1. copy 150-400 very good, but beyond 400mm - 2nd copy appreciation to 5 stars

I'll make it short:
The first copy, which I have reviewed almost a year ago, was a Monday objective, ie. because obviously what has not voted. BECAUSE the 2nd copy fits suddenly everything: sharpness good, resolution TOP, TOP VC, Accurate AF, continuous up to 600mm absolutely gratifying. Resolution and sharpness take to 600mm from barely in contrast to the first copy. Good thing I have yet tried again ...

Original Review:

I was lucky enough to test the lens and would have given the positive reviews, international tests and reviews never thought that I would send it back.

Half a day at the zoo with very good lighting conditions, however, had been enough to make my decision. When evaluating the images is clearly noticed how (very!) Good the lens between 150mm and 400mm performs. Looking at those pictures but that with 400mm +, esp. Betw. 500-600mm made, I could not be satisfied. The quality differences were just too big. I once had a mirror lens (500 / 6.3) for EUR 130, which allowed me to make more detailed and sharper images than with the Tamron. It may be that it was the copy, but it can also be that my expectations were just too high. Anyway ...

For people like me then the Canon 100-400 would provide more appropriate, because I just put on a certain degree of sharpness and detail and value but nothing I can do 400mm beyond that meets these expectations.

For those who want to compromise with longer focal length, want to have good quality for good money along with great image stabilizer and 5-year warranty, which will be 150-600 certainly very well served with the Tamron. No other currently available Superzomm is the Tamron can hold a candle, because I'm pretty sure.

My subjective rating with 3 star should scare only those who would be expected (contrary to all reason) by Tamron to defy the laws of physics force and to accomplish even betw. 400-600mm miracle.