Tamron SP 200-500/5-6,3 Di LD IF

[[SiC]]

Any impressions on this? Anyone here own one?
I'm not sure I really want one but for some uses the 70-300 feels a bit short...
What should I pay for a used one?

/Zeb!

[ellisn]

Hi Zeb

I was looking at this lens, it gets good reviews:

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/rev ... IDLens=116

As for second hand all depends on the condition and age.

Neil

[calpon]

I have the lens and have used it on a KM5D and now the A700. I have said many times that I believe this is the best lens for 500mm at the price. It is usable wide open (barely) at f8 it is great. With our SSS in body and V4 for the A700, this combination is just incredible.

This was taken this morning around 9:30am and under the trees in my backyard. Hand held, 20yards away, 500mm, f/8, ISO 1600, f/6.3, 1/60 (YES 1/60 Hand held), cropped to 375DPI


Same settings other than f/8, 1/80


This is a little more close up (10 ft away) f/8,1/320, ISO 1600, 500mm

[Dr. Harout]

Calpon, those are nice shots. For handheld shots, they are great.
If you have a shot with the lens wide open and high shutter speed, do post it. It would be interesting to see the result.

[David Kilpatrick]

I can see that by feeding the little birds, you attract some big birds to the party! It would be very rare to get a hawk of any type landing in a garden here. You're lucky to have a zoo in your backyard.

David

[calpon]

Calpon, those are nice shots. For handheld shots, they are great.
If you have a shot with the lens wide open and high shutter speed, do post it. It would be interesting to see the result.

Here is one from the 5D:
1/320 (tripod) ISO 400, f/6.3, 500mm


1/1250, f/6.3, ISO 400, 500mm


1/1250, f/6.3, ISO200, 500mm

[nixnutz]

I've been searching for an affordable yet good 300+ mm lens during spring times. There have not been many options in alpha mount back then.

One could choose between a Minolta 100-400mm (used), Sigma 50-500mm (used and new, said to have mechanical issues with screw-driver AF), Tamron 200-400 (used), Tamron 200-500 (used and new), Tokina 400mm (used, hard to get), Sigma APO AF 400mm (used, get the latest(!) version only). A Minolta 400mm was way beyond my price limit. A Sigma f4/100-300 + 1.4 converter gets close to the Bigma (50-500). Both regarding the price and the optical performance. If you don't need the extra reach of 300 x 1.4 = 420 vs. 500 and you don't mind 50 vs. 100 (x 1.4 = 140) focal length, check out the 100 - 300. The optics are said to be superb. But on the other hand the Sigma 100-300 is not the cheapest.

What's missing in my list? Tokina 80-400. I owned that and loved it on my 800si using 200/400 ISO consumer films and doing no more than 13x18cm prints. On both 7D and a700 I started to dislike the lens. Maybe that's because I once dropped my copy on the ground when riding my bike, it broke and got repaired... However, I bought the Sigma APO 400mm (1:4 close-up) and a Tamron 200-400. They play in the same league.The AF of the 200-400 is not super-fast, so is the AF of the Sigma. Though they focus faster than the Tokina. My used copies cost me something like 300 Euros each. And both of them (Tamron and Sigma) have been in was A to A+ condition when I got it. I'm absolutely fine with them, especially when considering the price.

If the 200-500 has not become significantly worse than its predecessor, it gets my full recommendation. According to the forum posting I read earlier the year the 200-500 did not become much worse (nor much better) than the 200-400. In my case the extra 100mm focal length of the 200-500 vs. 200-400 have not been worth the higher price.

However, today you have more options (to come): Sony 70-400 SSM, Sigma 150-500 HSM. Unless money plays a minor role and you can both afford the two SSM/HSM lenses and wait for them to be available, I guess - based on my 200-400 experience - that you can't do much wrong with the 200-500.

If you have extra money to spend, get a good tripod. SSS and high ISO settings will not always do the trick. 500mm is a monster focal length.

Ulf

[Dr. Harout]

Ulf, welcome to the forum.
If money was not an issue, which lens would you choose?

[nixnutz]

Hello Dr. Harout,

it is difficult to say which 300+ lens is the best *for me*. I have not owned or tried all the available options. For example, I have no experience on the Minolta 100-400 and the Minolta 400.

I'd like to stress out the *for me* in my reply. I am a hobbyist who enjoys taking pictures. From time to time I do print some pictures (30x45cm+) to put them on the wall. I'm not afraid of enlarging the pictures from any lens I own. Its the photographer not the lens or the camera who takes the pictures. Most of the time I use a tripod and a FLM ball head together with the Tamron 200-400 and the Sigma 400. Adding a tripod to my set up improved the picture quality more than anything else. If I had to choose between my Tamron and my Sigma, the versatility of the Tamron would be the one *for me*, although the 1:4 macro of the Sigma an exciting feature and the Sigma might have the edge in image quality.

However, to play the what-if dreaming game, I'd like to...

... know how the Minolta 4,5/400 APO HS and the Sigma 5,6/400 APO Macro compare on the A700 at 30x45cm prints

What if I could buy any of the zooms on the market regardless of their price tag...

... I'd ask myself twice if the Sigma f4/100-300 + 1.4 converter gives me enough reach because the f4/100-300 seems to have excellent optics
... I'd choose the Tamron 200-500 over the Bigma because the Sigma seems to have about the same optical performance but is said to have mechanical issues

What is my dream lens specification? 70-400 SSM . I'm eager to read the first reviews of production samples.

Ulf

[[SiC]]

Thanks for the input and those beautiful pictures!

BR - Zeb!

[Dr. Harout]

What is my dream lens specification? 70-400 SSM . I'm eager to read the first reviews of production samples.

Ulf

You're not alone Ulf, definitely not alone. But unfortunately I do have this feeling that we will have to wait a bit longer. Sony's saying around Jan09, it means it should read around March or so.

[Dr. Harout]

Calpon, those shots are awesome, excellent. I like them all.

[kelvinyam]

Here is one from the 5D:
1/320 (tripod) ISO 400, f/6.3, 500mm

Calpon, this shot is superb with all those detail. How could you say this lens is barely usable wide open? Is this a cropped image?

[calpon]

Here is one from the 5D:
1/320 (tripod) ISO 400, f/6.3, 500mm

Calpon, this shot is superb with all those detail. How could you say this lens is barely usable wide open? Is this a cropped image?

Kelvin,

I guess I went a little overboard with that statement

I have gotten used to my 70-200 SSM at f4 and 50 1.4 at f3.2 (As well as the Tamron at f/8)

Every once in a while...all factors line up (perfect light, subject and distance) and wide open does look really good. I had a few out takes at f/8 with the head turn being inferior that showed more detail than this. (I sent them to the trash because the head turn was more important than the extra sharpness-now I wish I hadn't).

I say distance is important because I NEVER get images this sharp at wide open from more than 12-15 and out unless I am stopped down to f/8. I even tried static object sized great and small because I thought it was due to DOF. I find that the Red Shouldered Hawk image to be about as good as it gets at greater distances wide open. (I do find that image quality suitable for framing even having experienced the best the Sony 70-200SSM brings to the table).

I have commented in another thread (maybe on another site?) that I may have a difficult time justifying the need to upgrade (?) to the Sony 70-400. I would be losing that extra 100mm (or 150mm for the A700) and only gaining minimally in the IQ department.

[Greg Beetham]

I think those are great shots also, I had a look in my bird book just in case there were any similar birds here, but the only one that was the same was the Osprey.
The one in the backyard striking terror into the small birds in the area looked like an immature peregrine falcon, but probably wasn't, and the brownish/buff/greyish one looked closest to a spotted harrier but the side of the face wasn't quite right...too pale, the other ones have me stumped.
Again great shots, very enjoyable.
Greg