Two new lenses from Tamron

[Olegis]

SP AF 90mm f2.8 Macro 1:1 Di and SP AF 200-500mm f5.6-6.3 Di.
The old 90mm macro lens was highly acclamed, it's interesting how the new lens is different (better?) than the old one ...

The full story (http://www.photographyblog.com/more.php?id=2635_0_1_0_M)

[CoolToolGuy]

I was looking at Tamron's Web site the other day, and I noticed the 200-500. I started to get interested, and noticed they are talking about use on an APS-sized sensor, which of course the 10D and Drebel are. But there has also been some speculation that the 10D replacement may have a 1.3 crop factor sensor, which might not work well if the 200-500 is engineered for the APS sensor. So that shied me away, as I may be in the market for the 10D replacement when it becomes available.

I am interested in any tests on the 200-500, and also if it is engineered for the smaller sensor. If anyone sees anything, please post it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Real competition for Sigma that 200-500mm may be... 8)

[CoolToolGuy]

Real competition for Sigma that 200-500mm may be... 8)

I hope so, because I have Sigmaphobia... :roll:

I rented a 100-400 L to go to a sports car race, and it just wasn't as long as I would have liked. Nowadays I have to stay outside the fences and I can't fill the frame with a single car from many of the vantage points I had available. So before I pull the trigger on the 100-400 I would like to see if something like this Tamron would do the trick.

[Mthorpe_Davies]

Cooltoolguy if you read the article you would have noticed that's the 200 - 500 has been optimised for both digital and as they call it silver-halide or film.

[CoolToolGuy]

Cooltoolguy if you read the article you would have noticed that's the 200 - 500 has been optimised for both digital and as they call it silver-halide or film.

I did read the article, as well as the Tamron Web site. Neither one of them says anything about 35mm or full-frame. The article says silver-halide, and that may be someone just trying to be creative in their reference to film or it may (emphasize the possibility) be referring to APS film which is, after all, silver-halide as well.

I would like to think the descriptions are on the up & up, and with a 86mm filter size it would seem so, but I want to try one myself or have it shown in a test (35mm frame coverage). For a lens that is marketed as optimized for digital SLRs (so sayeth Tamron's Web site) it is at least a question worth asking. :wink:

[Mthorpe_Davies]

Mate he's talking about 35mm film, that's what film is these days in SLR's not APS, I think Minolta might be the only manufacturer making an APS SLR and I'm pretty sure it's days are numbered or even over. I

f you also looked on the tamron web page it mentions a Minolta mount, they haven't launched a DSLR yet, it would also be safe to assume that Tameron would also want to sell these to existing SLR users and those using full frame Kodak and Canon DSLR's.

It's a no brainer!

[CoolToolGuy]

Mate he's talking about 35mm film, that's what film is these days in SLR's not APS, I think Minolta might be the only manufacturer making an APS SLR and I'm pretty sure it's days are numbered or even over. I

f you also looked on the tamron web page it mentions a Minolta mount, they haven't launched a DSLR yet, it would also be safe to assume that Tameron would also want to sell these to existing SLR users and those using full frame Kodak and Canon DSLR's.

It's a no brainer!

All of your points are well taken, and I hope you are right. Have you placed your order yet?

[G3]

I have the old version of the 90mm macro. This lens rocks. If the new one is better, it must be one hell of a lens. I would consider the one that I have to be right up there with the Canon 85mm f1.8 and the Canon 50mm f1.8 as far as "deal of the century" bang-for-the-buck lenses. As I recall I paid less than $400.00 for it. It was a great lens on my 35mm cameras and when I got the 10D it just got better because it gave me a little more working distance from my lens to live animal subjects (often venomous snakes). The sharpness of this lens, particularly in the middle of the aperture range is unbelievable. Here is an example:


Juvenile Texas Indigo snake (non-venomous):

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/166972/KDURY-Texgirl6.14x6.jpg


Juvenile Yellowtail Cribo (non venomous):

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/166972/MLDDR-BabyYT02.jpg

[nosquare2003]

Other than EOS1 series camera, we can't get autofocus for f/6.3 lens -- right?

[G3]

Other than EOS1 series camera, we can't get autofocus for f/6.3 lens -- right?

Why not? My 10D will autofocus at f6.3. I don't use autofocus for macro shots, but the autofocus will work in normal light situations. If you get into really low light situations, autofocus may have a hard time, but normally it will work fine.

[Mthorpe_Davies]

No and I don't need one, but if I did this looks like a nice lense.

[CoolToolGuy]

No and I don't need one, but if I did this looks like a nice lense.
The list price of the 200-500 is over 1450 USD, and street price will probably be around 1000 USD. If this turns out to be a new wrinkle on the 'it works today, but not next year' story (on a 1.3 crop factor body), will I be able to use your recommendation to get an upgraded lens for free?

[PekkaM]

Other than EOS1 series camera, we can't get autofocus for f/6.3 lens -- right?

Why not? My 10D will autofocus at f6.3.
But will it autofocus with lens with maximum aperture of f/6.3? I've undestood that camera uses wider aperture for focusing.

[G3]

Other than EOS1 series camera, we can't get autofocus for f/6.3 lens -- right?

Why not? My 10D will autofocus at f6.3.
But will it autofocus with lens with maximum aperture of f/6.3? I've undestood that camera uses wider aperture for focusing.


Well, I have a Sigma 170-500 f5/6.3 and it autofocuses fine at all focal lengths as long as there is sufficient available light. At 500mm the max aperture on that lens is 6.3.

I know the 10D will have trouble focusing at light levels below EV1, but that's pretty much with any lens.

[ron chappel]

The 200-500 is a slightyly odd size.
At that price and for it's limited zoom ratio it better be damn awsome!!

I still cringe at the thought of the 200-400 lens that won the european lens of the year award or somthing.
At photo.net they once had a thread on "what was you worst equipment purchase?"
....the 200-400 was mentioned quite alot...... :? :?

Anyway,lets hope the new ones are closer to the brilliant 28-75 XR in image quality than that one!

[CoolToolGuy]

The 200-500 is a slightyly odd size.
At that price and for it's limited zoom ratio it better be damn awsome!!

I still cringe at the thought of the 200-400 lens that won the european lens of the year award or somthing.
At photo.net they once had a thread on "what was you worst equipment purchase?"
....the 200-400 was mentioned quite alot...... :? :?

Anyway,lets hope the new ones are closer to the brilliant 28-75 XR in image quality than that one!

It got my interest because I want something longer than 400mm, and there is not a lot out there that isn't way expensive. I truly hope this is a good quality piece of glass. f6.3 is not what I would wish for, but something faster in a zoom would jack the cost up more. I may have to search one of these things out and try it myself. In the meantime, I'll have to keep my eyes open for published tests and results.