Tamron 200-400

[OviV]

Does anyone have experience with this lens? I have been told it is a decent lens for the money ~$500. I would be interested in it for nature photography, mostly.

Ovi

[OviV]

Bump!

[xuxu1]

How you dare talk about a non L lense here on this forum :!: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Just kidding of course. :lol:

But please note that if you change your camera body some day, the new one might not work with a non-canon lens anymore :!:

I have been questioning myself several times if i should follow the Sigma path (save a few €). But in the end i decided to wait a bit and keep saving for L lenses. :)

Now i just have to make up my mind which one to get first. The 70-200L or the 100-400L

Ooohhh i hate these decisions :roll: :roll: :roll:

Regards
Ed

[ron chappel]

I've heard about this one!
It was on photo.net in a thread about "what was you worst camera gear purchase" no less!!!
Quite a few respondents listed this lens .
I don't think all the comments were about unsharpness as such (allthough alot were) but also the not very usefull zoom ratio.

BEWARE

[Bruce Watson]

I have one, bought it many years ago. It is not a great lens, okay, but not great.

Have some decent shots with it, but it is not really sharp by today's standards.

If you want a sample shot or two, send me a PM and I will email a couple.

With that said, it does give me lots of reach and has allowed shots I would not have otherwise got. When I bought it, "value driven" was the over riding concern.

But my future plans are to ditch it for a Canon or Sigma.

Cheers,

Bruce