Tamron 200-500

[Snowyowl]

Anyone have an experience with this lens. I'm thinking to getting one. The reviews seem fairly good and the price is reasonable.

[Michael Hogan]

Snowyowl,

I had a Tamron 200-500 for about a year. It was an adequate lens and if you are not after perfection then it is probably good enough. I bought a 300 f4 (nikon and then changed all the kit to Canon - another story) and found the quality was in a different league. I miss the extra reach but I find that the 300 sharpness is so good even with a 1.4 converter that I can crop and still get better results than with the 500 (most of the time). But it depends on your budget and what you are after. Don't get me wrong for the money the Tamron is good but was not good enough for me. If you go to www.michaelhogan.ie and click on Galleries and then Portrait of a Fulmar, all the shots except the last were taken with a Nikon D80 + a Tamron 200-500 and I am quite happy with them. I have just got the Canon kit and have not had a chance to put up many photos.

If you are not going to take photos because you need a long lens and can only afford the Tamron, then get a Tamron - it is better to be out and photographing than wishing you had better lens and sitting at home

[Snowyowl]

Thanks Michael. My first choice was the Canon 100 - 400 USM IS but it's almost double the cost of the Tamron. I looked at your Fulmar pictures, thanks for the link.
I have a Sigma 70 -300 and a Canon 75 - 300 plus a 1.4 converter but am still looking for more reach but I don't really want to sacrifice quality. I think that I'll give the situation more thought.

[Birdsnapper]

Dan, try Birdforum. I think that you can set a filter for lens.

[Snowyowl]

Thanks, Mike.

[sspike]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

Anyone have an experience with this lens. I'm thinking to getting one. The reviews seem fairly good and the price is reasonable.

H i Dan I have the tamron 200-500 and the canon 100-400,they are both very good lense`s giving the edge to the canon but with the tamron you get that little extra reach.The canon is a good zoo lense starting at 100mm where as the tamron I found a little too long starting at 200mm. Also depending on your budget the tamron being half the price is a consideration.If I had to choose between the two I would go with the canon,but I do like both.
Steve

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by Snowyowl

Thanks Michael. My first choice was the Canon 100 - 400 USM IS but it's almost double the cost of the Tamron. I looked at your Fulmar pictures, thanks for the link.
I have a Sigma 70 -300 and a Canon 75 - 300 plus a 1.4 converter but am still looking for more reach but I don't really want to sacrifice quality. I think that I'll give the situation more thought.

Dan, it could be worth waiting a while to see what the new Sigma 150-500 OS turns out to be like. it has a 4 stop IS and is due to be released very soon.

[Snowyowl]

Thanks, guys. I bought the Canon a month or so back and am very happy with it. The lenses that you have mentioned will go down on my "check into if I can ever afford another lens" list.