Canon R5. Comparison of Canon RF 100-500 vs Tamron 150-600 lens.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2021
- I compare the Canon 100-500 RF lens to the first generation Tamron 150-600 lens. The canon lens is three times the cost of the Tamron lens; but is the Canon lens three times better than the Tamron?
0:33 Introduction
7:00 Minimum focus distance
7:22 Field test and birds
14:08 Testing static objects with both lenses
18:14 Testing both lenses on a tripod with IS off
20:18 Testing Tamron F 6.3 vs F 8
21:34 Conclusion
Intro music - Music: www.bensound.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
0:33 Introduction
7:00 Minimum focus distance
7:22 Field test and birds
14:08 Testing static objects with both lenses
18:14 Testing both lenses on a tripod with IS off
20:18 Testing Tamron F 6.3 vs F 8
21:34 Conclusion
Excellent review thank you.
Thank you very much!
That's a very accurate description of the results I was getting comparing tamron and sigma 150 to 600s to the Nikon 200 to 500 and the Sony 200-600. I got many more Keepers with the Nikon and Sony lenses and more often I was saying woah! Instead of I think that is sharp.
Agree. Native lenses generally tend to be better. Check this out. th-cam.com/video/TWC_1_BhGKo/w-d-xo.html
appreciate this review cuz it's exactly the decision I am trying to make. I have the 150-600 and it's never quite perfect at 600. I find the autofocus pretty good but if this is even better, great.
Thank you for your comment. This is a great lens, but really hard to find now!
Good review. I have been in bird photography for years. The RF100-500 is very sharp. It rivals my trusted EF 600 mm f/4 IS II in terms of sharpness. Of course the big prime lens has way better bokeh and great for low light. Even with RF 1.4x attached, it is still respectably sharp. Although expensive the RF100-500 is worth its asking price.
Thank you for your comment! It helps that you own both so your comparison is much appreciated!.
Did you have compatibility problems with the Tamron and R5? I have the original RF adapter, the same tamron model of yours (G1), but it simply doesn't work with my R5
I have had no issues at all. Faulty adapter/lens?
Had the same issue. You probably want to take your lens to service point to upgrade firmware, took like an hour, worked perfectly for me. Hope this helps!
Nice review. I agree with you on getting the 1-500 over the tamron, either one. My old g1 was sharp at 300mm, but the AF was slow compared to the 1-400 I had back then. The tamron was not sharp at 600, which pissed me off due to weight and size and the long mfd. I love to do close-up of butterflies and other things to the small mfd is very important to me. Now with the r5 and 1-500, I can do birds and close-ups, even with the 1.4 tc, at 700 mm, it is still quit nice at 4ft mfd. For me, the 1-500 is worth every penny even though I still wish it were less pricey.
Thank you for your comment and perspective! Glad you like the 100 to 500
which is better 1x adapter or crop mode that provide in camera body
Adapter will retain 45 megapixels, where as crop mode sacrifices some resolution (17 mp). However, focus speed may be slightly slower with an extender, and f stop becomes larger leading to a higher ISO which could impact image quality.
I recently bought R6.
If keep in mind the cost
What would u go for?
Sigma 150 600 or Canon 100 500???
The R6 is a great camera. Congratulations. Personally, I would still choose the canon 100 to 500. The native RF lenses seem to work so much better with canon mirrorless cameras. However, I have not tested the sigma. I plan to do such a comparison in a few weeks...so stay tuned!
@@carminered3229 thank u for reply. I probably wait for ur video than decide.
Thanks for doing this video. I have an R6 and am using the Sigma 150-600 with decent results. I suspect that my Sigma may be a bit sharper than the Tamron you have. It’s difficult to tell over TH-cam. Certainly they are similar. I think at some point I may upgrade to the RF 100-500. I’m not sure I wouldn’t miss the reach of the Sigma as the R6 is not going to be as croppable as the R5. So I may have to upgrade to the R5 as well. I like the idea of shooting an R5 in crop mode for birds. That setup is $7100 before any taxes. I am still working how I am going to explain the need to upgrade to my wife. It’s certainly a valid use case but I’m not sure she’ll see it.
The 100 to 500 is a great lens. Yes I do think your sigma is likely sharper than my tamron, but native RF lens will nearly always beat a third party lens. For me the 100 to 500 was superior in every way. Now convincing the wife is the hard part! 🙂. Thank you for watching and leaving a comment!
Want to buy a Canon R5 with 100-500 as well. I also have to convince my girlfriend, gonna be hard.
@@Ankh-Amun-Ra LOL
@@carminered3229 all men may have the same problem lol
@@taoyu8269 Ha ha.. that's the truth!
The Tamron does lock by pulling out the lens (G2)
Thank you for your comment. The Version 1 does not do that.
Good video however your settings on the images are slightly odd.
Thank you for your comment. What settings are you referring to?
@@carminered3229 Why are you using 1/1600s for a bag?
@@frostybe3r 🙂Good question. I was simply using settings I would normally use for birds in flight.
@@carminered3229 But it's a bag.
Yes but I am not usually shooting a bag in a forest. I am shooting a stationary bird that is about to fly off and so use a higher shutter speed. Therefore I wanted to see how the images would look in similar shooting conditions. Sure, I could shoot at 1/60 th of a second, but that's not a setting I use at all for birds or animals. Imagine the bag to be a stationary bird!
I am in a similar situation, but I am not sure I would follow your path. I have also upgraded to the R5 and I have a Sigma 150-600mm. Before I pulled the trigger, I did check with a TH-camr whether there was any issue adapting the Sigma with the R5 and he told me no, but unfortunately it is not true as there are certain communication issues. This is where I am stuck and my view differs from yours. Personally, I think the RF 100-500mm is massively overpriced plus it is also an inferior external zoom design. Although Sigma is working to launch RF mount lenses, given the current supply chain issues, it is nowhere to be seen. In other words, it leaves me with no option within the Canon ecosystem. Naturally, it leads me to consider Sony. The FE 200-600mm is a lens that I have always wanted to shoot with. Initially, I went with the R5 because I felt the A1 was overpriced. But, if you compare the RF 100-500mm with the FE 200-600mm, with the price drop of the Sony and based on my latest price check in Hong Kong, the Canon is now more than double of that of the Sony!! How is that even possible?! That just goes to show how ridiculously overpriced the RF 100-500mm is. I will give it to you in US$, the FE 200-600mm is now US$1,612 while the RF 100-500mm is US$3,473. One option is to wait for Sony to announce the A7R V or the A9 III and if the specs are good migrate over to Sony. But, again as we all know the A7R V is going to be delayed since Sony has just updated the A7R III and IV with the incorporation of the new higher res LCD screen. Finally. That means I may have to reconsider the A1 if I don't want to wait. So, yes I can see myself trading in my Canon gear to grab the A1 and FE 200-600mm. The R5 itself has been great and it has been rendering some beautiful images for me even with the Sigma. The Sigma when it works is actually a pretty sharp lens for the money, definitely sharper than the Tamron. But, unfortunately that is the predicament I find myself in.
Wow did not realize the price difference. I agree that the 100 to 500 is overpriced; however its optics are truly very good. I am invested in canon and it doesn't make sense for me to switch. Also the sony lens is heavier. I have never been a fan of sony camera body ergonomics, but I suppose you can get used to it. I am currently testing the canon 600 f4 and 800 f11...will post results soon. I have to say the 100 to 500 comes very close to the 13000 dollar 600 f4 lens! Hope you are able to make a decision soon. Thank you for your comment!
@@carminered3229 I have no big primes, so all I need really is just one quality superzoom as birds are all I shoot these days. Likewise, I don't like the ergonomics nor even the look of the Sony bodies, but I figure once I add a battery grip it shouldn't be that much of an issue. The proof is in the guts. People say the A1's AF is better than the R5 and if you don't mind shooting in lossy RAW, 30 fps could be fun. The question for me is whether I don't like the RF 100-500mm or the A1 more? Then, the answer has to be the RF 100-500mm plus I would be able to shoot with an internal zoom with the FE 200-600mm. In my opinion, as far as zooms go, you can't beat that ultra smooth and short throw of an internal zoom. With an external zoom, because so much of the lens is retracted you end up with a much stiffer and longer throw. On my Sigma, it takes me 4 twists to get from 150 to 600mm which means by the time I get to 600mm the bird has already left the national airspace. LOL. This is why I pretty much shoot my Sigma fully extended at 600mm like a prime 99% of the time. I expect the RF 100-500mm is probably very similar in that regard. On the Sony FE 200-600mm? 1/4 turn to get from 200 to 600mm!! That's it!! If you are a Canon shooter, think the old EF 70-200mm, be it the f/2.8 or f/4. That's what the Sony feels like. I can see that being a major advantage when you shoot BIF. If you try to adjust the zoom ring it will knock you out of your shooting position.
Let's see what happens. Part of me is saying just bite the bullet, just close my eyes and pay for the RF 100-500mm to stick with the R5. But, as it turns out, I just find it hard to part with a fair sum of change for something that I don't like, much more than I expected.
@@Rascallucci Your comments make complete sense. In the end you have to go with what you feel you will enjoy the most. I don't think you can go wrong with either! Good luck and happy birding!!
I am not sure your math is correct. I see the Rf 100-500 for $2700 US.
@@pianofinger You are correct.
Appreciate the effort but with such an expensive lens you should have bought a mic.
Thank you for the comment. Just have!
The RF 100-500 is superb...but heavily overpriced. I really think that this price would justify the same focal length zoom lens, but with constant aperture...ok f4 will be super ambitious for this price, but f5.6 is really a reasonable hot spot. The varying aperture is somewhat subpar for wildlife and fast action photography and also a big problem in low light. 3000$ is quite a price
True, but remember, at 400 mm the aperture is close to 5.6 and only at the last few mm of zoom does it get to 7.1. So if you use 1.6 crop more, it's nearly 640 mm at f 5.6! Thank you very much for your comment!
@@carminered3229 Thank you very much, I think you right, maybe really at 400mm is near 5.6 and in crop mode it is 640 mm...but with the R6 a crop will significantly drop the resolution down. On the R5 it's really not a problem. But then the camera itself is much more expensive...ok ok... I'm dreaming of something like 400 f2.8 in crop mode, but it is super expensive option...
@@user-fz9go8pj4t Yes to crop you need more megapixels. Hope canon introduces a cheaper version soon. Regardless I cannot find one anywhere...all sold out!
please, if you take care of the image you are sending, then eventually check the sound. Don't place the microphone too far away from your subject (you).
About the comparison: when comparing lenses, make sure to use the same settings. Comparing a Canon at f/7.1 to a Tamron at 6.3 is a small difference, but different ISO values (especially when using crop sensors) can soften the result and weaken the contrast. Using JPEG is obsolete because we can't see what the sensor got and all sorts of corrections got through the process before storing the crippled JPEG.
Thank you for your comments and observations. Under good light, jpegs and raw are practically identical....I have done many tests/comparisons. Obviously in poor light RAW offers more flexibility. As far as aperture, I agree that there will be some differences with slightly different apertures, however you would want to see how both lenses perform at their longest end....and canon performs better despite slightly smaller aperture.
@@carminered3229 thanks. Indeed it's always important to expose for the best. But in comparisons I don't trust modern cameras because the internal processor modifies the raw input. (I can see that Lightroom also does that on Nikon files where no in camera corrections are used - I rather use DxO PhotoLab).
I know the Canon 100-500 is a great lens and super sharp throughout the range and it beats the Nikon 200-500. I'd prefer the Sigma 100-400 instead, although 400 or 500 mm makes a significant difference.
If you work on your audio you might have a new subscriber.....
🙂Just got a new microphone.
@@carminered3229 rf 100-500 or sigma 60-600? The sigma is better in 3 ways, but i wonder if the rf is sharper....
@@wcsdiaries Check out my review on 3 zooms here- th-cam.com/video/TWC_1_BhGKo/w-d-xo.html
I have not tested the Sigma 60-600, but the RF canon lenses work much better with the R5 in regards to autofocus speed, image stabilization etc when compared to third party lenses. The Sigma 150-600 is better than the Tamron counterpart, but not as good as the Canon 100-500. In my research the 60-600 is similar in sharpness to the 150-600. That being said, if you are not shooting challenging subjects like fast moving birds or need to shoot at very low shutter speeds etc, the Sigma is a good choice.
@@carminered3229 I hope they come out with an rf lens of 600mm+ would be great for my c70
@@wcsdiaries There is the 800 f11, but likely not a good lens for a cinema camera.