speed you get a majority of keepers?

Best, Lothar
 
Hi Amit,

Those shots look pretty good. From some testing I did myself, I found the Tamron G2 VC to be way better than Sigma's (on 100-400) but not quite as good as Nikon's (on 200-500 and 300 PF).

This is harder to test than you think, though, since you can always get a lucky shot that is sharp at very slow speeds, even if the VR is not so great. The only way I know to test it systematically is by shooting a large number, so 20+ shots, and then counting how many of them are tack sharp. My definition is 'If more than half of the shots are still good, I'd consider that acceptable'.

Are the shots you shared the best out of many attempts? Any insights into at what speed you get a majority of keepers?

Best, Lothar
Lothar,

I was shooting a burst and then checking keepers. For the 150-600 G2, I found that I got 4/5 in one burst acceptably sharp and 2/3 in another burst for the 8 feet test. At 85 feet, I got 4/5 sharp. For the 70-200 G2, I got 4/4 sharp at 8 feet.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post that I was using Mode 3. Mode 3 gives more keepers than Mode 1. In Mode 3, the viewfinder may appear very unstable when first trying to get focus, but when you start shooting the viewfinder image becomes stable throughout the burst.

Amit
 
Thanks, Amit.
 
Hi Amit,

Those shots look pretty good. From some testing I did myself, I found the Tamron G2 VC to be way better than Sigma's (on 100-400) but not quite as good as Nikon's (on 200-500 and 300 PF).

This is harder to test than you think, though, since you can always get a lucky shot that is sharp at very slow speeds, even if the VR is not so great. The only way I know to test it systematically is by shooting a large number, so 20+ shots, and then counting how many of them are tack sharp. My definition is 'If more than half of the shots are still good, I'd consider that acceptable'.

Are the shots you shared the best out of many attempts? Any insights into at what speed you get a majority of keepers?

Best, Lothar
I agree with this. My G2 70-200mm has impressive VR, but noticeably not as good at the Nikon 200-500mm. Just my experience.

It does make me wonder how good some of the glass is that I am too scared to even try!
 
Hi Amit,

Those shots look pretty good. From some testing I did myself, I found the Tamron G2 VC to be way better than Sigma's (on 100-400) but not quite as good as Nikon's (on 200-500 and 300 PF).

This is harder to test than you think, though, since you can always get a lucky shot that is sharp at very slow speeds, even if the VR is not so great. The only way I know to test it systematically is by shooting a large number, so 20+ shots, and then counting how many of them are tack sharp. My definition is 'If more than half of the shots are still good, I'd consider that acceptable'.

Are the shots you shared the best out of many attempts? Any insights into at what speed you get a majority of keepers?

Best, Lothar
I agree with this. My G2 70-200mm has impressive VR, but noticeably not as good at the Nikon 200-500mm. Just my experience.

It does make me wonder how good some of the glass is that I am too scared to even try!
Xiao,

I think you should really compare the G2's Mode 3 stabilization to the Nikon 200-500, which is essentially like the G2's Mode 1. Mode 3 is really really better.

But, to be fair, speeds like 1/10s and 1/6s are really for bragging rights. Most subjects are themselves not going to be this steady for usable photos.

Amit
 
+1 on the G2 IS...I've had a 24-70 G2 for a handful of months now and have gotten a number of good shots at 1/3s and a few at 1/2s and even 2 decent ones at 1s by bracing my elbows on a concrete mailbox and the camera against my face. When I compared it to the Sigma 24-70 Art the Tamron seemed to have about 1 full stop better IS.
 
+1 on the G2 IS...I've had a 24-70 G2 for a handful of months now and have gotten a number of good shots at 1/3s and a few at 1/2s and even 2 decent ones at 1s by bracing my elbows on a concrete mailbox and the camera against my face. When I compared it to the Sigma 24-70 Art the Tamron seemed to have about 1 full stop better IS.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top