Tamron SP 150-600mm G2 Review: A WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY BEAST 

Canon's L 600mm destroys this in image quality...

@@frostybe3r Yes....it also destroys your wallet.....

@@actie-reactie That doesn't matter lol, the 100-400 ii is still better than the Tamron or Sigma 600mm in image quality and AF speeds.

i can`t b3li3v3 it...1m min distanc3>>>>prov3 it,pl3as3!!!

@@frostybe3r It does matter. I'm not expecting a lens I can get for 999€ to perform like a lense that sits at double that price. You wouldn't go on a review of the 400mm mark II and go "lol the mark III destroys this" - of course it's gonna be superior. Otherwise, why would it exist at all, when it costs 4000€ more?

Hey thanks Paul, I really appreciate the kind words! Have fun with the new lens, it's a great one!

Thanks Brian! It's definitely a great value for the price, but I personally want something faster than f/6.3 for most of my wildlife outings.

Hi Brian, I am curious to know your opinion now. How do you feel about the Tamron 100 600 after a 3 year period? Does it hold up to multiple uses and photoshoots?

Hey thanks Wayne, I really appreciate that! I'm glad my video helped. :)

It's definitely hard to beat for the price. I've seen some great things from that 120-300 lens though! :P

Hey thanks James, I'm glad I could help!

I worked at a camera store for 5 years - TAMRON 150-600 ALL DAYYYYY LONGGG 😁

Sigma sports is better than it's Contemporary version, Nikon 200-500mm & this Tamron 150-600 G2.

You bet man, I'm glad I could help!

Thanks Richard! I definitely concur.😁 the DO is such a nice lens, and I feel the same, I'd rather have a faster lens than a little more reach at this point.

Or a fat stack of money ahah

Awesome, have fun with it!

You bet man, thanks for watching!

You bet man, I'm glad I could help! I definitely don't miss that zoom design. It'll be a nice upgrade for sure.

Hey thanks Richard, I really appreciate that!

Thanks for the kind words Martin, I really appreciate it!

That's awesome, I'm glad I could help! I think you'll definitely notice the improvements over the original.

You're welcome, thanks for watching!

You bet, thanks for watching!

Thanks Larry, that's awesome to hear!

Thanks! I definitely agree with you. It's an incredible value for the price, but there are certainly better lenses out there, including the 100-400 mk ii. And yeah, the first time I used my Tamron 70-200 G2, the zoom direction was really messing with me, lol, but I'm pretty used to it now.

Hey, I'm glad I could help! I definitely fell you on not wanting to spend too much on a big wildlife lens The price and quality of the this lens though, is really hard to beat! But especially with big stuff like this, I always like to rent first so I can see how it feels and performs. It's a big help before a purchase.

​@@BrentHall Thanks for the prompt answer! I think that if a regular wildlife photographer is happy with this lens, I can be also happy :-)

Thanks! I agree, I love my 100-400 mk ii, it's pretty much my favorite lens ever, and I'd never trade it for anything. And yeah, I did see that mfd is 0.975m, but I didn't find that number until after I published the video. :(

@@BrentHall Lot of people use the canon 100-400 on the 90D site I visit regularly ... and you will probably call me an idiot....but my tamron 100-400 doesnt do less as it goes for image quality....and light....put a weight on it just to keep it down 😁 but Seriously.... bought the tamron in Hongkong for 540 euro.... in the netherlands it costs 840 euro....the canon in the netherlands 2.059 euro....was a no brainer

Thanks man. I'm glad I could help!

You're welcome, thanks for watching!

Thank you, I'm glad it helped!

Did you get any wiser on this? Thinking about putting this on an old 450d 😅

I have recently acquired the Nikon version of this lens when I upgraded from my entry level Nikon D3200 to a second hand D750. I have tried this lens on the D3200, just to see if it would work. I was pleasantly surprised how well it worked, so I imagine the same would apply to the Canon.

Many thanks! That's definitely a great lens too.

200-500 mm better?

How does it compare to Nikon 200-500?

Thanks Martin! I've been loving the images you've been putting out with the 90D and 1-4, and of course with the 5D4 and 1-4! I might go rent a 90D to test it out and make a video about that too. My favorite combo has definitely been the 5D4 and 1-4 though, I just love it for so many things! I've never tested the Sigma 150-600 sport, but I have used the contemporary and I feel like (totally un-scientific) the Tamron is better. It's weather-sealed and is way sharper than the version one, and I've had no sharpness issues with it at 600 (at least for what it is) I've also used the Canon 600 f/4 mk ii and it's just disgustingly sharp, so I try not to think about that, lol.

@@BrentHall Thank you sir!! Mine was the contemporary, solid lens honestly! I have no idea why I sold it 😳 - anyways the 90D is a fine camera, images are more noisy which is expected on a crop but once the advanced settings have been dialed in I think it's fine. Problem I have is that I'm spoilt with the output the 5D Mark IV produces, 90D images just do not match up especially at higher iso. You mentioned the 500 f4 v1 in your video, problem is and I've been contemplating picking one up is that since 2017 Canon will not repair it "Discontinued lens" so no way I'm pulling 3k "In Europe" for such a lens.

Yeah, I figured the 90D would be pretty noisy. I sold my 7D2 a while back cause I always ended up grabbing my 5D4 or 1DX2 and then gripping in a bit more. Even with the crop, the images on my full frames always came out better, and I'm in the mind frame where I now prefer a faster lens with a little less reach. I didn't know that about the 500, that's a bummer. You might look into the 400 f/4 DO, or the 300 f/2.8 and tc.

I definitely had better luck with bif when I switched to mode 2. For the most part I kept it in mode 1. I may have experienced some miss focusing with subjects farther away, but I can't be sure it wasn't me and not just the lens. I definitely felt like I always needed to keep the shutter speed pretty high though. In my experience the stabilization on the Tamron wasn't as good as on my 100-400 mk ii, but I expected as much. I didn't really try out mode 3 on the Tamron though.

The body size doesn't really bother me personally. I put it on the EOS R, which is a smaller body comparatively speaking, and I felt fine with it. If the D5600 is all you have, then I wouldn't hesitate to use this combo, as glass is always more important, and this is a pretty good lens. With the crop on that body you'd be in the 900mm range, which is a significant upgrade from 450mm, lol.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate that!

Hey Mark, so I decided to make a video about this. It's quite long though, but I hope it helps. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rDyuPA0mf2I.html

Well the best lens, in my opinion, is the RF 100-55, but it's also stupid expensive. After that I would go with the EF 100-400. Both out perform the Tamron in just about every way. The Tamron is good, don't get me wrong, especially for the price, but the Canon lenses are better.

@@BrentHall Thanks Brent.. I appreciate your response. I’m going to go with the canon.

Thank you! I've only ever used this on a Canon though, so I can't comment about it's performance on a Sony.

Thanks man! I didn't get to try the TC with it, and personally, I probably wouldn't use it even if I had it. The lens did great on my 1DX2 and the extra reach was definitely nice!

@@BrentHall Any thoughts on using it on the 90D for the extra reach? Or not worth it? Thanks again. I like reviews that cover real life situations (like yours) without a lot of charts and graphs.

@@soak000 I've never used the 90D, but I've heard good things about it, at least for good light situations. At this point in my wildlife photography though, I'd personally rather have a better, cleaner image than a little more reach, so I still prefer just cropping on a full frame. But that's just me. I'd say rent a 90D if you're curious how it would preform for you though.

thanks John, I appreciate the kind words! I haven't done any firmware updates with the lens, but that's good to hear.

how do you do the updates?

That's awesome! I think it will be a very nice combo.

@@BrentHall So I did pick this lens up, I'm getting good results with it. I do have one question. Once in awhile the lens if very slow to focus, tanking 5 seconds to focus. It just moves so slowly. It's kind of random, not sure if its a lens problem or me. I have tried turning the VC off the same thing. Any thoughts?

@@AAAPoolServices Hi, I know quite a long time since this post, did this problem get solved in any way? I also have an R and thinking if this lens, but quite a few bad reviews of this combo, similar as you described.

@@darrensmith7949 Solved it's all user error, once I started using the focus limiter never had the issue again, also make sure mounting pins are clean! Hope it helps Great lens :) Brent's review is spot on!

@@AAAPoolServices that's good to know, so no special settings in tap in or stuff like that. Do you still use the R and 600 g2 together?

Thanks! I have. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that in the video, but I liked the tamron better. It's sharper, better weather sealed, and has less chromatic aberration. That's just my opinion though.

Thank you! Personally, I'd rather get the Tamron. It's weather-sealed, and has slightly better optics.

Price?

Thanks! The 100-400 mk ii is better in pretty much every way, and I suspect it would still be better even with the 1.4x Tc, though the 2x would slow down the af and drop the iq to less than that of the Tamron at 600, but probably not by much, especially with good light.

You're welcome, I'm glad it helped!

That's awesome, have fun with it!

Hey mate, did you got the lens? Im planing to buy it for my z mount nikon so maybe we can talk about how it is?

@@yannikflender1473 I haven't bought the 150-600mm yet, but the three Tamron lenses I currently own work great. I have the 45mm f/1.8, the 24-70mm G2, and the 70-200mm G2. I get better autofocus performance with these on my Z6 than I did on my DSLR.

@@cat5e Ok that's perfect haha, and thanks for the quick response

Many thanks! 😀🙏

Thanks Lonnie! I don't think I'm gonna pick up the old 500 f/4 any time soon. Since filming this video I have switched to all mirrorless cameras (the R5 and R6) so I think I will get that new 800 f/11 and give it a go, and at some point I will probably sell my 100-400 and get the new rf 100-500. Gotta save up quite a few more pennies though...

@@BrentHall Sounds great!

I did a very in-depth review of the new RF 800mm vs the Tamron 150-600 G2, and I have a section of that video where I used and talked about the Tamron with the 1.4x TC. In short, I prefer the RF 800 over the Tamron with the TC for most things, though it does okay if you really need it. A 1DX is much much better in low light than a 7D2, as is a 5D4 or any other full frame camera. I sold my 7D2 in favor of my 5D4 and 1DX2 for that very reason, and a few others.

@@BrentHall Thanks for the feedback on the lens/TC. I'll check out that other review. Regarding the bodies - currently the 7D2 is my 'wildlife' lens, a 1Div is my 'sports' lens/backup and I've got an old 5Dii for portrait / last resort - it is worth more than I could sell it for basically. I am looking at possibly going to a 1DX, thinking the 1Div would be the body to remove and the 7Dii becomes the backup lens. Am I thinking about this correctly in your opinion?

Many thanks Jim!

I have never had any issues with the lens on any of my mirrorless cameras. It's been amazing. I do have the RF 800mm review, where I compare it to the tamron. Is super long, but will worth the watch if you're considering the tamron with the R5.

@@BrentHall - thanks Brent - have already watched that one but can’t remember it detailing much about the comparative AF with each body on the lens (perhaps an idea for a future video? 😉)

Thank you! I don't know, I've never used the 90D, but I've heard good things about it. I can only say that of the 3 camera bodies I did test this lens on, it was great on all 3.

I think it would pair very well with the 7D2.

@@BrentHall thank you! Just have to save some money. Btw...I am a small person. Would I be able to hand hold with both? I do have the older version of canon 100-400. It is somewhat heavy. Thank you for getting back to me.

@@deniseoldridge7518 I don't know, it depends on a lot of things I guess, like how are your shoulders, back, and neck? Mine are all broken and very wrecked from the navy and it's getting harder for me to hold heavier things, but I still manage alright with the tamron, especially on a smaller camera body, and especially if I pay attention to how I carry it. Using a cotton carrier system has been pretty beneficial for me. Overall though, to me personally, the tamron is not nearly as heavy as the big whites I've used in the past, and is only marginally heavier than my 100-400 mk ii . My wife is 5'1" and 95 lbs and she can deal with the tamron alright, but she's also in pretty good shape, so it really just depends on what you consider "heavy" is.

@@BrentHall I am 5' 1" also. My shoulders and back are ok. Do have some problems with my neck. But tolerable. I really don't like using a tripod. I think I will rent both lens and body and try it out. Btw... I too love lens rentals 👍

If money isn't an option, I'd go with the rf 100-500 hands down. It's beyond sharp, and way lighter then the tamron. You could always pick up a TC for it later too, or even the rf 800 down the road, to supplement it.

Thank you Brent Hall for taking the time to reply; will do that!

Depends on what you want out of it. If you're just doing wildlife then I'd say go for the Tamron, but if you like landscapes as well, especially at Glacier and Yellowstone, you might really like the versatility and less weight of the 100-400. If you can't swing the canon 100-400, you should check out the Tamron 100-400, it's amazingly sharp, light, and way cheaper than the canon.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens for zoos! I use it a lot for that.

I've never adjusted any of my tamron lenses. I really should get the TAP console, but I haven't yet. For high iso noise reduction for wildlife, I usually make a stamp visible layer, open it back up in camera raw after the rest of the edits, and do a global noise reduction by at least 40-50% and then open that layer back up in PS and mask it and paint back in the subject, so everything else is nice and noise-less and a little extra blurry. I'm gonna make a new video about it here pretty soon. I think I've done it, or mentioned it in previous videos but I'm not sure, I'have so many up now, lol.

Thanks a million for your reply! Yes, both my Tamron 24-70 needed to be adjusted and glad I did. Minor adjustments made on 70-200 and no real need for 15-30 as it is used for sky and landscape. Adjustments on 150-600 I would think may be hard to accomplish as it is so far away from target. Really appreciate the huge tip on the noice reduction. Thanks again and really like your content!

Yes I have.

Yeah, that's the problem with most people wanting to do wildlife photography. They have an unreal expectation of physics. Most of the images in that video were shot with the birds and animals no farther than about 40 ft away from me, and personally, I always try to get even closer. A lot of those images were around 20-30 ft from the subjects. It won't matter if you have the best and biggest 800mm in the world, if your subjects are small birds and animals that are more than about 50 ft away tops, then physics will not be your friend, and you will most likely get soft and slightly out of focus images. When I first got that lens and people were saying it was soft at 600mm, that was likely why--they were usually trying to shoot things that were just too far away and not properly managing their expectations and understanding physics. Unfortunately in wildlife photography, there's just no substitution for getting closer, and that's not always easy for sure. Hope that helps.

@@BrentHall Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I too always shoot birds as close as possible, so when I tried some long range shots I was disappointed with the out of focus or soft image. I did contact Tamron and basically they said sorry you are having trouble with the lens,we can fix that, send it in for repair. Also nice to hear that a $20k lens has the same problems. Thanks again and I have superscribed to your channel.

Thank you!

you'll get a little bit extra perceived reach with the 7D2, just watch those high ISO levels on that body, they can get ugly. Have fun with it though, that's a solid little wildlife combo!

Idk, that's a pretty old camera, and quite heavy, comparatively speaking. But if it has the specs you want, then sure. Personally, I'd take the RP over that, for just a little bit more (in price). If you're just wanting mostly landscapes then the 1 series (to me) would be a bit overkill in terms of size and weight.

@@BrentHall thanks Brent I’ll look into it.

I do. I recommend it very highly, especially over the first gen 100-400.

I do like the Tamron. It's a great value for what it is, but I'd take my canon over it 99% of the time.

@@BrentHall Actually I had one other question, when using the Canon 100-400mm mk.ii do you ever have times when you miss the extra 200mm of reach on the Tamron? or does the sharpness usually counterbalance the 200mm loss via cropping? Since my regional parks are quite active with people, birds in my area tend to be quite far away and I'm always worried I won't be able reach them. I also can't really just walk around off the path either so, I'm limited where I can move physically to get closer.

That depends on a few things. What body do have, and how far away are the average subjects that you'll be photographing? The Canon is sharper than the Tamron, even when cropped in to 600mm (if you can nail focus and have solid techniques), and also the Tamron does get kind of soft at 600mm when the subject is farther away (though that's just physics, every lens does it, just to varying degrees). Also consider things like weight. How much/far are you willing to lug the Tamron around, it's a lot heavier than the Canon. If reach is your biggest concern though, then the extra 200mm is quite nice. The Tamron is only 1/3 stop slower than the canon at full extension, so depending on the camera body you have and how well you can edit, that shouldn't be too much of a deal breaker. It sounds like based on your shooting style and area, that you would be fine with the Tamron. Honestly though, they both good lenses, but they have slightly different uses. The canon (to me) is way more versatile, so I will almost always go for that, but that's because I shoot so much more than just wildlife, and I'm often hiking, biking, kayaking, and rock-climbing to get to my locations and the less gear and weight I have, the better. If you're not doing that kind of stuff, and you just want a solid wildlife lens for walking around your local parks or going to wildlife specific places like Bosque del Apache, Yellowstone, Alaska, etc, and want to save some money, then the Tamron will be great.

@@BrentHall Generally speaking, most of my photography is wildlife/bird photography at my regional parks. Since new housing development has started around the parks, they have become a bit more crowded which is good to see as the parks are getting more funding, but this also means more stress on the birds. This has lead to them being much further into the marshlands than they used to be. The reach was nice when I did have the Tamron especially for the herons which hide really far out from the paths. However, the crowded nature of the parks could also be an argument for versatility since lots of challenges are introduced at unanticipated times (aka: bikes, dog walkers, loud kids, etc...) being able to just move along to the next spot would be easier with the Canon and I could more easily hand hold it when small opportunities arise out of the blue which I found to be very challenging with the Tamron. I'm hoping to rent the 100-400 mk.ii and a 1.4x extender to see how I like it. Thanks again for your input Brent, I really appreciate it!

I've never used that one. I've only tried the Sigma 150-600 C.

I don't have the tamron. I actually never owned it, just rented it a few times. I did use it and talk about its performance on the R5 and R6 in my video about the RF 800. I still maintain that's about the best budget lens out there for wildlife, but I'd personally never take it over my new 100-500 (which is my favorite lens of all time now). If you're ready to upgrade camera bodies, I definitely wouldn't wait for an R7. There's no solid proof that it will even happen or a decent timeline for it. The R6 is out, and it's phenomenal, and will be way better than anything you have now. Just my two cents on that. Your 1-4 will go wonderfully with the R6 as well.

@@BrentHall I appreciate the reply. Thanks. I am set for cameras. The only reason I considered that 150-600 is to use it on my 7D2 or the 5D3 for sports and birds to give the 1-4 a break.. I just wondered how you may have liked it on the R6. I have an R6 and use the 1-4 on it at times. I am babying it keeping the R6 new. I guess what I meant is I think the 100-500 will be my favorite as well, but will just live with the 1-4 until the R7 comes out. Sounds silly when I can just get the 100=500 now and enjoy it on the R6. And already have it. Too many choices lol

Well, the R7 doesn't exist, so I guess I'd go with the one that does.

The Tamron.

At full frame, Tamron is a little sharper than Sigma at 6.3, at 7.1 they are the same! On crop they are both soapy at 6.3 and the same at 7.1 and up. This is all at 600mm focal lengths! On other values, Sigma is better!

That's also a great lens, especially if you want something a little lighter and really versatile for other types of photography, and it's a lot cheaper than the canon version.

@@BrentHall Awesome, thanks! Keep up the excellent work :)

Doubtful. I've never used a Sony, and probably never will. I've heard good things about this lens on the Sony A9 and A9 mk ii though.

@@BrentHall ohkk

Yeah, the 100-400 on the 7D2 is a great combo! I need to get that 1.4 tc and use it a bit. A lot of people ask me about it, especially for using it on the 100-400.

They're both pretty good budget options for dslrs. I haven't used either in more than a few years now though. If you're on a Canon mirrorless body though, I wouldn't recommend either because they just don't perform as well. I'd look at the RF 100-400 or 200-800.

It has some pretty significant upgrades from what I've seen. I haven't used one though.

Yeah, that combo should do well.

Depends on what you want to photograph. All the SP and G2 lenses in tamron's line up are great, and affordable.

That's awesome! I haven't heard from anyone using it on a Sony. I'm glad it holds up well on that system too.

Brent Hall it a Sony a-mount version and I use it with my Sony La-ea3 adapter, and I love this combo😀

I use the Canon version with mc-11 on my a9 and it works great as well.

@@tarekabdelkader7047 is vc work? My a7iii and this lens I felt vc doesn't work properly 😐

I have no idea, I've never used a Sony and know nothing about them or their adapters unfortunately.

The EA3 is the one

The tamron tripod mount on the lens is the same as an arca swiss, but it has a standard 1/4" 20 screw hole on the bottom so you can put any type of base plate you need on it.

@@BrentHall I have 190 go with bhq2 so I can mount collar on rc2 quick relase Thank You sooooo much

No clue. I've never even heard that they were doing or thinking about doing that.

I've definitely been happy with the other SP lenses I have too! Tamron is really improving. :)

Brent Hall, I’ve been using Tamron SP series lenses since the 60’s when they first brought them out.

Yep. 😁

Not yet. But I'm gonna try to rent it again here soon, and then I definitely will!.

It'll do very well on the 7D2. Just watch your iso levels. That camera doesn't handle too high of isos very well.

@@BrentHall yes definite seems like a daytime lens for sure