Tamron AF 28-200 Aspherical XR

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

As a preface, I'm a novice photographer, but I dream BIG!

I have an Elan IIE body, 420EX flash and wondered if anyone has any comments about the new Tamron 28-200 XR lens?

I'm considering a longer zoom lens to complement the Tamron 28-200 XR(which I just purchased), such as a 200-400. Does anyone have any thoughts on a lens that I should consider, keeping in mind my level of experience?

Thanks for all input in advance,

Robert Patrick

-- Robert Patrick (rlpatrick_2000@yahoo.com), November 01, 2001

Answers

Presumably the 200-400 you are thinking of is the Tamron. Neither of these lenses are particularly clever. The 200-400 is an older design, and wasn't great to start with, and the 28-200 is typical of superzooms, and leaves much to be desired optically.

I'm afraid to say that there are no short cuts to long lenses. If you want a 400mm, buy a 400mm prime or a Canon 100-400L IS. You may have to turn to second-hand. Alternatively, get a 300mm F4 and 1.4X TC (you should be able to find a second-hand 300mm F4L USM). These will provide far better images than any zoom. Just because you're a novice doesn't mean you can't have L series lenses. All you need to do is find them in the right condition at the right price.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 02, 2001.


I agree with Isaac, there are no cheap ways to make a long lens that produces good images. There are cheap lenses that do it, but none of them look good in print. In addition to the Tamron there are the Sigma 135-400 and 175-500, but the same advice applies.

There are also no cheap ways to produce a quality wide ranging zoom. The new Tamron might very be the best of its breed, but there are still quite a few trade offs with lenses of this type. They usually exhibit excessive distortion and are not as sharp as comparable zooms with less zoom range. This usually shows up at the extreme ends of their zoom range. Stopping the aperture down helps with the sharpness but not the distortion. unfortunately, its aperture isn't very fast to begin with and, among other things will reduce its usefulness in low light situations and anytime you want to reduce background clutter.

Still, I like these super zoom lenses because the are very convenient and the quality, while not the best is acceptable for many situations. The new Tamron is at least a better size and focuses closer than most of the older versions.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), November 02, 2001.


Thank you kindly for your answers. I take it that I would be better off with a Canon long lens.

-- Robert Patrick (rlpatrick_2000@yahoo.com), November 02, 2001.

That depends on the Canon lens in question. It is not the case that any lens made by canon is great. The 75-300 isn't wonderful (although not appreciably worse or better than the third-party competition except for its assured compatibility with future Canon bodies). However, in general, the higher-end Canon lenses (L series, many of the primes and the ring-USM zooms) are noticeably better than the third party equivalents.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 02, 2001.

Questions of this nature invariably shake out of the trees any number of purists that will tell you that there is not substitute for a prime lens made by the camera manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, etc.). Know something - these folks are right provided you have an unlimited amount of cash. For us simple mortals who don't, or what use our money for other purposes, you can make a valid argument for just about anything. About a year and a half ago I bought a Sigma 170-500 ($609 at B&H) and have been very happy with this lens. The advantage it has over the Tamron is 100mm longer, 25% which is significant, for about $100 more than the Tamron. At this point the purists will jump in with the argument that it's a 3rd party zoom and can't be any good, which is not entirely true. Using the Sigma 170-500 as an example compared to a Canon 500mm f4 L IS ($5999 at B&H) let's do a little analysis: Is the Sigma build as good as the Canon? - No Does the Sigma autofocus as fast as the Canon? - No Is the Sigma as sharp as the Canon? - No Is the Sigma as fast as the Canon? - No Does the Sigma have the same exoctic glass as the Canon? - No Is the Canon 10 times better than the Sigma as it's price would suggest? - NO (my opinion) You really have to look at what you are expecting from a lens. If all you are going to do is 4x6 prints, a few slides to show friends, and an occasional 8x10 enlargement you are wasting your money if you buy a top of the line prime lens. If you have $6000 you want to get rid of that badly please contact me and I'm sure we can come up with a way of relieving you of the money that will be more beneficial for both of us. If, however, you are looking to shoot for publication for a very critical client then the money may very well be a good investment. The following links are to images all taken with a Sigma 170-500 on either an Elan IIe or an EOS-3. The last 3 also had a 1.4x TC attached. You can decide for yourself if the quality of the image is adequate for your needs - nobody else can make that decision. The hydroplane images were the first time I had shot these fast boats and as a result is was a learning experience for me. Panning with a long lens is an art form it itself and takes some time to master. The softness in some of these pictures were a result of my technique and not a shortcoming of the lens. Hydro 1

Hydro 2

Hydro 3

Hydro 4

Hydro 6

Hydro 6

Hydro 7

Bear

href="http://members.home.com/golffan/images/Sigma02.jpg">Bird

href="http://members.home.com/golffan/images/Sigma03.jpg">Bird

href="http://members.home.com/golffan/images/Sigma04.jpg">Prairie Dog

href="http://members.home.com/golffan/images/girf02.jpg">Giraffe< p> href="http://members.home.com/golffan/images/zebra2.jpg">Zebra



-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), November 02, 2001.



Sure wish I could edit these posting before they were committed to the database. The last links should be: Bird

Bird

Prairie Dog

Giraffe

Zebra

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), November 02, 2001.


OK, let's try this one more time and see if we can get the formatting right....

Questions of this nature invariably shake out of the trees any number of purists that will tell you that there is no substitute for a prime lens made by the camera manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, etc.). Know something - these folks are right provided you have an unlimited amount of cash.

For us simple mortals who don't, or what use our money for other purposes, you can make a valid argument for just about anything.

About a year and a half ago I bought a Sigma 170-500 ($609 at B&H) and have been very happy with this lens. The advantage it has over the Tamron is 100mm longer, 25% longer which is significant, for about $100 more than the Tamron.

At this point the purists will jump in with the argument that it's a 3rd party zoom and can't be any good, which is not entirely true.

Using the Sigma 170-500 as an example compared to a Canon 500mm f4 L IS ($5999 at B&H) let's do a little analysis:

Is the Sigma build as good as the Canon? - No
Does the Sigma autofocus as fast as the Canon? - No
Is the Sigma as sharp as the Canon? - No
Is the Sigma as fast as the Canon? - No
Does the Sigma have the same exoctic glass as the Canon? - No
Is the Canon 10 times better than the Sigma as it's price would suggest? - NO (my opinion)

You really have to look at what you are expecting from a lens. If all you are going to do is 4x6 prints, a few slides to show friends, and an occasional 8x10 enlargement you are wasting your money if you buy a top of the line prime lens. If you have $6000 you want to get rid of that badly please contact me and I'm sure we can come up with a way of relieving you of the money that will be more beneficial for both of us. If, however, you are looking to shoot for publication for a very critical client then the money may very well be a good investment.

The following links are to images all taken with a Sigma 170-500 on either an Elan IIe or an EOS-3. The last 3 also had a 1.4x TC attached. You can decide for yourself if the quality of the image is adequate for your needs - nobody else can make that decision.

The hydroplane images were the first time I had shot these fast boats and as a result is was a learning experience for me. Panning with a long lens is an art form it itself and takes some time to master. The softness in some of these pictures is a result of my technique and not a shortcoming of the lens.

Hydro 1

Hydro 2

Hydro 3

Hydro 4

Hydro 5

Hydro 6

Hydro 7

Bear

Bird

Bird

Prairie Dog

Giraffe< p> Zebra



-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), November 02, 2001.


I do not think that the comparison of the Sigma 170-500 and Canon 500 F4L IS is valid. I think a FAR better comparison would be between the 135-400/170-500 from sigma and the Canon 100-400 (+1.4X TC). And I know which I'd rather have...

I think a second hand prime, such as the 300 F4L (+1.4XTC) or 400 F5.6L would be the best way to go to get longer focal lengths at the most reasonable cost.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 04, 2001.


If I were looking for an xx-400 zoom I agree (and would get the Canon myself) - but if your interest is in getting to 500mm on a budget there is nothing Canon offers. That's the reason I have the Sigma - focal length plus flexibility.

As to whether it is a valid comparison or not I maintain that it is. Anything is a valid comparison, including apples to oranges, - it just may not have any meaning in the real world.

I think my comparison is significant in the real world as it does clearly point out the 'shortcomings' of the Sigma compared to the Canon and simply offers the question as to whether or not the Canon is worth the 10x cost differential. A more direct comparison would probably have been the Sigma 500mm f4.5 ($3299 at B&H), but then we are assuming that someone is willing to spend $3300 vs. $6000. At that point the target market and the basis for a decision changes because we are looking at a 2x cost differential versus 10x.

I believe that for the vast majority of amateur photographers (note - I said majority not all, and amateur not professional) there are very viable 3rd party alternatives.

The point I was trying to make is/was that a $6000 prime is not always the solution. There are any number of people who either cannot or don't desire to drop that much money on a lens (I'm in the latter group myself). For that target market the 3rd party super-zooms (or 3rd party primes for that matter) perform at more than a minimally adequate level.

I believe my images speak for themselves as to the capability of this specific lens. I have printed them to 8x10 and am not hesitant to show them to anyone and feel that I could easily go to 11x17 as well.

Dick

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), November 04, 2001.


Thanks again for all of your insight. Money isn't the question here, but I tend to agree with Dick regarding my desire as an amateur to spend a few thousand versus a few hundred.

Thanks for being an active and responsive board. Rob

-- Rob Patrick (rlpatrick_2000@yahoo.com), November 05, 2001.



Of course I agree that it isn't feasible for most amatuers to spend $x000s on lenses. I would also concede that for getting 500mm, probably the best solution is a third party zoom (I hear very good reports of the sigma 50-500mm...). My point was though, that spend that money on a second-hand 300mm F4L (not IS), which would be $400- $600, depending on condition, and a 1.4X (and maybe a 2X) TC(s), and you'd get rather more pleasing results for similar ballpark amounts of money. Also, I have seen very good results from the Canon 100-400 + 1.4X TC, which will still AF on an EOS 3 or EOS 1V. With the Elan IIe, you'd loose AF, but you'd still have IS, which should really not be underestimated at these sorts of focal lengths. Look for second hand L series I say. But anyway, the initial discussion was for 400mm, not 500mm, and it is possible to find s/h 300 F4L + 1.4X or 400mm F5.6L for a few hundred dollars. That would be the way I'd go.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 05, 2001.

....My point was though, that spend that money on a second-hand 300mm F4L (not IS), which would be $400- $600, depending on condition, and a 1.4X (and maybe a 2X) TC(s), and you'd get rather more pleasing results for similar ballpark amounts of money...

$500 for used 300 f4 + $290 for Canon 1.4 TC (imported) + $250 for Canon 2x TC (imported) = $1040 (the IRS should love that) for a fixed 300 f4 + fixed 420 f5.6 + fixed 600 f8.

If that works for you and you're willing to step up to the issues inherent in buying used I have no problem with it, but 'more pleasing results' is a personally subjective evaluation. If the final product is going to be 4x6 and 5x7 prints I doubt that anyone could easily tell the difference.

...Also, I have seen very good results from the Canon 100-400 + 1.4X TC, which will still AF on an EOS 3 or EOS 1V. With the Elan IIe, you'd loose AF, but you'd still have IS, which should really not be underestimated at these sorts of focal lengths...

The last 2 images I linked to (zebras and giraffe) were taken with the Sigma 170-500 at 500mm with 1.4x TC. I think they fall into the category of very good results (of course I might be slightly biased in my evaluation).

A Sigma 170-500 + 1.4 TC will get you 700mm that will also maintain AF with the same bodies, but as you said without IS. I've been able to maintain AF with the Sigma + 1.4 TC on my Elan IIe. It's slower but fairly reliable with decent light but doesn't work at all in low light conditions. This is possible because the 3rd party TC's don't report the adjusted aperture (lens + TC) just the lens aperture. The Canon TC's will report the adjusted aperture and the body won't even attempt to AF if it's beyond the design limits of the AF system.

I agree that IS should not be underestimated, I have 2 of those myself and it is definitely not a feature that should be discounted or glossed over. Again, though, we have to look at the price performance issue. The 100-400 + 1.4 TC will be pushing the $2000 mark, about a 3x price differential compared to the Sigma alone, as well as ending up at f8 vs. f6.3. For anyone that has either the "3" or "1V" the price won't be an issue but at an entry level that is a significant outlay.

The 100-400 is also a push-pull zoom that some people don't like and others love. I'm neutral on that issue myself.

...But anyway, the initial discussion was for 400mm, not 500mm...

Actually, the initial discussion was "a longer zoom lens to complement the Tamron 28-200 XR(which I just purchased), such as a 200-400" - definitely consumer zoom not "L" prime + TC.

-- Dick Tope (RTope@yahoo.com), November 05, 2001.


True...but as I said, and I think this discussion proves, there are no short cuts to long lenses. Personally, I'd go with a 300 F4L and a second hand 1.4X Canon TC, but that's my opinion (no doubt slightly biased by the fact that I actually use that combo often, albeit in IS form). It was not my intention to say "Don't buy the sigma, it's rubbish!", because I don't believe that's the case. I was just offering alternate solutions. My own experience has been that I've been happier with Canon lenses than third party ones, but if you can find a third party lens at a good price that you get on with, that's great. I agree that the Canon 100-400 being a push-pull isn't to everyone's taste (ie mine), but it is a very nice lens (my father has one).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 06, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ