Anyone try the new Tameron 200 to 500?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roger, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. Roger

    Roger Guest

    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
     
    Roger, Jun 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger

    lorento Guest

    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
     
    lorento, Jun 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger

    Rutger Guest

    Rutger, Jun 8, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <>, Roger
    <> 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
     
    Scott Schuckert, Jun 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Roger

    Roger Guest

    On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 09:44:49 -0400, Scott Schuckert <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Roger
    ><> 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
     
    Roger, Jun 9, 2006
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Try, Try, Try, again...

    , Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    704
  2. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,695
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  3. Mark C

    Tokina and Tameron

    Mark C, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,727
    George Preddy
    Jul 3, 2004
  4. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,607
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. Cynicor

    200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    1,520
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page