I recently made a big investment in my wildlife photography gear. Big both in size and dollars! It’s a Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens.
Until now, my wildlife lenses included a 70-300mm and a 400mm lens, both of which are great, but I really wanted that extra reach that a 600mm lens would give me.
I was so excited about this new addition, but unfortunately, the first Tamron 150-600 I received was just awful! There seemed to be nothing I could do to get a sharp shot. I even brought out my LensCal Calibration System and attempted to calibrate the lens for front or back focussing issues, but the lens was so far out of whack it was impossible.
I sent it back for a warranty replacement.
Now I’ve received the replacement, used it for a few days, and in the video below I’ll show you some comparisons between the photos I get with my Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens and the Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens.
Click here to watch the video larger on YouTube.
My Methodology
I used my Canon 7D Mark II camera on a tripod with a gimbal head. I used the same settings in the camera as much as possible only varying the shutter speed and ISO depending on how fast the animals were moving and the lighting situation.
I set up my tripod outside the RV where we are backed onto an estuary, so all the photos were made with the camera and the animals in the same location. Many of the comparison photos have the birds landing on the exact same trees.
So I basically just used the two lenses in the field the way I normally would and compared the results.
I also cropped all of the Canon photos so the birds are the same size in the frame. This isn’t very fair to the Canon lens, but my purpose was to see if I actually get any benefit from the longer focal length or if I am just as good off to stick with the 400mm lens and crop to get the composition I want.
The Results
I found that I still had significant focus problems with the new Tamron lens. It doesn’t seem to be front or back focussing like the first one though. However, it has difficulty focussing on subjects that are a long distance away and it simply will not lock focus on subjects that are moving.
I had the image stabilization off on the Tamron lens for two reasons. First, the Canon lens doesn’t have image stabilization and second, I was using very fast shutter speeds so image stabilization should not be required. However, I did try it with all 3 image stabilization modes on the Tamron and it did not change the results.
In one comparison you will see in the video, I calculated a 20% in focus rate with the Tamron lens and a 93% in focus rate with the Canon lens in the same scenario.
Very disappointing! This lens too is going back.
I have heard from people who have this Tamron lens and say they get good results, and I’ve read positive reviews on the lens with example photos. However, in many of these cases, I have to say that the photos are not sharp! I feel that if the lens does not give me photos as sharp as what I can get with the Canon, then it is not worth it. Almost sharp is not good enough.
However, I do have one photographer friend who uses this lens with excellent results and does in fact get very sharp images.
My feeling based on my own experience with two copies of this lens, and the comments I’ve received from other photographers, is that the quality of the Tamron 150-600mm lenses is not consistent.
My Recommendation
This experiment has reinforced how very good the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens is! The lens is small for a 400, light enough to hand hold, and gives tack sharp images. So if you are looking for a good lens for wildlife photography, that is the one I recommend.
View the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens on Amazon.
View the Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens on B&H Photo.
You can check out my full list of recommended gear for wildlife photography here.
Here are some recent photos I made with the beautiful Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens in the estuary behind our campsite in Campbell River, British Columbia:
*Note, if you make a purchase using the links on this page, I will earn a commission at no cost to you. So, thanks! Read my disclosure.
Wow. What a revelation! Have always been “suspicious” about Tamron. Wondering if the new Sony 200 x 600 on your little back up camera would be a good option?
I’ve been wondering about that too. The only thing is that I’m still using the Sony A6000. And my intermediate focal length lens is the 55-210 which I think is good for landscapes, but I don’t know if it would give me the results I want for wildlife. So to switch to Sony for wildlife, I might be looking at 2 lenses and a camera body. I’m happy with the Canon 7D Mark II and my 70-300 and 400 for wildlife photography, so it would be a lot less expensive to stick with Canon for now. If the Sony lens was lighter, that might make a difference, but the long lenses for mirrorless are just as heavy as the DSLR lenses. It is something I am thinking about though! Thanks for your comments Bill.
I am not all all surprised that the Canon far out shined the Tamron. Quality control, components and better annealing of optical coatings will always place the Canon on top.
I have to agree with you there! I guess there is a reason why Canon doesn’t make a zoom that goes to 600. I wish they did! I think a lot of people would jump on that if it was available. Although the cost of their long lenses is astronomical (aside from this little 400 and the 100-400). The 2 other 400’s, the 500, and the 600 are way too much for me – and most people I think. Thanks for your feedback!
Right there with you Anne. Putting the hefty price tag aside just for the briefest moment a zoom that went to lets say 100mm – 600mm would require serious optical precision in terms element alignment and lens barreling (metal). This would keep the elements aligned all the way through the entire zoom range of course however you might need Lou Ferrigno to carry it for you LOL
I would need Lou Ferrigno to pay for it and carry it 🙂
not surprised… stick with Canon for lenses of the highest quality…
tamron is ok at the lower end i think, but this lens clearly isn’t a keeper.
I don’t think I’ve ever had a Canon lens that I didn’t love. I just wish they made a lens that went up to 600mm that was a reasonable price. It’s just not worth $10,000 (or $13,000 depending on which version you get) when I can just crop.
I have the 100-400ii from Canon..when I look back most of my shots are at 400. thinking of selling and getting prime 400 or 500
But that is a gorgeous lens! And even if most of your photos are at 400, it gives you really good versatility. Sometimes I am shooting with my 400 prime, and an animal gets too close for that range. That’s when I wish I had your lens instead of having to switch lenses. Have you thought of trying the extender? I’ve heard the extender works well with that lens, but you would have to check to make sure autofocus still works. I think it does with the new version of the extender, but I’m not sure. I don’t think I would give that lens up if I owned it.
I use the 1.4 on occasion and lens and camera perform well together. I do find myself cropping wildlife pic(southeast Georgia coast birds), which make them soft, so I thought the prime lens may work better.
John
Every shooter has their own shooting preferences, what is important is what works for you. I have one of the early versions of the 100-400L which I would not part with. In my opinion if you are looking at a 400 or 500mm lens as panacea, I think you will be disappointed if you let go of 100-400L lens.
I think that technique has a lot to do with whether your shots are sharp. Did you only take one shot to do these tests. I don’t quite understand your process. I have the Sigma of the same size and I get great results from it. It took some time to get there though.
Nicole, are you saying that Anne’s technique is to blame? Did you watch the entire video and take note of the data? Also, she is comparing Tamron with Canon, not Sigma.
I am generalizing and in my experience I had a big learning curve to get good results with a lens that is very similar to the Tamron. There are a lot of variables. Wildlife photography is very difficult.
Yes, technique does have a lot to do with getting sharp shots. And yes, wildlife photography is difficult. But it’s a lot more difficult when you have a lens that wont focus!
I explained my process in both the blog posts and the videos particularly how the lens was the only variable. If you look around my site, you’ll find hundreds of sharp wildlife images. Most of them were made with a 400mm lens, but I’ve also rented a variety of gear over the many years I’ve been doing this. So I’m pretty sure it isn’t my technique. This isn’t my first rodeo!
A lens that is similar to the Tamron lens isn’t the Tamron lens. I have had better luck with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens than I had with the Tamron 150-600. I had super sharp images with the Sigma 150-600 Sport lens. If I was going to invest in one of these 3 lenses, it would be the Sigma Sport model.
I bought the same Tamron lens for a wildlife trip I did to PNG. I was so disappointed with the results. Was the first time I bought a non Canon lens. Now I indulged and bought myself the Canon 300mm lens which I sometimes use with the 2x extender. It is VERY heavy! But I get exactly the results I want and don’t need weight lifting classes anymore!!
Hi Fiona, I’ve heard from a lot of people who had the same experience as us. I’m really sorry to hear it happened to you on such an incredible trip though!! I think I would be heartbroken. I rented the Canon 300mm one time and it is beautiful lens too. The 300, 400 (f/5.6 the little one) and the 100-400 all produce gorgeous images. Not that the other two Canon 400mm lenses don’t, it’s just that they are $10,000 and $13,000 so not in the same league. Thanks for your sharing your experience.
A while back Tamron made some super sharp lenses, mind you these were all MF lenses that used the adaptall mount system. Then Tamron started to make fixed mount MF lenses that were still razor sharp. Technical tests in Photo mags yielded impressive results as Tamron MF lens results were comparable to Purple cast SC Nikkor lenses at this time. When AF SLR systems took off in popularity, lens maker wanted to capture more market share which equated to higher production and cheaper costs. My gut instinct here is that this Tamron lens suffers from the same two problems I encountered in the past which is as follows.
1) Poor Barreling material (which does not keep optical elements in precise alignment) which softens sharpness.
2) Poorly designed chips and firmware (fuzzy logic) which accounts poor focus tracking.
That makes sense to me. Thanks for the information Philip, at least it helps us understand what might be going on here with these lenses. Unfortunately manual focus is out of the question for me. It’s just not something I am good at. I can remember jumping for joy when I got my first auto focus lens – must have been 25 years ago.
I have a Canon 70-300 f4 lens that has caused me to learn to lift heavy stuff that I use with a 5D mk 4. My question is about using a 2x with this lens and what experience any have had with degrading sharpness.
I haven’t used that exact combination, but I have heard from others that they had success using the 1.4 extender with the 70-200 and the 100-400. Not the question you asked though, so maybe someone with experience with that combination will chime in. That would be good to know because that combo would get you to 600mm. Thanks Charles.
I too didn’t like the Tamron 150-600. When I went to Africa I rented the Sigma 150-600 Sport lens, which gave me nice sharp images but was a lot to handle. It is definitely not a backpacking lens! But in a safari jeep with a bean bag, it was great!
Hi Gayle, Good to know because that’s the one I am considering getting now. I just can’t decide if I want to go through this whole thing again!! I’m a little low on energy, which is why I’m doing this whole setup in the first place (I will write more about that later, but essentially joint problems are keeping me from carrying anything at all, even my little mirrorless). But with my current setup, it doesn’t matter what it weighs because I’m not moving it. But I’ve heard great things about the Sigma Sport. By any chance, have you used that Sigma Sport with a crop sensor camera? I’m trying to figure out if that makes much of a difference in auto focus tracking because I’m using a 7D MkII.
Great article Anne!… AND great shots! Quite the difference from the original article and shots. I have a Nikon D810 and went shopping for a Nikon 600mm F4. for some Hawk migration shots. When I heard the astronomical price ($16,000) that was end the of my shopping day. OUCH!. Maybe if I win the lottery. LOL. Now looking for a good 600mm zoom lens and I think I’ll look at the Tamron in your article.
I have a Nikon D810 and the Nikon 200-500. My Africa pictures are beautifully sharp, better than the Sigma 500 f4.5 which I am selling now.
Oops… meant to say Sigma lens. Tamron doesn’t seem to be the right one.
No, Tamron is definitely not the right one! I’m thinking of trying one of the Sigmas now. There is a contemporary and a sport version of the 150-600 and consensus seems to be that the sport version is much better, but it’s a higher price too. For you, since you are a Nikon shooter, there is also the Nikon 200-500 which a lot of people have mentioned to me as being a good option.
I have the Sigma sport 150-600. First copy was awful- focus was all over the place & nothing in focus, Second copy I had them calibrate it (free) before it left the factory and it’s sharp. Definitely buy from a recognized dealer or Sigma USA so you can return if the copy is off. Color interpretation is really nice (on Nikons at any rate).
I think the software on the 150-600 is not perfect, Using high speed it doesn’t always lock on a moving target especially in low light and especially if the target is moving towards you very quickly. They do however update software- please ask (pressure) the factory if they intend to work on that issue. All in all I’m very happy with the lens considering the price and I’m a pixel peeper. It is heavy. I’m a small older woman with shaking hands and with practice I can now hand hold it camera edge pressed against my shoulder, head bent and preferably leaning on something for about 7 – 10 minutes max. I try to use a tripod whenever possible. A rifle type camera stabilizer would probably help.
The Nikon 200-500 is the only other one in that price range I’d consider- better autofocus I think, but the some sharpening seems to be added by software and I’d rather do it myself. It doesn’t reach as far but it’s a little lighter. Not as light as the Tamron by any means. No idea how good the software is.
At 500 – 600mm sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking we can just crop and get a good image. Not always the case with a slower (less expensive) lens. There has been a big increase in haze all over the continent and that and heat wreak havoc on further away subjects- especially animals where I for one want to see every single hair.
There are some very sharp copies of the Contemporary Sigma 150 – 600mm but they’re not common and possibly (?) a factory mistake. The rumor is S is configured to be sharper at the long end, the C at a shorter focal end..
That is disappointing that your first copy of the Sigma Sport had some of the same focus issues I am seeing with the Tamron. That’s why I’m a little hesitant to continue down this road. Although I guess I could always send it back if it happens again. Otherwise I have heard good things about the Sigma Sport and it sounds like you’ve had a good experience with your second copy. Thanks for sharing your experience and what you have heard about the S being sharper at the long end and the C at the short end. I think I heard that somewhere as well and that makes the decision between them a little easier since I would be buying it for the long end.
I’d go with the Sigma sport & I did I suppose. The thing is the Nikon lens adds it’s own auto sharpening contrast while the Sigma doesn’t. I don’t like what automatic sharpening does- it looks fake sometimes. The SS is the best bang for the buck I think- it does have good glass in it & multiple shots will usually work. I think a lot of the auto focusing stuff is just that it’s a slow aperture lens and we do need to win the lottery for a fast 600mm…. I have a sharp copy of a Nikon 70-300 ED 4.5 – 5.6 & it will do the same thing every once in a while.
Also, with factoryq uality control- Sigma probably isn’t as good as Cannon or Nikon, but all companies have problems in that area. I try not to ever buy the first year any model lens was made. Or any model car for that matter. Sigma is still made in Japan BTW.
If you want more examples look on my web site; the second photo on the home page is the Sigma sport- shot in Jpg by mistake with very little sharpening.. So- my camera added some sharpening and contrast. Animal was possibly 30 feet away, Nikon D7200 camera- DX., A- 250 with exposure increased. Also, it’s kind of hard to see because the photos are reduced, but if you go to wildlife then to “rockies” most of the animals are shot with the Sigma except the horses. Some of those photos are severely cropped, but most of the big horn are not so much and I used a tripod with a lot of the lambs. The last photo which is crappy was severely cropped and well over a half mile away.! Please excuse exposures etc- I haven’t had much time to work on them.
If you want some sample crops of 100% unedited, email me directly and I’ll send some with EXIF. I did a lot of 100% comparisons before I decided on which lens.
Oops, that would be ISO 250, not A.
These large telephoto and prime lenses don’t get used that often and that is because they are heavy. For many, they get pulled out once in a while and then sit. That is why the used market for these lenses is where I go. I have a Nikon 200-400 f/4 and a Nikon 500 f/4. I love them both, Very fast auto focus, very sharp, Shoot wide open at f5.4. Yes they were thousands but thousand less that new. Found them online, ebay. Never been disappointed. Did my research, asked questions. Even if, there was anything wrong, these lenses are well supported, easy to calibrate, and provide outstanding results. I would not buy the Sigma or Tamron. Most of the sharp images I have seen is when the bird is standing still!
That’s one of the reasons I like the little Canon 400mm, it is not nearly as heavy as the others. Even if the Canon 500 and 600 were less expensive, I don’t think I would buy them because you’re stuck at that focal length. I would really love to have the versatility of the 150-600. The only other option I would consider is the 100-400 with the extender. But that combination is more expensive than the Sigma Sport.
In regard to Charles Lloyd’s question about using the Canon 2x extender, I bought one to use with my Canon 70-200 with the hope of getting that more impressive shot of wildlife that I couldn’t get closer to. Terrible results with the extender. Performed tripod tests over and over to test it with and without the extender, and the sharpness was always much better without the 2x. Sold it back and bought a 100-400 lens.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the extenders Linn. A lot of people seem to prefer the 1.4 extender over the 2x extender because of sharpness issues.
Have you considered borrowing your photographer friend’s Tamron lens and trying it out on your system to compare results?
I would love to do that, except he lives in Australia. We crossed paths in Iceland once, but it may be some time before we cross paths again …
You’re going to experience a loss of image quality with a 2x TC, so says Photography Life by up to 26% but not so much with a 1.7 TC and less with a 1.4 TC of only 4%
I haven’t tried the 2x, but a lot of people report exactly what you have said about loss of image quality and that the 1.4x is much better.
I shoot Nikon 7500 (crop sensor) and “thought” i had learned my lesson ~45+ years ago buying a cheap lens. Apparently I have not, as I bought a Sigma 150-600mm about a year ago. The write ups were good. I was just wanting to start shooting birds with something bigger than my 200mm Nikon. Like you I am having the same success (failure) rate with the Sigma. I did the calibration thing with no effect. I even took it to a shop to have them calibrate it; but they said it was all to spec’s and tested fine.I find my success goes up considerable if I’m shooting in bright light with plenty of contrast and high shutter speeds above f8 & fairly low ISO & @500mm or less. Gray days or yellow brown mono tone grass colors or birds in dark trees, the failure rate is very high. I also found removing my polarizing lens or any filters makes a significant difference as well. Does the 1.5 crop factor have an effect? I don’t know . My guess is that your Canon L lens has superior glass vs the Tamron though. I did own a Tamron 18-270 a few years back. I took it back for a Nikon after a couple of shoots. It was very soft. Personally I’m not a fan of 3rd party lens. They just have not worked for me. A friend of mine shoots with a Nikon full frame(810), 400mm with a nikon 1.4 X extender with wonderful success. But this is a $12k lens vs $1300. His camera is ~3x the cost of mine as well. Someday I’m going to rent a Nikon 200-500 and do a side by side as well. Keep shooting & keep us posted…
Thanks for sharing your experience Herb. I didn’t feel that spending $1700 on a lens would be a “cheap” lens since it’s the most I’ve ever spent on a lens. But yes, in comparison to a $6k or $10k lens I’m sure there is a huge difference. But still, $1700 is a lot! It should at least focus!!
The thing is, who really wants a photo of a bird standing still in bright daylight? We’re all trying to get photos of animals doing something interesting in the beautiful golden light, so a lens that doesn’t focus in low light is a waste of money. I mean, I understand it’s not going to focus when it’s really dark, but golden light needs to work!
So the Sigma that you bought, is it the contemporary or the sport?
It is a “Contemporary” at the time the reviews were favorable. You are 100% correct “$1700 is not cheap, & should focus…but in comparison ….” I could not justify paying $10k + and not have it paying for itself. My friend could and he gets extremely better results. Can’t buy a VW and expect Porsche performance. That said you then have to decide to make a compromise somewhere. I am ultra picky about razor tack sharp focus, more so than the average shooter out there. Hence why many will use either the Tamron or Sigma and be okay, you & I are not. I go back to my experience 45+ years ago with a off brand, cheap 200mm lens that I keep on my office wall to remind me of a mistake I made. I too thought $1k (flash Adorama sale) should work. For me; lesson learned…again! Are you using a polarizing filter? If so try removing it and see if that helps.
Thanks for the info Herb. No, I am not using a polarizing filter. All my testing was done without filters.
I have had the same erratic focusing experience with Tamron lenses. At different times I owned 6 different Tamron lenses all had focusing problems. Did you have the IS off on the Tamron? If not it will mess up tripod shots.
I did own the Canon 400mm f5.6 it is a super sharp lens. I sold it to get a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary just to get IS. It is a fabulous lens. Both the Tamron and the Sigma came out at about the same time and the Sigma was rated better for focusing.
On my web site I recently posted an Osprey in flight with the Sigma and a Canon 6D II check it out. I also have taken many shots with the Sigma on my Canon 80D , a crop frame. my web site usually lists the camera and lens used. Rent the Sigma Contemporary it is all you need. I just bought a new Canon EOS R mirrorless. It eliminates all the lens matching problems between camera and lens. Email me if I can be of any help.
Hi Clarence,
Yes, I had the IS off on the Tamron lens. Although I did try it with all 3 IS settings just to see if it made any improvement, but it did not.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the Sigma Contemporary. The feedback so far seems to be half and half for and against the contemporary version with a lot of people having the same experience I had with the Tamron. So it’s good to see someone has had a good experience with the Sigma Contemporary.
I’m not sure what you mean about the Canon mirrorless eliminating the matching problems between camera and lens. Can you explain how that works? (If you could reply on the blog that would be helpful because I think a lot of people would be interested in this! Thanks!)
In the new Canon mrrorless cameras focusing using both the the viewfinder and the screen is accomplished using the Canon dual pixel focusing which is on the sensor. Focus is made using the actual information on the sensor, The camera focuses the lens on whatever the lens presents to the sensor.
Canon mirrored DSLRs use two focusing systems. The viewfinder focuses using diverted light to separate detectors in the camera before the shutter is released. Recent Canon DSLRs using Live View focusing use the actual sensor data to focus but only on the screen. So there are two separate focusing systems in the camera which requires micro adjusting of the lens to match the camera. There is no need to micro adjust lenses in the new mirrorless cameras, in fact there is no micro adjusting feature in the mirrorless cameras. Lenses which might have had focusing problems in DSLRs or required micro adjusting, will most likely all focus correctly in the mirrorless cameras.
Thanks for this clarification Clarence, I appreciate it. That is definitely something worth considering when it comes to focus issues!
I have just bought a Fuji 100-400. Looking very promising. Have only taken it out once so far but will be using it in October when I am going to South Africa to do some safaris. Will practice on the deer in my local Richmond and Bushy parks.
Interesting. Are you using it on a Fuji camera?
First, thank you for your honest review and praise for Canon’s 400mm lens which I also enjoy. I have had good results with the Sigma 150-600 and the Sigma 100-400 (my current favorite due to its light weight). But my best purchase was the NikonP1000 point and shoot. No, the quality isn’t the same as a DSLR, but I get decent shots of wildlife that are IMPOSSIBLE with any other lens and some that rival a DSLR.
I’ve heard about that camera. It has an equivalent of 3000mm zoom!!! That’s outrageous. But yeah, if image quality is important, and it is for me, then I don’t think that’s going to cut it for pros. I can see how it would be a great camera for amateurs though.
Right, it’s more for people who are into the joy of nature discovery, who want to identify and capture that blob in the ocean (or distant tree) that the eye and a DSLR with 600mm lens can’t quite make out. It’s for sharing images more than selling or commercializing them.
Enjoyed your article. In my 70’s and weight has become a critical factor so purchased the Sony RX10 Marklv, 24-600mm. Would be very interested in your comparison to both Canon 400 as well as Tamron 150-600. Also, would only print up to 13×19”, so 1” sensor seems to work just fine! Thank you,
Richard
I’ve never tried that camera. Since it isn’t an interchangeable lens camera, I don’t think it would work for me. But it looks like something really versatile for amateurs. It would be interesting to make a comparison if I ever get my hands on one to try. Thanks for the information!
Anne,
great review! I, too, just recently purchased the Tamron 150-600mm (for a second time) and I also find that it is slow on focusing. I have to use the back AF button to focus on my 6D. I purchased it because I wanted more reach. I have the Canon 200 f2.8L, which is a sharp lens, but Canon decided to change the design of their 2X and 1.4x extenders version III in that they no longer stack like the version II did. Disappointing. So, I wasn’t able to get to 600mm+ by stacking the extenders to my Canon 200. I could have only added the Canon 2x extender to my 200 and get 400mm. I sent back the version III extenders and purchased the Tamron 150-600. For me, the Tamron issues are not a big deal since I don’t shoot wildlife or sports and I am mostly a MF photographer. I am not happy that Canon made the decision to create the version III extenders to NOT stack. IMHO, they probably did this because they realized people were buying these extenders instead of purchasing Canon primes in the 500mm or higher range and therefore losing $$$$. The version 2 extenders did stack. I realize that stacking two extenders has its drawbacks, but that should be an option as long as they state these possible issues, then it should be up to the buyer to make the decision. Greed should not be a factor.
Hi Ronald, I don’t have a ton of experience with the extenders, so I don’t know why they changed the design so they don’t stack. Maybe the image quality deteriorates too much? I can see that the Tamron might work okay for people who are not doing wildlife or sports, but I think that’s exactly what most people who buy this lens are doing. I did enjoy the close minimum focus distance on it, so it would be a good lens for flower photography. Or shooting the moon.
There is no question Canon shot themselves in the foot with the redesign of tele extenders. If they are in fact no longer stackable it does border on stupidity. I have used both 1.4 and 2.x matched Canon ext on a 300 f 2.8 and 400 2.8 with little to no loss of image quality. Only thing is one must have a fast L series lens to do this.
Only issue I know of stacking Canon extenders is condensation in very wet and cold conditions however this is easily solved.
Great investigative article. However I have a Nikon D3200 camera so a Canon lens won’t work. So I’m stuck with my 150-27- zoom. How is the Sigma 150-600?
A few people have commented here and on the YouTube video about the Sigma, but I have not tried it myself yet. Consensus seems to be that the sport version is much better than the contemporary version. For you though, I have also heard that the Nikon 200-500 is good, so that might be worth a try.
Anne: I commented earlier but forgot to add…. You might try renting one first. I was going to but at the time they were not available locally (PDX), now they are. Locally we can rent the Sigma “Sport” 150-600 for $30 a day or $90 for a week. Longer periods are also available. Although I am convinced that every copy is different at least you may get a feel for it. They also apply the rental price as a credit if you buy a new one from them. My bet is you have something similar up there as well. Other brands and models are available as well. If not; swing by on your next trip to Nehalem Bay (no sales tax here). BTW… my experience with extenders has been “fair to good” with 1.4x and anything more you lose too much light and resolution making auto focus very difficult at best…. and use Canon in your case. … Keep shooting & posting.
Probably the best idea to find a good copy. Don’t forget to tune your cameras’s focal point to the individual lens. You can always calibrate the lens again if you buy it. IDK, I always use single point focus with wildlife and try to focus on the eye if possible. Otherwise I’m never happy with the results.
There are not too many places to rent from up here actually. But I may just wait until I’m in the states again and think about renting and buying down there. Thanks for all your advice, much appreciated!!
It’s disappointing to read how so many of you have had poor experiences with the Tameron 150-600. I’ve had pretty good results with it. I think I have one from the second production run of the first model. I ordered it soon after the lens came on the market. But all the vendors were out of stock and I had to wait for it to be restocked. There is a focus issue when the lens is in the 15 meter to infinity mode and something is just inside that range. I got a lot of fuzzy photos until I learned to flick the switch to the full setting and focus closer. The auto focus really struggles with a bird among a bunch of limbs in front of it and behind it. If the bird sits still long enough, I sometimes can switch to manual focus and catch it. I have a 200 Canon lens with extenders, but I’m satisfied with the marginal difference in focus I’m getting as a trade off for the longer reach and zoom capability of the Tameron, as well as the portablitily of this larger lens. Many times that long reach, even with a poor quality photo, has given us a decent enough documentation photo to decisively ID a bird. It really has given me a lot of photos I’m happy to have. Go to this link to have a look at a gallery of photos from Texas Lower RIo Grande Valley birding hot spots taken last year. Almost all of my photos are hand-held. https://michaelkolstadphotos.smugmug.com/El-Paso-Audubon-Club-to-Rio-Grande-Valley-TX-Nov-2018/
Thanks for sharing your gallery Michael. You do indeed have some very sharp photos there, so it looks like you got a great copy of the lens (along with all the skill it takes to make those beautiful photos of course). That is odd though that it struggles with the 15m-infinity mode because that mode is supposed to make focus hunting less likely. But at least you get used to the particular “features” of your individual lens and learn to work with them. I think I might have to check out some of your hot spots next winter! 🙂 Thanks for all the information.
I bought that lens a few years ago and love it. I bought it for the weight as I have a back issue and was shocked with its tack sharp. I had an old sigma 150-500 which I sold as soon as I could. Have you tried a teleconverter on it. I find it makes the photo soft.
Hi David, I haven’t had any luck with the teleconverter. I tried it with the 400, but I find it too difficult to find my subject in the frame! Especially birds in flight. I tried it with the 70-200, but that was years ago, and I think auto-focus didn’t work with the teleconverter then. Deal breaker for me. I would be curious though to try the teleconverter on a lens like the 100-400. At that range you can find your subject and then zoom in, and I believe the auto focus now works with the new version of that lens and the latest converter. But you will loose light and therefore a stop or two.
Sorry about your experience with the Tamron. I purchased it and had none of these problems. Maybe your feedback had an effect. Found it is good when handheld and on a tripod. As I use a d750 I can’t comment on the Canon. Could be the great Queensland air?
I’m sorry, I have to disagree, the Canon 400mm f/5.6 was the first prime L lens i ever purchased, I do not like now or ever liked that lens, I think it would be much better if it had IS, without a tripod, I find the lens sucks. I prefer my Tamron G1, G2, or my Sigma 150-600 f/4.5-5.6 for wildlife/BIF shots. I can’t even find a buyer for the Canon 400 prime, not even at a modest $800. It’s back in the box, the Canon 300mm f/4 is far sharper for intermediate fl wildlife..
Well I guess that proves that there are always bad copies of lenses! It happens. Sorry you didn’t have a good experience with the Canon 400 f/5.6L. I hope you were able to return it because it certainly sounds like there was something wrong with it. I use mine mostly for wildlife, so with high shutter speeds I haven’t needed the IS. Thanks for the feedback!
I’m an old gal and have carting around my Tamron 150-600 1st gen for years. Over marshes and mountains, through woodlands and prairies, etc..
Always hand-held. I’ve never had a picture-problem that wasn’t of my own doing with this great and affordable lens. I can get great, sharp shots from it, first with my 70d, then my 80d, then my 6d, and now with my 5Ds.
Just ordered a G2, and can’t wait to continue the fun.
Hi Mary, I am glad someone out there has a good copy! I know there are lots of good copies of the Tamron lens out there, but there are lots of bad copies too. I can see that from the comments here, and on YouTube, and from emails from professional photographer friends, that I am not alone with getting a bad copy. I think this is a quality control issue and people should just be aware that when they order one they should really test it out during their return period. If you do have a good copy, I can only imagine how nice it would be to have this versatile focal range in an affordable lens. That’s why I ordered it! But it didn’t work out for me. I much prefer my 400mm prime lens. It’s like “old reliable”. I have since purchased a used Canon 500mm f/4L and it is gorgeous.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the lens.
i am beginner for wild life photography, i had 70-300 mm canon lens , i would buy another lens , i had tow option sigma 400mm and Tamron 200-400mm lens. in witch lens a you prefer with your experience ?
Gihan
Hi Gihan, It’s so unfortunate that they no longer make the Canon 400mm, it is a thing of beauty and if you could find one second hand, I would consider that. In my experience, third party lenses like sigma and tamron do not compare well to the native Canon lenses. I have not used either of the lenses you mentioned as options. But if it were me, I would either try to find a used Canon 400 f/5.6 or I would save my money for the Canon 100-400, which is a gorgeous lens. The one you have, the Canon 70-300 is a very versatile lens and great quality. I have one myself and use it a lot. I like how light and easy to carry it is. But I know a little more reach is nice! Sorry this isn’t the news you want, but I just don’t think you’ll get the same quality out of the sigma or tamron.
I have a wide angle Sigma lens that I like, but a wide angle is a completely different thing and doesn’t have the same challenges you have with a telephoto.
thanks your valuable comment.