New tele-super zooms.... Legitimate or same old thing?

Mike in O wrote:Price is not a good indicator of performance but "what the market will bear"...the $1000 drop in price for Canon super teles shows there is a lot fat buying OEM.  I'll take EJ's comments about softening of the Tamron as definitive, but of course that doesn't mean its unusable.  With the exception of over priced zooms from Canon (200/400) and Nikon (80/400), there really isn't much competition with the Tamron and upcoming Sigma.

dougc wrote:

Mike in O wrote:Price is not a good indicator of performance but "what the market will bear"...the $1000 drop in price for Canon super teles shows there is a lot fat buying OEM.  I'll take EJ's comments about softening of the Tamron as definitive, but of course that doesn't mean its unusable.  With the exception of over priced zooms from Canon (200/400) and Nikon (80/400), there really isn't much competition with the Tamron and upcoming Sigma.

Of course there's no competition because Canon and Nikon know you will never have a supertele zoom that will meet professional standards. If you are happy with "usable" images, so be it. And yes, price is a good indicator simply because you cannot buy a super zoom lens that goes to 500 or 600mm that is anything but "adequate" at best. If the cheapies could produce images in the same league with the 500 and 600 f4's, why would anyone ever buy the $10K+ lenses?

Mike in O wrote:Being as you are not an English speaker as a 1st language, OEM is original equipment manufacturer (Nikon Lens, Nikon body).  Usually the lens is not at fault for pixel level imperfection, it more likely is a slew of environmental variables which cause the hypothetical imperfection of the image.

Ed Erkes wrote:I tested my Tamron 150-600 against my Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800 in a field test and a controlled resolution test. The Tamron at 600 was just as sharp as my Nikon 200-400 at 400.   Performance wise, the vibration compensation was quieter than my version 1 200-400 and AF seemed to perform just as well. I don't know a real good way to test AF performance other than to just shoot the two lenses side by side. I could not tell a difference between the two. I would expect the 200-400 to do better in lower light levels though, since it is an f4 lens. I posted the results of my test on my blog and referenced it in an earlier post. you can check it out here. http://erkesphoto.com/photography-technique/tamron-150-600-f5-0-6-3-lens-test-nikon-mount-2/


II am convinced that a photographer using good technique can produce images with the Tamron 150-600 that are indistinguishable from a Nikon or Canon prime telephoto. In my experience quantity and quality of light are often bigger factors in image sharpness than actual lens used.

rnclark wrote:

Ed Erkes wrote:I tested my Tamron 150-600 against my Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800 in a field test and a controlled resolution test. The Tamron at 600 was just as sharp as my Nikon 200-400 at 400.   Performance wise, the vibration compensation was quieter than my version 1 200-400 and AF seemed to perform just as well. I don't know a real good way to test AF performance other than to just shoot the two lenses side by side. I could not tell a difference between the two. I would expect the 200-400 to do better in lower light levels though, since it is an f4 lens. I posted the results of my test on my blog and referenced it in an earlier post. you can check it out here. http://erkesphoto.com/photography-technique/tamron-150-600-f5-0-6-3-lens-test-nikon-mount-2/


II am convinced that a photographer using good technique can produce images with the Tamron 150-600 that are indistinguishable from a Nikon or Canon prime telephoto. In my experience quantity and quality of light are often bigger factors in image sharpness than actual lens used.

Ed, I agree that light and subject are of the utmost importance in a photo.  I would rather have an image of a great subject in great light made with a soft lens in bad light.  But given the choice, I would much rather have a an image in great light made with a very sharp lens.
your statement "that a photographer using good technique can produce images with the Tamron 150-600 that are indistinguishable from a Nikon or Canon prime telephoto" is factually incorrect if the images on your testing are an indicator of telephoto zooms:
http://erkesphoto.com/photography-techn ... st-part-2/
When I look at those, especially the "Nikon 200-400 (TC14EII) at f5.6:  Group 1/Element 2" I just go yuk and would not touch that lens combo.

Compare your charts to Figure 8 here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/tel ... rformance/
For an explanation of that figure, read the paragraph before and after the figure.  The 3 images in the figure were made with 3 different cameras using the same 500 mm f/4 L IS (version 1) canon lens, all at the same distance, and adding TCs to make the pixels on subject the same (this is called equalizing the Etendue).  Note the contrast and fine detail, even with a 2x TC (version 3) compared to your charts.  The primes are a huge step up from the zooms.
And Canon's version 2 supertelephotos are even better (I now have a version 2 300 f/2..

Canon's MTF chart on their 200-400 shows it is very good and a big step up from other zooms but definitely not as sharp as the canon supertelephotos.

Roger






Roger,

I can't make any determination of how the Tamron 150-600 would compare to the lens combinations in your test Because you did not use the Tamron in your lens test for a side by side comparison.  I also don't know what image magnification your fig 8 images are at. I was looking at resolution only in my test and magnified the view to 200%. I have found that differences in contrast can be compensated largely in post-processing, so I was only looking at resolution. For a better comparison of actual image quality in practical field use, look at the images and 100% crops from the field test of the same flycatcher at the same image magnification.
Now suppose you were going to shoot a variety of subjects over a month with the Tamron or Sigma 300-800, then  compare them to images taken with the 500mm prime. I will bet  that  a third person would not be able to reliably pick out the zoom images from the prime-- when you consider different subject matter (with differing levels of detail) at different image magnifications in differing light conditions.  I learned this for myself many years ago when I went back through my macro images and could not reliably pick images taken with a macro lens (the Nikon 55mm, 105 or 200) from those taken with a lens and 2-element diopter. AND I knew from lens chart testing that the macro lenses were sharper.

I now shoot only zooms because of the creative freedom they provide. But I tested my telephoto zooms when purchased against my Nikon prime manual focus telephotos (the 400 f3.5 and 600mm f4) and they were just as sharp or sharper.
So I stand by my statement that using good technique, a photographer can achieve images with the Tamron 150-600 that cannot be distinguished  (i.e. picked out from a collection of images ) from those taken with a prime lens.
 Ed

owlseye wrote:@ Primus,
It appears that we have both come to the same conclusion. When your compromise is a 300 f2.8 IS w/ converters, and you know that lenses like a 400 f2.8, 500 f4, and 600 f4 is the gold standard at the super-tele range, anything that does not better what you currently use is not worth the time or effort in ownership and application.

bruce