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

[ddt0725]

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

[Brendan7]

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

[ddt0725]

Why do you want this lens?

Basically, more reach.

[Fast Glass]

Basically, more reach.

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


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


John.

[ddt0725]

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! []

Denise

[Brendan7]

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

[ddt0725]

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.

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

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

Denise

[Sheiky]

Hey Denise,

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.

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

[Brendan7]

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.

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.

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

[Johnny Rasmussen]

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