 |
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 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 29, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 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 2, 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 14, 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
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3986
|
|
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: 120
|
|
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
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 52191
|
|
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 29, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 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 13, 2007
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 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
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, low weight and very handholdable
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I continue my earlier review below.
I find that this lens review, http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/1350/lens-test-tamron-200-500mm-f5-63-di-ld-af.html, either undervalued the lens or its SQF test model is very stringent one. (see the scoring of Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS at 200mm by that test).
I used the lens with Tamron 2x tc to shoot full moon. After significant adjustment on contrast and heavy USM, and even after heavy crop, I can make a big 8-inch diameter moon in my monitor. It still gives a decent image with patterns looked like volcanoes.
I did a comparison also with Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS mounted with Canon 2x tc at f11 (a lens test says that at f11, Canon 200mm x 2 equal Canon 100-400 at 400mm in image quality) and Tamron 400 f8, the latter gives slightly better image.
I did write down HK$7,600 as price paid but it did not show up. By the way, two typos in my earlier review, I should have written "with respect" and "compactness". The Hoya 86mm CPL cost me HK$760. I shot water lily handheld with one hand adjusting the CPL to remove light reflection and the other holding it with 5D. I do not find its weight make this process difficult. I have the curiosity to try Bigma in such setting.
For convenience unless the weather is sunny, I do not use the unduly long hood since the lens front has already receded deeply, and is safe enough.
When I comment on handability, I have to say that 5D's clean ISO contributes much to it. Furthermore, I use Noise Ninja to clean up the noise so that I have no hesitation to use ISO3200, if necessary, to follow the handhold rule I mentioned earlier. So, even in 1 hour before sunset in normal day, I can still shoot at 1/500s or even faster at 500mm to freeze the action of my kids in playground at distance. For still target, 1/250s handhold is safe at 500mm.
But sometimes a better compromise is that I use ISO1600, not ISO3200, and deliberately allow underexposure to keep up the shutter speed. Reason is that adjusting exposure of 1stop by CS2, especially the Lightroom, is easy without noticeably degrading the quality while cleaning up noise at ISO3200, especially when the shooting environment or target is not bright enough which therefore generate much more noise, would wash away some the fine texture, eg of face or flower. Perhaps some expert can use Noise Ninja in a professsional manner to avoid this problem but I find my hit-and-miss before computer quite time-consuming.
This lens mounted on 5D can still be stored in Lowepro toploader 75AW.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2007
|
|
Peter Cheuk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
relatively light weight, sharp, able to to PL filter with hood on
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
I write to supply information further than those in the lens test results of Photozone and www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500.html .
I have used this lens with Canon 5D, full-frame for over 600 photos. I also carefully conducted a lens test. I can tell its corner performance in full-frame. I use it mainly for face close-up of kids (face big enough to fill the whole frame) and candid shooting when they are playing on grass field.
I first explain what I mean when I say "sharp". I view all photos in my Apple iMac 24-inch monitor (1900x1200) which is somewhat bigger than A3. I turn off 5D's internal sharpening function. ALL digital photos as raw product from 5D, even shot with prime lens or L zooms, when viewed in that monitor, will always suffer from various degrees of softness. That is the nature of digital photo. But it is important not to confuse lack of resolution and lack of actuance. This article explains its difference: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml.
If a lens produces soft-looking photos initially but can be sharpened (or more accurately with the actuance fixed) by USM, and look good in my 24-inch, I will deem that lens as "sharp" for my personal purpose. Lack of resolution cannot be fixed by USM. Photo of high resolution but suffering from actuance problem responses very well to USM.
In my lens test,
1.I invited a middle-age woman as model and one can easily imagine the texture of her face. I always focused on her eye.
2.I took close up so that the full-frame sometimes cannot entirely capture her face. Corner performance can be seen because when her face presses to the corner of full frame, I can check her eye (either left or right one ) at the extreme corner (horizontal) and facial texture in that area.
3.This test came near to shooting at the minimum focus distance of the lens.
4.I tested at 200, 300, 400 and 500, aperture at corresponding wide opens of each focal length up to f11.
5.All shooting were hand-held and I can tell its (or my) hand-held performance.
6.I applied USM at Amount 150, Radius 2 and Threshold 0 to all photos. I think it falls within the range without obvious under-sharpening or over-sharpening (that range is not narrow though).
When I say "sharp", it means that, after sharpening, the photo is very pleasant to my eyes in the 24-inch monitor with exciting details which go far beyond ordinary viewing experience with nake eyes so that the lens can generate an urge in me to try it out other shooting circumstances/target.
My conclusion is:
1.Center area is GUARANTEED sharp at all focal lengths and all apertures tested. "Center area" means the area, horizontally reaching out to 50% from centre, and vertically 80% (forehand to lip). n.B., full-frame was used. So, if target shot falls within centre of full-frame, do not hesitate to use wide open, especially in hand-hold use to gain higher shutter speed.
2. Beyond the centre area, I call it "corner", I noticed a defect at 200mm wide open at f5. The left corner was soft which could not be remedied by USM. It is a significant fall in resolution. But the right corner does not show such defect. When stop down to f6.3, the problem significantly gone. At f8, sharp from centre to corner. No such problem in all other focal lengths. So, I should never use f5 at 200mm to capture image outside corner.
3. At f8, both center area and corner are sharp at all focal lengths. F8 sharpens up corner compared with wide open. Actually "wide open" here comes close to f8. At f9 and f11, (with higher ISO) it does not bring any noticeably difference in sharpness. But in hand-hold situation, it increases much the risk of blurry due to shaking. So, f8 is the practical optimal in field to get sharpness from centre to corner.
4. 200mm and 300mm are sharpest, followed by 400mm, and 500mm is least in comparison
5.I did some comparison shooting with Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and Sigma 150mm macro. From comparable size of facial close up at center, Sigma is most pleasant to eyes but not a big difference. Canon makes no obvious difference, unless compared with Tamron photos at 400mm and 500mm (which is consistent with 4 above). At extreme corner, Canon is noticeably sharper.
6. Tamron is very hand-holdable. I put myself in the most difficult situation of 500mm. The handhold rule, ie., 100mm at least 1/100s, 200mm 1/200s and so on, can safely be departed by 1 stop. It means that using using 500mm, I can get sharp photos by using 1/250s. I can share a bit of my practice. The Tamron becomes long in 500mm. A little hand-shake can easily be seen through viewfinder. But it is important to remember that one's eye-focus must not follow the moving focus mark of camera. I just fix my eyes on the target without regard to the always moving focus mark. Otherwise, my hands will tend to follow its move which in turn generates greater move and so on. Don't try to freeze one's hands to freeze the focus mark. This is doomed to failure and just will do only harm. Just ignore the moving focus mark and trust 1/250s can do it. Once heard the beep I will press the shutter, and breathe again, then it will be fine. During the test, which is conducted under sidewalk shade, I did not use the lens hood. In very windy situation, the unduly long hood should be taken off as a compromise to preserve handability.
7. I also tested it at 500mm with Tamron 1.4 tc. This time I used tripod and mirror lock up, although 5D's AF can work in bright environment at f9. Centre is still sharp enough to be pleasant to eyes in the 24-inch monitor, decent and respectable quality. But I need to enhance contrast and use more USM: Amount 200, radius 2 and threshold 0.
I also have Canon 28-300 f3.5- 5.6 IS. see my review there. The comparsion by recollection is that I can use lesser USM in Canon, resolution of Canon is high as photo after much cropping for re-composition during editing is still fine. No obvious difference in centre of their respective post-editing photo when viewed in my monitor at similar focal lengths.
A gentleman in a review below mentioned a problem of tripod mount/tripod collar. Mine is sturdy and very convenient to use. Without respect, actually I can't quite understand the problem he tried to describe.
I haven't used Bigma before and I can't tell if weight difference of about 600g would strength or weaken or neutral to handability.
Bigma is HK$100 cheaper than Tamron but with 50-500mm! I can't conclude that as such Tamron is overpriced because professional sites/tests I quoted at the beginning suggest that Tamron is sharper. Combatness may be an expensive quality.
The 1:5 macro ratio of Tamron (Bigma is 1:5.2) is of some use in flower photography which can give much blurry background (not depth of field, strictly speaking) effect due to 500mm in use.
|
|
|
Jun 1, 2007
|
|
slyves
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good color redention, light and inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
lack of focus limiter, lack of stabilization
|
|
|
Although I have the canon 1d2 and 100-400L IS, I wanted to try some nikon equipment for wildlife also. The main reason was the superior pixel density offered by nikon. So I took the d200 along with this lens mainly for test purposes.
After I acomodated with the lack of IS this lens offered me some very pleasent suprises. It is as sharp wide open as my 100-400 IS (and I have a good copy), but it is lighter, cheaper and longer.
Its a pitty that the lens lacks a focus limiter.
Some stabilization would be welcomed, but for this price the tamron 200-500 is a real bang for buck.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2007
|
|
radiodenver
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 490
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hey, it isn't a L prime lens. You get what you pay for.
|
|
|
In this price range for this type of lens, you have Sigmas and Tamron. I've tried all the Sigma/Bigmas and they are bulky compared to the Tamron. The Tamron is also a little sharper optically than the Sigmas. The rotating front filter ring is a nice feature, it allows the use of a circular polarizer with the lens hood attached. The lens lock is handy for keeping the lens from drifting out while it is strung over your shoulder. Autofocus speed is not that bad actually, faster than the Sigmas I think, and much more quiet. Sharpness is pretty good up to 400 mm and not bad at 500mm. This lens makes a good budget wildlife lens for the crop sensor camera. It is also very light, so I don't have an issue lugging it around as much as I did with the Sigmas. As with any telephoto, I'd recommend using it with a monopod or tripod. Is it worth the money? Yeah, I think it is and then some. Don't waste time on the Sigma/Bigma, get this one instead, you'll be more satisfied in the long run.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
26
|
176288
|
Jun 6, 2009
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
62% of reviewers
|
$811.17
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.00
|
9.05
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
