Tamron 150mm - 600mm f6.3 G2

[Shortsighted]

Tamron came out with a long focal length zoom lens even before Sigma but there were some problems with the first generation model, such as AF freeze-up when coupled to certain Nikon camera bodies, as well as poor image quality at shorter focal lengths.  The lens was not weather sealed for dust and moisture and had a small tripod shoe.  The 2nd generation model offered better and faster AF, weather seals, and better optics, although still a little soft at short focal lengths, while being very sharp at 600mm.  The tripod shoe on the new model lens is much longer.  My question is: 'has anyone on this forum ever used this Tamron lens, or knows someone that has had experience with it?'  The Sigma (contemporary) 150mm - 600mm lens seems to be ubiquitous out there in the field.  It seems like everyone owns one, even when they have more expensive telephoto lenses, presumably because the Sigma is lighter in weight and therefore easily to carry.  The Tamron is also fairly light-weight despite the metal housing.  I'm not satisfied with my 300mm + 2X TC attached because the image is most often out-of-focus even though the AF locked onto the subject.  I have micro-adjusted the AF and made a compensation but the results are still not predictable.  Sometimes I get a reasonably sharp image but most of the time I do not.  My 300mm f4 is very sharp with the 1.4X TC attached and did not need any micro-adjustment when I tested it.  If the Tamron, or the Sigma is sharp at full zoom then I would probably tape it into the 600mm position and use it exclusively for birds.  It's minimum focus is about twice that of my 300mm so insects and stuff is not going to happen with either of these super-zooms.

[lovemypt]

I have the Tamron 15-600mm  for sony mount but haven't used it in years
I started out with 150-500mm sigma and really like the lens with its range but got the opportunatity to buy  used 300mm 2.8 prime and found the sharpest of the prime well out produced the sign zoom.  as with you, paired with a 1.4 made the 300mm hard to beat but ...never had the range the 500 mm did.  2x converter worked but only great for stationary subjects.....
when my wife took up photograph ,  I got the 15-600mm tamron for the reach but soon found it was not close to the sigma .....in quality pics  or build and stop using it .   Within  first 3 months, dust had entered lens ( from zooming in& out, poor seals)  but dust is not noticible in shots, just an appearance thing ....but never had that problem with the sign zoom.
both the sigma and tamron sell for around  $1000-1200......but I would say the tamron should be more towards $700  taking into effects its poor weather sealing and quality of build and pics.  Even going back into film days,  I found tamron lens were okay, especially for price but never the quality of the main brand lens

I think the sigma and tamron are good for the beginner to mid level photographer who only has the beginner 75-300 len which come with the camera , but for you coming from a 300mm prime......the range would please you , but you will be disappointed by the quality......closer subjects will be sharp but if they are close, then you would be better with the lens you have
I switched over to canon a number of years ago..... and still have the tamron 150-600mm  for a sony mount , if anyone is interested in buying,  will let it go cheap and its in good shape

[Shortsighted]

Thanks for your input regarding the Tamron super-zoom.  The issues that bothered you are shared by many that used the G1 model.  The dust that gets pumped into the barrel with the repeated extension of the front lens group seems to have been resolved with the weather sealed G2 model, and the soft images were only reported when the zoom was set to shorter to mid-length positions, whereas the image sharpened right up at full extension to 600mm.  I would not be using such a lens at anything short of 600mm, which means the soft focus @ shorter FL becomes irrelevant.  Even without weather sealing I would probably tape the lens with electricians tape at full extension and never pump it in or out.  Of course, what I really would like to have is the 300mm f2.8, which works well with both the 1.4X TC and acceptably with the 2X TC attached.  There is a used one at Downtown Camera for $5,000.  There is no way I can spend that much money on a lens, or anything that isn't essential to maintain vital signs within normal limits.  It's analogous to spending $80,000. on a car.  In no way can that be justified, even if I had the money.  It is simply out of reasonable bounds to spend such heady sums for things that should never cost that much in the first place, unless perhaps the expenditure is needed to generate revenue, as with the purchase of a professional's tools/instruments.  A car gets me from A to B, safely, in relative comfort and without obscene pollution and expense.  I still think that cars should have metal bumpers, not painted urethane that costs as much as if it were carbon fiber.  I mean, it's a car, not a piece of furniture.  I love it in the old films when a car parallel parks by touching the car behind it and then the car in front of it and then settles in the middle ... done!  All the vehicles have metal bumpers on pistons ... no damage done.  No one even cared about what their bumper looked like.  It's a bumper, man, who cares!  Now that's practical.

Anyway, I digress once again.  You're not a fan of the Tamron super-zoom G1 and seem skeptical of the improvements on the G2 replacement.  Quite frankly, so am I.  I wish that there was a way of getting a telephoto with a 4" objective lens (about 100mm dia) without spending five large.  Even though I look around me and people are dropping that much on all sorts of things: patio furniture, vacations, brake job on a BMW, ... stuff.

[Shortsighted]

Henry's has a used Canon 400mm f4 DO IS USM (condition 8+) for about $2,200.  This first iteration of your lens may have some issues that your IS II version does not have and it is therefore about a third the price.  I'm tempted, but I would hate myself afterwards.  I think that the earlier version has the DO too far forward in the barrel and therefore couldn't handle back-lit subjects without flare, although it still remains nice and short and lightweight so that one could bring it to bear quickly and hold it well enough.  Of course, the IS might be inadequate when compared to your IS II.  Nonetheless, when coupled to an R-series camera body with IBIS, the older version IS becomes a moot point.  I'm only using a 7D Mk II and therefore IBIS is but a dream.  Then again, for that amount of money I could have gotten a Canon R7 with IBIS. The beautiful R6 with its Fx sensor and superb high ISO performance is worth more than my life.  I just spent $850. on the used 7D Mk II and even that debit burns white hot on my bank statement. 

[lovemypt]

My  DO  400mm  F4 is the Version II    and  can't really comment on version I,   but reviews were not great...........  however review don't really mean much to me, when I was 1st looking at the lens, there at least 10 reviews  ( 9 of which the reviewer never even saw or used the Lens).    I had tried the F500mm before and compared two,  the 400MM DO II was comparable to if not better then 500mm on every counts ....except when using a 2x tele.    This is the best lens I have ever used, and very easy to carry and travel with ,  fit a 500mm under an airplane seat!    I would be more worried about age of version I for sale and and if abused.   
 I have had troubles with using used older lens.  My 300mm 2.8 sigma was great until I started getting newer camera bodies and matching them up....sort of like putting Ferrari  engine into old ford.   The older gears in the lens couldn't handle the faster new body speed and it stripped the gears inside the lens when I upgraded cameras.    Now my 300mm 2.8 sigma  ( sony ) mount sit on shelf.....  if any one is interested in it,  l'd let go cheap, I have had into sigma to fix gear but I find it still acts up in auto setting,   works fine in manual focus

I still have my 7Dii and use it alot, I find quality of   7Dii  vs R6 not much different and in fact I prefer   7D  when in heavy bush or cover, I find the 7D slower to focus but and when it does , its sharper then R6 which would still be searching for focus...... I still no sold on the R6, wold not given up the &D.... and if had money  would probably get the 5D mark 4....    R6 is better for flight shots and darker conditions

[Shortsighted]

Thanks again for your insight regarding this lens and its predecessor.  I had not thought of the possible incompatibility between mechanics and electronics.  The IS version of the DO lens came out in 2005, as did the Sigma 300mm f2.8, so the two lenses are of equal age.  If you had problems with your Sigma mounted on your 7D Mk II then there is a good chance that the DO IS version might also create some incompatibility issues, or not.  Who really knows?  If things go back door then I spend $2,200. plus tax for nothing and then I would have to shoot myself and that could get messy too.  It's not as if two and a half grand is chicken feed and can be dismissed with an 'oh well'.  Besides, since I can't really go travelling all over Ontario looking for subjects to photograph, being principally confined to the immediate vicinity, what real justification is there for spending thousands of dollars just to get a little more reach, or faster AF.  Photos taken just end up on a HD where they collect digital dust, now there's a concept, and do not make the world a better place.  I'm lucky to have what I already use and I'll just need to try harder to make up for the gear sophistication shortfall.  Maybe I should change my moniker (handle) from Shortsighted to Shortfall, or Vintage, or Over-par, (since birdies and eagles are out of my reach).  Oh well.