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

[David Kilpatrick]

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.

More fool me! I decided to leave the 70-300mm SSM behind and take this on a trip to a wildlife park some 80 miles away (Kirkcudbright, Galloway). The park is not worth the journey, though it is well kept and will one day justify a visit, there's just not enough there and the caging prevents most photography. We were the only people there apart from one other couple, on a Saturday of a bank holiday weekend, in the afternoon - don't know how it survives.

But the lens proved to be staggeringly good. My cheque goes off to keep this sample. At full aperture it beats the 70-300mm full frame near equivalent Tamron, across the range. I would rate it as one of the best tele zooms I have ever used, and its close up performance as unexpectedly clean.

Peahean and chick:



Quite a severe crop from the original, you can have a closer look at http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/102191096

I will put a review of this lens up soon, I now need to take more shots - I have a few good ones from the wildlife park, including near-macro stuff of fungi, but I liked this one because of the very cute miniature the chick makes of the adult.

David

[Vidgamer]

I've been pleasantly surprised by this lens since I got it, not too long after I got the A100. Lately, I have been trying to get a 100-300, but have no intention on replacing my 55-200. These lenses may seem redundant, but the 55-200 is sharp, inexpensive, and generally a better range. I want the 100-300 for the 300mm end, for the few times that the 55-200 is not enough.

While at the zoo, Sea World, etc., the 55-200 was long enough for just about everything. Also, it can be somewhat usable indoors, if the light isn't too dim.



This one may have used a teleconverter -- I don't recall, and the EXIF doesn't reflect the TC:



But it's at the airshow where I realized that 200mm wasn't enough. With a 1.7x TC, that was generally long enough, but then I had to manually focus. Having said that, if you were on a budget, it is worth a try. Sometimes 200mm was fine.

But I plan to continue to use the 55-200 for situations where I don't expect to need the 300mm range.

[ianmiddy]

a trip to a wildlife park some 80 miles away (Kirkcudbright, Galloway). The park is not worth the journey, though it is well kept and will one day justify a visit, there's just not enough there and the caging prevents most photography. We were the only people there apart from one other couple, on a Saturday of a bank holiday weekend, in the afternoon - don't know how it survives.

I've had a chalet in the Machars for 7 years now, and only found the park last year ! - and agree, the couple of times I've now been there it was just as quiet - but I don't mind that as some of the more shy occupants are more likely to come into good positions, especially at feeding time:



A100 + 300/2.8HS - 1/500 @ f2.8 [through cage bars]

Hoping to go back this autumn sometime - the steep hillside enclosures do at least mean that you can sometimes get shots without the intervening fencing - did they have any new youngsters, David ? - when I was there the otters had cubs...

...and have they improved the entry road at all - if not, I suspect that puts off lots of visitors, lol !

Cheers

IDM

[David Kilpatrick]

The road entry is still a free fairground ride on your way in. The otters and cubs were all 'in their house'. The wildcat (which was one reason for visiting) was hiding under its house all the time. I think some of the meerkats were young as they were play-fighting a lot more than you usually see. With a 300mm f2.8 wide open some of the denser cage bars might be cleanly lost, but with the 55-200mm, traces remained visible in a few shots. Not one of the cats was in a position suitable for photography, and the ring-tailed lemurs are behind two layers of cage because they are new there, and were used to a full enclosure. By next year, they hope to have them released free into the park.

David

[gedbrogan]

Would either of you extolling the virtues of this lens recommend it for indoor theatre and jazz musician work?

Gerard

[gedbrogan]

Thanks Sonolta

[David Kilpatrick]

Also, it's a bit long - you tend to need be able to go shorter than 55mm for gig shots. Agreed that a faster lens is ideal, and the 28-75mm is an obvious choice if you can find one, for 'front of house' work (in the usual area reserved for photographers).

David

[gedbrogan]

Thanks David..I have been using a 50mm 1.7 and the CZ 18-70 with results that have pleased the clients but always want to improve of course.

Gerard

[Vidgamer]

Holy thread hijack, Batman!

Let's have some photos from the 55-200 once in a while!

I wouldn't purchase this lens for normal indoor or theater use. But in a pinch, it might be worth using. Sometimes I'm in lower-light indoor situations where the 50mm/f1.7 just isn't long enough. I really need more than 100mm sometimes. While it would be better to have a lens with a wider aperture for that specific situation, it's hard for me to justify that.

You can do 100mm with the 55-200 and still be at f4! The difference between f4 and f2.8 is the same as increasing the ISO from, say, 400 to 800. I would be curious to compare it with, say, a 100 f3.5, as there is not a whole lot of difference in exposure with both wide open. What you get with the 55-200 is an affordable alternative. So, OK, I have to be at a step higher ISO than 2.8 lenses, and my photos won't look quite as good as a more expensive lens, but consider the price. Sometimes I get good results, sometimes not, but usually I can salvage something. I've already used it at a couple of indoor events this year, with more success at one than the other. How much movement you can tolerate is also a factor, given the slow shutter speeds.

The 55-200 is very useful for the budget-conscious. Do not underestimate it. In researching 200mm lenses, I ran across one person who considered the 55-200 a good alternative to the Beercan! Now that's sure to start something. (I'm going to start sounding like Sonolta soon, singing the praises of my Tamrons! ) From what I've read and see, where the Beercan excels is sharpness and bokeh. I don't think the 55-200 has great bokeh compared to that, but I am not left wanting more sharpness, so I just don't have a lot of motivation to want a Beercan. The size and weight of the 55-200 are a big factor as well, and the CA isn't bad (but can be present).

[David Kilpatrick]

The bokeh is a bit wiry except when used wide open. The sharpness is better than my beercan, which i reckon is very good, at closer distances. The beercan is best at longer range. Also, the Tamron focuses much closer. Two more examples from the Kirkcudbright Wildlife Park:





It was a dull day, with a bit a good light, but ISO 200 was needed. What I notice about the Tamron is that SSS is far more effective on it than with the beercan, possibly because it is an eight-contact ADI chipped lens, maybe also because its very light weight and small size makes for a secure hold with the Alpha 700. Remember this is also a Sony lens, I expected to get the Sony from my dealer friend to test, but it turns out he bundles Tamrons with the camera because they are cheaper and they reckon they perform as well. I would prefer the Sony in looks.

However - this one is a good one. The risk if I send it back and order a Sony is that there may be sample variation!

David

[ianmiddy]

The bokeh is a bit wiry except when used wide open. The sharpness is better than my beercan, which i reckon is very good, at closer distances. The beercan is best at longer range. Also, the Tamron focuses much closer.

Hmmm - that sounds quite tempting, especially as I often use my BC for flower shots at between f4-5...and Bristol Cameras has it for £60.

Cheers

IDM

[aster]

Hello David,

I certainly enjoyed your subjects from the first to the last. You make this lens look good as I was one of those who preferred not to buy one at all. It's nice to know that I need not be so scared of its shortcomings after all.

Can I suggest that we make a habit of also pointing out if the particular lens the thread covers is also compatible with a full-frame alpha, please? Not for this lens only, but all lenses that appear to be taking part in the Lens Lore section. I think this would help anyone who are looking ahead trying to figure out which lenses will make it to being around the A900.

Thanks for sharing,

Yildiz

[Dr. Harout]

Well then, Sony 55-200 DT costs as much as Sony 75-300 which is full frame (prices mentioned at SonyStyle.com). What about IQ or performance overall?
Personally I don't have any complaint against it, though it's not 70-300 G SSM, but anyway...
Is the former much better than the latter? If not, why are we considering it?

[David Kilpatrick]

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

[David Kilpatrick]

Well then, Sony 55-200 DT costs as much as Sony 75-300 which is full frame (prices mentioned at SonyStyle.com). What about IQ or performance overall?
Personally I don't have any complaint against it, though it's not 70-300 G SSM, but anyway...
Is the former much better than the latter? If not, why are we considering it?

From my experience of the KM 75-300mm - the Sony is the same lens - the 55-200mm is better. It does have the same feature of a rotating front rim, bad point, but it is also much smaller than the 75-300mm and has a faster effective aperture through much of its range.

David