Tamron 200-500mm for Bif shots (1 Viewer)

flanken · Oct 14, 2010

fender said:
Hi, that's ok,i should have realized that you meant Canon. I am indeed a Nikon user(D300) The Nikon 300 f4 does not have IS as far as i am aware,but it gets great reviews and it's IQ potential seems to be beyond question in all of the research i have done so far.

Regards, Phil.

I use the Nikon 300 f/4 with a D90, and can vouch for its excellent IQ. It's also pretty good with the Nikon TC-14E teleconverter. Would be nice if it had VR but since I use it mostly in decent light it isn't a deal-breaker. I would be interested to know if anyone has actually compared the 300 f/4 with the TC-14 or TC-17 side-by-side with the Tamron 200-500mm.

fender · Oct 14, 2010

flanken said:
I use the Nikon 300 f/4 with a D90, and can vouch for its excellent IQ. It's also pretty good with the Nikon TC-14E teleconverter. Would be nice if it had VR but since I use it mostly in decent light it isn't a deal-breaker. I would be interested to know if anyone has actually compared the 300 f/4 with the TC-14 or TC-17 side-by-side with the Tamron 200-500mm.

Hi, thanks for that. I too would be interested in that comparison...hope someone out there has the answer!

Regards, Phil.

imagemaster · Nov 9, 2010

The Tamron 200-500 is terrible for BIF. A telephoto lens that does not have a focus-limiter is just plain stupid and seriously slows down AF.

You get what you pay for. It will produce good results at 500mm in good light with non-moving subjects.

A 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC simply does not equal 500mm. And a 300 f4 with a 2x TC is simply worse than the 200-500 at 500mm.

For the price and for shooting static subjects in good light, it is a great buy. For anything else, it is thumbs down.

fender · Nov 10, 2010

imagemaster said:
The Tamron 200-500 is terrible for BIF. A telephoto lens that does not have a focus-limiter is just plain stupid and seriously slows down AF.

You get what you pay for. It will produce good results at 500mm in good light with non-moving subjects.

A 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC simply does not equal 500mm. And a 300 f4 with a 2x TC is simply worse than the 200-500 at 500mm.

For the price and for shooting static subjects in good light, it is a great buy. For anything else, it is thumbs down.

Hi, Thanks for your input...i feel that there are some Tamron 200-500mm users out-there who would not totally agree with all your comments though!

I do realize that a 300 f4 with a 1.4x tc would not equal 500mm,but according to reviews i have seen,it would make for a good "walk around" combo that's capable of delivering great IQ...it was put to me as another option to consider and i understand the effect that a 2x tc can have on IQ.

I would love to have a 500mm prime, but just don't have those kind of funds unfortunately!

There may be a possibility of my finding a second-hand Sigma 300mm f2.8 prime within my budget in the future if i'm lucky! heavy i know...but i believe that it is capable of delivering great images with tc's..even a 2x according to some past reviews.

Regards, Phil.

DOC · Nov 11, 2010

imagemaster said:
The Tamron 200-500 is terrible for BIF. A telephoto lens that does not have a focus-limiter is just plain stupid and seriously slows down AF.
. For anything else, it is thumbs down.

I have to totally disagree with you .
I hope you can back-up your outstanding statement.
No one says that the Tamron 200-500 is best for BIF shots, but it's certainly not terrible .
Experience, knowing the lens, plus photographer's capabilities will get you very nice BIF shots.
Technical issues such as focus limiter are just a cover up for the photographer's abilities .
Here are some "terrible " BIF shots taken with the Tamron:

Zackiedawg · Nov 11, 2010

I have to side with Doc as well - my previous BIF samples were posted from the Tamron 200-500, and though I wouldn't label it the 'best' BIF lens, I also wouldn't label it 'terrible'. It is in fact plenty good and capable in the right hands and much depends on the camera body it is paired with. Some cameras with slower focus motors may have some troubles tracking, but many modern cameras with their fast focus systems can crank the big Tammy just fine. The point on the focus limiter is a fair one - it certainly would be a nice addition and does make life a little easier on long lenses such as this, but that just makes the difference between it being a good lens instead of a great lens for BIF. Bad or terrible are simply not true.

fender · Nov 11, 2010

Nice one Doc!
I just knew that someone..and in all probability you(having myself seen your excellent gallery) would prove imagemaster wrong.

Regards, Phil.

imagemaster · Nov 12, 2010

compared to what?

Compared to lenses such as Canon 300 f4 or f2.8, Canon 400 f5.6, Canon 500 f4, etc., the Tamron 200-500 is terrible for BIF. Some of the examples posted from the Tamron are quite soft. Even my Canon 100-400 was better at BIF than the Tamron.

By not having a focus-limiter, the Tamron will cause you to miss many shots simply because the lens will revert back to the minimum-focusing distance before extending out to the focus distance of the BIF. During that wasted time, you miss many shots regardless of how good a photographer you are. So if you have the choice, what is the sense of buying such a lens, unless it is the cost factor?

Many of the best BIF shots I ever see are posted on the Fred Miranda site, and you will rarely, if ever, see any that have been taken with the Tamron.

So, compared to most of the BIF shots I see posted on Fred Miranda, those taken with the Tamron are not as good.

e.g.:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/952241

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/948056

So, prove me wrong, and post some shots taken with the Tamron, of fast, erratic-flying, small birds such as are shown in the second link above.

imagemaster · Nov 12, 2010

more please

DOC said:
I have to totally disagree with you .
I hope you can back-up your outstanding statement.
No one says that the Tamron 200-500 is best for BIF shots, but it's certainly not terrible .
Experience, knowing the lens, plus photographer's capabilities will get you very nice BIF shots.
Technical issues such as focus limiter are just a cover up for the photographer's abilities .
Here are some "terrible " BIF shots taken with the Tamron:

Now show me some shots you have taken of small birds in full flight, in poor light, and with busy backgrounds.

DOC · Nov 12, 2010

imagemaster said:
Now show me some shots you have taken of small birds in full flight, in poor light, and with busy backgrounds.

I never said i shoot in poor light . Knowing your len's drawbacks - prevents you from getting frustrating results .
You never mentioned busy backgrounds or poor light . You just stated that BIF with Tamron is terrible . On that I have to disagree.
I will add That the Tamron has a lot of limitations , and it all ends up with what your needs are .
And just for the record : Here are a few examples of fast birds in flight .
( ever tried shooting a kingfisher or swallow in flight ? )

imagemaster · Nov 12, 2010

Well the swallow shots are not too impressive, and a Kingfisher hovering is hardly the same as a Kingfisher in full flight.

Helios · Nov 12, 2010

I found the Tamron pretty good at autofocus. Infact it was less problematic than the Nikon 300/4 with the 1.4 teleconverter combination. But I think the Nikon 300/4 is definitely sharper.

Helios · Nov 12, 2010

I find Swallows even more difficult than swifts, and for me I find it impossible to photograph any small bird going at full pelt (and I have a D3 and a 500/4). I use tricks like shooting when a bird is looking to land, or photographing swifts as they bank in the wind, etc.

DOC · Nov 13, 2010

imagemaster said:
Well the swallow shots are not too impressive, and a Kingfisher hovering is hardly the same as a Kingfisher in full flight.

Thats what I said - it all depends on what you aim for .
I don't shoot to impress someone , I shoot for my enjoyment .
(I wish I owned Nikon D3s + 400/2.8 |8)|)
Because of the Tamron's slow focus and hunting tendency -When shooting BIF - I usually try to shoot in good light and medium sized birds .
I know that a small hummingbird is almost impossible to catch . But I still try ....
As for medium sized birds or larger -bif is quite easy .
For static birds of any size - The Tamron is a killer . Even in low light .
I don't realy see so many BIF shots of tiny birds - even from the best bird photographers on the net .
BIF is a very challenging effort , and the Tamron was never meant for that .
That's why it's a cheap lens , and you get what you pay for .
I try to maximize what I have .

Now, after all your critiques and knowledge - why don't you show us some BIF shots that you took of small birds in low light, with busy BG ?

tjsimonsen · Nov 13, 2010

imagemaster said:
Now show me some shots you have taken of small birds in full flight, in poor light, and with busy backgrounds.

Show me yours.
It seems to me that there's no grey-zone between terrible and excellent in your vocabulary.

Sorry mate, DOC is obviously an excellent photographer, but he would not have been able to take those pics with a terrible lens.

Thomas

imagemaster · Nov 13, 2010

DOC said:
I don't realy see so many BIF shots of tiny birds - even from the best bird photographers on the net .
BIF is a very challenging effort , and the Tamron was never meant for that .

So why is it being recommended to the OP for BIF shots? For a start, any 500mm lens is not great for fast-flying, smaller birds. The best choice for these type of birds is the Canon 400 f5.6. That is just not my opinion. It is sharper, has faster AF, and is much easier to maneuver than the Tamron.

Pretty well all the images below show more feather detail than your shots with the Tamron.
Your shots appear to be over-sharpened, showing sharp edges, but little feather detail.

Now, after all your critiques and knowledge - why don't you show us some BIF shots that you took of small birds in low light, with busy BG ?

imagemaster · Nov 13, 2010

tjsimonsen said:
Show me yours.
It seems to me that there's no grey-zone between terrible and excellent in your vocabulary.

Sorry mate, DOC is obviously an excellent photographer, but he would not have been able to take those pics with a terrible lens.

Thomas

Sure there is, it is average. I consider my 100-400 to be average for BIF shots. I consider the Tamron 500 to be less than average. Does that sound better than terrible?

Average BIF shots with an average lens for BIF's:

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/04346-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/09212-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/11786-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/18669-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/10-06-13---19252-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/20077-.jpg

Helios · Nov 13, 2010

Some of the first set of shots look like they were taken using a remote setup. If that's the case then it's a bit misleading posting them as examples.

tjsimonsen · Nov 13, 2010

imagemaster said:
Sure there is, it is average. I consider my 100-400 to be average for BIF shots. I consider the Tamron 500 to be less than average. Does that sound better than terrible?

Average BIF shots with an average lens for BIF's:

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/04346-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/09212-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/11786-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/18669-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/10-06-13---19252-.jpg

http://hotimg23.fotki.com/p/a/70_67/245_35/20077-.jpg

These shots are great IMO. And yes, less than average sounds better than terrible to me. My old cast-iron Vivitar 400/5.6 MF was horrible for BIFs.

The reason we are discussing the Tamron 200-500 for BIFs is that the OP asked specifically about that lens. And DOC demonstrated that good BIFs are possible with it. I don't think that anyone would argue that Canon's 400/5.6L isn't superior though. But that's irrelevant for the OP since he uses Nikon, and Nikon doesn't have a 400/5.6 in their lineup.

Thomas

imagemaster · Nov 13, 2010

Helios said:
Some of the first set of shots look like they were taken using a remote setup. If that's the case then it's a bit misleading posting them as examples.

Well, if you can show that he uses a remote setup, then please do.

As far as I know he just shoots handheld using a Bush Hawk shoulder support.

Tamron 200-500mm for Bif shots (1 Viewer)

C-GU11

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread