I've been waiting for this review from you since Tamron released it! you're one of the very few people who mentioned it was designed for a full frame mount and the only one I've seen that explains the impact that has in terms of dimensions and weight. I was contemplating getting a used XF 100-400 with the x1.4 TC because the price is comparable but the features seem pretty outdated. since perfect sharpness and video capabilities are not that important to me I'll be purchasing it for sure in the near future. great review as always :)
Got this lens for my XT-3 and love it. Excellent value & IQ on the 26 mpx sensor, fitting nicely between the 100-400 and 150-600 in terms of focal length & aperture with better close focus and significant cost savings. Don’t miss the aperture ring at all on this type of lens like I would on a mid range / wide angle. It is quite beefy so not ideal for longer hikes or all day use (70-300 is perfect that) but for car / home / shorter walks it’s an awesome lens.
Great review, as always! This Tamron lens would be a great match for the Nikon mirrorless system. I would prefer the Tamron over the Nikon 180-600 mm 6.3 with its huge 95 mm front filter.
Thanks for this interesting video! I have bought a Tamron 150-500 for my xh2s and it is perfectly suitable with the 26 mpx resolution. All my images are very sharp. But it is not as sharp as xf 50-140 or prime Lens obviously. I havent try to compare it with the xf 150-600 but it will be very interesting to compare them with 26 mpx resolution. Cheers Nicolas
@@PatrickWithCamera The fuji is much sharper, the 300mm range is the only range where sharpness seems somewhat comparable but beyond and before that the Tamron cannot compete. I actually value sharpness a lot more than light gathering in such a lens nowadays.
I returned mine because the OIS is really bad compared to the XF 100-400 I've been using, but then I kind of had to admit to myself, that it's still the best lens for my needs, so I asked the dealer to return my return package to me. lol It's a great lens, wide open about as sharp as the XF 100-400 at 500mm f/7.1, plus you get 100mm additional reach. In my opinion, a better option than the f/8 200-600 zoom.
@@cy9nvs I thought the Tamron wasn't that bad, just a tiny hair worse than my Sony 200-600, I can't imagine how good the 100-400 is then, you made me think about changing the system, lately I've been recording more often than taking photos.
@@PatrickWithCamera Should say that I myself have since switched to the Nikon Z8. 😅 The AF performance of Fuji is just terrible when there's any action.
I’ve also been looking at this lens, do you think the lens would perform the same (better or worse) on the X-H2s with a 26MP sensor or say the X-H1 24MP. Thanks really enjoyed your video.
Dustin, the video does some kind of odd skip/jump cut when you’re reviewing image quality and get to the most important focal length, 500mm. Right around 21:19 or so. Can you share more details on how it performed at 500? I’m eyeing this for my X-H2, for birds specifically, and that max length is the most important part. Thank you!!
Hi, thanks for the review! I have one question: Why did you decided to not make a comparisson at 500mm between this lens and the XF 150-600mm? Did I miss it? Is it because of the difference in f-stops? I am looking for a good lens for bird photography to pair on my X-T5 so I am considering this lens. Would the $1K difference shows up in IQ on the XF 150-600mm?
I'm using it on sony camera and love it, prefer even more than my 200-600, because close up photos are so easier to compose, also its lighter and smaller for backpack. Probably best lens from all tamron lenses I've tested.
I realize you're testing the lens on current model cameras. I have a FUJIFILM XT3, which lens would benefit me more, the Tamron 150-500 or the XF 150-600 for birding.
I would LOVE to see a follow on review of the Nikon Z Mount version. Does Nikon "speed limit" their version to a lower FPS rate (like the Sony version)? Can the Nikon version accept Teleconverters (probably not)? Are the optics as good (I would imagine they are) on the Nikon version?
I tried the Tamron recently it’s a beautiful lens albeit a bit heavy , I also tried the new Sigma 100-400 also a nice lens and much lighter, but definitely slower to auto focus . Taking into account the pros and cons which lens is sharper overall and which would you recommend for sports and wildlife.
Frankly there isn't a significant difference. Not enough for that to be the determining factor in a purchase decision. Both of them do better on the 24 or 26 MP sensor. None of the current telephoto options outside of the 200mm F2 are "wow" on the 40MP sensor.
A lens cannot perform "better" on a lower res sensor. Just take some more time to think and you'll realize how absurd that would be. It might appear sharper at each PIXEL but you will obviously not get more total image detail with a lower res sensor. That's like thinking that pouring water into a smaller bucket would give you more water just because that bucket gets more full RELATIVELY compared to the same amount of water in a larger bucket. It baffles me how this stupid myth keeps living on.
Good question. I would say Sigma if you have a tight budget and want to travel as small/light as possible, but go with the Tamron if you need better autofocus and longer reach, since neither lens is going to work with a TC. If you think you need the longer reach, then go for the Tamron. I also like the implementation of the clutch mechanism for zooming better on the Tamron.
How does this compare to the fuji 150-600? Was 100% going for the 150-600mm until I saw the tamron is on sale for $1888, which is like a whole $1000 cheaper than the 150-600 from where i’m from
I would say that autofocus is slightly better on the Fuji, and it is perhaps a bit sharper on the long end, but there probably isn't $1000 difference between the two.
Uh, you completely messed up the comparisons ... the Tamron is 1 stop wider open than the FUji ... otherwise good information. And if you compare e.g. the f5.6/150 on both the Tammy is not that bad :)
This would definitely be the sharper option. The only real advantage of the 70-300 package would be smaller and lighter, but I'd choose this Tamron over that option, myself.
My experiences with Tamron are, albeit far superior to Sigma - they bokeh is harsh and really annoying - most other capabilities are OK, but not great… this is in comparison of the G 150-600 with a nikon nikkor 200-500, their 70-200 to a second gen F mount nikon original
In terms of Image Quality, let’s take a look at this unaided picture I took in my backyard of the Andromeda Galaxy. As you can see, it doesn’t even come close to Hubble Telescope quality, there is some slightly imperceptible pincushion distortion in the galactic center and some fringing on the spiral arms. Disappointing.
@@DustinAbbottTWI What I'm saying is if you have unobtainable platinum standards to judge everything, you'll never be short in supply of things to complain about and the consequence to that is everything will appear to suck. Real life is about making the best choice. Even with infinite money, I'm limited. My zoom gives me versatility at the cost of clarity. My camera is perfect except it lacks a feature I really want. Overcoming those limitations makes you a better photographer. You're going to say you're just doing your job and I guess that's true but it just feels like hunting for every minute mistake in a product pushes everything into one category: good. Which from my perspective kind of sucks.
I think you're being too hard on Dustin. His reviews often start with a sober monologue detailing features of a product covering issues other channels often miss, he then proceeds with test chart performance, then ending with real world performance. He presents the information and gives his own conclusion but it's up to you to decide if a product will suit your needs. There's endless channels offering different approaches to gear reviews.
This video is sponsored by Ridge Rings. Visit ridge.com/dustinabbott and use code "DUSTINABBOTT" for 10% off
I've been waiting for this review from you since Tamron released it! you're one of the very few people who mentioned it was designed for a full frame mount and the only one I've seen that explains the impact that has in terms of dimensions and weight.
I was contemplating getting a used XF 100-400 with the x1.4 TC because the price is comparable but the features seem pretty outdated. since perfect sharpness and video capabilities are not that important to me I'll be purchasing it for sure in the near future.
great review as always :)
Got this lens for my XT-3 and love it. Excellent value & IQ on the 26 mpx sensor, fitting nicely between the 100-400 and 150-600 in terms of focal length & aperture with better close focus and significant cost savings. Don’t miss the aperture ring at all on this type of lens like I would on a mid range / wide angle. It is quite beefy so not ideal for longer hikes or all day use (70-300 is perfect that) but for car / home / shorter walks it’s an awesome lens.
Nice. That's a great application.
How is the tamron compared to the 70-300 in Image quality?
50 - 400 would be an even better fit. its great at the center.
Great review, as always! This Tamron lens would be a great match for the Nikon mirrorless system. I would prefer the Tamron over the Nikon 180-600 mm 6.3 with its huge 95 mm front filter.
Thanks for this interesting video! I have bought a Tamron 150-500 for my xh2s and it is perfectly suitable with the 26 mpx resolution. All my images are very sharp. But it is not as sharp as xf 50-140 or prime Lens obviously. I havent try to compare it with the xf 150-600 but it will be very interesting to compare them with 26 mpx resolution.
Cheers
Nicolas
Did you had a chance to compare xf 150-600 vs 150-500?
@@PatrickWithCamera
The fuji is much sharper, the 300mm range is the only range where sharpness seems somewhat comparable but beyond and before that the Tamron cannot compete. I actually value sharpness a lot more than light gathering in such a lens nowadays.
I returned mine because the OIS is really bad compared to the XF 100-400 I've been using, but then I kind of had to admit to myself, that it's still the best lens for my needs, so I asked the dealer to return my return package to me. lol
It's a great lens, wide open about as sharp as the XF 100-400 at 500mm f/7.1, plus you get 100mm additional reach. In my opinion, a better option than the f/8 200-600 zoom.
You mean tamron 150-500 stabilization is so much worse than xf 100-400? Bad for photography or video or both?
@@PatrickWithCamera terrible for video, not great for photos, but you can get sharp pictures at 1/160th with a bit of luck.
@@cy9nvs I thought the Tamron wasn't that bad, just a tiny hair worse than my Sony 200-600, I can't imagine how good the 100-400 is then, you made me think about changing the system, lately I've been recording more often than taking photos.
@@PatrickWithCamera Should say that I myself have since switched to the Nikon Z8. 😅
The AF performance of Fuji is just terrible when there's any action.
@@cy9nvs Which fuji camera you had and how it compares to Z8 in terms of AF and stabilization?
Cool rings 💯
I’ve also been looking at this lens, do you think the lens would perform the same (better or worse) on the X-H2s with a 26MP sensor or say the X-H1 24MP. Thanks really enjoyed your video.
Dustin, the video does some kind of odd skip/jump cut when you’re reviewing image quality and get to the most important focal length, 500mm. Right around 21:19 or so. Can you share more details on how it performed at 500? I’m eyeing this for my X-H2, for birds specifically, and that max length is the most important part. Thank you!!
Performance is a little weaker at 500mm relative to the other focal lengths, though not much worse than, say, the Fuji 150-600mm
Hi, thanks for the review! I have one question:
Why did you decided to not make a comparisson at 500mm between this lens and the XF 150-600mm?
Did I miss it? Is it because of the difference in f-stops?
I am looking for a good lens for bird photography to pair on my X-T5 so I am considering this lens.
Would the $1K difference shows up in IQ on the XF 150-600mm?
I didn't have the lenses at the same time and didn't feel like my existing results for each lens were fully equal/compatible in the testing process.
It's harder with very long focal lengths (750 and 900mm equivalent) to test them because of the sheer amount of room you need.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I see, it makes sense. Thanks!
I'm using it on sony camera and love it, prefer even more than my 200-600, because close up photos are so easier to compose, also its lighter and smaller for backpack. Probably best lens from all tamron lenses I've tested.
It's a nice lens, for sure.
Any opinions on how it does on the XT4 with the 26mp sensor?
It will look sharper, but obviously AF won't be better.
What an excitement to see 20 Old and VALUABLE Deutsch marks ! Oh, those times are long gone ….
A lot of people enjoy seeing those.
Hi, Dustin, thanks for the video, great review as always.I‘m’wondering if you would review the Z-mount version of this lens?
Unfortunately I don't have a way to do that yet. I do hope to add a Nikon Z mount body this year.
I realize you're testing the lens on current model cameras. I have a FUJIFILM XT3, which lens would benefit me more, the Tamron 150-500 or the XF 150-600 for birding.
I would say the Tamron for a value option. It's much cheaper and is a good performer.
I would LOVE to see a follow on review of the Nikon Z Mount version. Does Nikon "speed limit" their version to a lower FPS rate (like the Sony version)? Can the Nikon version accept Teleconverters (probably not)? Are the optics as good (I would imagine they are) on the Nikon version?
Unfortunately I don't review on Nikon. I don't own any Nikon bodies.
I tried the Tamron recently it’s a beautiful lens albeit a bit heavy , I also tried the new Sigma 100-400 also a nice lens and much lighter, but definitely slower to auto focus . Taking into account the pros and cons which lens is sharper overall and which would you recommend for sports and wildlife.
I’d probably lean towards the Tamron for the better focus if you’re doing birding.
Hi Dustin, curious how you'd stack this against the Sigma 100-400, purely on the basis of IQ?
Frankly there isn't a significant difference. Not enough for that to be the determining factor in a purchase decision. Both of them do better on the 24 or 26 MP sensor. None of the current telephoto options outside of the 200mm F2 are "wow" on the 40MP sensor.
Do you think it would perform a little better on the 24-26MP sensor?
A lens cannot perform "better" on a lower res sensor. Just take some more time to think and you'll realize how absurd that would be. It might appear sharper at each PIXEL but you will obviously not get more total image detail with a lower res sensor. That's like thinking that pouring water into a smaller bucket would give you more water just because that bucket gets more full RELATIVELY compared to the same amount of water in a larger bucket. It baffles me how this stupid myth keeps living on.
Greetings 🙏
I was wondering if tamron lens compatible with Fujifilm 2x teleconverter..
The answer is no. It isn't physically designed at the back to allow for teleconverter use.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 🙏 Thanx Sir 🙏
What do you prefer, the Sigma 100-400 or this one?. Thanks!
Good question. I would say Sigma if you have a tight budget and want to travel as small/light as possible, but go with the Tamron if you need better autofocus and longer reach, since neither lens is going to work with a TC. If you think you need the longer reach, then go for the Tamron. I also like the implementation of the clutch mechanism for zooming better on the Tamron.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok thanks a lot for your help!
What cfexpress type b is the best for fuji h2s?
I'm partial to Sony Tough cards. That's what I'm using in my X-H2 right now.
How does this compare to the fuji 150-600? Was 100% going for the 150-600mm until I saw the tamron is on sale for $1888, which is like a whole $1000 cheaper than the 150-600 from where i’m from
I would say that autofocus is slightly better on the Fuji, and it is perhaps a bit sharper on the long end, but there probably isn't $1000 difference between the two.
@@DustinAbbottTWIThe tamron is on sale now from where i’m from! $1000 is around 700usd after exchange rates
@@DustinAbbottTWIstill considering it 😢 or if i should wait and pull the trigger for the more “premium” fuji
@@russelsohwj which one you chosen and how are the results?
Compared to this lens, Ｉthink Tamron 50-400 can be more attractive(even compared to sigma 100-400). Wish tamron can offer this on Fuji system.
Can i use it in XS-10
Yes you can.
This Tamron lens bears an uncanny resemblance to the G2 150-600… wonder if it’s the same optical design as well…?
No it isn't. Different zoom range, aperture value, and different optical formula.
Uh, you completely messed up the comparisons ... the Tamron is 1 stop wider open than the FUji ... otherwise good information. And if you compare e.g. the f5.6/150 on both the Tammy is not that bad :)
It's not one stop - the Tamron is F6.7 and the Fuji is at F7.1 at 500mm, so about a quarter stop slower.
@@DustinAbbottTWI ah, my bad ... I initially thought it'S always against the XF on the right side ... sorry bout that :)
First. Love your video reviews.
Dustin, thoughts on this vs. XF 70-300 with TC?
This would definitely be the sharper option. The only real advantage of the 70-300 package would be smaller and lighter, but I'd choose this Tamron over that option, myself.
My experiences with Tamron are, albeit far superior to Sigma - they bokeh is harsh and really annoying - most other capabilities are OK, but not great… this is in comparison of the G 150-600 with a nikon nikkor 200-500, their 70-200 to a second gen F mount nikon original
I'm not sure you can make a generalization about all Tamron lenses. I've tested some with lovely bokeh.
In terms of Image Quality, let’s take a look at this unaided picture I took in my backyard of the Andromeda Galaxy. As you can see, it doesn’t even come close to Hubble Telescope quality, there is some slightly imperceptible pincushion distortion in the galactic center and some fringing on the spiral arms. Disappointing.
I'm assuming this is facetious?
@@DustinAbbottTWI What I'm saying is if you have unobtainable platinum standards to judge everything, you'll never be short in supply of things to complain about and the consequence to that is everything will appear to suck. Real life is about making the best choice. Even with infinite money, I'm limited. My zoom gives me versatility at the cost of clarity. My camera is perfect except it lacks a feature I really want. Overcoming those limitations makes you a better photographer. You're going to say you're just doing your job and I guess that's true but it just feels like hunting for every minute mistake in a product pushes everything into one category: good. Which from my perspective kind of sucks.
I think you're being too hard on Dustin. His reviews often start with a sober monologue detailing features of a product covering issues other channels often miss, he then proceeds with test chart performance, then ending with real world performance. He presents the information and gives his own conclusion but it's up to you to decide if a product will suit your needs. There's endless channels offering different approaches to gear reviews.