Great review. I bought this lens and shot about 500 photos last week in New England. Really fantastic lens for enthusiast and hobbyist. It's heavy and that was my only issue to be honest. I'm a senior hobbyist photographer and after couple of hours I felt the weight especially hand holding. The focal range is fine and the image quality is really really good. Side by side with the 100-400 GM, sure there may be subtle differences with the GM ever so slightly better but for the price and for a non professional photographer it's a great choice.
I recently switched from Sony (A7R3) to Nikon (Z8) and I read on Nikon Rumors that this is one of the lenses that Tamron is considering releasing with a Nikon Z mount. I really hope they do. I have read (and watched) many extremely positive reviews about it.
Great review of a great lense. Having just bought the Sony 70-200 f/4 for my a6700 and wanting to travel relatively light, this lense seems to tick all the right boxes for my future wildlife endeavours. The 200-600 is just way too big for my taste and the only competition this lense has for me is the Sony 100-400 GM. But I am afraid even for ambitious amateurs the price of that lense, puts it safely out of reach for us. If Tamron ever released that 200-400 f/4, which currently is just a patent and a rumour, though, I might just get that one.
I have just received mine and have mixed emotions, firstly focus is not sharp and misses a lot and secondly i tried it for video and it seems like its pulsing with everything switched off and on a tripod. Any advice?
Not sure the full stop loss, the slightly slower AF, and the degradation in stabilization would be worth having the converter in this case v the 150-500
Hey Stefan.. Thanks so much for your review.. For a hobbyist looking to get better and eventually looking to be more professional, would you recommend buying a lens like this to at least start getting the shots and then save up for the more professional lens down the road, or just not buy this at all and wait until the money for the more expensive lens is available? Essentially, should I start getting the shots now with a lower quality lens, or just not get the shots at all and wait until I have the better lens to start taking shots? Thanks so much!
Hmm ... sample variation. I've tried two versions of this lens on my A6600 and haven't been overly impressed. Maybe a firmware update would help. This lens reminds me of when the 150-600s came out where as the Sony 200-600 and Sigma 100-400 are just pick up and shoot without any real caveats! I do have a 3rd copy on order and hopefully the newer batch of them will be improved.
@@godsinbox The first two were from the same early batch of which the second one I just swapped with it's owner for a couple of hours. The third is a gift and on order. One needs to live with this lens for awhile to figure out how to maximize it's abilities it seems.
i have an A7S3 and doing sport video like youth football and basketball, softball, would the tamron 100-500 be good for that or what 200 or bigger lens would you recommend.
Hi stefan please could you recommend me between this and the Sigma 100/400 for Sony a7III. which ? it would be cheaper and better in terms of focusing speed and image quality Thank you
I've just bought this lens and Sony a7iv 2 days ago, coming from a D850 and Tamron 100-400. On my first time in the local park shooting birds hand held image stabilization was poor. All 3 lens settings made no difference. On checking the in-camera Steady Shot an alert said Invalid with this Lens. I set Steady Shot Adjust to manual and Focal Length to 500mm. No improvement. Am I doing something wrong?? Image Stabilization was much better with the D850 and 100-400. Disappointing. Why is this feature worse in a relatively new lens? Best Alan Wilson.
Did u manage to fix stabilization issue? But I'm afraid it is sony thing, most reviews says that sony stabilization is the worst, especially if ibis is mixed with third party stabilization, jumping like parylzed :S
Definitely the 70-350mm over this with your camera and if you want more reach then you can go for the 200-600mm. Lenses hold there value well so don't worry about future camera upgrades and enjoy the compactness and weight saving you can get with your crop sensor unless you plan to upgrade within a year 😉
Is Sigma's 100-400 ($800) okay for my A73 if I just want to shoot birds? Or is it worth spending an additional $500 to get this 150-500? just a hobby, not a business.
This will out perform the Sigma but if you want very good BIF action, you'll want to stick with a Sony 100-400 or the 200-600mm at this point. That could change with a firmware update however.
I have the Sigma 100-400 on my Sony A7III while shooting birds for fun. And while it’s a good lens for the price, I feel like I grew out of it. I’ve been wanting more range, plus teleconverters. I just got done renting the Sony 200-600 and I’m hooked. If this Tamron was out at the time I got the Sigma, I would’ve went Tamron with that extra reach. Just my opinion.
Actually the moon photos help me decide on long lenses the best. I have seen people use a very good 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 lens at the zoo and crop all the way in to fill a frame, that it looked like it was done with a 200-600mm lens. High mp sensor. A razor sharp lower magnification lens in a higher mp camera is better than a high magnification lens in a low mp camera. I have high end telescopes and EQ mounts, but atmospheric conditions plays so much into long distance pictures. I had the sony 200-600mm and the 1.4x teliconverter lens. It was tack sharp, but was massive to hand hold. It was not something to throw into a backpack just in case. It was a planned trip only lense. Believe it or not, the Sony RX10 IV will do what most people are looking for in long distance work. If they would ever get the RX10 V out with the larger battery and slightly faster focusing with continuous eye focus, I'm done. I had the 200-600mm 1.4x on a Sony a7r iii. Tack sharp, but no better picture quality than my RX10 iii due to atmospheric conditions (dust, heat, wind, etc...). Low light? No difference due to high f- stops on large lenses. I took the RX10 iii to Disney World and left all my high end equipment behind. Took video at night, pictures from 24-600mm range. I had one Disney employee take a family picture with my camera and the Nikon D850 she had, in front of the castle. Looking on the back screen, I couldn't tell the difference. Got home and printed 5x7 on a Canon pro 10 printer, and it was flawless. I still think this may be good for indoor school graduates on a full frame for pictures and video or even cropped sensor bodies when lighting isn't awesome. That's why I'm here.😃
I couldn't agree more! This lens is fantastic for the price and performance overall.
Great review. I bought this lens and shot about 500 photos last week in New England. Really fantastic lens for enthusiast and hobbyist. It's heavy and that was my only issue to be honest. I'm a senior hobbyist photographer and after couple of hours I felt the weight especially hand holding. The focal range is fine and the image quality is really really good. Side by side with the 100-400 GM, sure there may be subtle differences with the GM ever so slightly better but for the price and for a non professional photographer it's a great choice.
I recently switched from Sony (A7R3) to Nikon (Z8) and I read on Nikon Rumors that this is one of the lenses that Tamron is considering releasing with a Nikon Z mount. I really hope they do. I have read (and watched) many extremely positive reviews about it.
Great review of a great lense. Having just bought the Sony 70-200 f/4 for my a6700 and wanting to travel relatively light, this lense seems to tick all the right boxes for my future wildlife endeavours. The 200-600 is just way too big for my taste and the only competition this lense has for me is the Sony 100-400 GM. But I am afraid even for ambitious amateurs the price of that lense, puts it safely out of reach for us.
If Tamron ever released that 200-400 f/4, which currently is just a patent and a rumour, though, I might just get that one.
Nicely detailed review. I’m using Nikon and with this model now available in the Nikon mount, am considering it.
I can't wait for mine to be delivered!
Good One bro..I like it..nice clicks too
I have just received mine and have mixed emotions, firstly focus is not sharp and misses a lot and secondly i tried it for video and it seems like its pulsing with everything switched off and on a tripod. Any advice?
If one don't care about cost maybe the 100-400 GM and a 1.4x converter is the best option? The 200-600 is to big.
Not sure the full stop loss, the slightly slower AF, and the degradation in stabilization would be worth having the converter in this case v the 150-500
I love my fuji camera but sometimes I think i could use of those kind lenses, because fuji lenses so expensive but image quality is insane
Hey Stefan.. Thanks so much for your review.. For a hobbyist looking to get better and eventually looking to be more professional, would you recommend buying a lens like this to at least start getting the shots and then save up for the more professional lens down the road, or just not buy this at all and wait until the money for the more expensive lens is available? Essentially, should I start getting the shots now with a lower quality lens, or just not get the shots at all and wait until I have the better lens to start taking shots? Thanks so much!
VERY nice video!
ive been waiting for this review! im between this and the sigma 100-400. im trying to decide if that extra 100mm is worth it to me for the price.
Which one you chosen and how are the results? :D
Ooooooh, I’m first!
Great video as always!
If I have a nikon 70-300mm lens already, is this worth buying for the additional length?
Thank you so much!
Please Sir Do a Comparison Between Tamron 150-500 & Sigma 100-400
Respect from India
Thank You Sir
You bet!
Nice review.
its best to keep your iso in fractals 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 for Image quality
Hmm ... sample variation. I've tried two versions of this lens on my A6600 and haven't been overly impressed. Maybe a firmware update would help. This lens reminds me of when the 150-600s came out where as the Sony 200-600 and Sigma 100-400 are just pick up and shoot without any real caveats! I do have a 3rd copy on order and hopefully the newer batch of them will be improved.
a 3rd copy? that is hardcore. Doenst sound like this will fill the niche of cheap/small/sharp of the other 2 you listed
@@godsinbox The first two were from the same early batch of which the second one I just swapped with it's owner for a couple of hours. The third is a gift and on order. One needs to live with this lens for awhile to figure out how to maximize it's abilities it seems.
@@bryanstephens6007 3rd copy was better or still bad?
Update???
i have an A7S3 and doing sport video like youth football and basketball, softball, would the tamron 100-500 be good for that or what 200 or bigger lens would you recommend.
Hello, amazing review, what about between this and sigma 150-600 sport? thank you!
Will update when I get it in my hands!
@@StefanMalloch 💪👍thank you!
Hi stefan please could you recommend me between this and the Sigma 100/400 for Sony a7III. which ? it would be cheaper and better in terms of focusing speed and image quality
Thank you
Check out my comparison video on these two I just put out! Hope it helps!
Nice!
I've just bought this lens and Sony a7iv 2 days ago, coming from a D850 and Tamron 100-400. On my first time in the local park shooting birds hand held image stabilization was poor. All 3 lens settings made no difference. On checking the in-camera Steady Shot an alert said Invalid with this Lens. I set Steady Shot Adjust to manual and Focal Length to 500mm. No improvement. Am I doing something wrong?? Image Stabilization was much better with the D850 and 100-400. Disappointing. Why is this feature worse in a relatively new lens? Best Alan Wilson.
Make sure the firmware is updated current on both lens and camera. Let me know if its not improved.
Did u manage to fix stabilization issue? But I'm afraid it is sony thing, most reviews says that sony stabilization is the worst, especially if ibis is mixed with third party stabilization, jumping like parylzed :S
So no good for BIF? That's a deal breaker to me. Isn't that weird, considering how snappy the AF is?
This or 70-350 G for a6400?
Do you plan to upgrade to full frame?
@@StefanMalloch I don't think
That’s also guite good. I have that combo too. And 200-600 as well.
Definitely the 70-350mm over this with your camera and if you want more reach then you can go for the 200-600mm. Lenses hold there value well so don't worry about future camera upgrades and enjoy the compactness and weight saving you can get with your crop sensor unless you plan to upgrade within a year 😉
What did u chosen and how the results?
How about compared to Sony 100-400
I have a comparison video on them!
Is Sigma's 100-400 ($800) okay for my A73 if I just want to shoot birds? Or is it worth spending an additional $500 to get this 150-500? just a hobby, not a business.
This will out perform the Sigma but if you want very good BIF action, you'll want to stick with a Sony 100-400 or the 200-600mm at this point. That could change with a firmware update however.
I have the Sigma 100-400 on my Sony A7III while shooting birds for fun. And while it’s a good lens for the price, I feel like I grew out of it. I’ve been wanting more range, plus teleconverters. I just got done renting the Sony 200-600 and I’m hooked.
If this Tamron was out at the time I got the Sigma, I would’ve went Tamron with that extra reach.
Just my opinion.
@@StefanMalloch Got your idea. I like Sony 100-400, the only challenge is the price.
@@nickvendetta7906 Thank you for sharing your experience. It is attractive at that price.
@@StefanMalloch BTW thank you!
I got this lens for free and I love it
Autofocus results on flying birds with this lens are much better on a A1 or A9II.
A1 is the best camera. Period.
@@StefanMalloch If Sony's A1 the autofocus like Canons R5 have, than yes.
The eye autofocus of the R5 on birds ist much better than on the A1.
Actually the moon photos help me decide on long lenses the best. I have seen people use a very good 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 lens at the zoo and crop all the way in to fill a frame, that it looked like it was done with a 200-600mm lens. High mp sensor.
A razor sharp lower magnification lens in a higher mp camera is better than a high magnification lens in a low mp camera.
I have high end telescopes and EQ mounts, but atmospheric conditions plays so much into long distance pictures.
I had the sony 200-600mm and the 1.4x teliconverter lens. It was tack sharp, but was massive to hand hold. It was not something to throw into a backpack just in case. It was a planned trip only lense.
Believe it or not, the Sony RX10 IV will do what most people are looking for in long distance work.
If they would ever get the RX10 V out with the larger battery and slightly faster focusing with continuous eye focus, I'm done.
I had the 200-600mm 1.4x on a Sony a7r iii. Tack sharp, but no better picture quality than my RX10 iii due to atmospheric conditions (dust, heat, wind, etc...).
Low light? No difference due to high f- stops on large lenses.
I took the RX10 iii to Disney World and left all my high end equipment behind. Took video at night, pictures from 24-600mm range. I had one Disney employee take a family picture with my camera and the Nikon D850 she had, in front of the castle.
Looking on the back screen, I couldn't tell the difference.
Got home and printed 5x7 on a Canon pro 10 printer, and it was flawless.
I still think this may be good for indoor school graduates on a full frame for pictures and video or even cropped sensor bodies when lighting isn't awesome.
That's why I'm here.😃
Non pro, budget? Snobbish 🤦🏻♂️