|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 6, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
I own Bigma and Tamron 200-500. Use with Canon 5D. CS3 records that Tamron is 200-486.
I did tests to see if whether Tamron or Bigma is of longer zoom. Tripod, focus on same subject. Very obviously, if Tamron is 486mm, Bigma at the very most is 450mm, a good chance even shorter at 440mm.
On this issue, see one other observation:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-F-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
Anyone comparing Bigma and Tamron needs to consider this point
|
|
 Jun 6, 2009
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
How to get IS for this lens FREE?
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I invite everyone who owns or has an opportunity to use this lens to do this test:
I can gain 3 stops IS FREE merely by fixing this lens my 5D with speedlite 580EXII.
In other words, the extra vertical weight down from the camera body of about 500g can yield 3 stops IS FREE.
My tests are all at 500mm using 1/60s. Successful rate 100%.
I own Sigma 50-500 also. I find that, without speedlite this time, I can still get sharp shot (view at 24-inch iMac, after editing, crop 200% for testing if vibration blur exists) also at 500mm; 1/60s/ f10.
By the way, Tamron is sharper than Bigma after 400mm;
My conclusion is that if the weight of the gear except camera (lens + speedlite; or heavy lens) get close or over 1700g, there are 3 stops IS FREE.
Handhold rule is just a rough guide, without taking into account gear weight.
In outdoor, when there is slight breeze, with same set up I need 1/120s for 500mm, ie, 2 stops, due to its long hood.
With ISO as high as 25,600 in 5D Mark 2, and good noise control software, handholdability is much enhanced.
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2008
|
|
Laimonas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 17, 2008
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
500mm; light weight; inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
slow AF; requires good light
|
|
Good lens for good price.
Could have image stabilisation but works good even at hands.
Will try with TCx1.4 - even bigger zoom.
Requires good light and high ISO.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2008
|
|
Raf Manteleers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fine results for static objects and when mounted on a tripod.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow AF. Lacks focus limiter
|
|
This lens can produce fine results when mounted on a stable tripod and for fairly static objects. I remove the light lenshood if possible and shot with a cable release. I think this lens is very sensible for shutter and lenshood vibrations. A beanbag put under the lens also helps.
I like the colours, the contrast, the soft bokeh and the pleasing sharpness of this lens.
Very difficult to get flying birds in focus caused by a slow AF an the lack of a focus limiter. It can keep on hunting. The MF ring is much to near the camera body and hence difficult to use.
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2007
|
|
eseavey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good Sharpness, Light Weight, Good Color, Nice Focal Range
|
|
Cons:
|
No Focus Limiter, No Image Stabilizer, OK Maximum Aperture
|
|
This is a very sharp lens from 200 to 400mm, and even a little sharper stopped down to f/7.1. Your images should be very sharp when you use a tripod and remote. If that is not the case you may have a bad copy that should be exchanged. From 400 to 500mm you lose a bit of contrast, but still very good IQ. No image stabilizer means you need a tripod a lot of the time. I’ve taken handheld photos in the woods on a sunny day though, and probably would have been OK under light cloudy conditions. The auto focus is little on the slower side, making it difficult to catch flying birds. Overall I am quite satisfied with this lens.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2007
|
|
wing tong
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3713
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive, good IQ, good color, relatively light, relatively compact for 500mm, 200-500mm range.
|
|
Cons:
|
very long fully extended with hood.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2007
|
|
Joe A.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 95
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
200-500mm range, light weight, relatively low cost, good image quality if close to the subject in good light
|
|
Cons:
|
Extremely poor (slow and hunts) AF even in bright light, unusable for birds in flight, sports or any situation which requires good AF.
|
|
I have almost stopped carrying this lens into the field. I use the 100-400 Canon instead.
The AF is so bad I only use this lens on a tripod.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007
|
|
foto_man
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 29, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2007
|
|
AdamDZ
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Aug 29, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $749.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Zoom range, price, comes with a hood and nice padded case
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness, huge when extended fully, no limiter, slow, needs tons of light
|
|
Well, after a few months with this lens I came to realize that "you get what you paid for" is painfully true. I was tempted by the price and 500mm, and then regretted the purchase. There is simply no way to obtain nice sharp images with this lens past 300mm even on a tripod, ISO800, f>10 and shutter speeds above 1000. I'm thinking maybe I got a bad copy and should send this back to Tamron, because this thing takes horrible images. All images are blurry and edges show bad aberration and distortion. I had the Canon 70-300IS lens before and at 300mm it was a lot sharper than Tamron at 300mm. Beyond 300mm it's just frustration, nothing else.
I gave in and bought the Canon 100-400 L lens and I'm in heaven. The difference is so striking it's not even funny.
I will probably try to send this lens to Tamron and then try to sell it. It was a bad purchase and I can't honestly recommend this lens.
I used it with Rebel XT and briefly with XTi.
Adam
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2007
|
|
Imagemaster
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 16584
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice zoom range, pretty sharp for the price, produces good colour and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poorly built, does not take TC's well, and no focus-limiter.
|
|
For anyone wanting a telephoto for birds in flight or action sports, do not buy one without a focus-limiter. The Tamron will start focusing at the point where it last was focused, go back to minimum focusing distance, and then back out to the subject. By the time this happens, the subject has usually gone. If you require fast AF, get a lens with a focus-limiter.
This lens was not even a year old, when two parts of the focusing mechanism came apart. They were held together by glue, and the glue failed. What kind of quality construction would rely solely on glue to hold two moving parts together?
The optical quality was quite good considering the price. Images with the 1.4X TC were soft, and with the 2X TC they were unacceptable. AF speed was terrible with either TC.
If you want a quality telephoto lens, go for the Canon 100-400. 100mm less range, but superior to the Tamron in all other respects. If you need the zoom 400-500 range, I would recommend the Sigma 50-500mm over the Tamron.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2007
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
work very well with extension tube
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
This review is further to the 3 below on the Tamron 200-500's performance with extension tube. Recall some spec. of it first: Minimum Focus Distance is 2.5m (entire zoom) and Magification Ratio is 1:5.
All books I read on macro photography tells this formula: Magnification is amount of extension divided by focal length. So, mounting an extension tube of 50mm on a 50mm lens will give 1:1. But important it is to remember that this formula is just a very oversimplified one to give a very rough idea.
That can immediately be seen by these examples: Canon 28-300 has MFD of 70cm and MR of 1:3.3 at 300mm. Tamron 70-300 has MFD of 95cm and MR of 1:2 at 300mm. It turns out that the longer MFD can have higher MR at the same focal length of 300mm!
So, MR depends on factors of focal length, MFD, and many others (unknown to me). Now, assume you amount a 20mm extension tube on either one and apply the formula: MR=20/300=0067 (1:15). Immediately one can see the non-sense as the extension tube can only increase, not decrease, MR, let alone decrease by so much.
The maths behind is therefore far more complicated and is related to the actual lens structure. So, only by actual experiment on a lens can I come to actual figure.
I designed this very simple experiment: I drew many parallel lines of 36mm (full-frame size) on a piece of paper and stuck it on wall. I mounted a macro lens on my Canon 5D. At its MFD, the 36mm lines ran across horizontal frame. Then, I mounted a Kenko 36mm extension tube on the Tamron 200-500 and zoomed at 500mm, focusing on the 36mm lines. At the new shorter MFD, which is about 1.8m (the original MFD is 2.5m), I took a shoot. Then I downloaded the image and viewed in my Apple 24 inches monitor. I measured the length of the 36mm lines as they appeared on screen. Then I divided it by the width of complete image in monitor. A rough measurement gives 1:4.
My conclusion is: The tube shortens the MFD from 2.5m to 1.8m and increases the MR from 1:5 to 1:4. To my surprise, the autofocus could still work very well on Canon 5D. Remember that at 500mm, the aperture is f6.3 and the tube has eaten light. Then I fixed a 1.4x converter and by the indoor rather dim lighting, AF did not work. So, I conclude that the 36mm tube does not eat light as much as the 1.4x converter, ie, 1 stop. Then I tested the max. AF reach of the lens with 36mm tube. I shot the tip of a tree in my garden which I guessed was about 15 feet away from lens. AF still worked very well. But a little beyond that the AF started to hunt. (Anyone who minds to repeat this experiment and is willing to take more exact measurements can come to more accurate result.)
If I need to shoot at a moving subject or shy or dangerous animal within the range of about 6 feet to 15 feet (focus range) at 500mm, but I am not satisfied with 1:5, (and if I don't have another better lens for that purpose at that moment), I can use a 30mm tube to increase the MR to 1:4 and still shoot with AF. No degrade of image in using tube, a common knowledge. As I said below, with clean ISO of Canon 5D and the software of Noise Ninja, I should still be able to shoot handheld at f8 in this situation.
I repeated the experiment by attaching one more tube of 12mm, total 48mm extension. In bright outdoor lighting, AF still works reasonably well at 48mm. But there are occasional huntings on subject under shade. The focus range is shorter. MR is higher.
I tried the combination of 56mm extension. AF still worked but the frequency of hunting made it not reliable to shoot even slow-moving subject (a chicken on walk)
I final used the the whole set of Kenko of 68mm. The trend is the same. Shorter focus range and higher MR. But this time, in extension of 68mm, the camera focus confirmation (red flash of focus point and beep sound) did not work even the subject is under direct sunlight.
With a 2x converter, the focus confirmation did not work either in same situation. But I would rather use extension tube because, unlike converter, there is no degrade of image quality. The trade off is that I can only shoot at a limit range while with 2x converter the focus range extends to infinity. (It seems that MR with 68mm extension is higher than with 2x converter because I could get closer.)
I did not bother to take any measurement above because in actual field shooting I would just do it on spot to meet my need.
I also experimented with the Canon 28-300 L lens with 36mm extension. To my big surprising and disappointment, although at 300mm, the Canon's aperture is f5.6 while at 500mm, Tamron's aperture is f6.3, Canon's AF did not work! I think this phenomenon does not mean that Canon's AF is weaker. Without extension, the Canon AF is obviously faster and much more silent. AF requires light. As I said the actual formula of MR and light eating is very complicated and depends on actual lens structure, the conclusion should be that total light loss is very much higher in the Canon combination (f5.6, 300mm, 36mm tube) because in Tamron combination (f6.3, 500mm, 48mm tube) AF can still work reasonably well in outdoor open area.
A warning: anyone who tries the experiment with Tamron should remember that the focus ring turns during focusing. So, after mounting the tube, remember to keep your hands off the ring. Also, in trying the alternate of AF and MF, remember that Tamron has no full-time manual focus. So, keep in mind don't use manual focus while the lens is in AF mode. I did all my experiments handholding the lens and I did not find that adding the weight any tube(s) will make the Tamron any less handholdable.
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2007
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
work very well with 2x tc
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
This is the 3rd part of my review. Down below are the earlier ones to be read in inverse order.
I just finished testing its performance with Tamron 2x tc, lens at 500mm f9, 1/50s, ISO800 under sidewalk shade in sunny morning. It was the same model viewed in the same 24-inch monitor, except that this time the close up is much bigger. Vertically just forehead to nose. Horizontally two eyes have spanned across 60% of 5D's full frame from centre to far corner. Of course tripod was used.
I have no hesitation to call it "sharp" by my definition below. I used USM Amount 200, Radius 2, Threshold 0, a little enhancement in contrast. Sharp from centre to far corner, far better than my expectation and is amazing. A very decent and respectable performance. But for her objection I would have posted it in web.
I refer to Photozone's review. My copy does not show resolution drop at 500mm at corner as the tested copy there. Note that the camera used there is Canon 350D and "corner" may fall in large part within my definition of centre. But my copy suffers this problem at 200mm f5 at left at full frame which may not noticeable by 350D.
I refer to pop photography test below. After secondthought, I think the test result of the tested copy is agreeable and largely matched my copy's performance. Reason is that the experts there supposely did not use USM as I did. I have to say that ALL this lens' image, unprocessed, look soft initially in my Apple 24-inch monitor which measurement falls between the 16x20 and 20x24 used in that SQF test.
I do not bother to find out if f16 is really better than f8 as the SQF shows because I mainly use the lens handhold and capture image at centre. Grade C in SQF means "slight loss of central detail [compared with smaller viewing size], but corners are beginning to deteriorate". I suppose "corner" there means full frame's corner. If what I see in my monitor at 500mm is graded C, that grade C, after applying USM, has already been very pleasant to eyes and I am very satisfied.
I hope earlier reviewers would do tests on 1.4x and 2x tc and post their results on their copies.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2007
|
|
|
