JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 254000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Autofocus, weight and size (for the lens that is, it is a 150-500 and also handheld shots), sharpness, stabilization.
Cons:I would say nothing to say, except that freehand, after a few hours, it makes itself felt. (but it is also a 150-500)
Opinion:Great optics. I've tried it on a couple of occasions for sports photos (on a7r3) and I must say that it goes great. I was impressed by the stabilization; Used in Mode 3 is very valid. Well built, monopod tripod mount already in the ark. Before taking this, I tried it alongside the 200-600. Tests outside the store, but I saw no differences, and the weight and maneuverability led the choice in favor of this (the 200-600 I, personally, did not hold it well in my hand). It was not only a price choice, there was also a used, practically new. I was satisfied.
Pros:Rationality of the project, optical and (at least apparently) constructive quality, compactness, focusing distance, Arca-compatible foot as standard, price.
Cons:The zoom lock mechanism by sliding the dial is clever but questionable as it can be moved unintentionally in handling. Manual focus only power-assisted.
Opinion:I bought it crossed. A bit 'because the supertele cheap variable focal length, traditionally, are not a category of lenses that shines for optical yield and a little' for my direct experience not always positive: I had the Canon 100-400 second series, excellent, and the Panaleica 100-400, disappointing in spite of the blazon. I like old lenses, made of iron and glass, totally mechanical, and this Tamron is an electronic tool: in twenty years it will no longer work even in manual because even manual focusing is motorized; My old goals have been working for forty years and in another forty they will continue to work. Not only that: in forty years an artificial intelligence will make them autofocus and correct their aberrations, enhancing the poetry of optical schemes with a few precious glass lenses. Net of this premise, it is an excellent tool, the resolution is high and the image is beautiful in every situation. At these levels it is stupid to analyze the optical sights and indeed, for the umpteenth time, I have had confirmation of how bad we can get an idea of the quality based on comparisons of that type that are found on the net. The license plate data are sufficient, it is not as bright as a fixed and with large subjects you can not have the same blurred, for the rest it will provide images as beautiful as the photographer will be. The autofocus works well but I am not able to make an advanced evaluation, as a good lover of iron and glass. The stabilizer is silent and very effective: with a steady hand you can easily shoot at 500 mm below one hundredth of a second.
Pros:Compactness, yield at 500, cost in the grey market, construction, AF, general sharpness.
Cons:Weight (but it's a supertele... there is), does not multiply.
Opinion:I needed a supertele that I would carry around... and in the market they only make 2 , the Canon 100 500 and this. The others are huge in comparison or the 100 400 DO NOT GO like this if you exclude the Sony that costs almost 3 times... It impressed me positively, I expected sharp but not so "clean". No AC, in the landscape if the sky is clear it is embarrassing already at TA at 500mm on 42mpx. Pesa yes, but it's already fine on the slow a7r3 as AF and I dare not imagine on A9ii or A1 ... it does not multiply but chissene, for that there is the white and long brother of Sony. The thing that shocked me is to see that in fact it is a fixed 500 that drops to 150mm with the yield at TA better at 500 than at 150 ... Tamron is doing REALLY, REALLY GREAT stuff. ps taken in GREY FROM THE UK at £850 with 3 years warranty.
Pros:Transportability, weight, compactness and quality/price
Cons:For the price I would say nothing
Opinion:Having tried them both it is quite natural for me to compare it with the 200/600. As quality and speed the Sony wins in my opinion, but not so clearly. The advantages of the tamron are: transportability, understood more as a footprint (10/11 cm shorter) than as weight and the most affordable price. Honestly if I found a good opportunity in the used I would evaluate the exchange, but the tamron remains an excellent lens that for what it gives 'is worn willingly and I will change it only if I really find the opportunity of life with the 200/600. Freehand is really agile and pleasant to use and if you keep it at 499 mm, you can keep the F 6.3, when you go to 500 mm shoots at F6.7. I use it on a7R3 and I can photograph without problems the fauna and also birds of prey in flight, such as the kite, the buzzard, the golden eagle. It's my first review and I hope it's useful to someone.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
