Reading mode: Light Dark

Images from Tamron 200-500mm

Go to last post
shotgunRed said:
I have cropped it and made it smaller for the web but this is the
Tamron 200 -500 hand held.
Click to expand...
Is that a 100% crop, if so it's definitely good.
shotgunRed said:
I have used my buddies Sigma before I bought my lens. I personally
believe that the Tamron takes better pictures and is a whole lot
lighter.
Click to expand...
It's not light at 4lbs :), personally I'd go for the Bigma for AF speed & it's extra weight, in the end though it's personal preference & which lens each individual person takes better photo's with.

Nigel

--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
 
mikesco said:
I included a link to a 100% crop before sharpening at the bottom of
my original post. If for some reason you would like to see the
complete original for viewing purposes send me an e-mail by
clicking the e-mail link in my profile and I will get you a copy.
Click to expand...
To me that crop did not seem particularly sharp (even allowing for lack of sharpening), about what I can achieve with my Tamron 70-300 LD.

--
Misha
 
Perhaps not, this is my first really long lens, it was at 1/125th of a second at ISO 400 and F7.1, and I am not very experienced at using a monopod. So for what it's worth I would say the lens is capable of more.

Mike Smith
misha said:
mikesco said:
I included a link to a 100% crop before sharpening at the bottom of
my original post. If for some reason you would like to see the
complete original for viewing purposes send me an e-mail by
clicking the e-mail link in my profile and I will get you a copy.
Click to expand...
To me that crop did not seem particularly sharp (even allowing for
lack of sharpening), about what I can achieve with my Tamron 70-300
LD.

--
Misha
Click to expand...
 
This is handheld @ 400mm 1/100, no monopod ( resized )



Listen, I'm not saying the 200-500 is a bad lens, just that I personally have seen sharper shots from the 50-500 users & if photozone call the 200-500 slightly better, I would suggest that lens variation means a choice between the 200-500/50-500 should be based on factors other than image quality, because 500mm ( 800mm in 35mm terms ) is a big lens, let's face it the only 800mm in 35mm tems quality lens is the Sigmamonster ( ignoring the esoteric 1200 etc ), Canon/Nikon both pulled the pin at 600mm ( in 35mm terms ), I think that should tell us alot about what we are trying to do with a 500mm lens on a 1.6 crop body.

Nigel
mikesco said:
Mike Smith
misha said:
mikesco said:
I included a link to a 100% crop before sharpening at the bottom of
my original post. If for some reason you would like to see the
complete original for viewing purposes send me an e-mail by
clicking the e-mail link in my profile and I will get you a copy.
Click to expand...
To me that crop did not seem particularly sharp (even allowing for
lack of sharpening), about what I can achieve with my Tamron 70-300
LD.

--
Misha
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
 
I would agree with you, I just happen to think that the Bigma having been around for a lot longer has had a lot more exposure, and people have not even really considered the Tamron. It is very hard to be subjective based on a few images with these large lenses, you have so many factors, such as technique, camera shake, contrast due to lighting, the type of object being photographed and even atmospheric distorions. For myself though if I went to an event and had to hand hold the Tamron or Bigma, I would have fun with the Tamron, I would need a chiropracter after several hours of the Bigma.

Mike Smith
takitimu said:


Listen, I'm not saying the 200-500 is a bad lens, just that I
personally have seen sharper shots from the 50-500 users & if
photozone call the 200-500 slightly better, I would suggest that
lens variation means a choice between the 200-500/50-500 should be
based on factors other than image quality, because 500mm ( 800mm in
35mm terms ) is a big lens, let's face it the only 800mm in 35mm
tems quality lens is the Sigmamonster ( ignoring the esoteric 1200
etc ), Canon/Nikon both pulled the pin at 600mm ( in 35mm terms ),
I think that should tell us alot about what we are trying to do
with a 500mm lens on a 1.6 crop body.

Nigel
mikesco said:
Mike Smith
misha said:
mikesco said:
I included a link to a 100% crop before sharpening at the bottom of
my original post. If for some reason you would like to see the
complete original for viewing purposes send me an e-mail by
clicking the e-mail link in my profile and I will get you a copy.
Click to expand...
To me that crop did not seem particularly sharp (even allowing for
lack of sharpening), about what I can achieve with my Tamron 70-300
LD.

--
Misha
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
Click to expand...
 
That is where I bought mine. However after I recieved it I realized it was not a US Version hence no Rebate or 6 year warranty. They did not specify this on there site. I complained and they were noce enough to send me a free 7 year mack warranty and they were still cheaper than the competitor minus the rebate. I have no problem with them, just be aware of what you are getting.

Mike Smith
 
For sure, anyone considering a 50-500 should look at the 200-500 IMHO & vice-versa, they are both good lens's ( my 170-500 dragging behind the field :), though it was my photo @ 1/100 with it ).

As an aside, I'm not sure what camera you have, but the Xti @ 10MP is making me work alot harder @ 500mm vs the 300D :).

Cheers

Nigel
mikesco said:
Mike Smith
takitimu said:


Listen, I'm not saying the 200-500 is a bad lens, just that I
personally have seen sharper shots from the 50-500 users & if
photozone call the 200-500 slightly better, I would suggest that
lens variation means a choice between the 200-500/50-500 should be
based on factors other than image quality, because 500mm ( 800mm in
35mm terms ) is a big lens, let's face it the only 800mm in 35mm
tems quality lens is the Sigmamonster ( ignoring the esoteric 1200
etc ), Canon/Nikon both pulled the pin at 600mm ( in 35mm terms ),
I think that should tell us alot about what we are trying to do
with a 500mm lens on a 1.6 crop body.

Nigel
mikesco said:
Mike Smith
misha said:
mikesco said:
I included a link to a 100% crop before sharpening at the bottom of
my original post. If for some reason you would like to see the
complete original for viewing purposes send me an e-mail by
clicking the e-mail link in my profile and I will get you a copy.
Click to expand...
To me that crop did not seem particularly sharp (even allowing for
lack of sharpening), about what I can achieve with my Tamron 70-300
LD.

--
Misha
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
 
takitimu said:
For sure, anyone considering a 50-500 should look at the 200-500
IMHO & vice-versa, they are both good lens's ( my 170-500 dragging
behind the field :), though it was my photo @ 1/100 with it ).

As an aside, I'm not sure what camera you have, but the Xti @ 10MP
is making me work alot harder @ 500mm vs the 300D :).
Click to expand...
Why is that, do you think?

--
Misha
 
Critical sharpness is going to be much more difficult the more resolution the camera. So 6mp will be much easier than 10mp.

Mike Smith
misha said:
takitimu said:
For sure, anyone considering a 50-500 should look at the 200-500
IMHO & vice-versa, they are both good lens's ( my 170-500 dragging
behind the field :), though it was my photo @ 1/100 with it ).

As an aside, I'm not sure what camera you have, but the Xti @ 10MP
is making me work alot harder @ 500mm vs the 300D :).
Click to expand...
Why is that, do you think?

--
Misha
Click to expand...
 
This is only in respect to viewing at 100%. At any given print size either they will perfom the same or the higher mp camera will perform better.

Mike Smith
 
You got it, I'm pixel peeping & the extra resolution means you see any blur alot easier ( either camera or edge of lens resolution ), but as you say when scaled/printed the 400d wins out :) and some of my 28-75 Tamron shots are blowing me away.

The other thing I did find was it took awhile to roll my finger on the 400d, it's quite a different feel to the 300d, maybe the different hold as well ( losing the bottom finger off the bottom ) so I was getting camera shake from the shutter release for awhile, as an aside if you've tried the 1DMkII that thing has the most sweet shutter release, compared to the 300D it felt like a target rifle vs sporting rifle trigger :).

Nigel
mikesco said:
This is only in respect to viewing at 100%. At any given print size
either they will perfom the same or the higher mp camera will
perform better.

Mike Smith
Click to expand...
--
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/sgidude
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Ferris
Cropped f/2.8 Image vs Full-size f/5.6 Image
Replies
8
Views
65
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris
Virtual Entrance Pupil
2
Replies
38
Views
39
ThrillaMozilla
T
ProfHankD
Spiratone Mirror-Ultratel 500mm f/4
Replies
18
Views
614
Tom Caldwell
T
C
CK's Lens Post: Carl Zeiss Jena SpiegelObjektiv 500mm 1:4 (1955)
Replies
0
Views
92
Ching-Kuang Shene
C
S
Weekend with Tamron 50-400
2
Replies
21
Views
987
BrentSchumer
BrentSchumer

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top