• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

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

I don't follow the Nikon lens lineup, but am surprised that they don't have an equivalent to the Canon 400 f5.6.

The Nikon 80-400 zoom would probably be better than the Tamron 200-500 for BIF's. ???
 
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.

The first two shots (swallow and swift) have a lit up bird against a dark background, which looks like, to me, that a flash has been used. Also, for such fine detail on a small bird, you'd need to be very close. The bird would only be in frame for a fraction of a second.
 
I don't follow the Nikon lens lineup, but am surprised that they don't have an equivalent to the Canon 400 f5.6.

The Nikon 80-400 zoom would probably be better than the Tamron 200-500 for BIF's. ???

The Nikon 80-400 zoom is quite an old lens, that doesn't use the AFS autofocus system, so it's quite slow, possibly moreso than the Tamron. It may be a tad sharper than the Tamron at 400, but it's not a lens that is known as ultra sharp. This is what I've heard, but I've never used one.,

The Nikon 200-400/4 is much better but it's a big heavy expensive lens, that really needs a tripod.

The Nikon 300/4 is definitely sharper than the Tamron (even with the 1.4 teleconverter), but that combination is pretty slow and problematic with autofocus. Also for most, twice as expensive.

The Nikon lineup does lack somewhat in this area, when compared to Canon. The Sigma telephoto zooms are another alternative.
 
I don't follow the Nikon lens lineup, but am surprised that they don't have an equivalent to the Canon 400 f5.6.

I think Nikon's view is that the 300 f/4 AF-S plus the TC14EII is just as good, more flexible ... and more expensive.
 
Last edited:
The first two shots (swallow and swift) have a lit up bird against a dark background, which looks like, to me, that a flash has been used. Also, for such fine detail on a small bird, you'd need to be very close. The bird would only be in frame for a fraction of a second.

The EXIF on the first shot shows no flash was used, shutter speed 1/1250 sec., and you do not get flash sync at that speed with the Canon 1DMk2N.

Exposure Time: 1/1250 sec
F-Number: f/5.6
Exposure Program: Manual
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Aperture: f/5.7
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Subject Distance: 0.00 m
Metering Mode: Spot
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 400.00 mm

The EXIF on the second shot shows the same, except for shutter speed of 1/3200 sec.

Exposure Time: 1/3200 sec
F-Number: f/5.6
Exposure Program: Manual
ISO Speed Rating: 400
Lens Aperture: f/5.7
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Subject Distance: 0.00 m
Metering Mode: Spot
Flash: No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length: 400.00 mm

The length of time the bird is in the frame has no bearing on the fine detail recorded at those shutter speeds.

It simply looks like sunlight on the subjects and a dark background. Nothing unusual about that. As for feather detail, that is what I would expect with that combo. An excellent camera/lens combo, along with an excellent BIF photographer.
 
Perhaps anyone thinking about the Tamron should also consider the Sigma 150-500mm.

As you can see at this link, ( http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=358&cpage=1&perpage=12&cat=37#poststart ) it gets mixed reviews and a number of people believe the later versions are sharper. It weighs more and costs more than the Tamron. For static shots, having the OS is certainly a major advantage over the Tamron, especially for those living in areas with less lighting than our southern neighbours.

Here are some sample shots (not mine) taken with a Nikon and the Sigma 150-500mm. They certainly look better (to me) than any of the Tamron shots posted on this thread.

Samples Photos taken with a Canon XTi and Nikon D300

Samples taken by someone who also owns the Tamron:

http://www.pbase.com/eastkent64/sigma_150500mm
 
Perhaps anyone thinking about the Tamron should also consider the Sigma 150-500mm.

I thought that is what I suggested on page 1. :)

This thread seems to have got bogged down but it seems to me...

The Tamron AF is slow. A very good photographer might be able to get good shots of BIF with it but that doesn't change the fact that it is slow.

The Sigma 150-500 AF is much faster. And probably nearly every other lens discussed here is faster too. For the average photogrpaher this has to be an advantage over the Tamron for BIF (which was the original topic).

The Tamron and the Sigma in the hands of the average photographer (like what I am) are very similar in IQ for static subjects when hand held in good light. In poor light the Sigma wins out because of the OS. In expert hands and/or usign a tripod the Tamron might just win out on IQ - but that's not how I take photos.

I tried several times to get pictures of puffins in flight with the Tamron and failed miserably every time. This was the best I got out of about 600 frames http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/2665707966/ . This year I tried with the Sigma and I got more reasonable shots - the hit rate was a lot higher. This one was the best http://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-photos/4824489466/ . Now neither is going to get into Birds Magazine or win any competitions but I think the one with the Sigma was easier to obtain and is slightly better quality.

Bottom line is BIF are, as discussed above, very hard to catch and neither of these lenses is perfect, but if you have to choose go for the Sigma.
 
There are too many variables involved to make blanket statements, which is why I just find offering up each person's experience and stating all conditions involved is best in allowing the original poster to make a decision. To say the lens is 'terrible' is as egregious as saying it's 'perfect'...neither is correct. As to how capable it may or may not be, or how fast or slow, so many other variables have to be taken into consideration.

First, DSLR bodies range from slow autofocus to blindingly fast - so to say a lens is too slow doesn't take into account that different camera bodies have quicker focus motors than others. What might have been uselessly slow to focus on one camera might actually be significantly faster on another, and even capable of keeping up with tracking movement across the focus grid.

Light is most certainly a factor. In poor light, the Tamron is certainly not the lens to lust for - but some cameras can focus much better in poor light, and shoot cleanly at much higher ISOs than others, so what is 'usable' in a given light also depends on one's camera body, not just the lens. I didn't see the original post ask if the Tamron was better than the Sigma, or any other lens - it seemed to just be asking if bird-in-flight shots were possible with the Tamron. One must consider those variables, and then take the user comments offered here into consideration, to help decide if your own camera, and the conditions under which you will likely be shooting, as well as the subjects you intend to shoot in flight, will be handled acceptably by the Tamron, or if you need to consider a much faster, much more expensive lens to arrive at your goals.

As for my experience, I disclosed all the reasons the Tamron works very well for me with birds-in-flight...in order to not deceive the original poster. I live in Florida - good light is in abundance. A majority of the birds I like to capture in flight are typically larger than a golf ball - some quite large indeed. My camera body has a very fast focus motor that has no problems spinning the big Tammy lens and keeping focus on moving targets - even those moving towards me. My camera body has stabilization, so in effect the Tamron lens is stabilized for me, which equalizes it well against the Sigma, and allowing me to shoot handheld and with moving or skittish targets.

How much skill a given photographer has is certainly something to consider - amateur vs professional photographers can get wildly different results - and there are many levels of skill within the definition of 'amateur'. And how one intends to use the photographs also matters - the rather raw and harsh criticism above of some of the photos might be apropos coming from a professional photographer who must meet publication standards with their shots, talking down to another aspirational professional photographer trying to get published. But if the person is just looking for photographs to document their sightings, make small prints, and share with friends or enthusiast boards, then the criticism above to me was off-base, and unkind, and certainly undeserved. And the recommendations of this lens should take those factors into consideration as well. Likely noone referencing the 200-500 lens in good light is trying to recommend this lens as the best birding lens on the market and the choice to make for becoming a resident bird-in-flight photographer for National Geographic...just that the original poster asked for anyone who has used this lens to offer up their experience and opinion. Those that found it unacceptable for bird-in-flight shots have offered their experiences, and those who found it acceptable for their use offered theirs. Neither side needs to start throwing around blanket statements as facts from upon high that the lens is excellent or terrible. Let the original poster decide whether the lens meets his needs or not...that's all.
 
Well said Justin! you have made some very sane and valid points.
I very much agree that some cameras will handle things better than others and therefore make a substantial difference to the outcome of Bif shots...especially when in the hands of a photographer who is well practised in the art of capturing such images.

I believe that i have...in the Nikon D300,the "tool" to help me on my way...now if i can just decide on which lens to go for,i can get some serious practise in myself...and start achieving good results,similar to the ones i have seen from some of you guys on the forum.

Regards, Phil.
 
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. [...]

Owning both the lenses you mentioned, I agree with you in that the 400/5.6 might be the best lens for BIF shots (although not an option for Nikon users)

but

since the thread owner (Fender) says he
obviously don't want to get an unsuitable lens...money is tight and the Tamron fits my budget well
the Tamron lens might be the best choice for him. For the money you pay for the Tamron you get a decent and flexible birding lens, capable to take BIF-shots, too. There are limits (aperture, AF-speed, lack of IS) but on the whole you have to pay much more for a significant step up (even more when you consider buying 2nd hand!). Moreover for AF-speed for example your camera body is an important factor, too (and e.g. if you own a Pentax you will have IS!). And not least there is a learning curve: if you practice, know your lens and its limits you can get really good shots (as DOC shows us impressively :t:). Sometimes good technique is far more important than good technology. ;)
 
I have this lens ,,, its the only non-Nikon glass I own . I would give it a 7 on the ten scale .

While comparing it to some primes or Nikon lenses costing the price of a small car ,is unfair . We see by other posts its technique and exploiting the strengths of any lens that delivers a good image . That being said I equate long lenses to cut lumber ,in a stack a 20 not all will be as straight or true as others .

With all the post processing , noise reduction , high ISO & FPS , sharpening . There is no excuse for any reasonably sharp lens not producing a nice image .
 
Hi All, been keeping an eye on this thread..thanks for all your input...very helpful advice and suggestions.

Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances i am having to put my lens purchase on hold for a while,but hope to go ahead before too long.Will post my chosen lens choice once the deal is done and then some photo's taken with it in due course.

Best regards and a happy new year to you all.

Phil.
 
IMO 500mm is milestone for long lenses. A Sigma 500 f4.5 is around 5 times the price of a 150-500mm.

As for Nikon users, a 300 f4 + a TC1.4x is better than a third party 500 zoom. But I guess the experience could be different from a 400mm to a 500mm range.

Tamron 200-500 is a lens with good IQ when light condition is good enough. While the Sigma 500 zooms (150-500 and 50-500) are better in AF due to the HSM feature. I think (from my own research) that I will prefer the new Sigma 50-500 OS over the 150-500 in terms of IQ.

And Tamron is good enough for static birds under good lighting, perhaps even better than the Sigma 500 zooms in terms of IQ.
 
IMO 500mm is milestone for long lenses. A Sigma 500 f4.5 is around 5 times the price of a 150-500mm.

As for Nikon users, a 300 f4 + a TC1.4x is better than a third party 500 zoom. But I guess the experience could be different from a 400mm to a 500mm range.

Tamron 200-500 is a lens with good IQ when light condition is good enough. While the Sigma 500 zooms (150-500 and 50-500) are better in AF due to the HSM feature. I think (from my own research) that I will prefer the new Sigma 50-500 OS over the 150-500 in terms of IQ.

And Tamron is good enough for static birds under good lighting, perhaps even better than the Sigma 500 zooms in terms of IQ.

Thanks for that Kenny..as yet still not made the purchase.

Phil.
 
Hello everyone,

Just thought i would announce that from today i am the proud owner of a new Nikon 300mm f/4 lens and 1.4 t.c..it sure was a long time coming!

Off to Slimbridge with wife and friends tomorrow,so should have plenty of opportunity to try out.

Thanks again to you all for your excellent input and suggestions.

Regards,

Phil.|=)|
 
Hello everyone,

Just thought i would announce that from today i am the proud owner of a new Nikon 300mm f/4 lens and 1.4 t.c..it sure was a long time coming!

Off to Slimbridge with wife and friends tomorrow,so should have plenty of opportunity to try out.

Thanks again to you all for your excellent input and suggestions.

Regards,

Phil.|=)|

Congrats! Post some pics please.

Thomas
 
Hi,

Had great day at Slimbridge yesterday,weather cloudy mild and mostly bright.Here are a few of my very first photo's...taken with my D300 and new 300mm f/4

I was impressed by it's smooth,quick autofocus and handling.

All photo's taken as j.pegs,unsharpened,some light cropping with slight auto contrast on the odd couple.

Phil.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_8915-1.JPG
    DSC_8915-1.JPG
    281.8 KB · Views: 94
  • DSC_9129-1.JPG
    DSC_9129-1.JPG
    388.4 KB · Views: 84
  • DSC_9065.JPG
    DSC_9065.JPG
    295 KB · Views: 81
A few more...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_8942.JPG
    DSC_8942.JPG
    372.1 KB · Views: 76
  • DSC_8959.JPG
    DSC_8959.JPG
    234 KB · Views: 79
  • DSC_8983.JPG
    DSC_8983.JPG
    202.6 KB · Views: 79
  • DSC_8995.JPG
    DSC_8995.JPG
    162.4 KB · Views: 75
  • DSC_8999.JPG
    DSC_8999.JPG
    160 KB · Views: 78
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top