Sharp at all Focal Lengths - Tamron 150-600mm Di VC PZD Lens

The Tamron 150-600mm Di VC PZD Lens has been mentioned in quite a few forums on the site lately and some of the comments have been that this lens isn't sharp at the 600mm focal length. This is simply not true and I'd venture that those who make such comments either have sloppy technique or simply don't know how to use a lens this long. The proof is in the pudding though - right? Here are several images taken with the Tamron 150-600mm. All were taken at 600mm. These are untouched JPEGS and I've included 100% crops so you can see all the details.

 

Impressive results, Don!

The comments I have seen are that this lens is not sharp at 600mm when shot wide open at f6.3, and that you have to stop down to f8 in order to get results that are on par with the much more expensive super telephotos, the latest versions of which are razor sharp even wide open.

These shots that you are getting that are sharp - at what aperture are you shooting?
How sharp have you found the lens to be when shooting wide open - f6.3 at 600mm?

Tom Reichner wrote:Impressive results, Don!

The comments I have seen are that this lens is not sharp at 600mm when shot wide open at f6.3, and that you have to stop down to f8 in order to get results that are on par with the much more expensive super telephotos, the latest versions of which are razor sharp even wide open.

These shots that you are getting that are sharp - at what aperture are you shooting?
How sharp have you found the lens to be when shooting wide open - f6.3 at 600mm?

Hi Tom,

Yeah, this isn't so true either. I have fine results with the lens wide open. Still I usually shoot it at f/7.1 (a third of a stop from wide-open).
Of my results above: The Anhinga with fish was at f/7.1
The Tri-colored Heron was at f/8
The Great Blue Heron was at f/7.1
The Vermillion Flycatcher was at f/6.3
The juvenile Rufous Bellied Thrush was at f/6.3

Some images hand held, others on a sturdy tripod. depends on the situation. ISO adjusted accordingly as well, usually trying to get a shutter speed of faster than 1/500th sec. but that doesn't always happen either. The Tri-colored Heron and the Vermillion Flycatcher were both shot at 1/125th. I have a full review of the Tamron lens here:   http://www.donmammoserphoto.com/blog/archives/11-2015   And in 15 years as a pro I have never paid much attention to others results. What matters to me is if I can get good results in the field.

For the price of the lens it is reasonably sharp in the center as the photos in the thread illustrate.  But it's extremely poor in the corners on a full frame camera:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=929&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=929&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

I've worked with a number of these lenses and they are all pretty poor away from the center, especially outside the APS-C frame at 600mm at any aperture.  And I do know how to shoot with long lenses.

I had bought one and took it with me to Africa and to Bosque. On my full frame 1DX I agree with EJ. At 600, wide open it did not compare at all with my earlier Canon 600 MkII. Obviously there is a huge price difference, the Canon costing almost 10 times as much.

I was looking for a lightweight package at above 400mm. Sadly you cannot beat the laws of physics and the laws of the market. For me a tripod was not possible, shooting handheld from a vehicle in Africa. I did use the tripod in Bosque but did not get the results I wanted. I now have the 400DO MkII which is superb. On a 7D2 it gives me the reach and the quality.

The only way to compare is to actually shoot the same subject under the same conditions on the same camera body.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:I had bought one and took it with me to Africa and to Bosque. On my full frame 1DX I agree with EJ. At 600, wide open it did not compare at all with my earlier Canon 600 MkII. Obviously there is a huge price difference, the Canon costing almost 10 times as much.

I was looking for a lightweight package at above 400mm. Sadly you cannot beat the laws of physics and the laws of the market. For me a tripod was not possible, shooting handheld from a vehicle in Africa. I did use the tripod in Bosque but did not get the results I wanted. I now have the 400DO MkII which is superb. On a 7D2 it gives me the reach and the quality.

The only way to compare is to actually shoot the same subject under the same conditions on the same camera body.

Pradeep

Just to be clear - all the images in my post were taken with a full frame camera (Canon 6D). Also there have been comments about the Tamron 150-600mm lens not being sharp in the corners. I haven't seen this as I don't shoot charts and such nonsense. Even if the lens wasn't sharp in the corners (which is still up for debate), I ask, does it matter? When I shoot wildlife or sports (and I bet you too) I never have anything of importance far off in the corner of the frame. This isn't a lens for scenery where you need the corners sharp. 

A few more examples posted here. All taken at 600mm with full frame camera, hand held and at wide-open aperture of f/6.3. Again, take a look at the corners of my examples. Would it even matter if they weren't sharp? No.

I think you have proved your point, I love mine. Too compare it to an f4 500 or 600 is missing the point, this is a lens that give acceptably long reach which can be carried and be used handheld. It isn't as sharp as my 70/400 or 500 or 600 f4's but is right in the mix.

DonMammoser wrote: Even if the lens wasn't sharp in the corners (which is still up for debate), I ask, does it matter? When I shoot wildlife or sports (and I bet you too) I never have anything of importance far off in the corner of the frame. This isn't a lens for scenery where you need the corners sharp. 

Isn't it funny that many people buy lenses without thinking about what they're using them for? They would buy lenses that are sharp corner to corner but the corners are always blurred in their photographs

It is not up for debate for anybody that is proficient in optics and and lens testing. There have been many tests done in a controlled scientific manner that clearly show that this lens is relatively poor in the corners at the long end of its zoom range.  Given the price of this lens, that isn't surprising or necessarily a bad thing as you are saving as much as $10K over a 600mm prime lens.  Corner sharpness does matter if you are photographing subjects that need to be sharp to the corner.  It may not be important in your photography which appears to be wildlife, but it is important in other types. I'm not sure what your motive is here - you seem to simply want to argue the merits of a lens that you have an attachment to.  It is fantastic that you are very happy with the lens but I don't understand why you feel you need to argue against what the tests say...

Okay, let's get real here. Everyone wants and dreams of a lens coming along that is really inexpensive and performs like the big boys. This has always been and always will be nothing more than a dream. There is no question at all that this Tamron, along with the new Sigma 150-600 and new Nikon 200-500 are all very nice lenses and a good deal for the price. However, there is one cliche that still holds to be true "you get what you pay for". I admit I have not used or tested this Tamron lens, but I have tested the Nikon 200-500 and Sigma 150-600 S against my Nikon 500 f/4 VR, and in all tests the Nikon 500 prime definitely outperformed the other two zoom options when it comes to pure sharpness. I tried really hard to want to like the Sigma 150-600 and did everything I could to convince myself of that; but in the end, it paled in comparison to my Nikon 500. Everything I have heard and read is that the Tamron falls below the Sigma and Nikon zooms with regard to sharpness. Your sample images are pretty good, and I am sure good enough for many photographers, but in a direct comparison to any of the big primes, the differences would be obviously clear to anyone with decent eyes.

Have to agree with Tim. I bought this lens and later sold it because to my eyes it wasn't good enough beyond 400mm and that's where my needs lay. Yes, the pictures above are good but not good enough for me. I can post images from my version of the same lens and from my 600 MkII but don't want to waste bandwidth.

Why would anybody make a much heavier and bigger lens if smaller and lighter and cheaper could deliver the same quality?

Having said that, in the end all that matters is how happy somebody is with their equipment. If it pleases you and satisfies your needs, nothing wrong with that at all.

Pradeep

DonMammoser wrote:The Tamron 150-600mm Di VC PZD Lens has been mentioned in quite a few forums on the site lately and some of the comments have been that this lens isn't sharp at the 600mm focal length. This is simply not true and I'd venture that those who make such comments either have sloppy technique or simply don't know how to use a lens this long. The proof is in the pudding though - right? Here are several images taken with the Tamron 150-600mm. All were taken at 600mm. These are untouched JPEGS and I've included 100% crops so you can see all the details.

 

Can I know what is the camera settings you use? I have a Canon 80D with the Tamron 150-600mm G2 lens and the images are not sharp at all. I have turned VC on and Image stabilizer 3 (option 1 to 3) and use evaluative metering (Matrix), back button focus, auto white balance and AI servo.