Lenses and Optics

Tamron 150-600 Telezoom Shootout

Published January 19, 2014

There’s been a lot of interest in the newly released Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 SP Di VC USD lens. (For those wondering what the initials mean, VC means vibration compensation, the others all read ‘marketing drivel’.) But meaningless initials or not, with a price under $1,100, a superior range, and vibration compensation, this lens has created a lot of excitement.

Recently, the good people at Imatest have developed an ultra-high resolution, backlit chart printed on photographic film that is perfect for testing long telephoto lenses in the lab. The combination of a new, cool Imatest setup and a new, cool lens proved irresistible, so we decided to compare the new Tamron with the older Tamron 200-500mm, Sigma 50-500mm OS, and Canon 100-400mm IS lenses.


One important note: this is a higher resolution type of chart than the printed charts generally used for Imatest work (if you’re into geeky stuff, there’s an addendum about this at the end of the article).  We haven’t done enough comparisons to say exactly how much it increases Imatest MTF50 numbers (it’s not a linear kind of thing) but it does to some degree. So don’t take today’s numbers, compare them to one of our previous tests, and say something dumb like “Roger showed the Tamron 150-600 is sharper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8”. Different tests mean different data ranges. 

One other note: I am totally aware that 713 of you have suggestions for further testing. Heck, I have suggestions for further testing. But we won’t be able to do further testing on this group anytime soon. This kind of stuff is incredibly time consuming and right now our repair department has larger priorities.

Meet the Contestants


Left to right: Canon 100-400mm IS, Tamron 200-500mm, Sigma 50-500 OS, Tamron 150-600mm VC


Tale of the Tape:

  Tamron 200-500 Tamron 150-600 Canon 100-400 Sigma 50-500
Weight (lb.)2.724.33.044.33
Length (inches)8.910.157.48.6
Filter Size mm86957795
min. focus dist. (ft)

Telephoto zooms are not small lenses, so size and weight are important considerations. Two lenses, the Canon 100-400 IS and Tamron 200-500, weigh about 3 pounds while the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 are well over 4 pounds. That’s critical for some people.

For those who might want to shoot with a filter on, the Sigma and the Tamron 150-600 require expensive 95mm filters, while the Canon uses more reasonably priced 77mm filters. Probably the most important difference to most people, however, is the price, and the Tamrons are clearly less expensive.


We only received three copies of the Tamron 150-600mm today. Quick testing showed they were all well centered with little sample variation. We tested two of those lenses against two copies of each of the other lenses (which had previously been tested and found to be well-centered copies well within the ‘normal’ range for those lenses). We followed our usual Imatest protocols with the exception that the new backlit film chart was used in this test.

One word about focal length scales: when we set up Imatest we set the lens to a focal length, then position the lens-tripod combination to a distance that fills the camera frame with the test chart. At 200mm and 400mm three of the lenses agreed they were at 200 and 400mm, but the Sigma 50-500 read as 210mm and 420mm at those same shooting distances.

I had planned to just test the lenses wide open, but that, too, presents a problem. At 200mm, for example, the Canon and both Tamrons are at f/5 wide open, while the Sigma is f/5.6. At 400mm the Sigma is at f/6.3 wide open, while the others are all f/5.6. To level the playing field, we repeated the tests with the other lenses stopped down to the same aperture as the Sigma. The half stop does make a difference in MTF50 readings.

MTF 50 at 200mm

  Center MTF 50 Avg MTF 50
Tamron 150-600 (f/5)895745
Tamron 200-500 (f/5)715510
Canon 100-400 (f/5)980780
Sigma 50-500 (f/5.6)980780
Tamron 150-600 (f/5.6)980810
Canon 100-400 (f/5.6)1010850

The takeaway message is the Tamron 200-500mm lens clearly doesn’t resolve as well as the other three lenses at 200mm. That’s not shocking, it’s 1) a much older design and 2) working at its widest focal length while none of the others are at the extreme end of their zoom range here.

The other three lenses are in the same ballpark. The new Tamron 150-600 may not be quite as sharp at pixel-peeping resolutions when all are wide open, but put them all at f/5.6 (where the Sigma is wide open) the three lenses are nearly identical. The Canon’s numbers are a bit higher, but the difference is probably not significant enough to notice in a photograph.

MTF 50 at 400mm

  Center MTF 50 Avg MTF 50
Tamron 150-600 (f/5.6)945840
Tamron 200-500 (f/5.6)795665
Canon 100-400 (f/5.6)945835
Sigma 50-500 (f/6.3)780640
Tamron 150-600 (f/6.3)975840
Canon 100-400 (f/6.3)1000870

At this focal length the Sigma 50-500 OS appears to be fading compared to the other lenses, which surprised me at first. We repeated the test with several more copies of the Sigma, though, and the results were consistent.

I had not seen this drop off at 400mm in previous Sigma tests, although it was clearly present at 500mm. I think the reason for the difference is when previously testing the Sigma, we tested at 400mm according to the lens. In this test, the Sigma was set at 420mm so that it matched the field of view that the other lenses have at 400mm. I assume the fall off occurs right after 400mm on the Sigma lens.

(Each Imatest run at a given focal length requires a complete teardown and new setup, so it’s a very time consuming matter to check at 400mm, 420mm, 450mm, etc.)

The bottom line, though, is at 400mm the Tamron 150-600 VC and Canon 100-400 IS are virtually identical, with the Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 a bit behind. Let’s keep it in perspective, though, both the Sigma and Tamron 200-500 are still very good at 400mm.

As an aside, because I expect it will come up in discussions, there are a number of people on the internet who say their Canon 100-400 isn’t as sharp at 400mm as it is at shorter focal lengths. My experience is this usually means a slightly decentered front element. Good copies are equally sharp throughout the zoom range.

MTF 50 at 600mm

There’s only one contestant here, obviously  — we just wanted to compare the Tamron’s results at the extreme end to the rest of the range. And let’s be realistic: at 600mm and f/8 technique is going to have a lot more to do with how good the images look than the MTF 50 data generated in a lab. Yeah, I know you have a great image taken hand-held at 600mm and f/8 with 1/150 shutter speeds. One time I dropped my camera, the shutter went off when it hit, and it made a great macro of the bottom of a dandelion.

There’s no question that resolution drops off at the extreme telephoto end of the zoom range, as shown below. A number of photographers have noted the same thing, but have shown 600mm resolution is much better at f/8.



Realistically, though, the fact that a zoom reaches a true 600mm focal length at all is rather amazing. Sure, the resolution drops off a bit there, but no other zoom gets there at all.


I don’t do resolution testing at telephoto range very often. The new Imatest equipment certainly makes it possible, but in general I don’t find it particularly useful. Working at these focal lengths the lens’ MTF just isn’t as important as real-world variables (atmosphere, tripod support, photographic technique, etc.). Additionally, testing the lenses at lab distances (13 to 30 feet depending upon focal length) may give slightly different results than would be seen if we could test the lenses at longer distances.

On the other hand, those real world variables tend to make looking at posted images confusing. Each of the lenses we tested today have many soft and many sharp images posted online. Technique, lighting, atmospheric conditions and a host of other variables create a lot of variation. So I think lab testing does give some worthwhile information and confirmation.

My summary would be that the selection between a Tamron 150-600, Canon 100-400 IS, and Sigma 50-500 OS should be made on criteria other than MTF 50. There are some minor differences in resolution, but nothing that makes one clearly better than another. Price, weight, autofocus accuracy, effectiveness of vibration compensation, and a number of other factors (did I mention price?) are more important considerations when choosing among these lenses.

It’s pretty obvious that the Tamron has both 600mm range and the lowest price. These tests, and everything I see from photographers using the lens in the field, support that it’s of at least equal image quality. Some people will prefer the extra wide range of the Sigma, others the lighter weight of the Canon. But for a lot of people, the Tamron is going to be the best bang for the buck.

One note for Nikon shooters: I’m sorry I won’t have time to run the same tests on Nikon cameras when the Nikon mount is released. However, the new Nikon 80-400 AF-S zoom is, as near as we can tell, equivalent to the Canon 100-400 IS as far as resolution goes, so you should be able to extrapolate pretty easily.


Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz


January, 2014


Addendum: About Imatest Charts

I’ve been using Imatest for several years. Lots of reviewers and testers do, too. I’ve written before about why Imatest numbers are different among different testers. In the last year, or so, though, I’ve become more aware that there’s another difference I hadn’t appreciated before — the quality of the charts used when obtaining the images for Imatest analysis.

Back when I started using Imatest a 12-megapixel camera was the norm, and 16 megapixels nearly the maximum. Now we’re testing 36 megapixel cameras on lenses that are immensely better than anything we had a decade ago. But a lot of people are still testing on charts printed on 300 DPI inkjet printers while others test using higher resolution, professionally printed charts. More recently, Imatest has developed even higher resolution transmissive film charts, although they aren’t being used by many testers.


Magnfication of inkjet test chart (upper left) compared to film transparency charts (upper right and lower left). Image courtesy Imatest: http://www.imatest.com/2013/09/transmissive-chart-quality-comparison/


The chart type doesn’t make much difference when testing average quality lenses on 16 megapixel cameras. It probably does make a difference testing highest quality lenses on 36 megapixel cameras.

I should mention, too, that Imatest is sensitive to the lighting used – it’s important to keep the lighting similar with every test run if you want equivalent results. Transparency charts obviously have different lighting than reflective charts.

For all of these reasons, results testing a lens using a reflective chart and a transmissive film are going to be slightly different. The difference should be greater with higher resolution cameras and the best lenses, but there will be some difference with even more routine equipment.

We have to test hundreds of lenses on both types of charts before we will feel we can convert between the two charts with some degree of accuracy. Until we do that, we can’t directly compare numbers from a test run on a film transparency chart with numbers from a test run with a reflective chart.







Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Lenses and Optics
  • Roger Cicala

    Mark, like the article says, this is a different testing set up with different numbers. Can’t compare directly.

    But the 400 and a good copy of the 100-400 are very close at 400mm (the 100-400 has more sample variation, as you’d expect from a big zoom).

  • Roger Cicala

    Rick, because we don’t carry it anymore. Dropped it a year ago.

  • Rick Vaught

    I’m trying to figure out why you didn’t test the Sigma 150-500? That would be an apples to apples comparison.

  • Mark

    Can someone help me understand this…

    The MFT50 chart above shows the Canon 100-400mm with an average score of 835 at 400mm and f5.6. But, on another page on this site the average score for the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm and f5.6 is 655. See below. It is on the quick comparison page for the Canon 200-400 f4 lens. Can someone explain what I am missing?


    I’m trying to determine if the new Tamron if sharper than the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime, and stumbled across this.

  • Joseph Andrews

    Kudos to lensrentals…you help make my (expensive) hobby fun.

    I own the Tamron 200-500 and plan to test the mirror slap notion as soon as it gets a bit warmer here.

    My sense of things is that Eric Bowles is correct.

    I am quite interested in the new lens, and wonder just how effective the vibration control actually is.

    I look forward to reading more…

  • Thanks for the test results. The Tamron 150-600 is remarkably good for that price point. Some of the test images show improved performance with backlit images from new optical coatings and good performance at slower shutter speeds where VC is necessary.

    The 200-500 is an extremely long lens with a very long hood. It was subject to severe vibration from mirror slap unless you use appropriate technique. The 150-600 is similar in length. Did your test protocol do something to avoid vibration from mirror slap, or does the larger diameter of the lens barrel in the new lens reduce vibration?

  • Lindsay

    I’m not sure “USD” for Tamron’s version of a piezoelectric focus motor is quite on the level of “marketing drivel”. Thanks for the insightful review, however!

  • bob smith

    I would like to know how durable the new tamron 150-600 lens is. Will you send a copy of this lens to that guy that got your big nikon lens mauled by a bear so we can see how the tamron stacks up?

  • KeithB

    For those that want to turn their lens into a telescope:

  • Jim Maynard

    Thanks for pointing me/us to your earlier post, which addresses the questions I raised nicely. From that post, it appears that if you did a mean+/-SD on one lens/camera combination that range would cover the other similar camera/lens combinations (except for the obvious “soft” outlier). If true, it makes worrying about “do I have a great or just good copy of a lens?” irrelevant as testing variables can account for most (all?) the variability. Particularly noteworthy is your observations on autofocus accuracy, which seems as important as camera/lens variability and certainly highly relevant in “real world” photography. Thanks again.

  • Roger Cicala


    We did a lot of moderate statistics when we started testing with Imatest like what you’ve described: comparing multiple shots with a single lens, doing the same thing using camera AF instead of focus bracketing, etc. There’s a bit about it here: http://wordpress.lensrentals.com/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation


  • NancyP

    For what it is worth, youngsters, image stabilization is a relatively new phenomenon, and people used to shoot handheld long telephotos without it – PITA, but people learned good technique and tried their best. I have the Canon 400 mm f/5.6L, which premiered in 1991, and it did take some time to learn good technique and consistency in shooting at shutter speeds below 1/500 sec (I now can get ~25% keepers at 1/125) or shooting birds in flight. Burst shooting helps some. The 400mm f/5.6 is so dang light (1.2kg) and well balanced that I can hold it for a while without fatigue and consequent arm shake. And I used to walk 4 miles to school uphill both ways…

  • Jim Maynard

    Thanks again for an excellent analysis of some very interesting lenses. As usual I appreciate your hard work and valuable insights.

    A comment on a related topic: It seems that flash pictures “always” look sharper than existing-light photos. Therefore, I tried to estimate lens sharpness using flash as the illumination source. I don’t have an adequate setup to say for sure, but it appeared that the flash versions were sharper. I did this comparison using a medium-duty tripod, mirror lock up, remote release and setting the shutter speed to 1/200 sec for the flash shots and aperture preferred for the ambient light shots. It would be interesting to see if this is really true using a more robust setup by someone who actually knows what they are doing.

    On a slightly different note, does anyone every do simple statistics to report, say, Imatest data or other sharpness measurements? What is the variation within testing of a single lens (set it up more than once and maybe by different technicians, for example)? A statistical range should also help compare similar lens from different manufacturers. Similarly comparing the variation in testing within a group of the same lenses should begin to better establish the acceptable range for lens-to-lens variation.

  • stever

    ephotozine.com has a test showing that f8 is optimum and probably a significant improvement over f5.6, although I don’t know how they do the testing and their result are not quantified. but according to their graphs, 600mm at f8 is sharper than 300mm at f5.6.

  • Great to see a comparison review! Just wonder why you did not test the Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 which is the one I see most photo enthusiasts using. And is the closest in price to the Tamron 150-600mm. (btw, Sigma has instant rebates now, to be more competitive, so their 150-500mm lens is selling for about $900. The 50-500mm lens is $1500.)
    The Tamron lens will be a hot seller, I predict. Especially when the Nikon mount version is also available.

  • George

    Nice comparison. I would be interested to see how it stands against Canon 400mm f5.6 (or compariable aperture) at 400mm on image quality. The Canon one is very sharp and light weight. But it does not have the Image stabilizer and also not flexible on range.

  • Jim Bracegirdle

    Thank you for this comparative test. I have the Sigma 150-500 on a Canon mount and it is not as sharp at 500 as I would like. So I shoot at 400 and have found the crop at 400mm is equal in Sharpness to the 500mm images. I am very interested in this Tamron 150-600. If I find it is soft at 600mm I can always shoot at 500 perhaps and crop as I do now with the Sigma. Decisions decisions. I sometimes wish I had not sold my Canon 400 f 5.6 L. Thanks once again for the four lens comparison. Is there anyone out there with the Sigma 150-500 who is also thinking of more reach.?

  • Roger Cicala

    Andrei, that’s correct, the first time we’ve published results from this chart.

  • Andrei

    Comparing with your Canon lenses 400mm shootout, i see the following results for the 100-400 at f/5.6:
    740:center, 655:avg on the old setup
    945:center, 835:avg on the new one

    As the sensor resolution is about the same (5Dm2 vs 5Dm3), I attribute the (huge) difference to the footnote describing the transmissive film imatest charts. Is that correct? Is this the first time you use those sharper charts in the tests that are published here?

  • Stever

    Nancy P – the advantage of the Tamron is that it will autofocus at 600mm since it’s focusing wide open when you’re shooting at f8 or f11 – how fast and accurate the autofocus is to begin with is a question, but one review says it’s good (but the reviewer is not experienced with other long lenses for wildlife).

    the other comparison would be to the Canon 400 f5.6 +1.4x which is plenty sharp at f8 but limited usefulness without IS

  • Roger Cicala


    We have an extremely sturdy set up with some vibration dampening built in, use timed release mirror lock up, etc. and have a very well lit target with short shutter speeds (1/1,000 or so in this test). We don’t notice any difference in the lab with or without vibration control on.

  • Roger Cicala

    Holger – it should be showing at both f/5.6 and f/6.3.

  • Holger

    In your table for The 400mm measurements, there is a small glitch, since the canon lens is said to have f/6.3, whereas it should have been 5.6?

  • Andrei

    Roger, thanks a lot for the nice and timely test!

    One lens that is missing from the comparison is Sigma 200-500/2.8! It will be nice to know how much better results over the new Tamron can be obtained by twentifolding the investment.
    A somewhat more ‘serious’ question: in these focal lengths, shutter shake can be very pronounced, even on a good tripod. How do you make sure to cancel its effects? Do you use the lense’s anti-vibration system? Does it make any difference in this setup?

  • Honza

    Thanks for nice review. As an owner of this lens (for 2 weeks) I can confirm your words. Some of my photos at 600mm can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/honzafotos/

  • NancyP

    Quite interesting and encouraging that the affordable third party manufacturers are coming up with good new designs. Now we need field reports from people shooting sports or wildlife. The key thing for many people will be autofocusing capacity of the lens and of the user’s camera. My 60D AF won’t work at the effective f/8 of a Canon 400mm f/5.6 plus Canon 1.4x TCII, so I use the combo for pre-focus situations (birds in nest) and not action (bird in flight). I suspect that with the Tamron at f/6.3, AF may work albeit poorly, and at f/8, I would be surprised if AF worked at all. Hence, I doubt that the Tamron’s extra reach would be much help for me. Someone with a camera that can AF at f/8 may be the ideal customer for this Tamron, if the lens has good AF.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Thanks for that Roger. And thanks for all the work that you put into this test.

  • Roger Cicala

    Doubting – from what I’ve seen most of the great 600mm images are taken at f/8. I suspect that makes a huge difference.
    But is it acceptably sharp at 600 and f/6.3? Sure it is, those numbers aren’t awful by any means. Is it sharper at 500mm? Absolutely.

  • Doubting Thomas

    Given your results and the very marked drop in resolution above 500mm; the veracity of the (razor) sharp images, supposedly taken by this lens @600mm, that are posted on various Tamron ‘sites around the web, must be ….um…..well……questionable?

  • Stever

    mt Spokane, from my experience I would expect the Tamron at f8 to be at least as sharp as the 100-400 +1.4xiii (the earlier extenders are worse) and with the benefit of much better autofocus – my 5d3 single point autofocus at f8 is pretty slow and not very reliable in marginal light.

Follow on Feedly