Tamron 55-200mm/Sony 55-200mm DT - a sleeper!

[Greg Beetham]

Curosity got the better of me so I snuck off and found a review of the 55-200 Tamron, the reviewer was testing the Canon version (apparently Tamron originally aimed this lens at Canon users for an add-on to the kit lens), he was quite pleased with the performance of the lens for the price (one of the comparison lenses was a much more expensive Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM at the 100mm setting, with which it performed quite well in the center but fell behind a little at the edges), He also tried it out on 5D (the test camera was a 20D) he said, Quote: "Note though that the corners are dark and close inspection shows the corners are quite soft and show evidence of increased chromatic aberration. So while you could use the lens on a full frame camera, unless you intend to crop it significantly (back to APS-C dimensions), it's not really a very good idea." End quote. There was a scenic photo showing slightly darkened corners, along with the description.
http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/55_200_Di/
That is all very interesting of course but it's not being tested on a Sony body with more demanding sensors then what was in the 20D, and it's a Canon mount version not an A-mount ver. as usual we would be waiting for a while before they got around too testing it on a Sony camera, (if ever), but who cares we've got DK
Greg
ps All this reminds me of a Tamron with similar range, the new 70-200 f2.8, has anyone tried one yet?

[01af]

I have had the Tamron 55-200mm here for nearly 2 months and never used it - I just was too worried that results would be poor.

David, didn't you test the Sigma 55-200 DC against the old Minolta AF 70-210/4 'Beercan' and the then-new Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG back in the Dynax 7D days? If I remember correctly, you found the cheap Sigma 55-200 DC's performance not inferior to the other two lenses---superior actually, at certain settings, on APS-C digital. The Tamron/Sony 55-200 should be very similar in concept and optical design to the Sigma. So your reservation against the Tamron 55-200 Di-II surprises me a bit. Is the lens cheaply made, mechanically?

-- Olaf

[David Kilpatrick]

Reservation? I am recommending it - it is similar to the Sigma 55-200mm in being a good performer. I had forgotten that the Sigma was so good, and of course, my 70-300mm SSM had just arrived! Yes, I did test the Sigma DC lens against the older 70-200mm (pre DG EX) and the Minolta - I don't have one round now to compare with the Tamron, though we do have one with a Sigma SD14 (not here in my office though). Maybe this is a range which is easy to make to a good standard, at modest cost.

David

[01af]

Reservation? I am recommending it ...

Yes, I know ... but you said you've been worried for two months the lens might be poor. That's the 'reservation' I was talking about.

... and of course, my 70-300mm SSM had just arrived!

Oh, I see! First things first ...

-- Olaf

[Vidgamer]

Reservation? I am recommending it ...

Yes, I know ... but you said you've been worried for two months the lens might be poor. That's the 'reservation' I was talking about.

By that, I thought he meant that he didn't even try the lens and was worried that the quality wouldn't be that high due to the low price. You could also get the impression that it was cheap due to its heavy use of plastic, that gives it a somewhat light feel. However, the construction seems solid to me.

I tried a number of low-cost 70-210 lenses at a used camera store, and even took home a Quantaray 70-210, which I took back because it looked a bit poor. So, I also was expecting that cheaper lenses were going to be kind of poor, but I saw good reviews of the 55-200 (and a couple of other lenses), and gave it a chance. The Tamron 55-200 isn't too much more money, but it is clearly much better than these other designs. And it has greater range. Go figure!

Having said that, I'm sure there are good 70-210 lenses, but there don't seem to be new ones for sale, and I think the good older ones are just harder to find.

[Dr. Harout]

Some of the best budget 70-210's are the Beercan, the M70-210 3.5-4.5, or even the M100-200.
-Sonolta

I owned a Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5 and here's a shot with it:

Hope you like it

[pakodominguez]

This lens is not suitable for full-frame, and I imagine that's why it is better than most other options. The Tamron 70-300mm is OK for full frame, and I am keeping my loan sample until I have a chance to try it on full frame. It's not bad at all on APS-C but at full aperture has more complex aberrations surrounding a sharp image core, compared to the 55-200mm.

David

Hello David
2 questions:
did you ever try this lens on the A900? how is the vignetting?
did you ever wrote a review for this lens (the Tamron or the Sony version)?

Regards

[David Kilpatrick]

I have a review in Photoworld, but only alongside other lenses. It is no use on the A900, tried it as I had the Tamron version and it does not auto crop, but it does not cover the frame at any focal length.

David

[Fotogeorge]

I have been procrastinating on the purchase of a lens in the 5*-200mm range. This thread has gven me some good information. I really need a lens with this range, plus good close-up performance and internal focus. These lenses have an acceptable mag ratio in the range of 1:4. Why can't they make zoom lenses with at least a 1:2 mag ratio? I want a lens that doesn't focus with extension or rotation of the front element. A better build with a metal mount would be a plus. I've been looking at these two lenses: Sony AF 55-200mm-version 2 f/4-5.6 DT SAM & Sigma AF 50-200 mm f/4-5.6 DC OS HSM. I think they both have internal focus. I can't find any good reviews of these two lenses. I shouldn't assume that the Sony 2 version, with SAM, performs similar to the Sony #1 version without SAM. I don't believe these two Sony lenses even come with both body caps and a hood. I can only purchase online, because I don't have access to any local camera stores, where I can have an upclose examination of a lens.
Does anyone have any knowledge on the performance of the Sony #2 version or Sigma OS HSM lenses?
I could procrastinate some more and wait to find out if Sony brings out a 7*-200mm F4 lens this Fall. I think that would be a great announcement.

[Javelin]

your mostly describing the beercan there. is the wide end being 50mm important to you?

[alphaPDX]

I was quite tempted by the size and range of the 55-200, but fell into an easy deal for a Maxxum 100-200. Really like this one despite its hard prior use + veiling flare if exposed into sunlight. OK, the minimum focal distance isn't great, but one step back, zoom slightly and done: not a problem in my shooting. This lens beat out my 70-210/3.5-4.5; it was close but shooting f/5 or faster the 100-200 was more consistent. I'd have preferred the 55-200 range to overlap with my 17-70, but I have a Maxxum 35-105 to fill that gap nicely when necessary. The 100-200 is always f/4.5 max, so it also works well with my 1.7x generic TC & allows still more options on the long end.

It's great to find good optics like these without the high weight penalty that the Beercan and exquisite G series exact. I don't doubt that many folks would be better served with the 55-200 and its 21st century flare resistance, but I have finally found a set of lenses that I like (took less than three years, hooray!) so I'll stick .

[Fotogeorge]

your mostly describing the beercan there. is the wide end being 50mm important to you?

The wide end isn't important to me for closeup shots. I want good closeup magnification in the the tele-end. I prefer a 24-70 in the wide end. I don't shoot many extreme wide angle landscapes. The beercan is a lot different from what I imagine ( I have a feeling) Sony may bring out in a future F4 zoom lens. I've never used the beercan, but from what I have read, it doesn't have internal focus, a non-rotating front element, or interior construction coated for digital. I need a lens with internal focus, so I can use filters. I also need internal focus with my Metz macro flash, so I won't be limited to manual focus. I don't always need a dedicated macro lens; a good closeup lens does just fine. I believe the Sony 55-200mm lenses all have a rotating front element. Presently, my irreplaceable, KM 28-75 F/2.8 lens is ideal, but I'd rather not take it out in some field conditions. The Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC is a good alternative, because it has many of my requirements, including a mag ratio of 1:2.3, affordable, and lighter weight, but it lacks a long reach. Sometimes I just need a longer tele-end. I guess there is no perfect zoom lens for me.