Has anyone here used the Tamron SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF)?

I am thinking of purchasing this Tamron lens (my first non-Canon experience) and I've read a great deal of reviews online and checked out the photos on flickr and it doesn't seem too bad for the price. Granted, it's not a Canon L lens but it doesn't carry the price tag either.

I was wondering if anyone on this site has had experience using this lens and what your opinion of it is? I'm not sure if it would work with my Canon 1.4xextender but I probably wouldn't really need it anyway with this lens. I will be using it with a Canon 7D.

I just received$$$ from paypal for recent photo gear salesand am debating on purchasing this lens or other accessories such as soft box set up, umbrellas, etc.

Any input greatly appreciated,

Denise

Why do you want this lens? It's very slow, doesn't AF at 500mm, isn't all that sharp, doesn't have IS, and honestly it won't do anything your 300 f/4 won't. An effective aperture of f/10 doesn't help. If you want a tele zoom, sell your 300 f/4 and buy a 100-400. DON"T JUDGE A LENS BY THE PHOTOS OTHERS TOOK ON FLICKR. I say that because I tried it and it doesn't work. I suggest Canon all the way. 3rd party lenses are never as good, especially with TCs. I know I'm coming off strong but I can see your making much more of other equipment purchasing.


If you could clarify why you are considering this lens it would be very helpful. Again, if you want a tele zoom, buy a 100-400 and/maybe sell your 300 f/4.


If you feel that strobist equipment would help your portraiture and have a fairly clear-cut idea of what you'd be using it for, I think that'd be a great idea for you. Strobism is pretty awesome.


hope this helps


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Why do you want this lens?

---

Basically, more reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Basically, more reach.

---

So, you have been starring at Nate and my photos too long.[:D]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_8051.TIF-reduced.JPG[/img]


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Why do you want this lens?

---

Basically, more reach.

---

For what? Is your 300 f/4 not long enough for wildlife? I absolutely hate to say this, but there is a possibility that you're just not close enough. That refers me to the Robert Capa quote which states the same thing.


Also remember that you'd need a heck of a lot of light to handhold this thing. I dunno, I just personally don't like lugging 10lbs of tripod everywhere I go. If you want more reach, the new Sigma 50-500mm is a better choice. You'll get 500mm, but it has OS (sigma's version of IS) which makes the slow aperture more livable. Again, the 100-400 and 400 f/5.6L prime are other choices you might want to consider. Just remember, the problem *may not* be with the camera.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

So, you have been starring at Nate and my photos too long.[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Very much so! Although this lens nor my lack of skillwill get me anywhere near the beauty of yours and Nat's photos ...It will still give me more to reach it with! [:D]

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

For what? Is your 300 f/4 not long enough for wildlife? I absolutely hate to say this, but there is a possibility that you're just not close enough.

---

Since I live 5 minutes away from a 5000+ acre nature center, I would love to have all the reach I can afford without disturbing the wildlife in their natural habitat. Also, since I live 5 minutes away in the other direction to Lake Michigan, I can only get so close to the ships and yachts out in the water.

I am so glad you've had experience in using both the Tamron 500mm and the Canon 300mm and was able to fill me in on how bad the image quaity was for you when you used it. I assume you used a tripod with it also?

I am getting extremely bored photographing the same birds in my backyard over and over again and can't wait to venture out once the weather breaks and won't mind taking my tripod and/or monopodwith me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Just remember, the problem *may not* be with the camera.

---

I didn't realize there was a "problem", please fill me in.

Denise

Hey Denise,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I am getting extremely bored photographing the same birds in my backyard over and over again and can't wait to venture out once the weather breaks and won't mind taking my tripod and/or monopodwith me.

---

hihi your not really full of patience are you? [:P] I'm longing for better weather as well, so I get it [:P]





To answer your question....I just can´t, because I had nor the 300mm nor the 200/500, but what I think is: probably you're better of cropping your image taken with a 300mm prime than buying a lesser quality zoom.


But if you've got money to spend and no better things to think about, you should just try it [:P] But I really don't think your photos will get better and you'll be even more disappointed next winter when f6.3 minimum would be a real mood-killer.


Instead of that you might want to take a look at the canon 100-400 L.


I'm not saying you can't take beautiful pictures with the Tamron, but I can say that it's probably a lot harder than with the canon. My friend once bought a Tamron 70-300 when I bought a 70-200 f4L and in the beginning he was very pleased with it. But when he discovered the difference in keeper-rates he sold it eventually and bought a canon as well.


But again....I don't have any experience with the 300mm canon nor the 200-500 tamron, but when I would buy a wildlife lens, it would definitely be the 100-400 canon lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I am getting extremely bored photographing the same birds in my backyard over and over again

---

I probably don't even last 15 minutes [;)] You know what is nice to do as well? Film instead of taking photos only...I did it in my backyard and am very pleased with the result. Keeps you busy in an other way for a while [Y]


Good luck! Jan

Oh by the way Denise I forgot an important fact. When you use your 300mm with 1.4x extender you've already got almost 500mm lens equivalent. And you can't put an extender between the Tamron and the camera I guess. At least it wouldn't autofocus at all.


So that being said, 1 things remains. Is it maybe the versatility of the zoom that you are missing?


More zoom than you've already got, you just can't get for your budget. And I doubt if a 600mm, 800mm or even 1200mm would make you more happy.


Sorry [A]

OK. thanks for the info Denise, that helps a lot :)


I suggest you don't buy the Tamron. your 300 f/4 with its 1.4x TC has many advantages:


1. AF at 420mm


2. f/5.6


3. possibility of using 300mm at f/4


4. IS


500mm on the Tamron is equivalent to 800mm f/10 on your 7D. And that's without IS. And wide open. That is just too slow for some people. Probably the largest downside of this lens is that you NEED to use a tripod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I am so glad you've had experience in using both the Tamron 500mm and the Canon 300mm and was able to fill me in on how bad the image quaity was for you when you used it. I assume you used a tripod with it also?

---

The IQ on a tripodwas not bad. But in less-than-perfect lighting situations or handheld, it doesn't matter what the IQ is if you're using 500mm f/6.3 without IS. It's an ordeal. Handheld, a good amount of images will be blurry. If don't mind lugging a ton of tripod around, this lens might be a good choice. But in the supertele/zoom category the new Sigma 50-500 is better simply due to OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Just remember, the problem *may not* be with the camera.

---

I didn't realize there was a "problem", please fill me in

---

Edit: there is no problem. Ignore that [:P]


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

For what? Is your 300 f/4 not long enough for
wildlife? I absolutely hate to say this, but there is a possibility that
you're just not close enough. That refers me to the Robert Capa quote
which states the same thing.

---

You know, it isn't unusual for a wildlife photographer to want reach. Sometimes one can't get as close as one wants to. Is there something wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

probably you're better of cropping your image taken with a 300mm prime than buying a lesser quality zoom.

---

Is that based on speculation or evidence? (I'm not attacking you: it's perfectly okay if it is speculation. But if it isn't, I would like to know what evidence you're basing this on.) It is rare for a lens that is that much longer to do worse than a cropped shorter one (that's speculation [:)]).


If the Tamron really is worse than a cropped 300mm f/4, then I agree that the 300mm f/4 is preferable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

You know, it isn't unusual for a wildlife photographer to want reach. Sometimes one can't get as close as one wants to. Is there something wrong with that?

---

I couldn't have said it better myself ...thank you very much! [:D]

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

You know, it isn't unusual for a wildlife photographer to want reach. Sometimes one can't get as close as one wants to. Is there something wrong with that?

---

Not at all! I want reach too. I am just suggesting that 500mm on the Tamron may be not all that ideal. Maybe I'm wrong, but Denise did ask for opinions.


brendan

Denise,


Bob Atkins has a very interesting review of this lens. See for your self


http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500.html


The biggest disadvantage is lack of IS, but as he is saying, if you are not going to make a living of it, if it´s just a hobby it is an affordable alternative.


A friend om mine bought the Sigma 150-500 OS (IS) version and he is very happy about it.





Johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Rasmussen

A friend om mine bought the Sigma 150-500 OS (IS) version and he is very happy about it.

---

I know a bunch of people who are very happy with their "bigmas". The 150-500 has longer reach and decent AF, the 120-400 has shorter focal length, but faster AF. They say the key for faster AF in the former lens is to use focus limiter on the lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Rasmussen

Bob Atkins has a very interesting review of this lens. See for your self


http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500.html


The biggest disadvantage is lack of IS, but as he is saying, if you are not going to make a living of it, if it´s just a hobby it is an affordable alternative.


A friend om mine bought the Sigma 150-500 OS (IS) version and he is very happy about it.

---

Thank you, Johnny! Your response has been very helpful!! I will check out the video and the Sigma lens and exactly, I do not plan on making a living at it or printing anything bigger than a 5 x 7 so I was just looking for something that was affordable that would give me that extra reach with "decent" results.

Thanks again,


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piiooo

I know a bunch of people who are very happy with their "bigmas". The 150-500 has longer reach and decent AF, the 120-400 has shorter focal length, but faster AF. They say the key for faster AF in the former lens is to use focus limiter on the lens.

---

Thank you so much for the info. I will be looking at a few of these alternatives suggested before I make a decision.

Thanks again,


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

probably you're better of cropping your image taken with a 300mm prime than buying a lesser quality zoom.

---

Is that based on speculation or evidence? (I'm not attacking you: it's perfectly okay if it is speculation. But if it isn't, I would like to know what evidence you're basing this on.) It is rare for a lens that is that much longer to do worse than a cropped shorter one (that's speculation [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]).


If the Tamron really is worse than a cropped 300mm f/4, then I agree that the 300mm f/4 is preferable.

---

No sorry Jon, it's only speculations [:P] I already said that I don't have/had the 300mm nor the 200-500mm.


But then again I'm talking about reach in a prime. Maybe she just wants to zoom in and out. I don't know. But in my mind, if she needs the lens mostly to use at 500mm, my speculation is that she's better of cropping a picture taken with her 300mm(even with or without extender). Since she only plans on maximum printsizes of 5*7 I don't see any other problem than lack of zoom. Hope it's clearer now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

No sorry Jon, it's only speculations [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img] I already said that I don't have/had the 300mm nor the 200-500mm.


But then again I'm talking about reach in a prime. Maybe she just wants to zoom in and out. I don't know. But in my mind, if she needs the lens mostly to use at 500mm, my speculation is that she's better of cropping a picture taken with her 300mm(even with or without extender). Since she only plans on maximum printsizes of 5*7 I don't see any other problem than lack of zoom. Hope it's clearer now.

---

No problem, Jan. I agree the 100-400 would be a superb choice for the extra $$$ but I was not wanting to spend that much on a lens (now or later). I read even more owner reviews of both the Tamron and both similarSigma lens and the Tamron owners seemed very pleased with their results. I also did a search on Tamron 200-500 vs. Sigma 150-500mm and the Tamron came out ahead in all the articles I read. Only downfall, no image stabilization but that would force me to use the tripod I spent $ on.

In the end, I'm still debating but everyone's comments have been extremely helpful.


Thanks much!


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I agree the 100-400 would be a superb choice for the extra $$

---

You could sell your 300mm if your not content with it and buy a 100-400 [:P]


No the point is that I don't know how good/bad the Tamron is. I only have had 1 Tamron lens, the 17-50 2.8, which had stunningly image quality for a bargain price, but it was an f2.8 lens and not a minimum f6.3 You need a lot of light and a steady tripod if you want to make use of it.


Your 300mm with 1.4x extender = 420mm at f5.6 with IS versus 500mm f6.3 without IS.... So no necessary need for a tripod although it would be welcome in a few circumstances. But for wildlife which doesn't really sit still for long times I think it should do the trick.


By the way check out this focal length comparison and judge for yourself:http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php


Do you think the difference from 420mm to 500mm is a big issue? Again you've got like 18mp camera so you could crop a lot and still gain very nice 5*7 prints. Just a thought. Personally and then I'm very honest: I think you need a little bit more practice with your gear or buy a zoom instead of the primes if the primes aren't good for you... I know I'm a Zoom-lover...


It remains Zoom vs Prime though...


Jan


Edit: Have you seen this? Maybe it helps a bit.


http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/


http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/296-tamron-af-200-500mm-f5-63-di-ld-if-sp-lab-test-report--review


http://www.photodo.com/topic_49.html

I had one, and found it difficult to use, it is very long and requires a very sturdy tripod or fast shutter speeds. I had no problem autofocusing with my Canon 40d, even in low light.


The lens is not the sharpest there is, the Canon 400mm F:5.6 L makes it look a little fuzzy. Consider the Canon 100-400mm L is a alternative if you want zoom.