Opinions on Tamron 200-500 or any other resonably priced telephoto.

A little background first, I have a rebel xs, a limited budget & want a decent telephoto for shooting sports car racing. When I was at the Rolex 24 this year 300mm (plus the 75-300 kinda sucked anyways) just didn't feel like enough and with only 10 megapixels you can only crop so much. So I've been looking at the under $1000 telephotos and the Tamron caught my eye. My concern is that with a 6.3 aperture @ 500 that the rebel won't be able keep up with AF even in bright sunlight. Anybody have any opinions or other options?

That's interesting,


I just happen to be eyeing that lens this morning. Read the review over at photozone.de for the x-tinth time.


I've known about it for a while and check from time to time to see what the price range is. I'm maxed out at 200 with a 1.4X extender on a 40D which still isn't all that great even stopped down to f8. It'd probably, for me, be better to crop rather than use the extender. I don't do very much wildlife photography so the 100-400 L IS is way over the top for me. I shot next to a guy ata recent airshow who had one (he loved it as most do)yet I had no problem getting great shots using my 70-200 f2.8L. But, I keep thinking that if I could get up to a 500mm tele that can shoot at f8 with excellent IQ I might entertain the idea for under $800.00. Small birds in the backyard beware!!


With this lens, I have a really good feeling, that's what we're talking about. As long as you can get your shutter speeds up in the 1/1250 range at f8, you'd have a really really good 500mm tele for the price. As far as focusing at a car race, just pick a spot in the track where you want to photo, pre-focus, then turn the AF switch to manual and you've got it! As the car's come into that area, shoot. For the best quality under varying conditions I'd suggest a good tripod or at least a monopod. In bright sunlight I'd think 1/1250-1/2000th is reasonalble to expect at f8. Youmight notbe able to use a polarizer, though I have to say that the hood-in-place filter ring adjuster on that lensis quite nice. Stationary, on a tripod,the use of a polarizer wouldeasily be possible. You'd be pushing it hand held.


Now, if your looking for a lens that will allow you to track the car and drag the shutter, I don't think that will happen with this lens on a Rebel. Unless your willing to settle for a 1 out of 20 keeper rate. Anything's possiblewith practice.


I also understand that long reach teles require a whole new tool set to get pro results. I'm not sure this lens will make that job easier.


I guess it's better than dropping $5600.00 on a 500 f4 just to find out.


That's why I like the value of this particular lens. I keep my eye on the Bigma (50-500) too.


Darn that LBA!!


Chuck

June's edition of What Digital Camera magazine tested Tamron 200-500 against Sigma 150-500. Tamronwon 90% to 84%


Sigma - pros: 1) quick and quiet AF; 2) image stabilizer


Sigma - cons: 1) Image stabilizer improves viewing rather than image quality; 2) Lack of sharpness at wide apertures at all focal lengths


Tamron - pros:1)optically superior - much sharper than the Sigma; 2) AF fast but not as fast asthe one ofSigma's


Tamron - cons: 1) no image stabilizer 2) Image quality not so good at 200mm

Well I've read up quite a bit about the Tamron on the internets, I think thats going to be my next lens purchase, especially since adorama has a used one for 699.... Thanks for the advice.

I've been looking at the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 lenses. I think the 120-400 would be a good alternative for me. It's like 60% of the cost and would probably beat the pants off my old 75-300mm IS USM I'm guessing.


It would be interesting to see if Bryan has had any experience with many of these super telephoto zooms.

Clarification... 60% of the cost of the Canon 100-400 L IS USM (which is what I have also been looking at as my next purchase).