Tamron 150-600mm - is the G2 worth the extra €€€

CelticRambler

The Tamron 150-600mm lens has been on my wishlist for quite a while, but I could never justify hitting the "Add to Cart" button while it was selling for 1000€

When it dropped to around 750-800 (on eGlobal at least) prior to the launch of the G2 version, I got a fierce itch in my mouse-clicking finger ... but still couldn't do it.

Now that the G2 has been out in the world for a while, I'm seeing the original version come up for re-sale at around 500€, often sold "as new" - so presumably owned by others, like me, who didn't really need something quite so mighty.

Before I finally give in to temptation, is there much of a difference between the original version and the G2 upgrade? Especially in the context of an occasional user, and possibly, eventually, more for video than still photography?

bernard0368

I had the original and it served me well. I tested a friends g2 over a weekend and it was a vast improvement over the original. It would be great investment for entry into wildlife photography and it is sharp with good stabilization.
The only thing to be wary of it is a slow lens F5.6-F6 or such so support would be essential.
In bright light you will get good handheld shots.
For video I have no idea.
I went down the prime lens route and was the only reason I didn't buy.
I have the 70-200 G2 and its a fantastically sharp lens. Tamron have come on leaps and bounds.
Hope that helps.

Irishphotodesk

As with all camera gear... Purchase if you have the money and want it, where possible the newest gear will be better and sharper than the older technology.

If you were hesitant to spend on the original version, the V2 version only brings the same problem..... I'm sure a newer version will be released in another 12-18months, which will mean the V2 will be cheaper again ..but then why purchase when the next one will be along in a few months.

If you can afford the V2 and are not going to stretch yourself financially..... Buy it and enjoy it,

Both lenses will result in you getting an image, the original version of the lens hasn't dropped in quality from when it was released, technology has improved, but the original lens will still get you the distance and capture an image.

If you are a hobbyist and not dependent on earning from your images then I suggest you purchase the cheaper option.

CelticRambler

Definitely not dependent on the earnings! This will be a purely "hobby" purchase, and all of my better lenses (and one camera) have been bought second-hand, so I'm not desperate to have the newest, shiniest gear. I was just interested in knowing what the differences between the two are - can only seem to find comparisons with other lenses, but not within the brand/model.

Irishphotodesk

Try here for a side by side analysis of the two.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses

I can’t say whether they provide an honest or biased opinion or even if it’s a real world opinion but it might help.

CelticRambler

Thanks - that's what I was looking for. So some improvement to the optics, but otherwise no major changes in spec on paper. For video use, the image stabilisation performance would be of interest, but probably nothing that would beat using a decent tripod.

The few lenses I'm watching are all quite a distance away (400-600km :pac: ) so that'll stop me from making too hasty a purchase.

CelticRambler

Haven't yet bitten the bullet on this, and the lenses I was originally looking at have all been sold. However, someone's just put one up for sale at 380€, not too far from me, but with a Nikon mount. It seems those with a Nikon mount are consistently cheaper than the Canon (at least on my local secondhand market). I see that Nikon-Canon lens adaptors are relatively cheap and easy to come by - but the older info on the net suggests you inevitably lose all auto-focus functionality. Is there any up-to-date adaptor that takes care of this? Alternatively, is it possible to swap the Nikon mount for a Canon one?