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

Aegea · Sep 29, 2010

fender wrote:

i wouldn't rule out a prime,thanks for your suggestion...i had thought about it,but understand that i would need to get a better tripod collar(due to issues mentioned on this forum)

Strangely, the collar issue is only with the AF-S version of the 300/4. For reasons unknown, Nikon changed the design and botched it, because the AF version has a very solid collar. This site shows the difference between the two versions:

http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm

In the US, a good used 300/4 AF goes for $500 - $550, I don't know what the UK price would be. The Kenko converter is less than $200, so the whole package would be about $700 -$750. (The Kenko converter is needed because Nikon TC's don't have the capability to autofocus screw-drive lenses.)

fender · Sep 29, 2010

Aegea said:
fender wrote:

Strangely, the collar issue is only with the AF-S version of the 300/4. For reasons unknown, Nikon changed the design and botched it, because the AF version has a very solid collar. This site shows the difference between the two versions:

http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm

In the US, a good used 300/4 AF goes for $500 - $550, I don't know what the UK price would be. The Kenko converter is less than $200, so the whole package would be about $700 -$750. (The Kenko converter is needed because Nikon TC's don't have the capability to autofocus screw-drive lenses.)

Thanks for this information Aegea.I will have to check the prices here for both models..bet they are a lot more in "good old" UK though!

Don't suppose you happen to know what the cost(inc import duty) would be to have one shipped over to me here? also whether i would "lose-out" in terms of guarantee etc. Also i would be interested to know what the cost there is, for the Sigma 300mm 2.8 prime.

Best Regards, Phil.

DOC · Sep 29, 2010

There is nothing to compare between the 500 zooms ( Sigma / Tamron ) and the 300 F/4 Prime .
If you can afford the 300 F/4 - GO FOR IT ! It is the BEST value for money prime lens that offers outstanding results , has fast AF and is very light in weight .Takes a 1.4 Tc easilly .
One can argue about the desired reach , but with good technique ( hides etc )- you can get as close as needed to capture a shot ( even without Tc ) .
The image quality is far better than the Zooms above .

fender · Sep 29, 2010

DOC said:
There is nothing to compare between the 500 zooms ( Sigma / Tamron ) and the 300 F/4 Prime .
If you can afford the 300 F/4 - GO FOR IT ! It is the BEST value for money prime lens that offers outstanding results , has fast AF and is very light in weight .Takes a 1.4 Tc easilly .
One can argue about the desired reach , but with good technique ( hides etc )- you can get as close as needed to capture a shot ( even without Tc ) .
The image quality is far better than the Zooms above .

Hi Doc,

Thanks for the input...will have to see if i can stretch to that!

I agree with your comments on good technique,and the 1.4Tc .

Regards, Phil.

Aegea · Sep 30, 2010

fender said:
Don't suppose you happen to know what the cost(inc import duty) would be to have one shipped over to me here? also whether i would "lose-out" in terms of guarantee etc. Also i would be interested to know what the cost there is, for the Sigma 300mm 2.8 prime.

I'm sorry, I have no idea about UK customs duty. As far as guarantees go, you would be buying a used lens. Most reputable dealers have a no-questions return policy within 14 days or so.

If you want to pursue this, I'd suggest you contact KEH (www.keh.com) - I have bought several used items from them, and their descriptions are accurate, even conservative. They may be able to help about customs and shipping. I see they have five 300/4 AF lenses at present, prices from $429 to $569.

I just checked Amazon, and the Sigma 300/2.8 is around $3000 new. Ouch.

Cheers,

John

fender · Oct 1, 2010

Aegea said:
I'm sorry, I have no idea about UK customs duty. As far as guarantees go, you would be buying a used lens. Most reputable dealers have a no-questions return policy within 14 days or so.

If you want to pursue this, I'd suggest you contact KEH (www.keh.com) - I have bought several used items from them, and their descriptions are accurate, even conservative. They may be able to help about customs and shipping. I see they have five 300/4 AF lenses at present, prices from $429 to $569.

I just checked Amazon, and the Sigma 300/2.8 is around $3000 new. Ouch.

Cheers,

John

Hi John,

Many thanks for your help and link. Not bad price's. I was talking to a friend yesterday regarding importing from the USA as he has had some experience in this,i now think that by the time that our VAT & import duty is added to the cost,the price would probably be similar to here in the UK so will most likely get one here.

Regards, Phil.

Aegea · Oct 2, 2010

fender said:
Hi John,

... now think that by the time that our VAT & import duty is added to the cost,the price would probably be similar to here in the UK so will most likely get one here.

Regards, Phil.

Yes, I imagine that's right, not to mention the possible hassles with customs and shipping. I do think the 300/4 is the best way to go, and I hope it works out well for you.

Cheers,

John

fender · Oct 3, 2010

Aegea said:
Yes, I imagine that's right, not to mention the possible hassles with customs and shipping. I do think the 300/4 is the best way to go, and I hope it works out well for you.

Cheers,

John

Hi again John,

I am hoping to go 300 f4(if finances allow!)after doing more research,there is also another option...the 100-300 Sigma f4 EX DG with a 1.4 conv. this lens has cracking reviews and i think i may be able to get it for a bit less than the Nikon..it also would give me more photo options...the only other lenses i have are an 18-55mm nikonf3.5-5.6 and my current 70-300mm Apo f4-5.6

Regards, Phil.

fender · Oct 3, 2010

Another lens option?

Just thought of another possible option for a wildlife/walkaround lens thats not too costly....how about the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8EX DG Macro HSM11(approx £650)and a 2x teleconverter,maybe Sigma or Kenko?

Anyone got any thoughts on this combo?...compared to my last option of the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG.

Sorry if this thread is getting tedious..it's just that it will be a couple more weeks before i am able to buy and being on a tight budget i want to search all my best options and thereby get the right lens for my needs...just like to point out that good IQ/resolution are important to me.

Regards, Phil.

ammadoux · Oct 5, 2010

fender said:
Just thought of another possible option for a wildlife/walkaround lens thats not too costly....how about the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8EX DG Macro HSM11(approx £650)and a 2x teleconverter,maybe Sigma or Kenko?

Regards, Phil.

for me as an Olympus user and after i broke my bigma, it is what i am going to get, i already got the 20 TC, got no other choice, and as far i seen shots of this lens it seem to be a great combination, hopefully. i have bad experience with TC's.

Zackiedawg · Oct 5, 2010

I'm late to this thread, but since it's been continuing, I figured I'd add what experience I have. I've been using the Tamron 200-500 for about 3 years now, and use it fairly extensively for in-flight shots...I find it to be a very good lens for such, though like others you mentioned, I do have an advantage in South Florida of very bright and abundant light...and I also have the advantage of in-body stabilization though this doesn't really come into play for the in-flight shots. As mentioned, it's better stopped down, but still surprisingly capable wide-open, and also surprisingly good at full tele. I've compared it to the new issue Sigma 50-500 IS, and find them about equal - haven't really personally seen enough of a difference to justify the extra expense or weight.

I also shoot with a 300mm F4 prime...and this lens is sharper as to be expected, plus the extra aperture helps in lower light. But what you'd have to weigh is how much telephoto you need...would the extra sharpness of a 300mm prime be negated by the loss of 200mm of focal distance? Not if you only occasionally need the 500mm and most of your shots come in around the 300mm mark (as is my case, since birds in my area allow you to get quite close)...but the more you find yourself wishing for or using the 500mm end, the more it might be worth going with the longer lens. Or, go the TC route. In my experience, the 300mm with a 1.4X TC is not drastically better or worse than the Tamron 200-500...it's noticeably not as good as without the TC, and it has lost the aperture advantage...it comes out something of a draw for me - but the Tamron still wins in versatility (since you're not just stuck at 420mm) as well as size & weight...so I tend to just use the 300mm without TC when the shorter focal length is OK, or the Tamron for when I need the extra reach.

fender · Oct 6, 2010

Zackiedawg said:
I'm late to this thread, but since it's been continuing, I figured I'd add what experience I have. I've been using the Tamron 200-500 for about 3 years now, and use it fairly extensively for in-flight shots...I find it to be a very good lens for such, though like others you mentioned, I do have an advantage in South Florida of very bright and abundant light...and I also have the advantage of in-body stabilization though this doesn't really come into play for the in-flight shots. As mentioned, it's better stopped down, but still surprisingly capable wide-open, and also surprisingly good at full tele. I've compared it to the new issue Sigma 50-500 IS, and find them about equal - haven't really personally seen enough of a difference to justify the extra expense or weight.

I also shoot with a 300mm F4 prime...and this lens is sharper as to be expected, plus the extra aperture helps in lower light. But what you'd have to weigh is how much telephoto you need...would the extra sharpness of a 300mm prime be negated by the loss of 200mm of focal distance? Not if you only occasionally need the 500mm and most of your shots come in around the 300mm mark (as is my case, since birds in my area allow you to get quite close)...but the more you find yourself wishing for or using the 500mm end, the more it might be worth going with the longer lens. Or, go the TC route. In my experience, the 300mm with a 1.4X TC is not drastically better or worse than the Tamron 200-500...it's noticeably not as good as without the TC, and it has lost the aperture advantage...it comes out something of a draw for me - but the Tamron still wins in versatility (since you're not just stuck at 420mm) as well as size & weight...so I tend to just use the 300mm without TC when the shorter focal length is OK, or the Tamron for when I need the extra reach.

Hi Justin.

Many thanks for your input. Your experience in using both lenses and advice helps to clarify things for me. I do indeed find myself wishing for the extra reach much of the time and i take your point re; the extra sharpness of the 300 f4 prime v reach of 200-500, i guess that being able to fill the frame more with the Tamron would enable the camera to aquire a better quality image.

Now leaning more to my original choice of the Tamron 200-500mm!

Regards, Phil.

jfmgb777 · Oct 7, 2010

See the Equipment Review section for this lens.

I would really not recommend this lens for BIF. This was my first birding lens, and I found two major drawbacks with its performance for birds in flight.

(i) While it may perform well in somewhere bright and sunny like Israel, under British skies the combination of small maximum aperture (f6.3 at 400+ mm) and slow non-HSM autofocus made it well nigh impossible for me to get autofocus lock on a moving bird (even something large like a soaring buzzard). My lens would hunt repeatedly between minimum and maximum focal length without ever focusing on the target. To make matters worse, the manual focusing ring has a large rotation from minimum to infinity focus, which makes manual focusing
more cumbersome. [What you have to remember is that even at 500 mm and with 1.6 x crop factor, you are only getting the same magnification as a pair of 8 X binoculars. Imagine then that you have to keep a small red autofocusing mark right on the centre of a moving target not much bigger than the mark itself and you have some idea of how difficult it is. If the camera/lens combination then refuses to achieve focus lock quickly, your chances of getting a decent shot are minimal.]

(ii) The plastic hood that comes with the lens, while impressive to look at, is FAR too long, especially on a shoulder holder of some kind. Even on a sturdy tripod, if there was anything stronger than the gentlest breeze blowing, it used to cause serious camera shake.

If you could cope with the extra weight and bulk, I would recommend the non-OS version of the Sigma 50-500 mm (perhaps a used copy from a reputable dealer with a half-decent warranty?). I only parted with mine due to financial incompetence. The HSM autofocus motor is lightning-fast compared with the Tamron, the hood is much less of a weather vane, and it is almost as sharp as the Tamron in the 400-500 mm range - certainly if you stop down to f/8. Added to that, you have the extra versatility of the 10 X zoom range, which means you can use it for landscape photography, or even the odd portrait. Hope this is helpful.

fender · Oct 7, 2010

jfmgb777 said:
See the Equipment Review section for this lens.

I would really not recommend this lens for BIF. This was my first birding lens, and I found two major drawbacks with its performance for birds in flight.

(i) While it may perform well in somewhere bright and sunny like Israel, under British skies the combination of small maximum aperture (f6.3 at 400+ mm) and slow non-HSM autofocus made it well nigh impossible for me to get autofocus lock on a moving bird (even something large like a soaring buzzard). My lens would hunt repeatedly between minimum and maximum focal length without ever focusing on the target. To make matters worse, the manual focusing ring has a large rotation from minimum to infinity focus, which makes manual focusing
more cumbersome. [What you have to remember is that even at 500 mm and with 1.6 x crop factor, you are only getting the same magnification as a pair of 8 X binoculars. Imagine then that you have to keep a small red autofocusing mark right on the centre of a moving target not much bigger than the mark itself and you have some idea of how difficult it is. If the camera/lens combination then refuses to achieve focus lock quickly, your chances of getting a decent shot are minimal.]

(ii) The plastic hood that comes with the lens, while impressive to look at, is FAR too long, especially on a shoulder holder of some kind. Even on a sturdy tripod, if there was anything stronger than the gentlest breeze blowing, it used to cause serious camera shake.

If you could cope with the extra weight and bulk, I would recommend the non-OS version of the Sigma 50-500 mm (perhaps a used copy from a reputable dealer with a half-decent warranty?). I only parted with mine due to financial incompetence. The HSM autofocus motor is lightning-fast compared with the Tamron, the hood is much less of a weather vane, and it is almost as sharp as the Tamron in the 400-500 mm range - certainly if you stop down to f/8. Added to that, you have the extra versatility of the 10 X zoom range, which means you can use it for landscape photography, or even the odd portrait. Hope this is helpful.

Hi, thanks for your input...these are matters that i had not heard about before. Which camera were you using? I can use up to 51 AF points on my Nikon D300 which was the suggested setting from Doc,who has one and achieves good results with his Tamron 200-500. The lens hood problem could be an issue for me,has anyone else owning this lens found a remedy?

I will look into the Sigma 50-500mm as another option when the time comes,along with all the other suggested ones,but i am afraid that due to
unforeseen circumstances it now seems that i may have to delay my lens purchase for a while...in the meantime maybe Tamron will bring out a new 200-500mm with OS and an improved lens hood!...(Oh well i can dream can't i?)

Thanks everyone and best regards,

Phil.

Zackiedawg · Oct 7, 2010

I'll be honest - though the lens hood is long and quite large - it is extremely light - and I haven't had any issues holding it straight at 500mm on a distant target on extremely windy days. I don't use shoulder holders - I either walk my camera handheld, or mounted to a tripod which I use folded as a monopod...either way the lens hood hasn't gotten in the way and is so extremely light as to not give me any issues just keeping it on all the time. Also, no problems with AF for me - though my camera is one of the current models of faster AF cameras, and it tends to lock quite reliably on moving targets - though as I added in caveat initially, I do live in a land of abundant sunshine and am not often challenged with dim light during the day. Of course the bigger birds are easier...even small birds I haven't really found to be an issue, with quick AF lock, good tracking, and very rarely will the big lens hunt around, which only happens if I do miss focus. a few quickie examples of in-flight shots with my Tamron 200-500, if it helps...

Small or distant birds:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/125093039/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/125093037/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/125093023/original

Larger or closer birds:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124837979/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124837956/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124837949/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124837942/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124198985/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/123417378/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/123417340/original

Tracking focus, with birds approaching nearer or farther my position:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124198989/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/124198987/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/123121853/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/123121839/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/122926904/original

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/image/122926998/original

Hope I'm not overwhelming the thread - I just wanted to offer some examples since you are considering the lens. I do so with all possible caveats - indeed, I have very good light here, I am not the world's premier in-flight photographer by any means, I do have in-body stabilization which helps with this lens in some scenarios (though in-flight shouldn't make much of a difference), and my camera's performance could be entirely different from another.

I will agree on the manual focus comment - it isn't what I'd even much consider as a lens to use for manual focus, at least not on the fly. It can be done with a stubborn subject in low light where focus accuracy is needed, and you've got the time to bang it out...but for focusing on the fly, it's a cumbersome reach and lots of turns, so not very convenient. I pretty much rely exclusively on AF with this lens.

fender · Oct 7, 2010

Wow! some terrific photo's there Justin...many thanks for the various scenario's.Very sharp and good depth of field in all the images.
I have now done a lot of research and have read many conflicting viewpoints, but in my opinion the Tamron 200-500 is one hell of a good lens for the money and when used in the right hands, with a capable camera,the images produced are second to none as both yours and Doc's photo's prove. I for one,would be very proud if i could get similar results myself.

Best Regards, Phil.

kilianwasmer · Oct 11, 2010

fender said:
I had also considered the Sigma 300mm prime...but even secondhand i don't think that it will be in my budget,especially when adding a converter to bring the reach nearer to 500mm

I've been using the 200-500 for a while. It's a great lens and the best you can get for (at least) the price you pay for it! My sample is quite sharp up to 450mm without any stopping down.

But for birds in flight the AF is quite slow - at least on my Canon 400D.

If you can wait and save more money, go for a 2nd hand 400/5.6, 300/4.0 or 100-400 (all have their special [dis]advantages). You won't regret it! Since I got my 400/5.6 I've never used the Tamron again...

If you don't care for BIF too much and you are willing to use a monopod sometimes, go for the Tamron! Also consider buying a 2nd hand one - they can be a bargain.

fender · Oct 11, 2010

kilianwasmer said:
I've been using the 200-500 for a while. It's a great lens and the best you can get for (at least) the price you pay for it! My sample is quite sharp up to 450mm without any stopping down.

But for birds in flight the AF is quite slow - at least on my Canon 400D.

If you can wait and save more money, go for a 2nd hand 400/5.6, 300/4.0 or 100-400 (all have their special [dis]advantages). You won't regret it! Since I got my 400/5.6 I've never used the Tamron again...

If you don't care for BIF too much and you are willing to use a monopod sometimes, go for the Tamron! Also consider buying a 2nd hand one - they can be a bargain.

Hi, thanks for the input and suggestions. Need to wait a while anyway now...but have more or less decided to go for either a Sigma 100-300f4 and t.c. or a Nikon 300mm f4 prime and t.c. Will check-out your other options though! I am very interested in bif shots and hope that my options would increase my chances of getting some good results.

Regards, Phil.

kilianwasmer · Oct 13, 2010

fender said:
Hi, thanks for the input and suggestions. Need to wait a while anyway now...but have more or less decided to go for either a Sigma 100-300f4 and t.c. or a Nikon 300mm f4 prime and t.c. Will check-out your other options though! I am very interested in bif shots and hope that my options would increase my chances of getting some good results.

Regards, Phil.

Sorry; if you're a Nikon user, the (Canon) lenses I've mentioned will not be options for you. I don't know Nikon's 300/4 but if its IQ is as good as the Canon's and if it's got IS then I would go for it.

fender · Oct 13, 2010

kilianwasmer said:
Sorry; if you're a Nikon user, the (Canon) lenses I've mentioned will not be options for you. I don't know Nikon's 300/4 but if its IQ is as good as the Canon's and if it's got IS then I would go for it.

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.

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

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered doux

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

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