[JJ_SO]

I confirm that you can shot at birds at 9m/30ft, sometimes even less (I mean much less). But of course even at longer ranges, especially flocks, and that's the more likely thing for many. I don't know how many people use very long focals for landscape, in any case I do (300mm / 420mm)    and I do know I'm not completely alone. So, the 30ft test has some meaning, but I'd like to see more. Furthermore comparing with other zooms makes definitely sense and it's the first thing you'd like to known, but comparing with a prime would make sense too: you know that with the zoom you're losing something, but you'd like to know how much are you losing.

 

I'd loosing for sure a nicely blurred background, because most primes are faster and usable wide open without problem. They should - costing between 5 and 20 times more. But to me, who rarely needs such a long lens, it might be better not to check to carefully for "better" lenses - I suspect, there are pretty much a lot of them. I could rent a long tele. But after three or four times renting a Nikon prime, the costs would exceed this lens.

[mo76]

Any chance you'll be testing this lens here at Photozone? Would be much appreciated

 

Here another review I came across: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron...view-23866

[Guest]

Klaus already posted (earlier in this thread) that his setup cannot handle a lens of this nature.

 

Any chance you'll be testing this lens here at Photozone? Would be much appreciated

 

Here another review I came across: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron...view-23866

[mo76]

Klaus already posted (earlier in this thread) that his setup cannot handle a lens of this nature.

 

Thanks for the pointer, I had missed that piece of information.

 

Looking at the lens reviews on photozone it seems the possible f max for the tests is 500mm?

[Klaus]

I have done longer tests than that in the past.

e.g. the Tamron 200-500mm on APS-C (=800mm equiv):

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/2...rt--review

However, this was barely manageable.

 

Since this is possible outdoors only, this could be done during winter time at best (on a day without wind).

[JJ_SO]

If the tester himself doesn't know the math... 

 

On APS-C the Tamron would be 972mm. So how come you've done longer tests than 972mm with a 800mm? 

[Brightcolours]

If the tester himself doesn't know the math... 

 

On APS-C the Tamron would be 972mm. So how come you've done longer tests than 972mm with a 800mm? 

Uhmmm........ 

 

500 x 1. 6 = 800mm. Your math skills seriously suck 

Now which longer test are you talking about????

[JJ_SO]

And your logic skills are simply... Well, to be expected from Brightcolours


Klaus talks about a 500mm lens and is saying on APS C it's 800 ( equivalence would be 1.62 times, but that's not the point) and is saying he was doing longer tests than the 600mm Tamron in the past. So, with an APS C sensor the crop factor is valid for Tamron 200-500, but not for Tamron 150-600? Now, who has a math problem?


To be correct, one needs to multiply 600 * 1.62 as well if the test camera is again an APS C. It is not correct comparing a 500mm lens with a 600mm and say, because it's a crop sensor behind the lens, now you have an 800mm lens, that's plain bullshit.


500mm is not and never the same as 600mm, that's where all your and Klaus' equivalencing fools you.


But is it worth to make an argument about that really simple math? Problems with those focal lengths have much more to do with photog skills, tripod quality or quality of VR ( or whatever the marketing word of Tamron is for vibration reduction), atmospherical pollution or simply weather conditions. Or the question, if the normal factor of distance between target and lens should be 50 times the focal length


One hardly has always the weather conditions to shoot in 30m distance without any dust, mist or insects in between.

[Guest]

Please end this argument. I realize no one likes to be insulted and there are people who are less polite then perhaps they could be but this is going no where useful.

-

I think Klaus understand that there are people who would like this lens tested. I won't speak for Klaus, even if I suspect I know the answer, but anyways not that it matters my personal view is that there are about 30 lenses I would like to see tested before this one and painfully it almost seems as if new lenses are popping up faster than they are tested. Fuji/Panasonic/Olympus alone have added more than 10 new lenses the past 18 months (well I didn't count them but it seems like more than 10); then there is sigma, tamron, canon, nikon, sony, zeiss, .... about the only blessing is pentax is currently silent

[Brightcolours]

And your logic skills are simply... Well, to be expected from Brightcolours


Klaus talks about a 500mm lens and is saying on APS C it's 800 ( equivalence would be 1.62 times, but that's not the point)

Why would it be 1.62 times? You seem to be unaware that different sensors have different sizes. Not all Canon APS-C sensors are exactly the same size, not all FF sensors are exactly the same size, not all Nikon APS-C cameras have the same sensor size either.

and is saying he was doing longer tests than the 600mm Tamron in the past.

No, Klaus did not say that, you just want to read that. Klaus only said he has done longer focal length tests in the past. Not longer than 600mm tests, not longer than 500mm tests. You just made it into "longer than".

So, with an APS C sensor the crop factor is valid for Tamron 200-500, but not for Tamron 150-600? Now, who has a math problem?

What are you talking about? Klaus said he has done longer focal length tests in the past, and explains why those are problematic. The problematic part is why he will not test the new lens at 600mm, he does not have the space or conditions to formally test 600mm on FF let alone on APS-C, in his current situation.

To be correct, one needs to multiply 600 * 1.62 as well if the test camera is again an APS C. It is not correct comparing a 500mm lens with a 600mm and say, because it's a crop sensor behind the lens, now you have an 800mm lens, that's plain bullshit.

No one said that, it is just your reading comprehension skills which are a bit lacking. 

I don't know whether you realise it, but a 200mm lens on FF gets tested at a shorter distance than a 200mm lens on APS-C. This has to do with the testing methodology. So, yes, a 500mm lens on APS-C is tested at a similar distance as an 800mm lens on FF. Because the testing targets do not change.

500mm is not and never the same as 600mm, that's where all your and Klaus' equivalencing fools you.


But is it worth to make an argument about that really simple math? Problems with those focal lengths have much more to do with photog skills, tripod quality or quality of VR ( or whatever the marketing word of Tamron is for vibration reduction), atmospherical pollution or simply weather conditions. Or the question, if the normal factor of distance between target and lens should be 50 times the focal length


One hardly has always the weather conditions to shoot in 30m distance without any dust, mist or insects in between.