Camera Gear Review News (Page 16)
Learn more: Canon EOS R3 Review
Order the Canon EOS R3 from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon EOS R3 from Lensrentals.
With limited supplies expected for the EOS R3, preorder first and ask questions later. There is lots of time to cancel the order before the gear ships.
The Canon EOS R3 page is loaded with information about the new camera.
See all of the just announced Canon gear at B&H.
The Canon EOS R3 is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Here are links to the new lenses on this site, primarily featuring product images and specs:
Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens
See all of the just announced Canon gear at B&H.
The Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
The Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | WEX
Just posted: Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens Review.
This lens is a great option for wildlife and sports.
I usually post reviews in the morning, but this day went a bit sideways. We had a tremendous storm this afternoon, with extreme wind (wind shear or perhaps a small tornado), hail, and a huge amount of rainfall in a short period of time. In the storm's path are trees down, and with them, the power went down. The laptop battery and UPS are still up, so I'm sharing the review now.
The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Image quality, vignetting, and distortion test results have been added to the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens page.
The DSLR version of this lens was very popular, and the new DN version is sure to be a big hit.
Comparisons provide great perspective. Let's dive into some of those.
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens compared to:
Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VC VXD Lens
Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS C Lens
Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens
Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens
Don't stop here. Use one of the above links to build additional comparisons.
The Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Sports Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Just posted: Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens Review.
Find out how this standard zoom lens compares to the others in its class, including the directly-competing Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lens.
The Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX
Please share!
Just posted: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens Review.
Both thumbs up. Impressive lens.
The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Just posted: Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Review.
Learn how this little lens measures up!
The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
In addition to the Image quality test results previosuly shared, vignetting, flare, and distortion test results along with specs, measurements, standard product images, and other product images have been added to the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens page.
Remember that Canon mandates distortion correction for this lens in-camera (in the viewfinder) and in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP).
See the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens visually compared to the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens here.
The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Ironically, the day after sharing the first Canon vs. Sony IBIS Comparison Test, Sony released Alpha 1 firmware update version 1.10. While IBIS was not called out in the list of updated features, discussions hinted that an IBIS performance update was possibly included in the "Other improvements in operational stability" line item. Sony would not divulge the answer to that question. That possibility left a little doubt in my mind, and ... I don't like doubt more than I don't like testing image stabilization.
Round 2. The procedures for the second comparison test were the same as for the first, and the text for this test will remain mostly identical to that of the initial test.
When shooting handheld, image stabilization performance can be a significant image quality factor. Sony has incorporated In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) in their cameras for many years — the a7 II and a7R II had this feature. Canon's first IBIS implementations arrived last summer in the Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6.
Especially given Sony's long head start with this technology, I wanted to know: Is Sony's IBIS better than Canon's? Or is Canon's IBIS better? It was also possible that the two systems would perform equally, and that piece of information would also be helpful to know. It was time to create a comparison featuring the latest high-end models from each company, the Canon EOS R5 vs. Sony Alpha 1.
CIPA's image stabilization ratings attempt to provide an objective measure of a camera's stabilization assistance capabilities. However, CIPA is considerably steadier than I am. There are no objective image stabilization tests that measure a camera's stabilization assistance specifically for me — or for you, and it is only a camera's stabilization assistance performance for the person holding the camera that matters. Even our personal stabilization needs are situational, with wind, physical exertion, footing stability, and other factors influencing our ability to hold a camera steady.
While I had opinions on the overall image stabilization performance of various Canon and Sony camera and lens combinations, explicitly testing the difference between the Canon and Sony camera IBIS had been interesting me. With identical Canon and Sony non-stabilized lenses in the lab at the same time, this comparison hit the top of my to-do list, becoming the priority.
While completely objective testing was not possible, it seemed that subjective testing could be dialed in to have meaning.
This IBIS testing was performed in the studio, with ideal handheld testing conditions, including solid (concrete) footing and no wind. During testing, elbows were not resting on the body, and the viewfinder was in use (vs. the rear LCD).
The Canon EOS R5 with an RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens was tested against a Sony Alpha 1 with an FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens. The cameras were set to single-shot mode, with the electronic first curtain shutter selected in Tv mode. A detailed test target (exceeding camera resolution) was positioned at eye level about 10' (3.3m) away, with the distance marked for consistency.
Starting at 1/25 second exposures (roughly 2 stops of stabilization assistance expected for me), 10 images were captured with each camera. The shutter duration on both cameras was then increased by 1/3 stop, and the testing was repeated, alternating cameras until 1-second exposures were on the cards. That procedure amounted to 150 pictures taken with each camera (10 shots x 15 shutter speeds), 300 pictures total.
The measure of sharpness is not boolean, true or false, meaning an arbitrary determination of pass or fail was required, and adding an intermediary grade seemed a good idea. In addition, everyone loves a score, a firm number that can quickly be compared and quoted.
If the image was unsalvageable, it went into the "Delete" category. If an image is blurry, it was a waste of time to capture, load, and process. Worse is that I may have counted on the image being sharp, meaning that the desired image was lost. The blurry image also consumed space on the memory card and later on the computer's SSD. Thus, in the "Score" column, five points are deducted for each image falling in this category.
If the image was salvageable via increasing the sharpness or down-sizing the image, it went into the "Useable" category. No points were given for these images. While they will often get the job done, these results were mediocre.
Crisply sharp images are what we want. Test images making the "Sharp" grade were awarded 5 points.
Most images were not hard to place in one of these three categories. The "benefit of the doubt" rule was implemented for those hard to grade, and the higher grade was given.
Here is the resulting Canon vs. Sony IBIS comparison table:
| Canon | Sony | Diff (Canon - Sony) | Score | |||||||||
| Exposure | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Canon | Sony | Diff |
| 1/25 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 50 | 45 | 5 |
| 1/20 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 |
| 1/15 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 50 | 45 | 5 |
| 1/13 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 8 | -1 | -1 | 2 | 50 | 35 | 15 |
| 1/10 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 6 | -1 | -1 | 2 | 35 | 20 | 15 |
| 1/8 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 7 | -2 | 0 | 2 | 45 | 25 | 20 |
| 1/6 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 6 | -2 | 2 | 0 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
| 1/5 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 7 | -1 | 2 | -1 | 25 | 25 | 0 |
| 1/4 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 1 | 2 | -4 | -1 | 5 | 20 | -25 | 45 |
| 1/3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 3 | -4 | 2 | 2 | 15 | -15 | 30 |
| 0.4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 5 | -5 |
| 0.5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | -4 | 1 | 3 | -10 | -45 | 35 |
| 0.6 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 2 | 0 | -40 | -50 | 10 |
| 0.8 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | -45 | -35 | -10 |
| 1 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | -40 | -45 | 5 |
| Total | 41 | 21 | 88 | 61 | 17 | 72 | -20 | 4 | 16 | 235 | 55 | 180 |
The testing was so much fun that I decided to do it again. OK, the fun part was missing, but meaningful test results should be repeatable, right? While I made a significant effort to capture every test shot to the best of my current abilities, I had enough doubt in my mind to leave me unsatisfied. Testing for consistency seemed necessary.
Thus, after thoroughly evaluating the first set of results, the same test was repeated — another 300 images were captured. The results are as follows:
| Canon | Sony | Diff (Canon - Sony) | Score | |||||||||
| Exposure | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Canon | Sony | Diff |
| 1/25 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | -3 | 3 | 50 | 35 | 15 |
| 1/20 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 | 0 |
| 1/15 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 7 | -1 | -2 | 3 | 50 | 30 | 20 |
| 1/13 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 0 |
| 1/10 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 5 | -3 | -1 | 4 | 45 | 10 | 35 |
| 1/8 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 6 | -3 | 2 | 1 | 35 | 15 | 20 |
| 1/6 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 6 | -2 | 1 | 1 | 35 | 20 | 15 |
| 1/5 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | -1 | -2 | 3 | 25 | 5 | 20 |
| 1/4 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 3 | -6 | 2 | 4 | 35 | -15 | 50 |
| 1/3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | -4 | 3 | 1 | 20 | -5 | 25 |
| 0.4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -7 | 2 | 5 | 10 | -50 | 60 |
| 0.5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -5 | 3 | 2 | -15 | -50 | 35 |
| 0.6 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 1 | 1 | -35 | -50 | 15 |
| 0.8 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | -45 | -50 | 5 |
| 1 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | -40 | -50 | 10 |
| Total | 38 | 21 | 91 | 74 | 17 | 59 | -36 | 4 | 32 | 265 | -75 | 340 |
While these numbers are as meaningful as the first table, it was the consistency with the first test results that most interested me. The following table shows the deviation between the two tests. The second result was subtracted from the first result, with 0 or close to 0 indicating similar performance.
| Canon | Sony | |||||
| Exposure | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp |
| 1/25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -2 | 2 |
| 1/20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1/15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 2 |
| 1/13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
| 1/10 | 0 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1/8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1/6 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1/5 | -1 | 2 | -1 | -1 | -2 | 3 |
| 1/4 | 3 | -3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| 1/3 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
| 0.4 | 1 | 0 | -1 | -6 | 1 | 5 |
| 0.5 | 0 | -1 | 1 | -1 | 1 | 0 |
| 0.6 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 | 3 | 0 |
| 1 | -1 | 2 | -1 | -1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 3 | 0 | -3 | -13 | 0 | 13 |
To account for any testing anomalies, after compiling the second test results, the four exposure durations with the most deviation (none were significantly differing) for each camera were tested a third time (80 additional test shots). The worst of the three results for each camera was thrown out, leaving the results shown in the above tables.
I am very impressed at how consistent the results for the two tests are. The similarity adds credence to the test results.
Here is a summary table showing the combined first and second test results, along with the final scoring.
| Canon | Sony | Diff (Canon - Sony) | Score | |||||||||
| Exposure | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Delete | Useable | Sharp | Canon | Sony | Diff |
| 1/25 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 0 | -4 | 4 | 100 | 80 | 20 |
| 1/20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 0 |
| 1/15 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 1 | 3 | 16 | -1 | -3 | 4 | 100 | 75 | 25 |
| 1/13 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 15 | -1 | -1 | 2 | 80 | 65 | 15 |
| 1/10 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 11 | -4 | -2 | 6 | 80 | 30 | 50 |
| 1/8 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 2 | 13 | -5 | 2 | 3 | 80 | 40 | 40 |
| 1/6 | 0 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 12 | -4 | 3 | 1 | 65 | 40 | 25 |
| 1/5 | 3 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 11 | -2 | 0 | 2 | 50 | 30 | 20 |
| 1/4 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 13 | 2 | 5 | -10 | 1 | 9 | 55 | -40 | 95 |
| 1/3 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 7 | -8 | 5 | 3 | 35 | -20 | 55 |
| 0.4 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 1 | 5 | -7 | 3 | 4 | 10 | -45 | 55 |
| 0.5 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 19 | 1 | 0 | -9 | 4 | 5 | -25 | -95 | 70 |
| 0.6 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 0 | -4 | 3 | 1 | -75 | -100 | 25 |
| 0.8 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | -90 | -85 | -5 |
| 1 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 1 | 1 | -80 | -95 | 15 |
| Total | 79 | 42 | 179 | 135 | 34 | 131 | -56 | 8 | 48 | 500 | -20 | 520 |
So, we just got highly analytical with 680 subjective test results. Still, there seems to be some meaning here.
The sharp column from this table is illustrated in the graph included at the top of this post. From these results, it is arguable that the IBIS technology in the Canon EOS R5 is superior to that in the Sony Alpha 1 (for me, on this day, in this location, with the referenced lenses mounted). For example, follow the "10" line in the chart to see the shutter speed I required for a 50% sharp image rate.
Mostly, I experience a 1/3 - 2/3 stop advantage with the Canon camera. That difference is not dramatic, and the bottom line is that IBIS is valuable in both camera brands. This feature adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here. IBIS is one more reason to love the latest mirrorless camera models.
Correction: I Just fixed a duplication mistake in the revised review (sorry about that). There are two new sets of 100% crop samples shared in the revised review, and now they are different. The missing second set was relevant to the "Will I notice?" discussion.
Original post: I couldn't let the uncertainty of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens focus shift issue rest and have just tested a second copy of the lens.
The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens Review has been updated. Search the review page (CTRL-F / CMD-F) for "bad copy" (sorry, the bookmark link is not working) to jump to the update.
Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
I couldn't let the uncertainty of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens focus shift issue rest and have just tested a second copy of the lens.
The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens Review has been updated. Search the review page (CTRL-F / CMD-F) for "bad copy" (sorry, the bookmark link is not working) to jump to the update.
Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens page.
Note that Canon mandates distortion correction for this lens in-camera (in the viewfinder) and in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP).
Here are some comparisons to get started:
Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens
Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review.
Like its RF 600mm counterpart and as expected, this lens turns in outstanding results.
Despite the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens being nearly identical, including a shared optical design, one opportunity for the RF 400 to differentiate itself was optical performance with extenders. More specifically, RF extenders vs. EF extenders.
There is some improvement with the RF extenders in place, and the 1.4x comparison at f/4.5 shows slightly more improvement.
Can the RF 400mm F2.8 lens and 1.4x extender substitute for an RF 600mm F4? Perhaps. Keeping in mind that 560mm is not 600mm, check out the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens vs. Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens comparison. Then remember that the 600mm lens does not have f/2.8 available.
Additional comparisons:
Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. Don't miss the with extenders comparison.
Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens compared to Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens
The Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Just posted: Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens Review.
This lens is worth adding to the kit.
The Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens is available for order at B&H (expected in stock Aug 04)| Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens Review.
As expected, this lens is a stellar performer.
Despite the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens and EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens being nearly identical, including a shared optical design, one opportunity for the RF 600 to differentiate itself was optical performance with extenders. More specifically, RF extenders vs. EF extenders.
Additional comparisons:
Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens
Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Sony FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS Lens
Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Nikon 600mm f/4E AF-S FL ED VR Lens
If you want this lens, get in the preorder line ASAP. I expect it to be hard to get for a long time.
The Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Just posted: Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens Review.
You need to read this one.
Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
With four lenses in the lab right now, some testing is happening in parallel for efficiency reasons. While not as exciting to most as the image quality test results already shared, valuable additional results, including vignetting, flare, and distortion test results, along with measurements and standard product images are now available on the pages of these four lenses:
Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens (flare testing awaits a clear sky)
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens
Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens
Image quality, vignetting, and distortion test results have been added to the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens page.
Let the comparisons begin:
Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L vs. EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro Lens
Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L vs. Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro G OSS Lens
Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L vs. Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens
Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | Canon USA | WEX
Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
Image quality test results have been added to the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens page.
Here are some comparisons to get you started:
Comparison to Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens
Comparison to Sony FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens
Comparison to Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 Lens
The Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA (in stock) | WEX
Rent the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens from Lensrentals.
Please share!
 "Share on Pinterest!"){kind=small}
 |
|