Tamron 150-600 - Opinions?

[JMaher]

I just received a Tamron 150-600 yesterday and I have having trouble making my mind up as to it's quality. Photo look good to my eye but lacking in the crisp detail and pop I am used to with the A7rII and the other lenses I own. The longest I usually shoot is 200 and i have a FE 70-200 and a Minolta 200 2.8 for that. This lens was a great deal and I would use it occasionally for wildlife shooting with friends.

For those who have one or used one what do you think of it?

I have attached a processed print from yesterday at 600MM. ISO 100 and on a Gitzo tripod with the 10 second timer. I have added contrast, clarity and sharpening to this. It's not that's its a bad capture but is it good enough to keep the lens? I may be expecting too much for the price and need to get over it

Pond - 150-600 Test by jmmtampa, on Flickr

 

[MikeEvangelist]

For those who have one or used one what do you think of it?

Shot looks very good to me. I don't think I ever got anything that sharp looking from the Tamron when I had it.

I had that lens and the Sony 70-400mm mkII. I kept the Sony for three reasons: it's a little bit faster, somewhat sharper (even scaling it's 400mm image to match the Tamron's reach at 600mm) and I consistently got better handheld results with the Sony. (My theory, which may be totally wrong, is that the Sony reports focus distance to the camera, which allows better control of the IBIS motion.)

(of course, the Sony is also much more expensive - I found a deal on a used one for $1600, but they are typically more)

 

[dmward]

Jim,
Looks good to me.
HERE are some galleries from a metro Chicago Country Club for people with fast cars. All of the pictures of moving cars were shot with a Tamron 150-600 mostly at the longer end of the range.

I was panning on a monopod. The panning caused more problems with poor images than the lens and camera. I had the camera set to slow burst mode with AFC. The first image in the sequence was always sharp, often subsequent images were not because of camera movement.

Its a focal length range I want for once-in-awhile stuff so can't justify a super lens.

That said, I'm happy with these results. They print fine up to 17x22. Probably would go 24x36 if necessary.

For smaller and web images there isn't an issue for me at all.

 

[JMaher]

Thanks Davis and Mike. I'll try it again as i may just have my expectations up too high. My best lens for telephoto is my Minolta 200 2.8 which may just be setting too high a standard.

Its only for occasional use for me as well.

Jim

 

[Jim DE]

Jim I use my 150-600 a lot but on my a77II for BIF where frame rate, speed of focus, and reach are important. I was a early adopter in the Sony mount and I have found as many others that if you keep the lens cranked back to 550mm and less with a aperture of 7.2 or more with high shutter speeds this lens will perform well. Fact is my 70-400G sits much of the time as the a77II and 150-600mm is my goto wildlife setup. I use the 70-400G and a99 for close in small bird type shots or in lower light situations.

Using the 150-600 does involve a bit of a learning curve but then she just get's it done!

 

[MikeEvangelist]

I'll try it again as i may just have my expectations up too high. My best lens for telephoto is my Minolta 200 2.8 which may just be setting too high a standard.

OMG, that's funny. That lens is in a completely different league regarding sharpness and 'pop'. The Tamron pales in comparison. But it's still a very nice lens for the money.