600 mm prime

[Bengt Nyman]

... The performance of a lens depends entirely upon the cam used ...

Yes, but testing every lens on every camera, though desirable, is impractical, as shown by DxO slowly but surely loosing their grip.
I believe there is a better way. The resolution of an optical serial pair is most heavily influenced by the weakest link. (Zeiss 1964). If you know the resolution of a camera image sensor and the resolution of a lens compatible with that camera, there is a mathematical way to predict the approximate resolution of the serial pair. There is usually more variation from lens to lens and within the focusing accuracy than there is in doing the mathematical synthesis.
That said, I think that both LenScore and LensTip are on the right track. I have been told that LenScore is working on a piece of user interface capable of answering most of your questions about camera and lens performance based on the performance of the two separate components.

 

[jay_dean]

Here I quite regularly see 400mm f/2.8 for sale, usually around 5k. A 600mm I close to never see on the market. It might be different elsewhere.

Theres more 600mm ones around here at the moment than the 400 & 500's, which are few and far between. But used lens (and body) availability decreases in the spring/summer

 

[mikew_RIP]

Ignoring lens focal length for a moment would the enviroment you intend to work in give you scope to capture all your images at 600mm,mine does not i use a 150-600 and only about 30% of my images are at 600mm,i agree with everything you have said about IQ.I am going to change my lens but for a 300 and 1.4,as a cropped 420mm for 30% of the time will work for me.
You said it it your self focal length gets addictive also it can works against you instead of for you.

 

[10 Gauge]

Crops got it lucky in that category!! I could probably make due with that configuration on a DX body too.

Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill16]

I'm a huge prime lens fan myself, but I think getting a 300mm f2.8 will be the best that I can honestly hope to get. Even that might be higher than I can afford to spend all at once without saving a long time!
I've also thought a about getting the new model of my 80-400mm, but that is also very pricey for me!
Maybe some day I'll get lucky and find as buddy that is willing to sell a good long range lens on payments after August when I will have my D800E paid off in full! Lol

 

[jay_dean]

Maybe some day I'll get lucky and find as buddy that is willing to sell a good long range lens on payments after August when I will have my D800E paid off in full! Lol

You'll be wanting another body for the 'cabinet collection' by then Bill!

 

[Elliot87]

There isn't a drastic difference between the new 300mm and the previous version. At least not in terms of quality. The new is slightly better but the main advantage is being short and light. And the VR allows me to shoot her as slow as 1/20s and still get a decent amount of good shots in.

what makes a difference too is where you live and how much light you have at your disposal during the seasons. I don't live in Sunnyland and shooting a 300mm prime at f/4 or f/5.6 or the Tamron at f/8-f/10 to get the best quality makes a whole difference.

I live in the North East of England so sunshine is not always a given. I struggle a little with my 70-300mm which I tend to shoot between f/8 and f/11, this is only possible much of the time because of VC. Unfortunately the 300mm with VR isn't realistic for me, so that leaves a choice between the non VR 300mm and the Tamron with VC. I would imagine the difference wouldn't be so great with these two and I might actually be able to use slower shutter speeds with the Tamron.

I find the Tamron good up to around the 420mm lock.

At 420mm how does the Tamron sharpness compare with the 300mm with TC X1.4? If they are comparable at this focal length the versatility of the 150-600mm might sway me but not if there is still a noticeable difference.

 

[Elliot87]

Keep in mind that if you get a TC 14 III is does not have a mechanical aperture linkage, compromising its compatibility with the older 300 mm D lens.
I am using exactly that setup and it works, but you are limited to shooting in M or A and at f/5.6.

I don't currently have a teleconverter so with look to buy the best fully compatible one I can. I haven't researched this too much yet but I assume that will be the TC 14 II.

 

[SkvLTD]

I'd get the older 600 if I had the money. Its just an awesome piece to own, and it does put out quite well. If you're shooting as a hobby, having very cool collectibles is part of it. Even manual focusing, is still a part of the process as a hobby. If you shoot commercially its a completely different set of criteria.

 

[J-see]

At 420mm how does the Tamron sharpness compare with the 300mm with TC X1.4? If they are comparable at this focal length the versatility of the 150-600mm might sway me but not if there is still a noticeable difference.

I can't tell you how the 300mm performs with a TC since I always shoot the lens without but the Tamron is no match at any focal length without so I assume it not to be different with a TC1.4.

But you have to keep in mind that the cam also is a link in the chain and might have a lot of influence in how severe the differences are. I'm mostly shooting my D810 these days and any difference in lens quality gets magnified by that cam. On my D7200 it makes less difference.

Since you're shooting DX and have the crop factor advantage, you can always down-sample the shots of the Tamron and in doing that boost the quality to a degree. I rarely have that luxury on an FX.

In regards to light you might ask Mike who shoots similar conditions. I'm at the other side of your water and there's a pretty long period of the year the Tamron isn't cutting it. It's not just the light getting low, it's also the focus getting slow. Wintertime BiF isn't an easy thing here.

 

[J-see]

Yes, but testing every lens on every camera, though desirable, is impractical, as shown by DxO slowly but surely loosing their grip.
I believe there is a better way. The resolution of an optical serial pair is most heavily influenced by the weakest link. (Zeiss 1964). If you know the resolution of a camera image sensor and the resolution of a lens compatible with that camera, there is a mathematical way to predict the approximate resolution of the serial pair. There is usually more variation from lens to lens and within the focusing accuracy than there is in doing the mathematical synthesis.
That said, I think that both LenScore and LensTip are on the right track. I have been told that LenScore is working on a piece of user interface capable of answering most of your questions about camera and lens performance based on the performance of the two separate components.

Testing every possible combination is impractical indeed since each year more cams and lenses hit the market and the job will become more and more time-consuming. And there's probably very little money to be made by freely providing this data. That probably explains why DxO is slacking at that level.

If Lenscore can develop a tool that allows me to calculate the data for my specific use I might start using that data but there will be more to it than just both resolutions. Even on similar (resolution) sized sensors performance might differ. But if there is a tool, I'll surely check it out.

Until then I first go to DxO and check a couple of other sources that provide decent reviews.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I live in the North East of England so sunshine is not always a given. I struggle a little with my 70-300mm which I tend to shoot between f/8 and f/11, this is only possible much of the time because of VC. Unfortunately the 300mm with VR isn't realistic for me, so that leaves a choice between the non VR 300mm and the Tamron with VC. I would imagine the difference wouldn't be so great with these two and I might actually be able to use slower shutter speeds with the Tamron.



At 420mm how does the Tamron sharpness compare with the 300mm with TC X1.4? If they are comparable at this focal length the versatility of the 150-600mm might sway me but not if there is still a noticeable difference.

Here is a 100% crop @ 450mm,you are a lot younger and fitter than me so you could possibly half the shutter speed and so half the ISO which would give better results



No idea about the 300mm and 1.4 yet

 

[mikew_RIP]

I cant get it to enlarge so here it is again.

 

[Felisek]

For comparison, here is a 100% crop from Sigma 150-500, @390 mm. Mind you, my lens requires some fine-tuning, I noticed front-focusing at the longer end. I haven't checked it that carefully at shorter focal lengths.

 

[Bengt Nyman]

... At 420mm how does the Tamron sharpness compare with the 300mm with TC X1.4 ... ?

The Tamron resolves 38 LP/mm at 450mm according to LensTip.
The 300mmVR resolves 42.5 LP/mm according to the same source.
Add a TC14 to the 300mmVR and you loose approximately 5% for a resolution of approximately 40 LP/mm at 420mm.

If you prefer the older 300mmD it scores a resolution of 1149 points compared to 984 points for the new 300mmVR according to LenScore. But you miss out on weight reduction and VR.

But remember, the total image quality of a lens and camera is limited by the weakest link. A high quality lens might make quite a difference on a high resolution camera, whereas no lens in the world can lift the image quality beyond the limitations of the camera image sensor, and vice versa.

In summary, if you want uncompromised sharpness and image quality a prime lens on a high resolution camera is your best choice.
If you prefer convenience there are many crop factor cameras with fixed or zoom lenses to choose from.

 

[J-see]

Let's also not forget flexibility. No matter how much I like the prime, when my subject doesn't fit the frame, I have to start using my feet to make it fit. For subjects that don't move, fly or run that's usually not a problem but when you got to be fast, using your feet makes you miss opportunities.

 

[10 Gauge]

For comparison, here is a 100% crop from Sigma 150-500, @390 mm. Mind you, my lens requires some fine-tuning, I noticed front-focusing at the longer end. I haven't checked it that carefully at shorter focal lengths.

My Tamron was the same way. Because I use it full zoom the majority of the time, I did my fine tune at 600mm. I found mine needed to be adjusted up to +18, but it made a big difference. The disadvantage is that it's REALLY soft at 150mm if I don't turn off the fine tune before I shoot at the short end.

 

[Felisek]

My Tamron was the same way. Because I use it full zoom the majority of the time, I did my fine tune at 600mm. I found mine needed to be adjusted up to +18, but it made a big difference. The disadvantage is that it's REALLY soft at 150mm if I don't turn off the fine tune before I shoot at the short end.

I can tune the Sigma (using the USB dock) at different focal lengths and distances separately. It is probably a long and tedious process, but I'm going to do it, bit by bit.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I can tune the Sigma (using the USB dock) at different focal lengths and distances separately. It is probably a long and tedious process, but I'm going to do it, bit by bit.

Does this mean its a better choice for people who dont have fine tune in there cameras

 

[Felisek]

Does this mean its a better choice for people who dont have fine tune in there cameras

I would think so. If your camera doesn't have AF fine tune and your lens front- or back-focuses, you are stuck with it. Unless you can tune the lens itself.

I very vaguely remember people sending their Tamron 150-600 with their camera body to Tamron for fine tuning, but I might be confusing something.