Good lens with excellent value for money

I am a passionate wildlife photographer and have, so in my opinion, somewhat higher demands on the image quality of my equipment. Important for my assessment of the picture quality is not only the 100% view, but especially the quality of the printing (I print on fine art paper up to A3 +).
I take pictures with the Canon EOS 7D and the 5DIII. For the telephoto range I use the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II and the 400 mm f5.6. Both lenses offer great imaging performance. The 400 mm are to me in some situations, however, a little too short, so I actually 500 f4 with the possibility a 1.4 times the 400 against a (used) - want to swap to use converter. As I have already invested quite a lot in my photographic equipment, I could not convince the purchase of 500ers my finance minister, that I have to save some time. When I came across the Tamron, I had the idea to bridge the time until the purchase of the 500ers with the Tamron. Clear I make the sale in expected one and a half to two years, some depreciation, but this is worth it to me the matter, if the image quality is right. And I went with the price of the Tamron does not believe that the quality of my present corresponding lenses. A converter using the 400 comes for me the way out of the question, because I do not sense can use the Crop this combination (autofocus).

Enough of the many prefaces - now to evaluate the Tamron:

Handling, processing:
It can not be faulted, for 600mm, the weight is low. Processing seems solid. Many reviewers write, they will find the Finish wertig "I do not think, given the plastic construction, however, since the Canon lenses to play in a different league, but -. For the price this is probably fine.
The zoom and autofocus ring run very smooth, the zoom ring a little harder, I though a positive review because the set focal length is not so quickly adjusted independently, which is troublesome especially in the longest focal length. Not so nice, I find that the fixation of the focal length will only work at 150 mm, nice it would be even at 600mm.

Autofocus
The AF is fast, fail in most cases and very quiet. When I needed to correct 5DIII at 7d to +2 (all at 600mm) the AF to -7. Only with fast-moving objects further away, such as flying birds, which move even before a troubled background (trees), the AF needs before much more time - then the birds can be ever gone. Here the Canons nose have also significantly forward. In AI Servo mode, there are significantly more committee than the Canon lenses, especially at the 7d. But it's not that this mode would not be usable, and only come out not so many sharp pictures than in combination with the Canon.

Image Stabilizer
The integrated image stabilizer VC works only once super. One hears nothing, and the image jumps formally in the stabilization. A longer waiting time, as is often criticized, I also could not tell, at least not so that it would bother me. On the stand, unfortunately, the image stabilizer does not work (unlike the 70-200mm Canon), therefore it must necessarily be turned off, otherwise you will not get 100% sharp photos out. This in turn bothers me a bit, because I very often a Gimbal Head on a tripod and use here the image stabilizer would be nice (the 400 I have, however, also not). Thus, the exposure time must be set rather short. It would be nice in many situations to be able to choose the shutter speed to achieve better ISO setting longer (especially at the 7d). This is the 'Tamron only with the bean bag tripod. On the monopod I let the stabilizer, here there are no problems.
Freehand I photograph with the Tamron only in an emergency, because my camera lens combo is just too difficult. Despite image stabilizer is at 600mm for sharp photos, a short exposure time needed.

Image quality Focal Length
Ultimately, I am interested only 600 mm. Here has been amazing for me once that the sharpness in the corners is very good. In pressure loss of sharpness at maximum aperture falls on Crop not on, at full frame only seeeeeeeehr low. Overall, the sharpness at maximum aperture acceptable (100% view) or good (print A3 +). On 8 dimmed it will be better - especially the micro contrasts are better, the picture is crisp. "- Rating very acceptable (100% view) or very good (pressure) on the picture quality of my Canon lenses is the Tamron not approach, especially in the. 100% view is the sharpness and detail reproduction recognizable worse, but - in pressure that falls from aperture 8 only in direct comparison less, and only the one who has a trained eye - my wife is certainly noticed nothing -.) One has to besides, also keep in mind that I compare a 400 fixed focal length with a 600 Zoom here. For the Tamron suggests quite excellent in my view.
At 600mm very nice exemption effects can be achieved, the bokeh is also very pleasant. Vignetting and Ca`s are no problem - thanks to the good looks and LR. 5

In summary, the images are consistently good to very good, and not just useful. On full frame my lens like something better than the Crop.

My Conclusion:

I use the Tamron as an interim solution until the time at which I buy the Canon 500. I will still do, because I thereby advantages in light intensity - and, when image stabilizer, auto focus (especially in AI Servo mode.) And the image quality (Details (aperture 4 already part rattenscharf) (especially on the tripod.) micro contrasts) promise and also have the possibility to extend the focal length by a converter to 700mm - all qualities that one likes to make use of nature photography.

Until then, my Tamron but definitely broaden my photographic opportunities. Who can not put so much money into his hobby or want, for the Tamron, in my view not only a temporary solution. There is currently no alternative, the lens delivers remarkable images - with proper use, you may have to practice for now.

UPDATE 26/12/2014:

Due to fortunate circumstances I could now buy the Canon EF 500mm f4 earlier than initially thought. The Tamron has therefore changed hands. As the Tamron is now proposing in comparison with the professional Canon?

Weight: - Tamron advantage, it is about half as heavy as the Canon.

Processing: - Canon advantage - not plastic, all very valuable work of metal.

Features: - Clear advantage Canon - Image stabilizer and auto focus limit both, the Canon has an additional button that can be III or 7D I and II prove very useful auto focus features in the 5D menu, also it has a Fokussettaste (I However, do not use).

Image Stabilization: tie, the Tamron jumps "the image stabilizer visibly clean, the Canon it is rather inconspicuous, effective, both, big differences I could not tell, but I shoot mostly with tripod or bean bag tripod and thus without stabilizer.

Autofocus: Very, very distinct advantage Canon. For static objects and one-shot mode are both very accurate, the Canon AF is faster, however. For moving objects, especially in front of a restless background in AI Servo AF mode, the Canon beats the Tamron clear of. At Tamron I had despite all Beherzigung Tips from the network (and Tamron Services) but some committee. In addition, the autofocus is at 500/600 mm up significantly slower than that of the Canons. Thus I missed with the Tamron one or the other Aerial because I, as long as he flew past the bird in an acceptable distance to me, was not discovered until sharp. The Canon is there much more nimble. It also provides very fast focus when the bird when targeting only times completely out of focus (that is only recognizable as a slightly darker shade). And if it has the object once in focus, then the yield sharp shots is also very, very much higher than with Tamron. Blurred images are more likely to be attributed when Canon mE on my mistakes and the not so optimal AF target distribution.

Focal Length: advantage Canon (100mm), with the Tamron is achieved with meaningful for me recording circumstances max. 600mm, the Canon 700mm. If one uses the Tamron with a 1.4 he equip converter (which I do not know whether there is a converter that is compatible with the Tamron), you could still use the center AF at f 8 on some cameras - maybe in exceptional situations better than nothing, but not flexible enough for normal use for me. The Canon is thanks to larger maximum aperture with the Canon EF 1.4 II converter used very readily with Aperture 5.6 and 700mm. The Af is somewhat slower, but still faster than that of the Tamron and as accurate in AI Servo mode as without converter. On the use of the Canon EF 2.0 II converter I would refrain for the same reasons that I regard as a hindrance when Tamron, even if the focal length of 1,000 mm is irritating. In addition, should - if you read the articles on the net - the image quality significantly suffer.

Picture quality (test only on the 5 D III): Significant advantage Canon. Sharpness and detail reproduction at maximum aperture and 100% view is the Canon already much better. Here you have to remember that the panels are compared 4 and 6.3. The Tamron is starting at 7.1 better and puts at 8 something else, but never reached the level of Canon in panel 4. The Canon sets dimmed only slightly to (not meant negatively, since it already open saugut "is), the Images then act a touch crisper ". Even with the 1,4er Converter is cracking sharp and detailed even at full aperture, I could not detect any significant difference to use without converter. The corners are the Tamron at maximum aperture astonishingly good for a zoom (as opposed to the experience reports and tests I have read, my copy was in the corners is not significantly worse than in the middle), dimmed it is really good. At Canon, everything is already at full aperture perfectly, very uniform sharpness distribution, with converter, the corners at full aperture were somewhat weaker than the center (falls only in the 100% view in very clear inspection on!), But noticeably better than the corners of the Tarmons, dimmed much I no difference. The Bokeh I personally find both lenses very pleasant, the Canon has the larger maximum aperture of course, the much better exemption effect. The improved full aperture of the field of application of the Canon is of course larger, the image quality is better in many lighting situations already by lower ISO values ​​or allows it to take pictures earlier or longer (Twilight) or at all.

What am I trying to say with the comparison - naturally has a lens for which you have to pay many times the price of the Tamron, be better, and it is definitely.

Just - can not or will not pay this higher price, then the Tamron is definitely more than just a stopgap. It currently has no alternative - the new Sigma I angetestet short, the picture quality is, in my view roughly comparable, the price is considerably higher, however (the processing as well).
My above picture quality assessment is based solely on the difference when viewed at the pixel level. Most users are likely to look at their pictures on the screen, television or similar or of imaging / print. I print itself max. A3 + and because the results of the Tamron surprised me really positive even at maximum aperture. I would argue that many viewers would realize on closer inspection the difference between the Canon and the Tamron only in direct comparison (except for the exemption better effect when Canon). The trained eye can tell the difference already.

Can one therefore with the limitations (light intensity - higher isovalue, possibly stop earlier, not quite as good exemption - and autofocus - slower, more committee in AI Servo mode) live, then you get the Tamron a relatively inexpensive telephoto lens, with which you have a lot of fun and get a lot of photos with very appealing image quality. At least for nature photographers, it is in my opinion much better to the above reservations to live than to take pictures with less focal length.

To all who are faced with the same decision as I have recently, I can only recommend to buy the Canon - it inspires me every second, in the I photograph it.