Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 (1 Viewer)

advid · May 21, 2006

...anyone on here using this lens...Any comments ??

Compare with sigma 50-500 or Sigma 170-500 ???

Stuart R · May 22, 2006

Tamron 200-500

advid said:
...anyone on here using this lens...Any comments ??

Compare with sigma 50-500 or Sigma 170-500 ???

Hi

See the Thread a couple below this one "Yet another 'which lens' question!
"
Lots of people use the Big T and get very good results, including me. Hope this helps

Cheers

Stuart R

rezMole · May 22, 2006

I use it. A fine lens - obviously nowhere near the quality of a good Nikon or Canon, but great value for the price. I went with this over the Sigma cos it's a lot lighter. Quality wise, i would doubt there would be much in it. Most of the pics in my gallery were taken with this lens - and if you look around the galleries, you'll find some much better than mine (see DOC's pictures!)

gmax · May 23, 2006

rezMole said:
I use it. A fine lens - obviously nowhere near the quality of a good Nikon or Canon, but great value for the price. I went with this over the Sigma cos it's a lot lighter. Quality wise, i would doubt there would be much in it.

I agree .. if you learn how to get the best out of it (and I'm still doing it ...), it is a great lens, light, and quite fast .. check some previous threads, where I've been given a good amount of important and useful info!

rezMole said:
Most of the pics in my gallery were taken with this lens - and if you look around the galleries, you'll find some much better than mine (see DOC's pictures!)

I'm not one of those ... yet!

But something acceptable is slowly coming to light ... I'm very satisfied with this lens!
Max

Hottentot · May 24, 2006

Been using one for a couple of months now on a EOS 350D as an all purpose wildlife lens. As a keen birdwatcher most of my photographs are of birds either for the record or for printing.

Reasonable size and weight makes it very good for wearing it around your neck on walks and using on opportunity shots.
Needs good sunlight for really sharp photos (about F10 and a tripod is ideal).
Minimum focus distance of about 8 feet is a limitation for small reptiles, flowers and butterflies.
Overall its a good value for money lens that suits most of my requirements (the main one of which is carrying a camera on 4-5 mile walks).

Doctorwhodini · Oct 19, 2006

I'm currently thinking of buying this lens myself. I've noticed in the thread "Tamron 200-500mm technical advice needed" some shots of a Kingfisher with a white halo around the bird, usually when it's against a light background. It seems to be quite noticeable. Is this a problem with chromatic abberation with the 200-500, and has anyone noticed it as a problem with their lens?

rezMole · Oct 19, 2006

Doctorwhodini said:
I'm currently thinking of buying this lens myself. I've noticed in the thread "Tamron 200-500mm technical advice needed" some shots of a Kingfisher with a white halo around the bird, usually when it's against a light background. It seems to be quite noticeable. Is this a problem with chromatic abberation with the 200-500, and has anyone noticed it as a problem with their lens?

I have noticed it slightly, but only in "difficult" situations. My old Nikon 70-300mm lens was far worse! The only time i have had a problem is with little egrets against a dark background - never with darker birds against a light background.

Still - bearing in mind that this is a £700 lens and not a £2000+ lens, i don't think you can really grumble.

whomes · Oct 19, 2006

Got one today and off to Titchwell at weekend. We'll see, if I can take half decent photos with it anyone can!

Pray for sunshine!

Doctorwhodini · Oct 21, 2006

Thanks for the information, rezmole. Perhaps the shots of the kinfisher with the halos had been over-photoshopped rather than it being a problem with the lens. I'd be interested to hear from other Tamron 200-500mm users to find out whether anyone else considers it to be a problem or not.

KC Foggin · Oct 22, 2006

Well, this was only my second day out with the new Tamron, but I am excited with the possibilities.

whomes · Oct 22, 2006

Spent the last day at Titchwell and undoubtedly it's a great lens. I got my SLR 5 weeks ago, teleconverter 1 week ago (to go with 75-300) and Tamron 200-500 3 days ago.

Big mistake - should learn about photography and your camera before getting decent lenses! However, after reviewing what I've taken over the last day or so I am finally learning the best setings for different conditions, and can only improve.

Titchwell was great by the way, probably not much for you experienced twitchers, but I saw a cormorant and egret for the first time, and that'll do me!

http://www.philwhomes.com/2.html

DOC · Oct 22, 2006

I would regard myself as a "Big T" veteran - now almost a year & a half of using the lens - with about 30,000 shots ( on my faithfull D70 ) . I shoot almost exclusively at the long 500 range and i cannot remember when the lens has left my camera .....
I've written my opinion a few times in different threads- so i'll add from my experience:
I find it to be a great lens for the money ( just like Rezmole said ), with a tremendous advantage of weight : It is easily hand - held .
I have had the Sigma 170-500 and i find the Tamron far better in all parameters.
Like all other long lenses - it loves good lighting conditions but there's no problem shooting in low light . ( the lens tends to " hunt " in low light ) .

As for the Halo seen in the above mentioned photographs : as far as i can assume - the halo is a result of quite a bit post-processing of "Shadow\ Highlight " + over sharpening . You do not get such halos from the lens . ( i've never encountered this ) .Futhermore - there's almost no CA .

The lens is VERY sharp and to my personall opinion - it performs best at
F\8 , - with very good results at F\7.1 ---> F\9,10
It is not a fast lens but with practice - you can manage very accurate and split second shots like this :
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/89336/sort/1/cat/500/page/3

MY GALLERY shows the results.

I hope i've been of some help .

Here's a result of shooting in harsh lighting + very good sunlight :
The spurs -no sun at all ,and the kingfisher - shot at dusk
The White throated: shot with very good sunlight.

helzayat · Nov 9, 2006

Tamron 200-500 + TC

Has anyone any experience with the Tamron 200-500mm + teleconverter? If so which ones seem to work best?

KC Foggin · Nov 9, 2006

Hi helzayat. I see this is your first post so a warm welcome to you from those of us on staff here at BirdForum :t:

Haven't tried a converter on mine yet but I'm sure there are a lot who have.

Rob Chace · Nov 9, 2006

helzayat said:
Has anyone any experience with the Tamron 200-500mm + teleconverter? If so which ones seem to work best?

Hi there,
I have used this lens on a D70 with a Kenko 1.4x converter. It does work, but you need good light to stop it hunting. Alternatively, use manual focus. The following Barn owl http://www.photoportfolios.net/port...p&st=1&la=65&ph=6&sid=2152&pi=ROBCHACE&u=2152 was taken one evening at dusk when i forgot it was on the lens. Yes the shutter speed was slow, but as long as your technique is good & you understand the limitations of this set up, you can on occasion get away with it!
Regards Rob.

helzayat · Nov 14, 2006

Thanks KC for the welcome, this is my first time back since posting.
Rob, thank you for sharing your experience. It's the owl in flight that you took with the 200-500 + 1.4 TC, right?
Tamron seem to be saying not to use their PRO teleconverters but that the regular ones are OK. Any others with experience?

DOC · Nov 15, 2006

Prior to purchasing my lens - I asked around about TC's with the Tamron 200-500 .
I got a no-no every where i asked . Tamron company do not reccomend using any TC with this lens.
I went to B&H - they also do not reccomend using a TC .
I suupose that you loose to much with a TC on such zoom-tele lens .
The 200-500 is a great lens which performs BEST as is, without any supplements.
I think that gaining the extra reach needed ( if needed ), is best done with a good hide and a lot of patience. ( The birds will eventually come near enough ) .

BUT -when having a prime lens ( 500, 600 , 200-400VR,etc ) - i would not hesitate for 1 second , and use a TC anytime.

helzayat · Nov 15, 2006

Thank you Doc for your advice. I have a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR that I use with a TC sometimes, and have been pleased with the results, but it is f/2.8 not 5-6.3. You are probably right about not using a TC with the Tamron.

westi · Nov 23, 2006

I've been delighted with my Tamron 200-500 which I've had for just over a year, but unfortunately its away being repaired at the moment. (Wouldn't focus, manual or AF, at anything less than 500mm.) I know it is not knock damage as I treat light my first born.
Not an expensive repair, but I am without it for 3/4 weeks which is a pain.
Has anyone else seen mechanical problems, or have I just been unlucky.
BR
Ian

rezMole · Nov 23, 2006

Had no problems with mine, which i've had for nearly 2 years now.

Tamron 200-500mm f5-6.3 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sontium Dweller

Fig

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Very, very long time member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

New member

Very, very long time member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread