i am glad i watched this vid , i am new to wildlife photography, iwas thinking of getting a tamron but eventually whent for the canon 400mm 5.6 l , but i havent used it yet , now i cant wait to try it out , thankyou for your input
Hi Anne, Thank you for a lovely video. I have the same problem with my sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens, and before he says anything its been calibrated correctly. After listen to your comments about your Tamron 150-600 the sigma is so much alike, if I compare it to my canon lens which locks on every time where as the 150-600mm hunts and I have missed many shots. I have decided so sell my sigma 150-600mm lens and invest in another canon lens which will be able to focus correctly and quickly too. The canon 400mm f5.6 is a cracking lens and this will be my next purchase. Thank you.
the tamron being "okay" vs the canon being razor sharp is to be expected. the entire advantage of primes is that you can hyper tune them to 1 focal length, and the elements are far more rigidly mounted relative to one another. Im noticing on your eagle photo for example, you tamron is wide open, while your canon lens, which is already a prime lens, has been stopped down to f/7.1. so its REALLY going to be sharp. the missed focus is just bizarre. never had that bad of an issue on nikon.
I love my 150-600 G2! That being said, do not buy the lense pre-owned! The lense does have bugs that need to be fixed by Tamron and the 6 year warranty only follows the original purchaser. The tap in console is for mirrorless cameras only. The focus issue with the Tamron lense can generally only be fixed by Tamron.
#1Every photographer knows a prime lens is sharper than a zoom. #2 Canon has been a leader in manufacturing quality that lasts + the fact that after market companies stop producing replacement parts when Canon and Nikon spare parts are readily available. #3 Canon's weather sealing makes a difference as well Canon's white color scheme helps reduce heat from the sun. #4 Canon's glass is tack sharp. I still use my 600 f4 L i.s. today in combination with the 5dsr and 5d miv with tack sharp results.
@@annemckinnell used photo pro in indianapolis indiana usually has them used in great shape at a descent price and they give the best warranty in the business. usedphoto.com
Thanks for the review and pics. I've used the 100-400L mark1, then decided to just go for the lighter 400L 5.6 which I love, super fast AF and sharp. When I needed the extra reach, I just added the Kenko Pro300 1.4x converter on the M6markii, and I've an equivalent 900mm f8. Only issue is when the subject gets close, then I have to either shoot a head shot closeup, or remove the converter. Just FYI, with the converter, I can track and get a high hit rate for birds in flight with the M6markii.
Thanks for the feedback Kenneth. I'm glad you love the 400 f/5.6L too. It's a fantastic lens. I believe they recently stopped making it which is a shame. I have only tried using a converter a couple of times so I never really got the hang of it. Need to try again!
Hi @19ab59 This is a long time ago, and I've since upgraded to the EF600mmf4iii on the R6ii, mainly because I need the reach and don't want to compromise. With respect to the RF100400, I've seen good shots with that lens too. The only problem is the smaller aperture, which basically limits your photography to shooting in good light. Out where I am, lighting is usually dark and so capturing wildlife requires the biggest glass available.
Many lenses seem to have a 50% rate, at being bang on, or trouble with focus. I have the Tampon 150-600mm G2 as well, and only once had an issue with focus, but found it was one of the many lenses settings that had gotten bumped, and wasn't set correctly. I have a Bald Eagle image taken with it, that I won an award with, so for the most part the Tamron works just fine. With that set, I as well find it on the heavy side, and went with a carbon fibre gimbal head, and my D750 Nikon seems to work fine with the Tamron. I also have the 70-200mm F/2.8 and a Nikon 2X extender, but tend to opt for the Tamron for the reach for the most part. Sorry to hear you've had trouble with the focusing Anne, and as always, love your video's! With that said, I truly enjoy Ray's video's as well, to keep our motorhome repairs to a minimum. Stay safe!
Anne, thanks so much for the two videos regarding the Tamron 150-600mm. I also have a desire to get more magnification with my wildlife shots and have strongly considered the Tamron lens, but I have reached the same conclusion that you reached regarding the lens. I also have several Flickr friends that are quite good photographers , and use the Tamron lens . I find when viewing their photos that very few of them have crisp focus. I am going to stick to my Canon 400mm, ( I have both the 400mmL and the 100-400mmL ii ) love them both just wanted more reach. Ken
So we're in the same boat! I am surprised how many people say they get sharp photos, but then when you go look at them they are soft. I guess I have high expectations, but if I can't get results as good as what I am getting with the Canon 400mm then it is not worth it. Thanks for your comments.
I went to a camera shop... tried both the sigma and the tamron... I had slightly better results with the tamron... after pairing the lenses up... I am sure the results would vary slightly if I had a pro do the pairing... I did find that the sigma was slightly stronger at 550 mm than the tamron, but that everything under that, the tamron was slightly stronger... but for me it was the price point at the time and because I wanted variable zoom... your 400mm is a prime... all primes perform better than variable... so in my case it was down to tamron 150-600 at $1000 or Canon 100-400 at $1800 because I needed variable zoom... (I am not a pro) so I chose the tamron. one thing I had to make sure with the Tamron is if I was shooting on a tripod to make sure I turned the image stabilization off on the lense... that helped... but if I was in your shoes and already had a 400 prime... I would try a 1.4x or 2x extender to gain the extra reach. In store testing... those L lenses with extenders still perform better than variable zooms, yet in some instances are still sharper cropping the unextended photo.
I have used both the sigma lenses in fact I reviewed both of them. The C version is great but the os optical stabilizer to me seems closer to 2 stops rather than 4. I think perhaps the sport version is much better in that regards. I did notice the sports lens does mis focus. When I focused some thing in the centre I noticed focus dropped down a bit so I had to calibrate the lens with the sigma dock to resolve this. The C version seemed fine at 600mm the lens is a little softer so for sharpest results kept the lens at 500mm.
I used to use the Canon 7D and bought the first Tamron version of this lens. It packed up after a fortnight. However, I was given another one and it worked reasonably well for our trip to South America and Antarctica. I know that the Canon would've done a lot better but my purchase suited the budget at the time. I've since converted to an Olympus OEM1Mk11 and use the pro lenses on it. I do have a Metabones converter so I can use some of the Canon lenses with the newer body but the bigger lenses are a lot more weight to carry around. I'm so glad I made the change as my photos are a lot sharper than they used to be. No more Tamron for me!
Same experience here, with Sigma Art and Contemporary and Nikon cameras. Finally I sold all them and switched to native lenses. Since then I have much better results.
I have the same experience with my Tamron 100-400 and my 6D mark II. Unfortunately, despite being a good lens, it's very hard to track birds and have them in focus, also it's not that sharp wide open and it seems to me it's a generally dark lens as far as light transmission so my ISO is usually very high. I am going to sell it and try the Canon 400 5.6, hope the sharpness alone makes a difference in my wildife shots!
Hi and thanks for video. I have exact same experience with sigma 150-600 sport EF mount (canon 6D) and same with (1DX mark 2) if object is close all is good, but if zoom out to 600mm and light is good photos are about okay, lower light all is soft. All is tested fine adjustment whit sigma doc nothing really shange result. Now thinking to buy canon 400mm.
OMG Anne, I just experienced the same issues you had with 2 Tamron lenses! Frustrating to say the least I might add! I too have the Canon 7D mark ii. Love it! You described the exact same issues to a T. I bought locally from Hunts Photo and returned them both. I own the Canon 100-400 l lens you rent and I get sharp photos.But I too am looking for the extra reach. I also have an old version on the 1dx Canon and still had those issues… I would like to check out the Sigma Sport version… heavier yes but better motor so they claim..
Hello Anne, i guess you would have much sharper results if you would shoot with the tamron at F9-F11. had the same issue in the beginning with shooting F6.2 600mm / really good results with F11 - in my opinion you need a sunny day to use it. have a nice x-mas.
Just wanted to add Possibility to check: I have the sigma C 150-600 and what I noticed is. I use back button focus but the lens does not want to work that way, As soon as i take the photo (front button) it goes back to hunting for focus thereby losing focus, might check that, Mine is on it way back. I use a 6D.
Sigma 150-600 is not that bad like the Tamron. On my 6D Mark II the Sigma focusses satisfactorily. On my 50D and 7D it is not very sharp. On my Sony A6300 with the Sigma mc-11 adapter the 150-600 is razor sharp. The Sigma is either not very well focusing on Canon APS-C or the anti-aliasing filter on Canon makes the lens look not sharp. But for moving subjects the Sony solution is not focussing quickly enough due to the adapter. So I can imagine that a Sony A6400 with the Sony 200-600mm would be a dream combo with real time tracking and animal eye AF :)
I have been considering the 150-600mm superzooms from both Sigma and Tamron for wildlife lenses for my Canon 800D. This video along with the ones I have looked at from Tony Northrup have convinced me that I would be better using the Canon 400mm prime. Thanks for helping me come to a decision.
I have the Tamron and get some amazing wildlife shots, but the decision point for me, was I was able to get the Tamron for just under $1000 but the Canon was $1800+ ... I even was going to go with the 100-400L but again the price was a lot more (I am not a pro... just a guy who likes to take pics)... I did have varying results at first with or without image stabilization on... whether or not I was using a tripod... and the big one... if you can adjust the focus of the lens to the camera... not sure if the 800D does that... but one thing I will say is that the tamron performs great but does go soft after 550mm so I try not to go beyond that. oh... and it weighs a lot more ... lol
I’ve had the same issues with my G2 in the Nautical world. Under 300mm I’m good, but when I get over that the focusing is all over the place and the problem gets worse the more the subject moves.
Thanks for sharing and the video has been helpful for me as I am looking for a light weight telephoto. I use a full frame camera but I don't want to take the risk. I might as well get the Canon 400mm used. The reach isn't enough but at least it doesn't fail so often and cropping is what we have to do with bird photos.
Good stuff Anne. I have the Sigma 150-400 C using it with the 5D4. I've been pretty happy with it. It is a beast though and since I recently got a used 7D2 I decided to get the Canon 400 5.6 since I get 640mm. It is a fantastic combo! The images are really sharp. Not a beast and I can carry it all day without feeling exhausted.
You'd be much more satisfied using a 5Dmk4 with your 400 5.6. I've had 4 7dii's through the years & it's a fine camera,but it's focusing system is far inferior to the 5d. Full frame gives better image quality & better bokeh. 30mp vs 20mp so you can crop & almost get the same sensor reach. I've gone through your exact same situation for years. I've owned all the super zooms & have shot Canon digital since the 10D. You'll fight getting the results you want using any 150-600 unless you're close to the subject. I've owned every white canon L lens that they make. I've shot the 7dii on my 500 F4's, my 600F4's,400 2.8's etc,etc. Currently I use the 5d4 & 400mm F4 DOII with the 1.4x iii & 2xiii. 400mm-560mm-800mm. Very lightweight & sharpness with the 2xiii at 800mm is better than my 600mm f4 with the 1.4x at 840mm- quite a bit better in fact. Your 400 5.6 with the 1.4xiii on the 5d4 is a deadly combination at 560mm. All focus points are available & very fast/accurate. Image quality is miles beyond the super zooms also. You sound like me- all I want is accurate REPEATABLE focus accuracy. Right? Before you buy anything else, buy a nice used 5d4 and try it-you'll find what you've been searching for. Message me thru fb if you'd like to know about our test results. Thx
The canon 5d miv all focus points work with the new canon tele extenders 1.4 miii and 2x miii versions with all canon super telephoto lenses. Including my older 600mm f4 i.s. L from 1989, the 100-400mm mark ii version and 400 5.6 with the 1.4 tele extender miii all focus points work as well. This factor alone is worth stepping up to the 5d miv not to mention the boost in pixels for cropping, pretty fast frame rate and low digital noise at higher iso speeds.
What are your thoughts on the canon 100-400mm ii with those extenders? I know prime wins the IQ contest, but it’d be nice for someone like me with fewer lenses to have the versatility of a zoom. Would a 100-400mm with a 1.4 produce sharp bird images and be useable during the hour after sunrise with the reduced aperture?
On thing that bothers me about this comparison is the 200 mm focal length mismatch. Its seems many you tubers forget that depth of field gets shallower as focal length increases. It is inherently more difficult to obtain sharp focus with a 600mm focal length because of this fact. I have found that I have to be precise with my focus point when using this lens. You might want to try stopping down a bit to f9 - f11 and see if you find the results more acceptable. It would be interesting to see your results with the Tamron at 400mm. Hope this helps!
I get your point, and yes I'm sure the results would be better if I stopped down to f/11. But for me I need to be confident that it is in facer possible to get a sharp photo wide open. If I have to stop down, and raise the ISO, there is more noise. Frankly I feel better off using the Canon 400mm and just cropping. I get better results!
hi, I'm using tamron 150-600G2 on canon 80d. Before I sent it to calibration I hated it. after I recieved it back things wa doing much better. If i'm having much time to shoot a flying bird i'm using the focus ring and things are much better. but when it cost 300$ less than the canon i think the price is a winner.
I know plenty of people who own that lens (tamron 150-600 G2) and are happy with it and make sharp photos. To many people complain because they only think L lenses make the best photos, which is wrong. You can make sharp photos with this lens too, it's not all all worse then an L lens! To many ppl buying L serie lenses, but all they shoot are snapshots....
Many thanks for your comprehensive videos on this lens. I was contemplating one but will now look for a used Canon 400mm. I have found that even with non-Canon lens converters with the Canon 70 - 200 f2,8 lens the functionality is erratic.
20% in focus rate for the Tamron seems awfully low. I have the Tamron g1 with the Canon 77d. I'm no pro, and I get around 80%-90% focus rate. I use BBF, Av priority, Servo AI, Center group focus, Hi-burst, Auto ISO, 1/1000s for still subject, 1/2000-1/3000 for BIF, Evaluated metering. I switch to single point focus or manual focus override for small birds.
If anything using any of these lenses, in CROP sensor cameras will yield better results because you are using a smaller part of the lens. Primes (no zoom) will generally be better than the best zoom. I own the Sigma SPORT (heavy), Tamron G2 150-600, and the Nikon 200-500. All do a decent job, the Nikon is faster at 5.6 but it is NOT better than the Sima Sport or the Tamron. My favorite lens is the Tamron G2, it is faster to focus than Nikon and Sigma Sport, and much lighter. When tracking birds' weight is very important. Clarity is a tad better in the Nikon but not much, in the field you would never notice it. -I really think that there is something wrong with your lens or simply needs to be calibrated. My G2 is fast and sharp in both my D500 and D850. It is also much lighter than the Sigma Sport and about a pound lighter than the Nikon, which makes the G2 my go-to lens for birding. Being able to zoom is a HUGE deal to me, my prime 500 mm F5.6 always has me wanting more or less magnification. That said, I don't know anyone that does not love that Ol' 400mm Canon (over 25 years old), it is light and cheap and it is a prime -lighter and better than zooms.
I'd expect a prime to be much sharper than a zoom. Ever try one of those 1.4x teleconverters with your 400mm lens? ...you may be forced into manual-focus when using it, because it eats 1 stop of light, but you do get more reach without losing much IQ in my opinion I happily used the 300 f/4 with (and without) .the 1.4x teleconverter for years. Also, I own a Sigma 150-600 contemporary and encounter the exact same focus issues with moving objects on my full frame Canon. I don't shoot birds very often, but got around the focus issue by manually pre-focusing while zoomed in with live view to a nearby stationary object. My 300 prime still looks sharper to me than any zoom; including my banged up, used copy of Canon's latest 100-400..
No, I think I would have too much trouble finding my subject. It's already hard enough with a 400 to get a bird in flight in the frame. You don't have that problem with the 300? Or are you shooting subjects that aren't moving? Plus manual focus is out of the question for me. I'm just not good at it. The converter would probably be good on the 100-400 though.
Oh, somehow I missed the whole second part of your comment! Thanks for the feedback about the Sigma lens, that's exactly what I want to know. The pre-focussing idea is great if you know where your subject is going to be :) but that's not going to work for me. I may end up just sticking with the 400 because it's so sharp I will be disappointed with anything else.
I have use the Tamron G2 with both the 7D II and the original 6D... I have the feeling the 6D even with the inferior focusing system got me better results than the 7D II combination. Again, I have not calibrated the lens either.
Very interesting. That's exactly what I was wondering about whether crop sensors had any effect on this. I don't see why they should. The 7D II has an excellent focussing system as you say. Thanks for the feedback.
I had the 7D Mark ii and when using a Tamron 70-200 V1 I felt it was a little soft, but it was sharp on my 5D Mark ii. I now have a 6D Mark ii and it's nice and sharp. 🤷♂️
The Tamron is terrible, but I have to say I don't have the same problem with my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, in fact it was sharp right out of the box. I don't know about the Tamron, but I am using an APS-C body too with the 90D and is working pretty well. What I would say is the Sigma and probably the Tamron too does not like low light. Why not just rent out the Sigma and try it out first? I have heard many good things about the 400mm f/5.6, but personally I wouldn't touch it because of the lack of IS plus of course the much shorter reach. Quite frankly, now that I have been shooting at 960mm, I simply won't go back to shorter lenses. To me, with birds, reach is king, your Tamron problem is an extreme example, if I were you I would definitely give the Sigma a go. The biggest problem is on Canon, they have left out a huge gap in their lens line-up and that is they simply don't have a super zoom. What they need is a 200-600mm L lens much like Sony's 200-600mm G lens.
The lack of IS in the Canon 400mm hasn't been a problem for me because I am always using super high shutter speeds anyway for wildlife photography. But yes, I would like to have that extra reach - but only if the results are sharp. I have been thinking about trying the Sigma contemporary next. Thanks for your comments!
I think I got the one you sent back, focus problems. I lose focus as well and it came front focusing so did adjustments in the camera but still not sure it is working. Also It will lose focus totally and I swtich it off and on and ok but that is not the way it should be. Will get replacement once not no longer in isolation due to COVID19
I got the sister to your lens.. LOL. I wrote to Tamron with examples. They told me after quarantine, to send it back to fix it... I don't want it fixed, I want a new lens that works. My lens is only maybe 2 months old. I used to have the Sigma 150-600mm and the auto focus died after 4 yrs. I got the AF motor replaced and it still didn't work. So I got the Tamron based on others' reviews. But I am very disappointed.
@@lynnkohl9110 Some of my problem is even though I am using a high shutter speed like 1/1200 or so and higher ISO (have it on Auto) I get not well-focused objects But they are moving like on a bird feeder. When I first received the lens I felt it was front focusing and went to the camera store I bought it at and they matched it to the camera done in the menus Custom controls but think it did that on the distance limiter so not sure it was done correctly. ONCE this COVID19 is done I am going to the store and getting it looked at or give me another lens but by the sounds of it people do have some focusing issues so I would take some photos and specific about if the control for Focus control was on FULL, or 10m (32.5ft) -infinity or 2.2 m to 7m which is about 7ft to 32.5 ft Friends tell me to just leave it on FULL so it does not limit focusing to distance. Also, Vibration Control should be OFF when on a tripod and when handheld, use 3 for Vibration control at the moment you hit the shutter only, or 1 which some like better because it has Vibration control on all the time it is focused and not just at shutter hit. 2 is for panning only. I always think it is me. I do sometimes get a very focused photo but not enough. I know many people who love this lens so we shall persevere.
I have the original Tamron 150-600mm and have the same issues, don't find it particularly sharp. I have been considering the new Sigma 60-600mm but can't find any real like for like comparisons of sharpness between that lens and the Tamron. I did rent the 400mm f5.6, very sharp no denying that, I just don't like the idea of cropping it too much, as it does restrict printing possibilities...
Well, yeah, I agree, that's why I wanted more reach with this 150-600 lens. But if it is not going to be sharp then what's the point? I would rather crop and have a sharp image.
That is an excellent lens, I have rented it a few times when I needed to carry only one lens. But I have a 400mm prime lens. I am looking for the longer range so the 100-400 doesn't serve my purpose here.
Its all about the glass If you want tack sharp photos you gotta have the best glass .As the saying goes Buy the best and cry once The same goes for Telescopes Check out the sony A9 with the big lens ,,how sharp is that 9 or 10 grand sharp ,mirrorless too ,don't scare the birds ,,I dont have one ,but my friends that take pics of birds do ,so I enjoy looking at them ,.There is a site here called Alberta birds and some off the pics are outta this world,Anne you know this,some off your pics are great as well
Yeah, I've been thinking it would be pretty nice to have the Sony A9 and the new 200-600. But then I would also need the Sony 70-200 to round out my wildlife kit. It costs a lot less to just get the Sigma Sport, which will be my next option should I decide to continue down this path. For now I think I'm happy sticking with my Canon 400 - old reliable.
Nice video Anne thanks for sharing, I am thinking about the Sigma 150-600mm, maybe that one is better? I am also considering the 70-300mm or 100-400mm canon lenses that you mentioned, of those 2 which one do you recommend?
I have never used the 70-300 L lens. But I have the "non-L" 70-300 and it is awesome. People call it the non-L because it seems just as good as the L. The background is buttery. The 100-400L is an outstanding a very versatile lens. It is heavy though. I rent it sometimes if I am going on a trip and only want to take two lenses. I'll take the 24-105 and the 100-400. I always get great results with the 100-400, but I can't carry it around all day. As far as the Sigma goes, I have never tried it. Based on the comments on my videos, people say the Sigma Contemporary has the same hit and miss as the Tamron. But apparently the Sigma Sport is really good. But again, really heavy.
@@annemckinnell actually yes I was referring to the non L canon 70-300mm is usm mark ii, I already have the 55-250mm and was wondering if I should get this one for the extra reach and also because I will most likely get a full frame camera in the future
That's the one! I love that lens. I am using it on a 7D, but I absolutely love it for wildlife (when you are reasonably close or a large animal). I use it and the 400mm f/5.6L for wildlife.
You're asking too much from the Tam and Sig. These aren't fine tune for extreme bird photography. They meant for static. You'll better off with the 400mm L, use Topaz to AI upscale and sharpen. Another upgrade is using a 30MP APSC or the R5 to squeeze the max possible out of 400mm. native glass always performs faster. Tam/Sig are guessing focus.
Thanks for this very informative comparison between those 2 Lenses. I‘m thinking about buying the Canon Lens. So I want to know, if the missing stabilisation was a big problem for you in the wildlife fotographie without using a Tripod or anythinge else.
Hi Chris, no not at all. When shooting wildlife the shutter speed is going to be very fast anyway, so I have not missed the image stabilization. My images are sharp with it. However, I think they actually stopped making that particular lens! Shame because it's a beauty. Maybe you can find one used?
I own and love my Canon 400mm 5.6 lens. Makes Tamron 150-600 IQ look like a toy. I won’t sacrifice quality over reach. If I can’t get close enough then I simply won’t photograph it.
Hi there just seen your video and I found the exact same problem with the sigma 150-600c on my canon 7dmk2 the image was great if stationary and in bright direct sunlight but any shade or far away just unusable images so I then went down the route of trading that in for the canon 100-400 mk 2 that’s loads clearer sharper even in flight than the sigma though I am pushing it trying to catch birds that are too high up (damned buzzards ) lol I then got the canon 1.4 mk3 But found I was then back to sigma quality so that’s gone back and I’m now waiting and saving for either the 500 f4 or 600 f4 depending what pops up 2nd hand within budget lol great video look forward to see what you go for next 👍👍
Thanks for the feedback about your experience with the Sigma 150-600c. I was thinking about trying that one, but after going through two copies of the tamron, I decided to give up for awhile and stick with my Canon 400mm prime lens. The Canon 100-400 is also a beautiful lens as you have found. But yes, once you put the extender on it, quality goes down. The 500 or 600 prime would be nice, but I don't know if it is worth it for the cost and the weight when you can just crop a photo made with the 400. Obviously cropping has drawbacks, but I don't think the drawbacks outweigh the cost of the 500 or 600.
It's frustrating going from a P900 point (2000 mm equiv.) and shoot to a dslr. It just costs so much to get back out to the distances a P900 can shoot. So I've been beating this topic into the ground since last December. I've watched videos about certain lenses several times and have read lots of articles. I don't really like any of the choices. What kind of lens do they use to take aerial pictures above the earth? I have to pay thousands for lenses that can't take a clear and close picture at 70 yards but they can zoom right down and take clear pictures of my yard? Something like 16k for a Nikon 800mm? Disclaimer- I'm learning as I go. One of the lenses I do have is a Sigma 120-300 2.8. I wanted something for lower light. I doubled it to 600 mm 5.6 and then crop setting it up to 900 mm. It left me slightly frustrated a couple times while trying to take pictures of ducks flying away. So I thought I'd try another Nikon lens. Maybe a Sigma Sport 150-600. But would it be silly since I can use my current lens at 600 with 5.6? I don't know what to do at this point. i am curious if you have tried to fine tune the Tamron using a dock that connects to a computer? If possible.
I did try to fine to the first copy of the Tamron lens using the dock. I can see how that would be really useful if the lens just needed a little bit of tuning, but unfortunately mine was so bad that even extreme values on the micro adjustment were not enough. I did a whole video about that process that you can find on my channel. It's just 2 videos ago. Given that you are shooting Nikon, I have heard from a lot of people that the Nikon 200-500 is a good lens (or maybe it was Nikkor) so if I were you I might give that one a try. I hope this helps. If you do try it, I'd love to hear how it works out for you.
@@annemckinnell Thanks for responding. I was waiting for the Nikon 500 5.6 prime but it's still not available since the videos first showed it 8 months ago. I have considered the 200-500 but some people were having trouble with it where it would need to be sent back to be fixed or they kept sending it back for replacements until they got a good copy. I was concerned that I would get a bad copy and not know enough about it to know to send it back. The 200-500 was on sale for a while but now it's not. At this point I would probably try it if it went back on sale. (140. off) I did watch your other video but probably forgot if you mentioned trying a dock. I'm kind of in a similar situation as you. I have considered buying something like a Sigma 300-800 but a Nikon name brand lens may be sharper and able to crop instead of getting closer and being more blurry. I don't know how a Sigmonster would be. It's just the idea that a 500 5.6 prime cropped might be better than something like Sigma 150-600 with a little more reach. But the Sigma is available and the Nikon 500 5.6 prime is not. Round and round. My Sigma 120-300 2.8 takes nice photographs. It just didn't respond as quickly as I needed it to at times. But I am still learning.
Ya, that seems to be what happens with the Tamron 150-600, people send it back until they get a good copy! I've already had 2 copies, and sent them both back, so I don't really want a lens I'm always going to be suspicious of. I did try the tap-in console on it, but it was too far out of whack to fix. The second copy wasn't front or back focussing, so the tap-in didn't offer any fixes that would work. I image that the Nikon 500mm would be a better lens for you, but it's much more expensive too. Although a lot less than the Canon 500mm! I'm not willing to spend $9k just to get another 100mm. What's the point of all these megapixels if we can't just crop?
I thought I had stumbled on a lens (planned) for a Canon 90d (also planned). The Tamron managed to fall off the list because of things you have shared. Thank you for presenting all the information. :-)
Glad it was helpful Bill. There are some people who have good copies of the Tamron lens, but it's a coin toss. I would highly recommend the Canon 400mm f/5.6L if you can find one. I understand they recently stopped making them, which is a shame.
Hi Anne, what body are you using? I've found that Tamron plays nicer with Nikon for some reason. I have some samples here flic.kr/s/aHskJT3PRS Some are stills from when Tamron did the Video about the G2 with me. The first eagle picture that you showed was clearly back focused on the branches behind the eagle. I find that when I fine tune it is important to fine tune at a distance. I shoot with a 500 F4 and 300 F2.8 presently. But when I shot with Canon, I did have the 400 F5.6 for a bit. I found the Tamron to be as good at 400 and fall off slightly at longer lengths. Have you stopped down at all? I. Found even 7.1 sharpened it up noticeably...
I am using a Canon 7DM2. Yes, I tried stopping it down and micro-adjusting the focus. Both copies of the lens just sucked for different reasons. Now I would never trust that lens even if I got my hands on a good copy. I did wonder though if it cooperates better with Nikon...
Dear anne... Thanks for the test.... Can you pls check sigma 150 600 C? Many reviews are out there saying they are sharper than tamaron in this category.... Could you pls review that C version pls?
I had the Sigma 150-600mm for 4 yrs. It did 'ok', but the AF motor went. I got it fixed ($300) and it didn't fix the problem really. It then worked the same as this Tamron. I just got this Tamron and I am having even worse issues than what Anne is having. It will take a long time to just hold focus if it does at all. Then when I go to take the pic, it loses it that fast. I wrote to Tamron and they replied quickly. Saying it may be a defect. When the quarantine is over to return for repair. But I just want to return it all together.
I had a sigma 150-600 contemporary on a Nikon body and I loved what I got out of it. I bought a used Canon body and a 400mm 5.6. I switched to canon because of the dual pixel autofocus for video and for the 400mm 5.6. Unfortunately, the one I bought used seemed soft. Outside it looked great but there was A LOT of dust inside of the lens. I'm waiting on a refund and will either order a sigma 150-600c or a used 400mm 5.6 from another company when it shows in my account. I haven't tried the Tamron 150-600 but this made me not want to.
Yes, the VR was off because my shutter speeds were very high, so image stabilization should not be required. I did however try it with all 3 VR modes just to check, but it didn't make anything better. Good question :)
Thanks for this. You presented a better review, with a scientific methodology, than all the "expert" reviews I have seen. Ignore some of these idiotic comments here.
Sigma,Tamron and all third party lenses are patheticly lacking. Purchases of these lenses will fail. All my Canon lenses still operate today even from the 70's. My 600mm L i.s. f4 from 1989 I use it today on my 5dsr and still its tack sharp. Everyone knows a zoom lens will never be as sharp as a standard prime lens. Although the 100 - 400mm L mark ii is the sharpest zoom I've ever shot with and with four stops of image stabilization plus lightweight for moving around with or without a monopod its fantastic.
Hi Anne thanks for sharing, I love my canon 400mm and f8 seems to be the best aperture and I have the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender, on an APC Sensor I get very nice Images so I will stick to what I have. I hope you find a solution ;) Sean in the UK
Anne watched both of your videos and especially felt sorry for you in the 1st video going through all of those calibrations. Although I am a Nikon shooter I also bought the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens for my D500 and D850 1st copy was really bad and 2nd copy was just a bit better but not worth keeping, Took it back and got the Nikkor 200-500 and all is great and now I have the Nikkor 500 5.6 PF which I love. So for me IMO I won't waste my time with 3rd party lenses and will only stick to brand names.
Doing the calibration is a total PITA! I always think I'll just do one little test ... but then I always end up spending all day doing it. I'm starting to feel the same way about 3rd party lenses. Although I owned a Sigma wide angle that was great. But it's kind of hard to go wrong with a wide angle - everything is always in focus!! I have heard good things about the Nikkor 200-500, so that would be worth a try for Nikon shooters.
if your interested check out my reviews on the canon 100-400II sigma c and sport and tamron g1 lens I made many videos when I bought all these to review.
You are welcome! If I can help prevent anyone else from going through such a frustrating experience ... I'm not even sure I want to try the Sigmas now because it is so frustrating. I haven't decided on that yet.
had the same kind of huge disappointment with the sigma 150-600. It's "sharp" only under 10m static subjects. Like you with the tamron, AF will jiggle and never really lock, one frame in a burst may comes out as a lucky shot but that's not really acceptable even at that price point. I too have switched to the 400/5.6L, and despite it's often too short and I hate canon for not updating, it has brought home good images quite consistently.
I started bird photography with a tamron 18-400, and it was horrible. I got some good shots but maybe 1 out of 100. Not so far i upgraded to a canon 100-400 made in 2013, and thats lightyears better. Tamron is good for macros and for close-mid range, canon is good for almost everywhere. I want to buy an 1.4x tc for more zoom in the future but i need to change my camera too because of the f5.6 will become f8.
I just bought this lens for my 90D. Even though the sigma contemporary is slightly cheaper I went with the Tamron. Just because most of the Pros on here have proven through multiple tests that the Tamron is the lens to purchase. Not sure what's going on with yours?. All I know from the research I've done you need to shoot at f8.0 or higher to get decent shots on a APS-C at 600mm th-cam.com/video/gNwnrcG6kk0/w-d-xo.html
I know there are lots of people who did get good copies of this lens. It seems to be about half of the people. But I still think that a person should be able to get a sharp shot wide open. Sure, it will have shallow depth of field, but there's no excuse for it not being able to make a sharp shot wide open.
@@annemckinnell should be as you said, but it's not necessarily the case, with aps-c even the 400mm wide open it's only good, and it gets sharper at f8, while with full frame it's tack sharp even wide open at 5.6... BTW having said that seems to me that your copy has some focusing problem, so I think that even in you stop at f8 f9, you'll get poor results as well
@@annemckinnell if I were you, I'd keep using the 400mm, native lenses simply performs better, third party manufacturers lenses may be great, but as you proved for sure the focus isn't as reliable
I'm glad your tamron is sharp. About half of the people here say that. It seems to be a coin toss whether you get a good one or a bad one. But I have no problem with all my other lenses, including my 500mm lens, so I don't think my technique is the problem.
A manufacturer who doesn't produce lenses that can focus out of the box doesn't deserve to have my business. You know what lenses focus right out of the box? Canon lenses.
For the equipment you have, you just make pretty average photos!!! In your case, it's true, thay you can have a good equipment, but if the photographer's just average, so will the photos be. Bem watching your photos on Instagram, and they're are only a few really nice but the majority.....You talk about canon prime lenses ,with the L serie to be known as super sharp. Ofcourse you can't compare that with the Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC SP USD G2. But then again, why would you want to spend lots of money when the majority of your photos are just snapshots....burst mode (select the nicest one) and some out of focus. You would have been ok with just the Tamron. It's not as sharp as the L serie lenses, but it isn't that much worse neither.
If the lens is faulty it doesn't matter what camera you put it on! Plus, I have plenty of professional quality shots with the Canon 7D, there's nothing wrong with that camera.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
i am glad i watched this vid , i am new to wildlife photography, iwas thinking of getting a tamron but eventually whent for the canon 400mm 5.6 l , but i havent used it yet , now i cant wait to try it out , thankyou for your input
Hi Anne,
Thank you for a lovely video.
I have the same problem with my sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens, and before he says anything its been calibrated correctly.
After listen to your comments about your Tamron 150-600 the sigma is so much alike, if I compare it to my canon lens which locks on every time where as the 150-600mm hunts and I have missed many shots.
I have decided so sell my sigma 150-600mm lens and invest in another canon lens which will be able to focus correctly and quickly too.
The canon 400mm f5.6 is a cracking lens and this will be my next purchase.
Thank you.
I got the canon 400 MM EF 5.6L Lens I also got the canon 70/300MM EF 4/5.6L Lens
what a great revue, thank you, I have just orderd the canon 400 5.6,
That's great! I heard that they recently stopped making it, so it's great that you were able to get one.
@@annemckinnell I had to buy it second hand off Ebay, had it a few days and im really happy with it, Thank you.
the tamron being "okay" vs the canon being razor sharp is to be expected. the entire advantage of primes is that you can hyper tune them to 1 focal length, and the elements are far more rigidly mounted relative to one another. Im noticing on your eagle photo for example, you tamron is wide open, while your canon lens, which is already a prime lens, has been stopped down to f/7.1. so its REALLY going to be sharp.
the missed focus is just bizarre. never had that bad of an issue on nikon.
I love my 150-600 G2!
That being said, do not buy the lense pre-owned!
The lense does have bugs that need to be fixed by Tamron and the 6 year warranty only follows the original purchaser.
The tap in console is for mirrorless cameras only.
The focus issue with the Tamron lense can generally only be fixed by Tamron.
The tap in console is for any camera
#1Every photographer knows a prime lens is sharper than a zoom.
#2 Canon has been a leader in manufacturing quality that lasts + the fact that after market companies stop producing replacement parts when Canon and Nikon spare parts are readily available.
#3 Canon's weather sealing makes a difference as well Canon's white color scheme helps reduce heat from the sun.
#4 Canon's glass is tack sharp.
I still use my 600 f4 L i.s. today in combination with the 5dsr and
5d miv with tack sharp results.
Now I have my eye on the 600 f/4L! Costly though. I'm trying to find a used one.
@@annemckinnell used photo pro in indianapolis indiana usually has them used in great shape at a descent price and they give the best warranty in the business. usedphoto.com
Thanks for the review and pics. I've used the 100-400L mark1, then decided to just go for the lighter 400L 5.6 which I love, super fast AF and sharp. When I needed the extra reach, I just added the Kenko Pro300 1.4x converter on the M6markii, and I've an equivalent 900mm f8. Only issue is when the subject gets close, then I have to either shoot a head shot closeup, or remove the converter. Just FYI, with the converter, I can track and get a high hit rate for birds in flight with the M6markii.
Thanks for the feedback Kenneth. I'm glad you love the 400 f/5.6L too. It's a fantastic lens. I believe they recently stopped making it which is a shame. I have only tried using a converter a couple of times so I never really got the hang of it. Need to try again!
Hi Kenneth, did you use the EF400 on the R6 mark one too? I'm thinking if that would be a good combination in stead of my RF100-400 5.6-8
Hi @19ab59
This is a long time ago, and I've since upgraded to the EF600mmf4iii on the R6ii, mainly because I need the reach and don't want to compromise.
With respect to the RF100400, I've seen good shots with that lens too. The only problem is the smaller aperture, which basically limits your photography to shooting in good light. Out where I am, lighting is usually dark and so capturing wildlife requires the biggest glass available.
Many lenses seem to have a 50% rate, at being bang on, or trouble with focus. I have the Tampon 150-600mm G2 as well, and only once had an issue with focus, but found it was one of the many lenses settings that had gotten bumped, and wasn't set correctly. I have a Bald Eagle image taken with it, that I won an award with, so for the most part the Tamron works just fine. With that set, I as well find it on the heavy side, and went with a carbon fibre gimbal head, and my D750 Nikon seems to work fine with the Tamron. I also have the 70-200mm F/2.8 and a Nikon 2X extender, but tend to opt for the Tamron for the reach for the most part. Sorry to hear you've had trouble with the focusing Anne, and as always, love your video's! With that said, I truly enjoy Ray's video's as well, to keep our motorhome repairs to a minimum. Stay safe!
Anne, thanks so much for the two videos regarding the Tamron 150-600mm. I also have a desire to get more magnification with my wildlife shots and have strongly considered the Tamron lens, but I have reached the same conclusion that you reached regarding the lens. I also have several Flickr friends that are quite good photographers , and use the Tamron lens . I find when viewing their photos that very few of them have crisp focus.
I am going to stick to my Canon 400mm, ( I have both the 400mmL and the 100-400mmL ii ) love them both just wanted more reach.
Ken
So we're in the same boat! I am surprised how many people say they get sharp photos, but then when you go look at them they are soft. I guess I have high expectations, but if I can't get results as good as what I am getting with the Canon 400mm then it is not worth it. Thanks for your comments.
I went to a camera shop... tried both the sigma and the tamron... I had slightly better results with the tamron... after pairing the lenses up... I am sure the results would vary slightly if I had a pro do the pairing... I did find that the sigma was slightly stronger at 550 mm than the tamron, but that everything under that, the tamron was slightly stronger... but for me it was the price point at the time and because I wanted variable zoom... your 400mm is a prime... all primes perform better than variable... so in my case it was down to tamron 150-600 at $1000 or Canon 100-400 at $1800 because I needed variable zoom... (I am not a pro) so I chose the tamron. one thing I had to make sure with the Tamron is if I was shooting on a tripod to make sure I turned the image stabilization off on the lense... that helped... but if I was in your shoes and already had a 400 prime... I would try a 1.4x or 2x extender to gain the extra reach. In store testing... those L lenses with extenders still perform better than variable zooms, yet in some instances are still sharper cropping the unextended photo.
I have used both the sigma lenses in fact I reviewed both of them. The C version is great but the os optical stabilizer to me seems closer to 2 stops rather than 4. I think perhaps the sport version is much better in that regards. I did notice the sports lens does mis focus. When I focused some thing in the centre I noticed focus dropped down a bit so I had to calibrate the lens with the sigma dock to resolve this. The C version seemed fine at 600mm the lens is a little softer so for sharpest results kept the lens at 500mm.
I used to use the Canon 7D and bought the first Tamron version of this lens. It packed up after a fortnight. However, I was given another one and it worked reasonably well for our trip to South America and Antarctica. I know that the Canon would've done a lot better but my purchase suited the budget at the time. I've since converted to an Olympus OEM1Mk11 and use the pro lenses on it. I do have a Metabones converter so I can use some of the Canon lenses with the newer body but the bigger lenses are a lot more weight to carry around. I'm so glad I made the change as my photos are a lot sharper than they used to be. No more Tamron for me!
Same experience here, with Sigma Art and Contemporary and Nikon cameras. Finally I sold all them and switched to native lenses. Since then I have much better results.
I have the same experience with my Tamron 100-400 and my 6D mark II. Unfortunately, despite being a good lens, it's very hard to track birds and have them in focus, also it's not that sharp wide open and it seems to me it's a generally dark lens as far as light transmission so my ISO is usually very high. I am going to sell it and try the Canon 400 5.6, hope the sharpness alone makes a difference in my wildife shots!
Hi and thanks for video. I have exact same experience with sigma 150-600 sport EF mount (canon 6D) and same with (1DX mark 2) if object is close all is good, but if zoom out to 600mm and light is good photos are about okay, lower light all is soft. All is tested fine adjustment whit sigma doc nothing really shange result. Now thinking to buy canon 400mm.
OMG Anne,
I just experienced the same issues you had with 2 Tamron lenses! Frustrating to say the least I might add! I too have the Canon 7D mark ii. Love it! You described the exact same issues to a T. I bought locally from Hunts Photo and returned them both. I own the Canon 100-400 l lens you rent and I get sharp photos.But I too am looking for the extra reach. I also have an old version on the 1dx Canon and still had those issues… I would like to check out the Sigma Sport version… heavier yes but better motor so they claim..
Hello Anne, i guess you would have much sharper results if you would shoot with the tamron at F9-F11. had the same issue in the beginning with shooting F6.2 600mm / really good results with F11 - in my opinion you need a sunny day to use it. have a nice x-mas.
Just wanted to add Possibility to check: I have the sigma C 150-600 and what I noticed is. I use back button focus but the lens does not want to work that way, As soon as i take the photo (front button) it goes back to hunting for focus thereby losing focus, might check that, Mine is on it way back. I use a 6D.
Sigma 150-600 is not that bad like the Tamron. On my 6D Mark II the Sigma focusses satisfactorily. On my 50D and 7D it is not very sharp. On my Sony A6300 with the Sigma mc-11 adapter the 150-600 is razor sharp. The Sigma is either not very well focusing on Canon APS-C or the anti-aliasing filter on Canon makes the lens look not sharp. But for moving subjects the Sony solution is not focussing quickly enough due to the adapter. So I can imagine that a Sony A6400 with the Sony 200-600mm would be a dream combo with real time tracking and animal eye AF :)
I have been considering the 150-600mm superzooms from both Sigma and Tamron for wildlife lenses for my Canon 800D. This video along with the ones I have looked at from Tony Northrup have convinced me that I would be better using the Canon 400mm prime. Thanks for helping me come to a decision.
I have the Tamron and get some amazing wildlife shots, but the decision point for me, was I was able to get the Tamron for just under $1000 but the Canon was $1800+ ... I even was going to go with the 100-400L but again the price was a lot more (I am not a pro... just a guy who likes to take pics)... I did have varying results at first with or without image stabilization on... whether or not I was using a tripod... and the big one... if you can adjust the focus of the lens to the camera... not sure if the 800D does that... but one thing I will say is that the tamron performs great but does go soft after 550mm so I try not to go beyond that. oh... and it weighs a lot more ... lol
I’ve had the same issues with my G2 in the Nautical world. Under 300mm I’m good, but when I get over that the focusing is all over the place and the problem gets worse the more the subject moves.
Thanks for sharing and the video has been helpful for me as I am looking for a light weight telephoto. I use a full frame camera but I don't want to take the risk. I might as well get the Canon 400mm used. The reach isn't enough but at least it doesn't fail so often and cropping is what we have to do with bird photos.
Good stuff Anne. I have the Sigma 150-400 C using it with the 5D4. I've been pretty happy with it. It is a beast though and since I recently got a used 7D2 I decided to get the Canon 400 5.6 since I get 640mm. It is a fantastic combo! The images are really sharp. Not a beast and I can carry it all day without feeling exhausted.
That's the same combo I have and I love it!
You'd be much more satisfied using a 5Dmk4 with your 400 5.6. I've had 4 7dii's through the years & it's a fine camera,but it's focusing system is far inferior to the 5d. Full frame gives better image quality & better bokeh. 30mp vs 20mp so you can crop & almost get the same sensor reach.
I've gone through your exact same situation for years. I've owned all the super zooms & have shot Canon digital since the 10D. You'll fight getting the results you want using any 150-600 unless you're close to the subject.
I've owned every white canon L lens that they make. I've shot the 7dii on my 500 F4's, my 600F4's,400 2.8's etc,etc. Currently I use the 5d4 & 400mm F4 DOII with the 1.4x iii & 2xiii. 400mm-560mm-800mm. Very lightweight & sharpness with the 2xiii at 800mm is better than my 600mm f4 with the 1.4x at 840mm- quite a bit better in fact.
Your 400 5.6 with the 1.4xiii on the 5d4 is a deadly combination at 560mm. All focus points are available & very fast/accurate. Image quality is miles beyond the super zooms also.
You sound like me- all I want is accurate REPEATABLE focus accuracy. Right?
Before you buy anything else, buy a nice used 5d4 and try it-you'll find what you've been searching for.
Message me thru fb if you'd like to know about our test results. Thx
The canon 5d miv all focus points work with the new canon tele extenders 1.4 miii and 2x miii versions with all canon super telephoto lenses. Including my older 600mm f4 i.s. L from 1989, the 100-400mm mark ii version and 400 5.6 with the 1.4 tele extender miii all focus points work as well. This factor alone is worth stepping up to the 5d miv not to mention the boost in pixels for cropping, pretty fast frame rate and low digital noise at higher iso speeds.
@@forsterl.stewart414 yes, and auto focus with the extenders is many times better than when using extenders on the 7dii
What are your thoughts on the canon 100-400mm ii with those extenders? I know prime wins the IQ contest, but it’d be nice for someone like me with fewer lenses to have the versatility of a zoom. Would a 100-400mm with a 1.4 produce sharp bird images and be useable during the hour after sunrise with the reduced aperture?
I had the same experience with the Tamron. Same keeper rate as you. Sold it and went with the 400mm f/5.6 and keeper rate has gone up.
I have the Tamron 150-600 G1 and thinking of a Canon 400mm prime instead. looking at this it seems like thats the way to go..
The Canon 400mm f/5.6L is an outstanding lens. I stand behind that one! The 100-400 is also a thing of beauty.
On thing that bothers me about this comparison is the 200 mm focal length mismatch. Its seems many you tubers forget that depth of field gets shallower as focal length increases. It is inherently more difficult to obtain sharp focus with a 600mm focal length because of this fact. I have found that I have to be precise with my focus point when using this lens. You might want to try stopping down a bit to f9 - f11 and see if you find the results more acceptable. It would be interesting to see your results with the Tamron at 400mm.
Hope this helps!
I get your point, and yes I'm sure the results would be better if I stopped down to f/11. But for me I need to be confident that it is in facer possible to get a sharp photo wide open. If I have to stop down, and raise the ISO, there is more noise. Frankly I feel better off using the Canon 400mm and just cropping. I get better results!
hi, I'm using tamron 150-600G2 on canon 80d. Before I sent it to calibration I hated it. after I recieved it back things wa doing much better.
If i'm having much time to shoot a flying bird i'm using the focus ring and things are much better. but when it cost 300$ less than the canon i think the price is a winner.
I know plenty of people who own that lens (tamron 150-600 G2) and are happy with it and make sharp photos. To many people complain because they only think L lenses make the best photos, which is wrong. You can make sharp photos with this lens too, it's not all all worse then an L lens! To many ppl buying L serie lenses, but all they shoot are snapshots....
Many thanks for your comprehensive videos on this lens. I was contemplating one but will now look for a used Canon 400mm. I have found that even with non-Canon lens converters with the Canon 70 - 200 f2,8 lens the functionality is erratic.
20% in focus rate for the Tamron seems awfully low. I have the Tamron g1 with the Canon 77d. I'm no pro, and I get around 80%-90% focus rate. I use BBF, Av priority, Servo AI, Center group focus, Hi-burst, Auto ISO, 1/1000s for still subject, 1/2000-1/3000 for BIF, Evaluated metering. I switch to single point focus or manual focus override for small birds.
This Canon 400 5.6L is the best 400 for the money
Agreed!
Lol, well, you sold me on the Canon 400mm.
If anything using any of these lenses, in CROP sensor cameras will yield better results because you are using a smaller part of the lens. Primes (no zoom) will generally be better than the best zoom. I own the Sigma SPORT (heavy), Tamron G2 150-600, and the Nikon 200-500. All do a decent job, the Nikon is faster at 5.6 but it is NOT better than the Sima Sport or the Tamron. My favorite lens is the Tamron G2, it is faster to focus than Nikon and Sigma Sport, and much lighter. When tracking birds' weight is very important. Clarity is a tad better in the Nikon but not much, in the field you would never notice it. -I really think that there is something wrong with your lens or simply needs to be calibrated. My G2 is fast and sharp in both my D500 and D850. It is also much lighter than the Sigma Sport and about a pound lighter than the Nikon, which makes the G2 my go-to lens for birding. Being able to zoom is a HUGE deal to me, my prime 500 mm F5.6 always has me wanting more or less magnification. That said, I don't know anyone that does not love that Ol' 400mm Canon (over 25 years old), it is light and cheap and it is a prime -lighter and better than zooms.
With the exception of the Canon 100-400 V2, prime's the only way to go for birding :)
The zoom EF 200-400mm is a excellent choice too.
that 400mm is a trusted old lens :)
I'd expect a prime to be much sharper than a zoom. Ever try one of those 1.4x teleconverters with your 400mm lens? ...you may be forced into manual-focus when using it, because it eats 1 stop of light, but you do get more reach without losing much IQ in my opinion I happily used the 300 f/4 with (and without) .the 1.4x teleconverter for years.
Also, I own a Sigma 150-600 contemporary and encounter the exact same focus issues with moving objects on my full frame Canon. I don't shoot birds very often, but got around the focus issue by manually pre-focusing while zoomed in with live view to a nearby stationary object. My 300 prime still looks sharper to me than any zoom; including my banged up, used copy of Canon's latest 100-400..
No, I think I would have too much trouble finding my subject. It's already hard enough with a 400 to get a bird in flight in the frame. You don't have that problem with the 300? Or are you shooting subjects that aren't moving? Plus manual focus is out of the question for me. I'm just not good at it. The converter would probably be good on the 100-400 though.
Oh, somehow I missed the whole second part of your comment! Thanks for the feedback about the Sigma lens, that's exactly what I want to know. The pre-focussing idea is great if you know where your subject is going to be :) but that's not going to work for me. I may end up just sticking with the 400 because it's so sharp I will be disappointed with anything else.
I have use the Tamron G2 with both the 7D II and the original 6D... I have the feeling the 6D even with the inferior focusing system got me better results than the 7D II combination. Again, I have not calibrated the lens either.
Very interesting. That's exactly what I was wondering about whether crop sensors had any effect on this. I don't see why they should. The 7D II has an excellent focussing system as you say. Thanks for the feedback.
I had the 7D Mark ii and when using a Tamron 70-200 V1 I felt it was a little soft, but it was sharp on my 5D Mark ii. I now have a 6D Mark ii and it's nice and sharp. 🤷♂️
The Tamron is terrible, but I have to say I don't have the same problem with my Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary, in fact it was sharp right out of the box. I don't know about the Tamron, but I am using an APS-C body too with the 90D and is working pretty well. What I would say is the Sigma and probably the Tamron too does not like low light. Why not just rent out the Sigma and try it out first?
I have heard many good things about the 400mm f/5.6, but personally I wouldn't touch it because of the lack of IS plus of course the much shorter reach. Quite frankly, now that I have been shooting at 960mm, I simply won't go back to shorter lenses. To me, with birds, reach is king, your Tamron problem is an extreme example, if I were you I would definitely give the Sigma a go.
The biggest problem is on Canon, they have left out a huge gap in their lens line-up and that is they simply don't have a super zoom. What they need is a 200-600mm L lens much like Sony's 200-600mm G lens.
The lack of IS in the Canon 400mm hasn't been a problem for me because I am always using super high shutter speeds anyway for wildlife photography. But yes, I would like to have that extra reach - but only if the results are sharp. I have been thinking about trying the Sigma contemporary next. Thanks for your comments!
I think I got the one you sent back, focus problems. I lose focus as well and it came front focusing so did adjustments in the camera but still not sure it is working. Also It will lose focus totally and I swtich it off and on and ok but that is not the way it should be. Will get replacement once not no longer in isolation due to COVID19
I got the sister to your lens.. LOL. I wrote to Tamron with examples. They told me after quarantine, to send it back to fix it... I don't want it fixed, I want a new lens that works. My lens is only maybe 2 months old. I used to have the Sigma 150-600mm and the auto focus died after 4 yrs. I got the AF motor replaced and it still didn't work. So I got the Tamron based on others' reviews. But I am very disappointed.
@@lynnkohl9110 Some of my problem is even though I am using a high shutter speed like 1/1200 or so and higher ISO (have it on Auto) I get not well-focused objects But they are moving like on a bird feeder. When I first received the lens I felt it was front focusing and went to the camera store I bought it at and they matched it to the camera done in the menus Custom controls but think it did that on the distance limiter so not sure it was done correctly. ONCE this COVID19 is done I am going to the store and getting it looked at or give me another lens but by the sounds of it people do have some focusing issues so I would take some photos and specific about if the control for Focus control was on FULL, or 10m (32.5ft) -infinity or 2.2 m to 7m which is about 7ft to 32.5 ft Friends tell me to just leave it on FULL so it does not limit focusing to distance. Also, Vibration Control should be OFF when on a tripod and when handheld, use 3 for Vibration control at the moment you hit the shutter only, or 1 which some like better because it has Vibration control on all the time it is focused and not just at shutter hit. 2 is for panning only. I always think it is me. I do sometimes get a very focused photo but not enough. I know many people who love this lens so we shall persevere.
I have the original Tamron 150-600mm and have the same issues, don't find it particularly sharp. I have been considering the new Sigma 60-600mm but can't find any real like for like comparisons of sharpness between that lens and the Tamron. I did rent the 400mm f5.6, very sharp no denying that, I just don't like the idea of cropping it too much, as it does restrict printing possibilities...
Well, yeah, I agree, that's why I wanted more reach with this 150-600 lens. But if it is not going to be sharp then what's the point? I would rather crop and have a sharp image.
consider the canon 100-400II it is very sharp. you can get a grey import for around $1400
That is an excellent lens, I have rented it a few times when I needed to carry only one lens. But I have a 400mm prime lens. I am looking for the longer range so the 100-400 doesn't serve my purpose here.
Its all about the glass If you want tack sharp photos you gotta have the best glass .As the saying goes Buy the best and cry once The same goes for Telescopes Check out the sony A9 with the big lens ,,how sharp is that 9 or 10 grand sharp ,mirrorless too ,don't scare the birds ,,I dont have one ,but my friends that take pics of birds do ,so I enjoy looking at them ,.There is a site here called Alberta birds and some off the pics are outta this world,Anne you know this,some off your pics are great as well
Yeah, I've been thinking it would be pretty nice to have the Sony A9 and the new 200-600. But then I would also need the Sony 70-200 to round out my wildlife kit. It costs a lot less to just get the Sigma Sport, which will be my next option should I decide to continue down this path. For now I think I'm happy sticking with my Canon 400 - old reliable.
Thanks! Usefull information!
Nice video Anne thanks for sharing, I am thinking about the Sigma 150-600mm, maybe that one is better? I am also considering the 70-300mm or 100-400mm canon lenses that you mentioned, of those 2 which one do you recommend?
I have never used the 70-300 L lens. But I have the "non-L" 70-300 and it is awesome. People call it the non-L because it seems just as good as the L. The background is buttery. The 100-400L is an outstanding a very versatile lens. It is heavy though. I rent it sometimes if I am going on a trip and only want to take two lenses. I'll take the 24-105 and the 100-400. I always get great results with the 100-400, but I can't carry it around all day. As far as the Sigma goes, I have never tried it. Based on the comments on my videos, people say the Sigma Contemporary has the same hit and miss as the Tamron. But apparently the Sigma Sport is really good. But again, really heavy.
@@annemckinnell actually yes I was referring to the non L canon 70-300mm is usm mark ii, I already have the 55-250mm and was wondering if I should get this one for the extra reach and also because I will most likely get a full frame camera in the future
That's the one! I love that lens. I am using it on a 7D, but I absolutely love it for wildlife (when you are reasonably close or a large animal). I use it and the 400mm f/5.6L for wildlife.
@@annemckinnell awesome! Thanks for the response 🙂
You're asking too much from the Tam and Sig. These aren't fine tune for extreme bird photography. They meant for static.
You'll better off with the 400mm L, use Topaz to AI upscale and sharpen. Another upgrade is using a 30MP APSC or the R5 to squeeze the max possible out of 400mm. native glass always performs faster. Tam/Sig are guessing focus.
Thanks for this very informative comparison between those 2 Lenses. I‘m thinking about buying the Canon Lens.
So I want to know, if the missing stabilisation was a big problem for you in the wildlife fotographie without using a Tripod or anythinge else.
Hi Chris, no not at all. When shooting wildlife the shutter speed is going to be very fast anyway, so I have not missed the image stabilization. My images are sharp with it. However, I think they actually stopped making that particular lens! Shame because it's a beauty. Maybe you can find one used?
Something is not right about the focus rate on the Tamron. I have the Tamron g1 and I'm pretty sure I get a higher focus rate than that.
Yup, I totally agree. I get better focus with all my other lenses.
I own and love my Canon 400mm 5.6 lens. Makes Tamron 150-600 IQ look like a toy. I won’t sacrifice quality over reach. If I can’t get close enough then I simply won’t photograph it.
maybe off topic... but have you tried the canon 1.4x extender on your 400?
Hi there just seen your video and I found the exact same problem with the sigma 150-600c on my canon 7dmk2 the image was great if stationary and in bright direct sunlight but any shade or far away just unusable images so I then went down the route of trading that in for the canon 100-400 mk 2 that’s loads clearer sharper even in flight than the sigma though I am pushing it trying to catch birds that are too high up (damned buzzards ) lol I then got the canon 1.4 mk3
But found I was then back to sigma quality so that’s gone back and I’m now waiting and saving for either the 500 f4 or 600 f4 depending what pops up 2nd hand within budget lol great video look forward to see what you go for next 👍👍
Thanks for the feedback about your experience with the Sigma 150-600c. I was thinking about trying that one, but after going through two copies of the tamron, I decided to give up for awhile and stick with my Canon 400mm prime lens. The Canon 100-400 is also a beautiful lens as you have found. But yes, once you put the extender on it, quality goes down. The 500 or 600 prime would be nice, but I don't know if it is worth it for the cost and the weight when you can just crop a photo made with the 400. Obviously cropping has drawbacks, but I don't think the drawbacks outweigh the cost of the 500 or 600.
Good video thanks!
I’ve always found Tamron to have flaky autofocus performance, and on some lenses quite inconsistent stabilization.
It's frustrating going from a P900 point (2000 mm equiv.) and shoot to a dslr. It just costs so much to get back out to the distances a P900 can shoot. So I've been beating this topic into the ground since last December. I've watched videos about certain lenses several times and have read lots of articles. I don't really like any of the choices. What kind of lens do they use to take aerial pictures above the earth? I have to pay thousands for lenses that can't take a clear and close picture at 70 yards but they can zoom right down and take clear pictures of my yard? Something like 16k for a Nikon 800mm? Disclaimer- I'm learning as I go. One of the lenses I do have is a Sigma 120-300 2.8. I wanted something for lower light. I doubled it to 600 mm 5.6 and then crop setting it up to 900 mm. It left me slightly frustrated a couple times while trying to take pictures of ducks flying away. So I thought I'd try another Nikon lens. Maybe a Sigma Sport 150-600. But would it be silly since I can use my current lens at 600 with 5.6? I don't know what to do at this point. i am curious if you have tried to fine tune the Tamron using a dock that connects to a computer? If possible.
I did try to fine to the first copy of the Tamron lens using the dock. I can see how that would be really useful if the lens just needed a little bit of tuning, but unfortunately mine was so bad that even extreme values on the micro adjustment were not enough. I did a whole video about that process that you can find on my channel. It's just 2 videos ago. Given that you are shooting Nikon, I have heard from a lot of people that the Nikon 200-500 is a good lens (or maybe it was Nikkor) so if I were you I might give that one a try. I hope this helps. If you do try it, I'd love to hear how it works out for you.
@@annemckinnell Thanks for responding. I was waiting for the Nikon 500 5.6 prime but it's still not available since the videos first showed it 8 months ago. I have considered the 200-500 but some people were having trouble with it where it would need to be sent back to be fixed or they kept sending it back for replacements until they got a good copy. I was concerned that I would get a bad copy and not know enough about it to know to send it back. The 200-500 was on sale for a while but now it's not. At this point I would probably try it if it went back on sale. (140. off) I did watch your other video but probably forgot if you mentioned trying a dock. I'm kind of in a similar situation as you. I have considered buying something like a Sigma 300-800 but a Nikon name brand lens may be sharper and able to crop instead of getting closer and being more blurry. I don't know how a Sigmonster would be. It's just the idea that a 500 5.6 prime cropped might be better than something like Sigma 150-600 with a little more reach. But the Sigma is available and the Nikon 500 5.6 prime is not. Round and round. My Sigma 120-300 2.8 takes nice photographs. It just didn't respond as quickly as I needed it to at times. But I am still learning.
Ya, that seems to be what happens with the Tamron 150-600, people send it back until they get a good copy! I've already had 2 copies, and sent them both back, so I don't really want a lens I'm always going to be suspicious of. I did try the tap-in console on it, but it was too far out of whack to fix. The second copy wasn't front or back focussing, so the tap-in didn't offer any fixes that would work. I image that the Nikon 500mm would be a better lens for you, but it's much more expensive too. Although a lot less than the Canon 500mm! I'm not willing to spend $9k just to get another 100mm. What's the point of all these megapixels if we can't just crop?
I thought I had stumbled on a lens (planned) for a Canon 90d (also planned). The Tamron managed to fall off the list because of things you have shared. Thank you for presenting all the information. :-)
Glad it was helpful Bill. There are some people who have good copies of the Tamron lens, but it's a coin toss. I would highly recommend the Canon 400mm f/5.6L if you can find one. I understand they recently stopped making them, which is a shame.
i really want to see your comparison vs canon 500 f4
How does this Tamrom G2 lense work on a Canon EOS200D camera? Any experiences?
Hello have you considered a mk3 2x extender their not bad on a 70-200 2.8 lens.?
No, there would be no point in that for me since I own a 400mm prime. I was only interested in this lens for the 400-600mm range.
Hi Anne, what body are you using? I've found that Tamron plays nicer with Nikon for some reason. I have some samples here flic.kr/s/aHskJT3PRS Some are stills from when Tamron did the Video about the G2 with me. The first eagle picture that you showed was clearly back focused on the branches behind the eagle. I find that when I fine tune it is important to fine tune at a distance. I shoot with a 500 F4 and 300 F2.8 presently. But when I shot with Canon, I did have the 400 F5.6 for a bit. I found the Tamron to be as good at 400 and fall off slightly at longer lengths. Have you stopped down at all? I. Found even 7.1 sharpened it up noticeably...
I am using a Canon 7DM2. Yes, I tried stopping it down and micro-adjusting the focus. Both copies of the lens just sucked for different reasons. Now I would never trust that lens even if I got my hands on a good copy. I did wonder though if it cooperates better with Nikon...
what camera body did you use I just went throuh this and just returned the tamron not even close to my 70-200 g2
I used a Canon 7D Mk II and a Canon 7D Mk I.
I also have problems with 24-70 Tamron G2. I tried calibrating with some success but no happy. Focusing with live view work good. I bought mine used.
Thanks for sharing your experience, much appreciated.
Dear anne... Thanks for the test.... Can you pls check sigma 150 600 C? Many reviews are out there saying they are sharper than tamaron in this category.... Could you pls review that C version pls?
I would love to, but I don't have one. I may try renting on so I can review it. It would certainly be an interesting comparison!
I had the Sigma 150-600mm for 4 yrs. It did 'ok', but the AF motor went. I got it fixed ($300) and it didn't fix the problem really. It then worked the same as this Tamron. I just got this Tamron and I am having even worse issues than what Anne is having. It will take a long time to just hold focus if it does at all. Then when I go to take the pic, it loses it that fast. I wrote to Tamron and they replied quickly. Saying it may be a defect. When the quarantine is over to return for repair. But I just want to return it all together.
I did review all the sigma lenses please check my channel out
I had a sigma 150-600 contemporary on a Nikon body and I loved what I got out of it. I bought a used Canon body and a 400mm 5.6. I switched to canon because of the dual pixel autofocus for video and for the 400mm 5.6. Unfortunately, the one I bought used seemed soft. Outside it looked great but there was A LOT of dust inside of the lens. I'm waiting on a refund and will either order a sigma 150-600c or a used 400mm 5.6 from another company when it shows in my account. I haven't tried the Tamron 150-600 but this made me not want to.
I am wondering if you tyrned your VR off or not. On tripod, VR on the Tamron will be totally blown focus.
Yes, the VR was off because my shutter speeds were very high, so image stabilization should not be required. I did however try it with all 3 VR modes just to check, but it didn't make anything better. Good question :)
Thanks for this. You presented a better review, with a scientific methodology, than all the "expert" reviews I have seen. Ignore some of these idiotic comments here.
Thank you, I appreciate that!
Sigma,Tamron and all third party lenses are patheticly lacking. Purchases of these lenses will fail. All my Canon lenses still operate today even from the 70's. My 600mm L i.s. f4 from 1989 I use it today on my 5dsr and still its tack sharp. Everyone knows a zoom lens will never be as sharp as a standard prime lens. Although the 100 - 400mm L mark ii is the sharpest zoom I've ever shot with and with four stops of image stabilization plus lightweight for moving around with or without a monopod its fantastic.
Hi Anne thanks for sharing, I love my canon 400mm and f8 seems to be the best aperture and I have the Canon EF 1.4x II Extender, on an APC Sensor I get very nice Images so I will stick to what I have.
I hope you find a solution ;)
Sean in the UK
what canon camera do you use and how many AF points are availible in combination with 1,4x extender and 400 mm ??????
@@5520211 I have the Canon 80D with all 45 af points available but unfortunately only one is available with the 1.4 extender Sean in the UK
@@HRMLRCON Thank you very much that is great!
No contest, Canon is way better ! Too bad they are so pricey
This Canon is as about the same price as the Tamron.
Anne watched both of your videos and especially felt sorry for you in the 1st video going through all of those calibrations. Although I am a Nikon shooter I also bought the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens for my D500 and D850 1st copy was really bad and 2nd copy was just a bit better but not worth keeping, Took it back and got the Nikkor 200-500 and all is great and now I have the Nikkor 500 5.6 PF which I love. So for me IMO I won't waste my time with 3rd party lenses and will only stick to brand names.
Doing the calibration is a total PITA! I always think I'll just do one little test ... but then I always end up spending all day doing it. I'm starting to feel the same way about 3rd party lenses. Although I owned a Sigma wide angle that was great. But it's kind of hard to go wrong with a wide angle - everything is always in focus!! I have heard good things about the Nikkor 200-500, so that would be worth a try for Nikon shooters.
if your interested check out my reviews on the canon 100-400II sigma c and sport and tamron g1 lens I made many videos when I bought all these to review.
Thanks for that. Won't be considering the Tamron lens.
You are welcome! If I can help prevent anyone else from going through such a frustrating experience ... I'm not even sure I want to try the Sigmas now because it is so frustrating. I haven't decided on that yet.
Third party lenses are crap. QC is bad and if you get 10 lenses maybe just 1 or 2 are excellent.
had the same kind of huge disappointment with the sigma 150-600. It's "sharp" only under 10m static subjects.
Like you with the tamron, AF will jiggle and never really lock, one frame in a burst may comes out as a lucky shot but that's not really acceptable even at that price point.
I too have switched to the 400/5.6L, and despite it's often too short and I hate canon for not updating, it has brought home good images quite consistently.
I started bird photography with a tamron 18-400, and it was horrible. I got some good shots but maybe 1 out of 100. Not so far i upgraded to a canon 100-400 made in 2013, and thats lightyears better. Tamron is good for macros and for close-mid range, canon is good for almost everywhere. I want to buy an 1.4x tc for more zoom in the future but i need to change my camera too because of the f5.6 will become f8.
Some kind of frank anti-advertising Tamron
I just bought this lens for my 90D. Even though the sigma contemporary is slightly cheaper I went with the Tamron. Just because most of the Pros on here have proven through multiple tests that the Tamron is the lens to purchase. Not sure what's going on with yours?. All I know from the research I've done you need to shoot at f8.0 or higher to get decent shots on a APS-C at 600mm th-cam.com/video/gNwnrcG6kk0/w-d-xo.html
I know there are lots of people who did get good copies of this lens. It seems to be about half of the people. But I still think that a person should be able to get a sharp shot wide open. Sure, it will have shallow depth of field, but there's no excuse for it not being able to make a sharp shot wide open.
@@annemckinnell should be as you said, but it's not necessarily the case, with aps-c even the 400mm wide open it's only good, and it gets sharper at f8, while with full frame it's tack sharp even wide open at 5.6... BTW having said that seems to me that your copy has some focusing problem, so I think that even in you stop at f8 f9, you'll get poor results as well
@@annemckinnell if I were you, I'd keep using the 400mm, native lenses simply performs better, third party manufacturers lenses may be great, but as you proved for sure the focus isn't as reliable
User error my tamron is sharp all around
I'm glad your tamron is sharp. About half of the people here say that. It seems to be a coin toss whether you get a good one or a bad one. But I have no problem with all my other lenses, including my 500mm lens, so I don't think my technique is the problem.
Look for a Canon 500mm f4.5
I did, I got a used Canon 500mm F.4L and it is totally awesome!!
@@annemckinnell awesome! I have the old F4.5 its little lighter ;)
ANHYONE WHO DOES CALIBRATE DESERVES BLURRED PHOTOS !!
Anyone who does calibrate? I think you must have meant "does not" calibrate. In any case, I did calibrate!
A manufacturer who doesn't produce lenses that can focus out of the box doesn't deserve to have my business. You know what lenses focus right out of the box? Canon lenses.
Sounds to me that you can’t handle a longer lense. It’s not Tamron fault that your rms are too weak.
It was on a tripod!!!! The lens weighs nothing with the tripod and gimbal head.
For the equipment you have, you just make pretty average photos!!! In your case, it's true, thay you can have a good equipment, but if the photographer's just average, so will the photos be. Bem watching your photos on Instagram, and they're are only a few really nice but the majority.....You talk about canon prime lenses ,with the L serie to be known as super sharp. Ofcourse you can't compare that with the Tamron 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC SP USD G2. But then again, why would you want to spend lots of money when the majority of your photos are just snapshots....burst mode (select the nicest one) and some out of focus. You would have been ok with just the Tamron. It's not as sharp as the L serie lenses, but it isn't that much worse neither.
Never read such garbage , you clearly are a troll with terrible grammer to
This is a hard pill to swallow...
This Canon isn't very expensive. But very sharp
Use an amateur camera get amateur results ! Get a good full frame camera !!
If the lens is faulty it doesn't matter what camera you put it on! Plus, I have plenty of professional quality shots with the Canon 7D, there's nothing wrong with that camera.