( 16 reviews )
-
( 0 of 42 found this review helpful ) Posted: Mar 20 2009
I gave this lens a try as a cheaper alternative to the Canon 100-400 L IS lens. After one outing, I returned the Tamron immediately and bought the Canon 100-400mm L IS lens. This lens is pretty soft at anything above 400mm, and anything below f/8. If you do any kind of print work or like to do heavy cropping the softness of this lens will really bother you - there's no way you can use a 1:1 crop. If you mostly reduce your photos quite a bit for the web, this might not bother you. However, this does affect your ability to shoot in low light though, since f/5 to f/8 is almost unusable due to the softness. CA is present at longer focal lengths as well, along with pretty poor contrast. The lack of IS in such a long lens is also problematic - forget hand-held shots. The one nice feature is the rotating front filter ring - you can buy a cheaper polarizing filter, which is a bonus on such a large filter. Overall, this lens was a huge disappointment. If you want to take a chance on an off-brand lens, at least go with the Sigma 150-500 with OS. I haven't had a chance to try that lens, but at least it has OS, and the optical quality can't possibly be any worse.
-
( 42 of 42 found this review helpful ) Posted: Feb 15 2009
First, let's say up front that this is a BIG lens. All of the super zooms are. They all do much better with a tripod because of their weight. Having said that, I have been able to handhold this lens in daytime and get great shots at 400-500mm. Of course, this requires a learning curve. I have found that most telephoto lenses get negative reviews, not because they are inferior lenses, but because folks don't know how to shoot with them. Your best shots will be if you can fill up a good 1/2 to 2/3 of the image with your subject. Less than that, and the camera is less likely to: 1) get true focus on the actual subject (rather than the area around the subject); and 2) get the details needed to enlarge the image without losing quality. Back to the lens, for those who want greater reach, this lens is a wonderful option. It's biggest competition is the Sigma 50-500mm. While the "Bigma" is considered a great lens, how practical is the 50-200mm range? If you're going to shoot at that range, there are MANY other lenses that are much better in quality and much easier to carry around. At the 200-500mm range, the Tamron's reviews tend to be better than the Bigma. If you really want one lens that will cover the most ranges, then the Bigma may be your best bet. However, it's not a walk-around lens, so you end up buying other lenses within the same range simply because you can't carry the Bigma all day every day. To me, the better option is to buy the Tamron 200-500mm for when you REALLY need the reach, and buy something else for the 50-200mm range (the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 would be a nice combo) for everyday use. (No mention of L lenses, because if you could afford the L lens, you wouldn't bother looking at the Tamron. :) )
-
( 1 of 1 found this review helpful ) Posted: Jun 16 2008
Pros: Relatively light Great bang for the buck Razor blade sharp at F/7.1 500mm Small size when zoomed to 200mm Nice tripod mount that allows you to rotate the camera and lens Cons: Slow autofocus Slow max aperture especially at 500mm I wanted more reach to photograph birds and the moon using my Canon 40D so I borrowed this lens for a few weeks from a friend while he borrows my Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L. The first things you notice are it's pretty light and long especially when extended to 500mm with an even longer hood attached out past that. The hood seemed a little flimsy but attached firmly and stayed in place throughout shooting so I have no complaints about it. My first shots were of the moon at 500mm hand held on manual mode at ISO 400 1/800th second at F/7.1. I was very pleased with how sharp and what great contrast this lens produced when I got back inside and downloaded to my Mac. When attached to my monopod or tripod I liked the built in lens tripod mount as it easily allows you to rotate the camera and lens together easily without having to change settings on your tripod. I used this lens mainly on a monopod while shooting birds and this worked really well. I mainly used the lens at 500mm where it seemed really sharp at F/7.1 but pretty sharp wide open as well. Will try some more shots at shorter ranges and post later. Conclusion: If you are in the market for a 500mm lens especially one that's a zoom and in this price range and you don't need the speed of a faster lens then this is the lens for you. I'm still thinking of the Canon 400mm F/5.6 as I love to shoot birds in flight and the USM autofocus on that lens is much faster and can actually track birds in flight. Still this lens is just as fast aperture wise at 400mm and even though the autofocus is slower it does reach to 500mm and if you mainly shoot still objects like nesting or feeding birds and the moon this could be a great choice. Lens I currently own: Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS Ultra sharp, great colors, great low light, poor zoom action Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Rebel XTi Kit lens Muddy, slow, pile of junk Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Fantastic colors, sharp zoomed 17 to 24mm, ultra smooth zoom action, light weight Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L Fantastic colors and contrast, sharp zoomed 40 to 70mm, zoom a little stiff at first, heavy! Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Good budget portrait lens, light weight, disposable, sharp from F/2.5 Canon EF 85mm F/1.2 L II The best portrait lens for female and children clients, buttery smooth Bokeh, heavy and expensive it shares sharpness with 135mm Canon EF 135mm F/2.0 L The best portrait lens for males and tied with Canon 85mm F 1/.2 for sharpest lens I own, buttery smooth Bokeh Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L fantastic colors, sharp for a zoom, very versatile ego boosting and attention getting and heavy! My next lens purchase I'm saving for right now: Canon EF 300mm F/2.8 IS L the finest lens ever
