Will Tamron set the bar for a budget wildlife lens?

[Fox_Racing_Guy]

Did they push back the release of this lens for the U.S.A.? I thought it was suppose to be on the market by now but both B&H, Adorama are not showing any release date now..

 

[480sparky40 39]

AFAIK, it's out now in a Canon mount. Nikoners must wait until the end of March.

I guess they save the best for last.

 

[ruifo]

Here the link for several reviews, already:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...s-new-tamron-150-600mm-f-5-6-3-poping-up.html

Have a look!!

 

[JacaRanda]

So this beast arrived yesterday. Unfortunately, it was after work and I had no time to use it where I normally would.

The weight difference between the Tamron and the Canon 300f4 did not seem significant. However, mounted on the camera (60d gripped w/2 batteries) was damn near a shocker. It is a beast.

There will not be any extended periods of handhelds shots. I don't think I will need a gimbal head yet (my $150 SLIK tripods held it well - balanced). I will be getting a better/sturdier monopod.

IMO it focused fast on subjects that where somewhat near the same distance. However, it struggled and sometimes failed to focus on subjects that were not particularly close in distance. I had to use fulltime manual focus to get in the ballpark (my 300f4 rarely had this issue). I hope that makes sense and I will test and give more precise distance information later today.

Sorry no pics yet and hopefully these quicky first impressions don't confuse anyone.

 

[robbins.photo]

So this beast arrived yesterday. Unfortunately, it was after work and I had no time to use it where I normally would.

The weight difference between the Tamron and the Canon 300f4 did not seem significant. However, mounted on the camera (60d gripped w/2 batteries) was damn near a shocker. It is a beast.

There will not be any extended periods of handhelds shots. I don't think I will need a gimbal head yet (my $150 SLIK tripods held it well - balanced). I will be getting a better/sturdier monopod.

IMO it focused fast on subjects that where somewhat near the same distance. However, it struggled and sometimes failed to focus on subjects that were not particularly close in distance. I had to use fulltime manual focus to get in the ballpark (my 300f4 rarely had this issue). I hope that makes sense and I will test and give more precise distance information later today.

Sorry no pics yet and hopefully these quicky first impressions don't confuse anyone.

Ok, so I'm confused here. Is this a me likey? Me no likey? Lol

 

[Derrel]

IMO it focused fast on subjects that where somewhat near the same distance. However, it struggled and sometimes failed to focus on subjects that were not particularly close in distance. I had to use fulltime manual focus to get in the ballpark (my 300f4 rarely had this issue). I hope that makes sense and I will test and give more precise distance information later today.

The bolded part of your post makes total sense to me; the lens is "slow", aperture-wise...on MANY cameras, f/5.6 is the minimum aperture that is specified by camera makers as being able to provide autofocus; only the VERY-newest Nikon models have AF modules specified to work at f/8...so...a lens that is only an f/6.3 throughout a part of its zoom range might very well have some "issues" at achieving AF from what I call "a cold start"...but given "a running start", or "pre-focused", the lens will AF well.

Same thing is true with the Nikon 80-400 AF-D lens...it can sometimes not do a good job of initiating autofocus if the focused distance and the subject distance are widely separated...same thing with the 70-300 AF-S VR-G Nikon lens...if the focus distance is wayyyyy off from the subject, sometimes that lens will just do NOTHING, until the user grabs the focusing ring and initiates AF by manually turning the ring!

Of course, "after work" might mean the light level was low, or the light was "flat" and low-contrast; with slow lenses, and f/5~6.3 is slow, low-contrast, flat light, or flat, low-contrast subject matter can also affect AF performance, so your one-afternoon, first-experience report ought not be considered definitive in any way.

 

[robbins.photo]

IMO it focused fast on subjects that where somewhat near the same distance. However, it struggled and sometimes failed to focus on subjects that were not particularly close in distance. I had to use fulltime manual focus to get in the ballpark (my 300f4 rarely had this issue). I hope that makes sense and I will test and give more precise distance information later today.

The bolded part of your post makes total sense to me; the lens is "slow", aperture-wise...on MANY cameras, f/5.6 is the minimum aperture that is specified by camera makers as being able to provide autofocus; only the VERY-newest Nikon models have AF modules specified to work at f/8...so...a lens that is only an f/6.3 throughout a part of its zoom range might very well have some "issues" at achieving AF from what I call "a cold start"...but given "a running start", or "pre-focused", the lens will AF well.

Same thing is true with the Nikon 80-400 AF-D lens...it can sometimes not do a good job of initiating autofocus if the focused distance and the subject distance are widely separated...same thing with the 70-300 AF-S VR-G Nikon lens...if the focus distance is wayyyyy off from the subject, sometimes that lens will just do NOTHING, until the user grabs the focusing ring and initiates AF by manually turning the ring!

Of course, "after work" might mean the light level was low, or the light was "flat" and low-contrast; with slow lenses, and f/5~6.3 is slow, low-contrast, flat light, or flat, low-contrast subject matter can also affect AF performance, so your one-afternoon, first-experience report ought not be considered definitive in any way.

Ok, but the real question here is buying one going to get me closer to my goal of having my TPF status upgraded to "self congratulatory mocker" - lol

 

[Derrel]

Ok, but the real question here is buying one going to get me closer to my goal of having my TPF status upgraded to "self congratulatory mocker" - lol

"There's an epaulette for that."

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, but the real question here is buying one going to get me closer to my goal of having my TPF status upgraded to "self congratulatory mocker" - lol

"There's an epaulette for that."

Dude.. seriously!!!! OMG - finally!!! A chance to break those old Michael Jackson coats out of the closet. Oh that so ROCKS!!!

Lol

 

[JacaRanda]

Mr. Rob Benz, I gave you a like on your comment. Can you figure out if that means I likey??? I will really be able to tell once I point it at some colorful birds.

Mr. D-sizzle, my quick little test was in plenty of nice bright sunlight. Thank you for clearing the issue up though. I would hate to send it back after just one day (45 minutes).

More to come hopefully in a few hours!

 

[hamlet]

If i ever get an interest in photographing non-hamster animals that fly i'll think about this lens. Looks good.

 

[JacaRanda]

If i ever get an interest in photographing non-hamster animals that fly i'll think about this lens. Looks good.

Hey, at least you have interest at all again....I hope

 

[hamlet]

If i ever get an interest in photographing non-hamster animals that fly i'll think about this lens. Looks good.

Hey, at least you have interest at all again....I hope

I've found new interests. Right now i'm focusing on very old structures, i hope to get some nice lighting so i can shoot the picture i've got in my mind, just gotta wait for better weather.

 

[HL45]

I'm really interested in this lens. I looked at the flickr page and the images look fine to me. Just have to ask if anyone has used the lens with a canon 1.4x TC?
My current setup MarkIII 100-400+1.4x = 560mm@f/8 w/center focus point. So I assume 840mm@f/9?? w/center focus point? with the new lens.

 

[Braineack]

My current setup MarkIII 100-400+1.4x = 560mm@f/8 w/center focus point. So I assume 840mm@f/9?? w/center focus point? with the new lens.

or 600mm @ f/6.3 w/ all focus points!