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

[Jon Ruyle]

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?

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.

[ddt0725]

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! []

Denise

[Brendan7]

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

[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

[piiooo]

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.

[ddt0725]

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

[ddt0725]

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

[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.

[ddt0725]

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

[Sheiky]

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