[ElJamoquio]

Here's the link to the Canon forum where both the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-500 have links. It will take a small amount of searching, but interested individuals will be able to compare pictures taken with both lenses. Yes the lenses are canon mount....but...for a base of comparison...and with the realization....that there are photographers of varying abilities....like every forum....you can see for yourself...which each lens can do.

This way at least those interested...can see with their own eyes....and make their own decision...away from opinion.

There's not much difference that I can see. Again...this will show you the actual picture quality....other characteristics of either lens will not necessarily be demonstrated.

http://http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Here's a comparison of the Sigma 50-500 (generally considered a hair better than the 150-500) and the Tamron 150-600.

Tamron 150-600 Telezoom Shootout

I normally would just throw away an imaging-resource test, but this one was done by Roger Cicala, whose results are usually correct in my view.

One thing that no-one has done yet, to my knowledge, is compare the actual focal length at the long end. The 150-500 was ~450mm at the long end if I recall correctly.

[Miguel]

Here's a comparison of the Sigma 50-500 (generally considered a hair better than the 150-500) and the Tamron 150-600.

Tamron 150-600 Telezoom Shootout

I normally would just throw away an imaging-resource test, but this one was done by Roger Cicala, whose results are usually correct in my view.

One thing that no-one has done yet, to my knowledge, is compare the actual focal length at the long end. The 150-500 was ~450mm at the long end if I recall correctly.

Though I respect Roger's writing and research a lot, this report has little to do with real world shooting. If it did, the Tamron would have flunked as it has(pre-firmware/hardware fixes) or had documented issues with tracking action. So, the test, like many of new products where the tester doesn't use the actual product in the field for enough use cases to closely approximate a typical user, is narrow-scoped and well, wrong enough.

The map isn't the territory.

M

[ElJamoquio]

I don’t do resolution testing at telephoto range very often. The new Imatest equipment certainly makes it possible, but in general I don’t find it particularly useful. Working at these focal lengths the lens’ MTF just isn’t as important as real-world variables (atmosphere, tripod support, photographic technique, etc.).

Seems like a good enough caveat to me. Sure, he didn't do field testing with it, but he mentioned that they had *just* got it, too.

The problems seem to be fixed now, no?

[Miguel]

Here's the link to the Canon forum where both the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-500 have links. It will take a small amount of searching, but interested individuals will be able to compare pictures taken with both lenses. Yes the lenses are canon mount....but...for a base of comparison...and with the realization....that there are photographers of varying abilities....like every forum....you can see for yourself...which each lens can do.

This way at least those interested...can see with their own eyes....and make their own decision...away from opinion.

There's not much difference that I can see. Again...this will show you the actual picture quality....other characteristics of either lens will not necessarily be demonstrated.

http://http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107

Les, of course a showcase thread is going to only feature cherrypicked shots. They are pretty pictures, but in terms of providing useful information in evaluating a lens, the soup is on the thin side. What is useful to me when evaluating tele zooms are entire uncropped sequences--hits and misses. That helps determine what proportion would be keepers. If you see enough of them, the photographer's skill level starts seeping through too...

Again I'm only interested in action because it tests lenses more. A static easy shot of a sitting duck tells me more about other things.

M

[lesmore49]

Les, of course a showcase thread is going to only feature cherrypicked shots. They are pretty pictures, but in terms of providing useful information in evaluating a lens, the soup is on the thin side. As I said it gives one an idea of the quality of the picture. What is useful to me when evaluating tele zooms are entire uncropped sequences--hits and misses. That helps determine what proportion would be keepers. That's just one aspect of judging quality...and can also be directly related to the skill of the photographer.If you see enough of them, the photographer's skill level starts seeping through too...

Again I'm only interested in action because it tests lenses more. A static easy shot of a sitting duck tells me more about other things.

M

There are also action shots in the pictures in the canon forum for these lenses....not just static pictures.
Here is another link where a sports photographer tried out the Sigma 150-500 at a football game. It wasn't perfect, but it also seemed to do a pretty fair job....in an area....where generally just very high priced, top of the line pro lenses are used. This particular lens was an earlier version.

The photographer is a pro photographer and was quite impressed with the quality, tracking, resolution, etc. of the Sigma 150-500.

I found it an interesting review. I also think that it will answer some of your questions...quite well.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&...70138588,d.bGQ

[Miguel]

There are also action shots in the pictures in the canon forum for these lenses....not just static pictures.
Here is another link where a sports photographer tried out the Sigma 150-500 at a football game. It wasn't perfect, but it also seemed to do a pretty fair job....in an area....where generally just very high priced, top of the line pro lenses are used. This particular lens was an earlier version.

The photographer is a pro photographer and was quite impressed with the quality, tracking, resolution, etc. of the Sigma 150-500.

I found it an interesting review. I also think that it will answer some of your questions...quite well.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&...70138588,d.bGQ

Les, I appreciate your efforts here. You must really enjoy your lens & that's great.

Re:the "review" of the lens by the pro Alabama shooter:

1. You've been around long enough to know that this is an advertisement--ok, an infomercial--sponsored by the retailer who sells the lens. So there are a lot of gooshy words within.
2. I would expect a pro sports shooter to get these shots in good light at f8 with a Pringles can. As I think I noted above,all tele zooms should work well in such favorable conditions.
3. I am impressed that he buried a few negatives in the copy. And really, they are grenades. His having to "predetermine" the focal length in very practical use, makes the lens to be of very limited value for action. At some sports events the shooter is only focused on a sole area (first base for example), but most of us are covering action all the heck about. I just got through 5,000 frames at a soccer tournament. If I had to preset my FL I'd go nuts. As I noted earlier, it is in shooting action where the quality of tele zooms are differentiated. I've never had to preset my FL using the Canon 100-400mm--a lens that came out in 1998.

M

[lesmore49]

Les, I appreciate your efforts here. You must really enjoy your lens & that's great.

Re:the "review" of the lens by the pro Alabama shooter:

1. You've been around long enough to know that this is an advertisement--ok, an infomercial--sponsored by the retailer who sells the lens. So there are a lot of gooshy words within.
2. I would expect a pro sports shooter to get these shots in good light at f8 with a Pringles can. As I think I noted above,all tele zooms should work well in such favorable conditions.
3. I am impressed that he buried a few negatives in the copy. And really, they are grenades. His having to "predetermine" the focal length in very practical use, makes the lens to be of very limited value for action. At some sports events the shooter is only focused on a sole area (first base for example), but most of us are covering action all the heck about. I just got through 5,000 frames at a soccer tournament. If I had to preset my FL I'd go nuts. As I noted earlier, it is in shooting action where the quality of tele zooms are differentiated. I've never had to preset my FL using the Canon 100-400mm--a lens that came out in 1998.

M

Well, Miguel an Interesting take . But, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


Les

[Miguel]

Seems like a good enough caveat to me. Sure, he didn't do field testing with it, but he mentioned that they had *just* got it, too.

Since he says that MTF testing isn't all that important, and that he hasn't actually field tested the thing, then I question the real-world value of the piece, besides a kind of high-minded clickbait. To be clear, a review of a telezoom or a longer lens that does not includ a seasoned sports/birds/wildlife shooter's taking it through the paces is not very valuable. Sadly this doesn't happen nearly enough for such a risky purchase.

The problems seem to be fixed now, no?

Hard to say so far. FM forums has been a hotbed of results from this lens. As is expected on the Internet, lots of complaining (justified in my experience) when the lens didn't work right, but not so much "Hey this fix was great and here are some shots to prove it." Which is disappointing, human nature, and all. What is far more interesting is how clown-like Tamron has managed the whole thing--their not being able to determine via serial number whether a lens needs fixing or has indeed been fixed. A sketchy rationale for this is that at least one user received his lens back with a new serial number without being informed (!), and was told by Tamron that the fix included a hardware change that wiped out the old serial number. Maybe this was just his, as others have had their serial number unchanged after the fix. But it's all poor entertainment. If they did have to revise the actual production design and manufacturing of the lens, it would help explain the multi-month delays in fulfilling orders.

My second copy arrives in a few days, so I'll followup in my usual hangouts online. I have great hopes the fix is in.

M

[Miguel]

so I'll followup in my usual hangouts online

I've posted several soccer shots taken with this lens on a Canon 5D MK3 on Friday.

M