Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

TAMRON 150-600mm DOES NOT DISAPOINT


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41
dcbear78

dcbear78

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationGladstone, Queensland


Impressive guys.

I wish you wouldn't have said this, now I want to rent one to test it out or buy one. <_<


Always wondered if the Nikon focus system overcomes his shortcomings? It seems to be very popular on anything Nikon I've seen. But the Sigma could be just too new and more expensive (compared to the Tamron) to have much coverage?

#42
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA

Ok, so I've had this lens for a couple of months now, and to be honest, I've not been able to shoot much lately, but have done some. My first shots with this lens were dismal, and under less than ideal circumstances. I was parked on the side of the interstate, about a quarter mile or more from an eagle perched on a cliff, with cars and trucks flying by me. Nothing usable. Yes, you could tell it was an eagle, but I won't even use the words soft, they were just plain blurry. I tried a few more times with better conditions, but still a good distance, and got close to the same results. So far, the only shots I've been happy with, I've had to get fairly close to. I'm talking less than 100 yards or better. Now, I'm hoping the reason for this is I'm shooting a D3200, hand held, with an effective focal length of 900mm. Fully extended, this is not a light lens, and balancing it on a light camera, I'm just not very steady, even with VC. I've yet to get out with a tripod and test it out. So far, I feel I'd of been better served getting a 70-200 f2.8, since I"m having to get close anyways. That being said, I should be purchasing a D810 within a week or two, and I'm hoping to have better luck with it on this lens. 

 

Here are some of the pics I'm happy with. One of them is very soft, I just like the position of the hawk. To be fair, I'd been inching up on this guy, shooting AF-S using a center point focus, and a lower shutter speed, when he bolted, and I started shooting.  These were at ISO 200, f14 @1/800

DSC_2085-1.jpg DSC_2090-1.jpg DSC_2091-1.jpg DSC_2092-1.jpg



#43
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
So, in my quest to purchase the tamron 15-30, I found a camera shop I could get into in Omaha. Had a conversation with their nikon guy about my concern. I took my 150-600 and put it on an 810 body and bingo. Issue resolved. It locked focus fast and accurate with much better reach than my 3200. Very relieved.

#44
nbanjogal

nbanjogal

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUT, USA

Site Supporter

Well that's good news! When are you planning on picking up the D810? It's on my list too, but I think I've already used up my photography budget for the year. :) But maybe I need the D810 so my new lenses work better…  :lol:



#45
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
Should be within a week or two. I was really excited about this lens when I bought it, then really disappointed. Glad to be excited again.

#46
Jerry_

Jerry_

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,524 posts
  • Country Flag
I am having the Tamron for a bit more than half a year and hve been using both on the D5100 and the D610.

While the D5100 gives an effective focal length of 900mm this is roughly compensated by the lower number of megapixels on the D5100 sensor. However, indeed the D5100 body is (likely similar to the D3200) not designed for such heavy lenses (+- 1kg) and I therefore had occasionally lost the electric contact between the lens and the body. (early bad manipulation)

While using it on the two bodies I have had good and less good results - occasionally depending on the basic settings - but with gaining experience the good ones overweights (so it is not that much to be blamed on the lens :) ). Here the two userconfig settings on the D610 have allowed to have a superzoom preset ready, helping for easier switching. (similar applies to the D810)

The preset to work out best for animals for me was to have a single point focus and a continous refocussing.
Also, for speeding the focussing, you can select on the lens whether you want to cover the range of 3m-infinity or the 15m-infinity, the later speeding up focussing for distant subjects.

@OTRTexan, looking forward to see the captures you will take with the D810. Defintely you will add a lot to your pictures, compared to the D3200 - and not only for this lens.

@Nicole, I've read about your experience with this lens on the weekly challenge. Nice captures, I could even identify the mosquitos on the last one :) . If you think it is soft, maybe that you need to do some micro focal adjustment on your D600 for this lens :dont know: - some sites have had discussions on this (you may google tamron 600 mfa keywords), the best "test case" given, was to capture along a fence and see if the focus is on the point you wanted it to be.

#47
nbanjogal

nbanjogal

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,094 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUT, USA

Site Supporter

Jerry--I think it's just my lack of experience with the lens. I'm sure the lens is fine. I have taken some test shots in my backyard of random things, and they came out pretty sharp. I had it on the tripod last night, but I forgot to turn off the VC.

#48
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Trust me on the monopod guys...it will help (if not completely fix) the issue with any long lens on a small body...put the lens collar on the monopod and shoot away...yes, you can hand hold but it is going to require a pretty high shutter speed to compensate for what is effectively a 900mm lens...



#49
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
I've tried using the monopod. Hell it could be I'm just getting old and my eyes aren't what they used to be. But on my 3200, it just didn't seem to lock in a sharp image. I thought that maybe I just wasn't seeing it right and shot anyways, blurry. The 810 I put my lens on locked in crystal clear. I haven't tried a tripod yet, but honestly don't think it will help. I couldn't even manually focus a good image at long distances. I'm not sure if it's my camera or perhaps the 3200 just doesn't sync well with this lens.

#50
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

I think with any long reach telephoto lenses you have to get use to using different settings and higher shutter speeds for sharper images. Even with my nikon 80-400 when holding hand held and shooting at fast moving objects 1/1250 doesn't cut it. I use between 2500 to 3200 of a second shutter speed when capturing Hawks, Eagles, ext and my photos are razor sharp. When using 1/2000 I notice the picture are softer.

#51
etphoto

etphoto

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 229 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
I think you are correct Daniel. Because of the high shutter speed needed when hand holding it I was unable to take a decent pic using the lens hand held. Every time I've used it was on a tri-pod. Probably would work on a monopod as well, I just don't have a good one to try it. If I was a sport photographer I'd invest in a good one.

#52
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Will post some photos with different shutter speeds for examples a little later. 



#53
OTRTexan

OTRTexan

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationAll over the USA
When I'm within 100 yards of the subject, it focuses and shoots fine. The pics I've posted here and in last week's weekly best shot thread were all hand held, and at 600mm, or 900mm effectively. I'm not saying that what you are saying is wrong, any form of additional stabilization would help, and the hawk flight pics I posted probably would of been better with a higher shutter speed. I didn't have time to switch from the settings I was shooting with him perched, to flight settings. The 3200 does not perform well at higher ISOs. I get a lot of noise when I push the iso to compensate for the shutter speed. I'll try a faster shutter speed first chance I get and post results.

#54
akanarya

akanarya

    Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationTurkey, Çankırı

Daniel is right. 

According to my experience,

you need to bump the shutter speed without the fear of ISO, while working with extreme teles.

If the daylight is good then you are lucky, if not accept what you had gotten.

Another important thing is to be as close as possible to subject, I mean very close.

Tele doesnt mean to get excellent shoots from faraway distances.

You can only get snapshoots of far subjects, dont expect to get more, if you dont have 20k$ lens :).

Even if you have that spectacular lens, atmospheric conditions always in the game; heat, dust, wind, humidity etc.

And I am also in big trouble with hand held big lens.

But professional tele shooters find 1-2kg weight for the lens fair enough.

These are my a few cents.



#55
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Focusing on just the right spot can be a VERY difficult thing to nail down on a long lens.  I see it all the time when "reaching" through a lens or a scope...hand holding makes it even harder.  Nobody is 100% rock steady and the more power you are using (200, 400, 600, 900) amplifies your movement at the other end.  Back button can help with the focus and the monopod may allow you to go with a longer exposure or help to keep your faster speed exposure sharp.  Remember that any slight movement during the shot is going to show up at that magnification.  Not suggesting this applies to anyone here, but I've seen many nice images screwed up because the person introduced movement into the image simply by the way they pressed the shutter button.  

 

The Tamron 150-600 is about 4.3 pounds - compare the Nikon 70-200 at about 3.4 pounds, the 80-400 at 3.5 pounds or the 200-400 at 7.4 pounds.  Any of those can be tough to hand hold for any length of time.  When you add in the extra reach (to 900 with a DX) which will amplify any issues, you will need one or more forms of "help" to reduce the possibility of issues.  High shutter speed (=> 1/900 based on the old rule of 1/focal length) or a tripod / monopod will both help reduce the issues.  Obviously the monopod is almost a must for sports photography, but I like it for wildlife as well unless I am going to a particular location.  Even then it allows me the ability to move and shoot more quickly than a tripod.  Granted it is also something I'm quite used to using.  They aren't too expensive either - as an example (not necessarily a recommendation), the carbon-fiber Manfrotto 294 is about $120.  In my case, I need to invest in a nice, quality tripod.  Mine works fine with the 70-200, but it can't handle the weight of my 200-400.  Of course, that's a subject for a different thread...

 

Since I was up on the Nikon site looking at lenses, I went ahead and grabbed a few other weights for some of the Nikon long lenses:  the Nikon 800 at 10.1 pounds, the Nikon 600 at 11.2 pounds and one of the pro sports photogs' favorites, the Nikon 400 at about 8.4 pounds...



#56
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

TBonz I am curious if you have had any experience or much use with any of these telephoto lenses? Or you just looking up the weight and specs and coming up with a conclusion. 99.9% of my shooting is hand held and my pictures are razor sharp and I don't use back focus like maybe most and I will show some examples like I had said before. :)

#57
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Like I said before I shoot about 99.9 % handheld and do not use back focus. I got my hands slapped a little by a friend who has a Canon 500mm f/4 with an teleconverter. He uses back focus and uses either a mono pod or tripod most of the time. I have also watched a two day seminar online from a world noun wildlife photographer who uses Nikon's bigger lenses with teleconverters and shoots with tripods and uses back focus. But I did notice when using the Nikon 80-400 he went hand held. 
 
Anyways maybe I shoot back wards compared to the pros but like I told my friend the method I use works for me. Also to note the more expensive bigger Nikon and Canon lens 500mm and up are quite a bit bigger and would require a mono pod or tripod. They also retail between 10,000 -12,000 $ But I have been told my wildlife photos are just as good or better then the guys I know personally that have and use 500mm f/4 lens lenses but, I think my photos are sharper.   ;) 
 
I shoot single point with AF-C, I like single point because when I frame up the wildlife I can pick my focus point fast with my thumb while viewing the animal through my view finder. 
 
This is the first example from the very first time I had used the Tamron 150-600mm and literally maybe 2 hours or less after purchasing the lens. I was so excited after purchasing the lens that I drove straight out of the city and hit the grid roads looking for something to test it on. This hawk was my first subject. The quality has been down graded from a 46.7 Tiff file to a 3.18 MB jpeg to accommodate posting online. 

 

Alos shot handheld, when I saw the hawk I pulled over past him and grabbed my camera from the passenger seat and approached him from the shoulder of the road slowly with camera ready.  

 

Exif f/9  1/5000/  ISO 2000 @ 600mm


2nd photo shot example from a very cloudy gloomy day with poor lighting and handheld.

Exif:  f/9 1/4000 ISO 2500 @ 600mm


The 3rd shot was handheld again and a challenge because it was evening and the sun was hitting the coyote from behind and so the coyote was between the sun and me. 

 

Exif:  f/10  1/3200sec  ISO 3200  @ 600mm


4th Shot was handheld using the Nikon D7100. All other shots were with the D800E.

Exif   f/9   ONLY  1/320sec   and ISO 640 


OSPREY shot was handheld and the subject moving fast past me along the river. 

 

Exif:  f/10  1/4000  ISO 2500  @ 600mm

 

First Duck I think I used a a tripod.

Exif f/9  1/2500sec  ISO  2000  @ 600mm

 

Second Duck photo the same Exif as the first duck but at focal point 400mm

 

The picture quality in my opinion is slightly not as good as my Nikon 80-400 and the only fault I find in my opinion with the lens is that it doesn't focus as fast the Nikon 80-400 but then again the Nikon retails at 2800 and doesn't have the focal length and the Tamron I paid 1299. 


Will give examples of shooting with lower shutter speeds verses higher later 


Last pic is for fun. My setup when using a tripod but after the first use I don't think I used it again. I just find tripods and mono pods to restricting with me and for these lighter lenses I prefer going handheld being able to shoot on the fly and have fun while doing it. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • HAWK600mm.jpg
  • HAWKZ.jpg
  • CO01.jpg
  • sqrl00 copy copy.jpg
  • SEP-OSPREY.jpg
  • DUCK0A.jpg
  • duck01.jpg
  • TAMRON150-600.jpg


#58
M.Beier

M.Beier

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 208 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCopenhagen

I think with any long reach telephoto lenses you have to get use to using different settings and higher shutter speeds for sharper images. Even with my nikon 80-400 when holding hand held and shooting at fast moving objects 1/1250 doesn't cut it. I use between 2500 to 3200 of a second shutter speed when capturing Hawks, Eagles, ext and my photos are razor sharp. When using 1/2000 I notice the picture are softer.

In my experience, 1/4000 for birds moving at high speed works, less, I start sensing blur, D5200.... Experience from 70-200 lens though, I imagine using the 150-600 (150-500*) won't allow slower :)

When shooting highspeed objects, one really has to sacrifice the low ISO.

I tried the 150-600 a little, but on a D7000, and I was impressed, its crazy handheld with VC, however moving objects, you really need high shutterspeed - and seems many are forgetting from reading the replies of the thread.

 

I've tagged you because I have a wish, a hope :)
Can you please do next batch in 500 focal, from what I read and see on youtube - anything above 500 won't benefit, even when crop at 500, you get sharper than 600.

I'd really appreciate your opinion on 500 on the tamron vs. 400 on the Nikkor. Hope you are up for it.



#59
Daniel

Daniel

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

In my experience, 1/4000 for birds moving at high speed works, less, I start sensing blur, D5200.... Experience from 70-200 lens though, I imagine using the 150-600 (150-500*) won't allow slower :)

When shooting highspeed objects, one really has to sacrifice the low ISO.

I tried the 150-600 a little, but on a D7000, and I was impressed, its crazy handheld with VC, however moving objects, you really need high shutterspeed - and seems many are forgetting from reading the replies of the thread.

 

I've tagged you because I have a wish, a hope :)
Can you please do next batch in 500 focal, from what I read and see on youtube - anything above 500 won't benefit, even when crop at 500, you get sharper than 600.

I'd really appreciate your opinion on 500 on the tamron vs. 400 on the Nikkor. Hope you are up for it.

 

Will do and hopefully get some Elk and Big Horn sheep with it @ 500mm 



#60
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Daniel,

 

I used to have the 80-400 and loved the lens - hated the aperture for night sports so it funded my first 70-200.  I shoot hand held with the 70-200 all the time and did frequently with the 80-400 as well.  As you know I own the 200-400.  I've shot the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 on multiple occasions.  

 

Let's start with defining hand holding.  Most would say they "hand held" the shot if they didn't use some form of support (monopod, tripod, bean bag, etc.).  I agree with that definition although, many "hand held" shot by that description are shot with some form of additional support (against a tree, resting elbows on a firm surface, etc.).  Technically, that additional support is helping make those hand held shots more stable even if we consider them "hand held".  In any case, I'm assuming that someone may or may not use additional support below...

 

I am not trying to suggest you can't hand hold a long with or without additional support.  I've done it with the 200-400 and if I had to I'd do it with any of them.  I am suggesting first off that the ability to hand hold a shot with a particular lens is different for everyone and will vary for each person depending on the situation at the time - I know that 30 or so years ago I wouldn't have an issue getting high quality images with a setup about the same weight as my D4 and 70-200 at 1/30 or so.  I'd probably still try to do it, but I doubt I would have the same quality just because of age.  I'm just not as steady as I used to be.  I'm also suggesting that, a tripod, monopod or faster shutter speed can help make the difference with a big lens.  All of your shots are very good but you were also shooting with a very fast shutter speed (except # 4).  In my case, I try to help myself out with both a fast shutter and a monopod when I can.  

 

Hope that makes sense...