Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD lens review with samples (Full-frame & APS-C)

[@wanderingfool6312]

It will be interesting to see how it performs on the new Fujis, especially compared to Fuji’s own 150-600.

[@chicken.productions]

I like that you use BOTH FF and APS-C bodies in your reviews! Thank you!

[@ladislavsvencik]

Chris, you need to test long telephoto lenses at long distance like 20-30m, often the sharpnes change significantly opposite to close distance and especially vary between lenses when in close distance it might looks simillar.

[@cy9nvs]

I appreciate you taking the time to test it on APS-C cameras as well. Would be interesting to know how this one does on the 40 MP fuji sensor compared to fujis own 100-400 and 150-600 zoom lenses, which both really aren't great at the longer focal lengths.

[@anulearntech]

interesting times, when there is the Sigma 150-600 in the horizon, just over 2kilos and similarly priced to this lens.

[@DrWurzeli]

Thats not available for E-Mount cameras though unless you use an adapter, is it?

[@DrWurzeli]

nevermind, I just found the announcement for it. thats great news!

[@peteT269]

@@DrWurzeli What announcment? I haven't seen anything about this

[@acouragefann]

Yeah but tamron lenses never stay highly priced

[@anulearntech]

@@peteT269 it will come out. Currently there are only leaked photos.

[@networm64]

Wow Chris is on a roll with long telephoto lenses!👍 Can we wish for the coming Sigma 150-600 to be the next? At 5:20 I yelled Yes! Thanks for testing it on apsc too.

[@quirkworks4076]

All your reviews are extremely good and helpful, and this is no exception..in fact, you may have convinced me to get out my credit card. I have one suggestion for future reviews of lenses that aren't particularly fast. I've seen lots of reviewers refer to slower lenses as "darker," which may confuse newcomers by suggesting that their images will be underexposed compared to faster lenses. The maximum aperture of a camera does indeed influence the ability to gather light, but any lens can make perfectly exposed images at any aperture by compensating with such things as shutter speed and ISO. I think it would be clearer to explain that some lenses are "faster" and allow higher shutter speeds at lower ISOs, while other lenses (like this one) are "slower" requiring lower comparable shutter speeds and higher ISOs to achieve the same exposure. Just food for thought. Thank you some much for your wonderful reviews!

[@soholingo]

Thanks for this review, this is a LOT smaller than I expected.

[@georgestancl2283]

Thank you Chris, i have been personally stoked about this lens for very long time! Also you have actually finished my wishlist for camera lenses :) P.S:Before you guys will be bitching about f/6.7 being dark... remember Canon's equivalent is 7.1 where as at 400mm you are still at 5.6 or so :)

[@mjak993]

It's out for the Nikon Z mount as well now - and I love it to bits! Yeah, it's not exactly light, but what do you expect from this kind of lens. :) I was kind of undecided on whether to get this or the (even heavier and pricier... but also quite nice) Nikon 180-600 for a short while, but the compactness and the close focusing capability simply won me over. (EDIT: also, compared to the 180-600, the Arca-Swiss compatible foot is a nice touch.)

[@JackieSemple]

Enjoyed this review of what seems to be an excellent lens. Not a focal length that I've used before but I think I shall go for this beauty as it does reach locations that are otherwise outside my reach. Tamron offer a great selection of lens in the Sony E-mount and this appears to be another great addition. Thanks.

[@nickscott8488]

Hi Chris Great Review! I didnt quite understand your comment about not expecting 61mp images out of it? I have the A7rIV and considering this lens. What do you mean exactly?

[@joshuathomas4934]

I have used this lens for over a year now on an a6400. This lens is in a class of its own, (For Sony) and i woudl absolutely take this over any 200-600 lens. On paper the lens seems like it falls behind. But the 6.7 aperture is not going to make a difference over the 6.3 in real world use. As you need good light for both and the difference isnt noticeable at all. You can pick this lens up used for 900 ish dollars and it is a value beast.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Im with you, I have 200-600 and this tamron, because of tamron's portability, close up capabilities and much less chromatic aberration on aps-c I take a lot more often for a walk than sony 200-600. Gonna sell 200-600 asap.

[@mathu_stans]

I recently purchased this lens with the current software version 3 and the stabilization isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Mode three is where I am at most of the time and it works well enough

[@sephiroth127]

You are my favourite Sony reviewer. Thanks for this video, you never disappoint!

[@bikingmoments]

Feels like this lens is struggling with the position. I’d either go cheaper with a Sigma 100-400 ($750, razor sharp) or go OE with Sony 200-600 (ultimate focal length with 1.4X 2X potential).

[@justpray365]

I went with the cheaper Sigma. Took it to the beach and the focus held up to surfers, boogie boards, Pelicans and kids running crazy on the beach. I also hand held it at 1/30 of a second at 400mm with no problem. All of the images were great. I did have it on an A9.

[@RealRaynedance]

@Catalin A In fairness, Tamron didn't have much of a choice in adding stabilization. Sony's in-body stabilization doesn't do so well on its own at the lengths this lens goes to.

[@acouragefann]

I feel that this is exactly the position this tamron ought to be in - rather than competing with the sigma at 400 or the first party sony, provide a meaningful, fully weather sealed and compact middle ground. For some, the best of both worlds.

[@ryankwan1934]

@@acouragefann Sadly, Sigma has now made this lens obsolete. The Sigma is 2100g fully kitted (hood + tripod mount) vs 1980g for the Tamron (1725g + 155g tripod mount + 100 g hood). Pay $100 and 120g to gain 100mm and almost a full stop at 500mm? Yes please. The Tamron's only saving grace is that it packs down 4 cm smaller.

[@inmouchar]

@@ryankwan1934 It's all subjective, and I would have to disagree with you. I recently bought the Tamron (the Sigma was already out) because it's considerably smaller and more portable. I got a camera backpack that can fit this lens perfectly; the Sigma or Sony ones wouldn't fit, and I hate carrying tons of bulky gear around. The weight difference might not be as significant, but it's there. I also hate the fact that you can't easily remove and reinstall the tripod mount on the Sigma. I don't really use the tripod mount, so the Tamron is much better in this sense, as you can easily remove it. I would say the extra 100mm on the Sigma is its only advantage (and maybe the stabilizer is better, but I'm not sure). From what I've seen, the Tamron is sharper and has better autofocus. It all depends on what you are looking for... Yes, there is a difference between 500 and 600, but to me it isn't huge. I prefer smaller, sharper, better autofocus, lighter, and the ability to remove the tripod mount.

[@subbuks2160]

Can you do nikon 200-500 & 180-600 comparison?

[@youtoba4714]

can you review opteka 500-100mm??

[@360icon]

Im torn between this and the sigma 100-400? For a few hundred more, in the long run this maybe the better choice + 100mm

[@myhealthobs5290]

Well, I bought one last week and I must say my biceps and shoulders are bigger already

[@Wistbacka]

Considering it is still f6.3 at 480 mm, I just wish they would have cut it off there and thus make it a f6.3 lens. Just like they opted for 70-180 instead of 70-200. I think f6.7 is a larger stain for marketing than 480 mm vs 500 mm is.

[@nightdonutstudio]

82mm filter size is the key feature so I can use my 82mm ND filter for video. There is no other lens around this focal length range has 82mm filter size.

[@hannahdobbs226]

I own both the 28-75 and 17-28 Tamron lenses for Sony so I'm hardly a Tamron hater. However every release since has not been convincing at all based on UK prices (US prices are decent). I passed on the 70-180mm based on price and this 150-500 is the same. The size is the only thing going for it. In the UK it makes much more sense to pay slightly more and get the Sony 200-600 for great performance, the extra 100mm and ability to use teleconverter. I'm also waiting to hear that the new sigma 150-600 will cost as that's rumoured to accept teleconverters. I'd wager that the Sony and sigma would hold their value better too.

[@tdawg719]

This one also has the advantage of a short min. Focus distant

[@MrPetebuster1]

@@tdawg719 That makes little difference for wildlife it's intended purpose, your not going to get that close to most wildlife😉, more focal reach, tcs and a custom button all more important

[@tdawg719]

@@MrPetebuster1 correct. But it’s a separate reason to own the lens that the other lenses don’t have. You can do macro shots of other stuff with the Tamron lens. Wildlife isn’t the only thing to shoot. I bought the lens and I’m also glad I can carry around a smaller backpack. I’ve been in situations where bringing a larger bag would have been far less enjoyable

[@godsinbox]

Excellent review, and an honest one. I smelt a rat with other yt reviewers shooting flowers at 1600th to get sharp images. I didn’t think the tamron would be good without stopping down (could be some field curvature there). Cheers for the advice regarding high megapixel bodies (unless on crop mode). Btw The release price is always too high when at low stock levels. I Bought the GM and will sell the sigma 100-400 dg dn (which I bought at release and paid a premium for:/) the sigma needed to be stopped down to be sharp, just like 80% of lenses on the market!

[@psoon04286]

Nice review. Any word on whether Tamron is working on a Z version?

[@TheMrsyouknow]

It is working okay, depending on the adapter used and its firmware

[@vivekdoijode3467]

hi Chris! I've been waiting for your review on Tamron's 35-150mm, please post it soon!

[@AbhisekDatta]

Thanks for this lens review 👍🏽

[@anno-fw7xn]

Thanks for you work! i realy hope we get some canon 3party lansens!

[@GaryBox]

I can forgive the 6.7 aperture because it's only that from 480mm. I think I can forgive the 7 aperture blades versus the 9 of Sigma and 11 of Sony as I doubt the bokeh will look much different at these apertures. What I couldn't forgive was the fact it cost more than the sigma and almost as much as the Sony. That price has since reduced and they are currently discounting by further £200.00 which makes it tempting. I nearly went for the sigma but I sense the focusing motor on the tamron will be much better than the sigma.

[@fjp2000]

Could you pls review the new 28-75?

[@72shaynes]

Hallo Christopher. Do you know of any adaptors that can be used with this lens for F-mount cameras (Nikon)? Appreciate your advice.

[@zolwikwkurwik]

Finally you got A7RII like me for tests :D

[@debanjanliverpool]

You mean the A7RIII mate

[@frankfeng2701]

With 82mm filter thread and 1.8kg weight, Tamron should have made it at least 100-500 like the Canon RF version.

[@Nathan_Lundstrom]

To be honest, if I’m buying a 500mm lens - it’s not so I can go as wide as 100mm. 150mm is wide enough on a lens like this for me.

[@networm64]

Exactly! I wonder how Canon could save almost 300g and give extra at the wide end, though the aperture is 7.1 at 500mm but doesn't justify the weight difference! Tamron disappointed in wheight saving for the first time in E mount.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

@@networm64 Not 300g but 195g difference, and for one RF100-500 I can buy 3x tamron 150-500 in my country. Additionaly lens hood and tripod mount price together is almost 1/4 price of tamron...

[@ikusha84]

@christopherfrost please test a Nikon Z version if you can which just came out. Thank you.

[@macdandy1972]

Oh no. I was 90% committed to getting this lens, until after watching your review. (I have a lot of respect for your product reviews; it makes a huge difference on my purchases) Would you recommend a buyer save up for the Sony telephoto lens, instead? Or to wait for something better?

[@ElizabethaKaur]

You should totally get it! I was deciding between this lens and the sony 200-600mm and in the end, I went with the Tamron, the minimum focal distance at 150mm is only 60cm (23.6 in) allowing for beautiful macro photography. I got it brand new for $1,150 with a discount code. Is a beautiful well-built lens, you won't be disappointed.

[@sulev111]

Now there's a sigma 60-600 with GM sharpness:)

[@PatrickWithCamera]

@@ElizabethaKaur Fully agree with you, macro capabilities, portability and slightly less weight made me decide to sell 200-600, after a year with tamron I have no regret buying it. I would recommend 200-600 only for people that focus on birds on fly and need TC for longer reach.

[@thegeneral123]

Looks quite nice but I agree it's a bit over priced. I'm going to hold off and see what Sigma brings out to go with my Sigma 24-70.

[@od628]

What do you mean when you talk about getting 61 MP images? Or does anyone else know? Why could you not get 61 MP images using this lens?

[@od628]

@@RiceCake-ep9gu Thanks for the info. 👍🏽

[@justinryan1488]

May be a stupid question But if the max aperture is 6.7 at 500mm How are you showing us 8-11?

[@jddorland]

It’s most wide open at 6.7. You can still stop down from there. (Smaller the number the more open)

[@hughjohns9110]

I find the stabilisation (VC) on this lens pretty useless, at least on my A7R3. The lowest shutter speed I can go at 500mm is 1/500, which is just the same as applying the '1/focal-length' rule and makes it appear the the VC is not doing anything at all. I'd be interested to know whether people find it any better on other bodies. However I find no issues whatsoever with sharpness in real world use at speeds of 1/1000 and above.

[@ScalletaVito]

I adapted this lens to my Nikon Z6 (with an etz adapter), using IBIS only, I was able to get sharp images at 150mm with 1/20 sec, and 500mm with almost 1/60-1/80 sec, so I think it's on the boby.

[@hughjohns9110]

@@ScalletaVito ok thanks for that, but this lens is supposed to be stabilised.

[@someoneunknown1714]

Hi Chris! I wanted to know if the xt3 has better colours, I remember in one video you said that the colours for landscape was terrible on fuji, I wanted to know if it is fixed on the Xt3..

[@debanjanliverpool]

Fuji's colours are on a different level mate for any kind of shooting be it portraits or landscapes. I myself is thinking of getting the XT4 but I am hearing a rumor that fuji may release a totally new sensor in 2022 so just waiting for that.

[@christopherfrost]

I'm much happier with my XT3 for shooting landscapes than I was with my X-T20. Maybe there was something wrong with that camera but I could never get its colours how I liked them

[@someoneunknown1714]

@@christopherfrost ohk, Thanks

[@peteT269]

A quick question. Most (if not all) lens reviewers say things like "This lens is sharp at xxx millimeter". Why the singular? Surely it should always be pluralised ("This lens is sharp at xxx millimeters"). I know this is slightly pendantic, but I'm curious, why not just add the extra s and make it more grammatically correct?

[@blaspayri]

just a guess: it is short for "at xxx-millimeter focal length"

[@saifaldin_]

My 1st guess is that people tend to use ‘millimeter’ simply to note the unit used as opposed to viewing it as individual countable units. It’s not gramatically correct (and i don’t mean to defend it), but often the way people use language can give a clue to how they are thinking, and not just what they are thinking about. Meaning to say, when we say 200 millimeters it’s more to say ‘this lens is a 200 (total length as a label) instead of ‘there are 200 millimeters of focal length inside this lens’.

[@claydowdy9596]

Is Tamron only making lenses for Sony now?

[@godsinbox]

I’d think they make lenses for volume markets. Hard to make money only selling RF lenses to several KZbinrs hahahahaha

[@robharrold4417]

Sony owns part of Tamron so that might have something to do with it

[@Xyronium]

Tamron releases it's lenses for Fuji X mount and Nikon Z mount as well. Few of the Tamron lenses were rebranded as Nikon for the Z mount so maybe that's why don't see as many of them. Canon RF straight up blocks 3rd party AF lenses so that's not Tamrons fault.

[@billy9506]

Hi Chris!

[@christopherfrost]

Hi!

[@tdawg719]

I actually came to this video wondering if the autofocus was discussed. I just received this lens and mine hunts for focus like crazy. Yet this video says the autofocus is very good. Anyone else having issues with focus hunting?

[@PatrickWithCamera]

In low light it hunting often, after update v3 is much better, but still can hunt, in good lighting is very fast AF, nearly as native sony. I'm using it on a6600.

[@tdawg719]

@@PatrickWithCamera I can’t figure out how to update my firmware

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

So i think the sigma 100-400 DG DN is a better choice 👌

[@debanjanliverpool]

Sony GM 100-400mm is better than Sigma

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

@@debanjanliverpool it is only better if you have the money 👌

[@networm64]

Not in AF performance which is a big off on sigma compared to natives. But price and weight saving is amazing on sigma, hope the same story for the coming 150-600!

[@oscarshen6855]

If you are shooting something static then yes, but long telephoto lenses are made for sports and wild life, the auto focus speed of the sigma isn't up to the task.

[@OneWeekGetAway]

Interesting, it feels like the knocks on this lens and its price are - from this video - unjustified. I just went back and reviewed your video on the Sony 200-600, which you endorse wholeheartedly, but between the two videos I do not see a huge degree of difference in sharpness; perhaps the Sony wins, but only marginally. The Tamron is 1/3rd less expensive, has better close focusing and is more portable to boot. I am not suggesting it is the 'better' lens - I am actually on the fence between these two lenses (and waiting to see what Sigma offers), but curious why the strong praise for the more expensive 200-600 and the relative criticism of the Tamron, which I do not think is overpriced unless IQ or AF are lacking.

[@razorlord9330]

waiting for Tamron to come up with Z mount lenses..

[@jukeboxjohnnie]

Yes no good for me. the Sony version reviewed recently wasnt good at maximum aperture either, so we are still waiting for an amazing telephoto zoom from somewhere.

[@TechnoBabble]

That stabilization performance is pretty disappointing for a lens that could otherwise be a wildlife monster. If I have to shoot at a higher shutter speed (and therefore a higher ISO) the slightly longer focal length over a 100-400 or even Sony's 70-350 on an APS-C camera is pointless.

[@acouragefann]

Do you shoot a lot of still subjects? I find I can't capture birds, squirrels or any other critter over 1/150 no matter the lens because there's always some movement.

[@TechnoBabble]

@@acouragefann most of my best wildlife shots are at 1/100 or lower.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

I moved from 70-350, for stills there no big difference in stabilization, with sony I could do 1/15s @350mm, with tamron i can do 1/40s @500mm, difference in reach is bigger than I tought, a lot easier to sneak to animals with 500mm. For example simple test with tiny tit bird, to get decent framing with this little bird I had to sneak for days with sony @350mm, with tamron at first day I did more good pictures than with sony in months. Different story when we talk about video, in that matter sony is better, also AF in low light is better on sony.

[@TrueKyanite]

Man, what a strange aperture... F/6.7

[@acouragefann]

a lot of lensmakers simply round it down - I'm pleasantly surprised they're not trying to sell it at f6.3

[@MrPetebuster1]

The sony 200-600 is easily the better option, internal focusing, 600mm and faster at the long end .You don't get telephoto's at 500-600mm to save room in your bag.

[@realiesOne]

you do

[@inmouchar]

It is by no means "easily" the better option. 1) Yes, I do take size into account. Saving room in my bag does matter to me in terms of portability and independently of weight. 2) In Canada, I got the Tamron on sale for $1500, while the Sony costs $2600. That's a massive difference, especially for a hobbyist like myself.

[@MrPetebuster1]

@@inmouchar Thats a big price difference , it's not here £200 at most

[@MrPetebuster1]

@@realiesOne There's very little difference in weight so why length would be a big factor over quality baffles me a little🥺 the sony is sharper and surely you'd prefer 600 over 500mm but each to their own

[@PatrickWithCamera]

For aps-c is not so easy to chose 1) tamron is sharper on aps-c than sony and have less chromatic aberration 2) tamron have better magnification 0.34x @ 150mm, 0.38x @ 189mm VS sony 0.2x @ 600mm 3) tamron is lighter, shorter, fit to small backpack 4) now after discounts price difference is huge, tamron around 900-1050$ vs sony around 1625-1700$ 5) as aps-c user 500mm(750mm eqv) is really nice reach, don't see dramatic difference between 500 and 600 I got both of these lenses and I really wanted that sony, but I use tamron 90% of the time, sony mostly collecting dust on shelve.

[@brunofalcone9979]

Sharpness is really mediocre, and if you take into account UK pricing, it doesn't make any sense vs the really good Sony 200-600 (1339 vs 1599 GBP) or the much cheaper Sigma 100-400 (888 GBP). It may be more compact than the Sony but it's almost same weight, and for me weight makes more of a difference than size for this kind of lenses.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Had both 200-600 and 150-500, in real life sharpness difference was hard to notice between two, tamron had better aberration control, even hard scenes are super clean while on sony had often fringing, stabilization similiar for stills, same about autofocus in day light. Sony much better AF in low light and stablization better in video. Finally i went for tammy, can put it in smallest backpack and handling for hours is a lot less exhausting than sony 200-600, and it was only for 920e while sony over 1600e. Also couldn't stand 200-600 too atractive white colour, it was attention magnet for all people I were passing by.

[@_brushie]

I own a Fuji 100-400, that lens looks so tiny in comparison, let alone compared to the Fuji 150-600

[@RyanSotelo]

I’ve owned two Tamron lenses (17-28 and 70-180) and Sigma glass was way sharper

[@906Roofer]

The 70-180 is a sharp lens!! Better than the sony 70-200

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Which sigma was sharper?