Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Anyone try the new Tameron 200 to 500?

Reply
Thread Tools

Anyone try the new Tameron 200 to 500?

 
 
Roger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Yes, I know it's off brand, but has any one tried one yet?
I played around with one on the D-70 and yes the metering and
autofocus of the F-6.3 worked just fine.

I'm wondering just how sharp they are. I've seen some small snapshots
that looked very sharp, but no large blow ups.

It's relatively big and heavy so it's not for cheap tripods.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
lorento
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
Roger wrote:
> I'm wondering just how sharp they are. I've seen some small snapshots
> that looked very sharp, but no large blow ups.

I never us it but i've read a lot reviews. This lense is not as good as
Canon EF 300/4L or Canon EF500/4.5L. This lense is not good for
telephoto zoom but still acceptible.

--
http://www.deshot.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rutger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
"Roger" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes, I know it's off brand, but has any one tried one yet?


http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1


Rutger


--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott Schuckert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Yes, I know it's off brand, but has any one tried one yet?
> I played around with one on the D-70 and yes the metering and
> autofocus of the F-6.3 worked just fine.
>
> I'm wondering just how sharp they are. I've seen some small snapshots
> that looked very sharp, but no large blow ups.


Perhaps anecdotal, but based on my experience it's hard to go wrong
with this lens. I personally own the earlier Tamron 200-400, and for my
intended uses it's been excellent for me. Aside from that lens, I have
all Nikkors, and mostly prime (non-zoom) lenses at that.

A friend has recently acquired the 200-500; based on her results and my
limited trials, it's at least as good.

Are these lenses equal to the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR? Not a chance,
even ignoring the VR feature. But since I no longer shoot
professionally, 85% of the quality for 15% of the price seems like a
good deal.

You can't really tell anything on the web, but the longer shots (you'll
know which ones) on this page are with the 200-400; and against the
light, at that.

http://homepage.mac.com/scotts13/PhotoAlbum16.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2006
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:44:49 -0400, Scott Schuckert <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Roger
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I know it's off brand, but has any one tried one yet?
>> I played around with one on the D-70 and yes the metering and
>> autofocus of the F-6.3 worked just fine.
>>
>> I'm wondering just how sharp they are. I've seen some small snapshots
>> that looked very sharp, but no large blow ups.

>
>Perhaps anecdotal, but based on my experience it's hard to go wrong
>with this lens. I personally own the earlier Tamron 200-400, and for my
>intended uses it's been excellent for me. Aside from that lens, I have
>all Nikkors, and mostly prime (non-zoom) lenses at that.


Thanks to all who replied and surprisingly with almost unanimous good
ratings for the lens, taking into consideration its price range.

I was surprised to see that is it rated as well and that I actually
see this many agree on here<)

>
>A friend has recently acquired the 200-500; based on her results and my
>limited trials, it's at least as good.


It looks like I'm going to add this one as an inexpensive alternative
for a medium to long zoom. Along with the 18-200 Nikor I should be
able to limit what I have to carry albeit the 200 - 500 is pretty good
size.

Thanks again,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Are these lenses equal to the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR? Not a chance,
>even ignoring the VR feature. But since I no longer shoot
>professionally, 85% of the quality for 15% of the price seems like a
>good deal.
>
>You can't really tell anything on the web, but the longer shots (you'll
>know which ones) on this page are with the 200-400; and against the
>light, at that.
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/scotts13/PhotoAlbum16.html

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8 Cynicor Digital Photography 74 02-20-2008 03:23 PM
Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200 Bill Tuthill Digital Photography 11 09-01-2005 09:55 PM
Try, Try, Try, again... Rick12N4@netscape.net Computer Support 3 01-29-2005 04:02 PM
Tokina and Tameron Mark C Digital Photography 13 07-03-2004 03:29 PM
Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200? Albert Voss Digital Photography 7 04-11-2004 12:24 AM



Advertisments