Whats you opinion Tamron 200-400mm

[Pyromaniac]

I want to get a lens in the 400mm range, and I saw this on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7506848762&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT I know it won't be any where near the Canon 100-400, but thats way more than I can afford at the moment. Has anyone used this lens that can give me there opinions and maybe post a few shots taken with it?

[Hellashot]

I'd be wary of a seller with only 14 feedbacks, especially if I'm going to blow some money on. $50 bucks seems a bit sheap for 400mm.

[ScottE]

I tried one of those Tamron 200-400 lenses a few years ago. It did not meet my expectations, especially at the long end of the range where I wanted it most so I didn't buy it. I ended up buying a used Sigma 400/5.6 lens that was much better. Both Sigma and Tokina made 400/5.6 lenses that should be good buys if you can find a used one. Beware that some old Sigmas do not work with some new Canon cameras and cannot be re-chipped. My old Sigma 400/5.6 APO could not be upgraded to work with my 20D. I understand that later versions such as the 400/5.6 APO Macro HSM will work, but I haven't tried them.

Scott

[Skip Souza]

Well, it's certainly cheap.
You might want to check its' poor rating at AF SLR Lens Test Guide (http://martyfoto.kbx.cz/LensTestGuide.htm) or Photozone Lens Performance Survey. (http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR %20brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%2 0or%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20 AF'%22)
I'm afraid you will be sadly disappointed.

[raylks]

I understand that later versions such as the 400/5.6 APO Macro HSM will work, but I haven't tried them.

Scott

Is the lens you mentioned a true 1:1 MACRO lens at 400mm?

[Anders Östberg]

Here's a bunch of user comments:
http://reviews.iwon.com/pscPhotographyReview/Tamron/PRD_83608_3128crx.aspx

Seems like "soft" and "slow focussing" is repeated a lot.

[Andy_T]

At the current price, it would be quite a steal.

I just looked at German eBay for 400 mm lenses for Canon EF, and a Cosina Voigtlaender 100-400 currently at 360$ :shock: caught my eye.

That lens will surely be not as good as this Tamron lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[ScottE]

Is the lens you mentioned a true 1:1 MACRO lens at 400mm?

No. The Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro HSM lens focused quite a bit closer than its Canon equivalent, but it is not a true macro lens. I think it would go to about 3:1.

You would have to add a few extension tubes if you wanted to focus closer.

Scott

[CousinMadness]

Photozone Lens Performance Survey. (http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylenstxt.jsp?filter=%22brand=%27Canon%20EF%27% 20OR%20brand=%27Sigma%20AF%27%20OR%20brand=%27Tamr on%20AF%27%20or%20brand=%27Tokina%20AF%27%20or%20b rand=%27Vivitar%20AF%27%22)


That was an excellent link Skip - now I am depressed. :(

I never realised the Canon 18-55 EF-S was that bad... in fact it's worse than bad... it's positively incorrigible.

Guess what I have on my 300D?

I am thinking I should take that off my signature at the bottom.... that's really a pathetic lens. The lens cap is probably sharper!



Cousin M.

[Andy_T]

Cousinmadness,

relax.

The link on Photozone just shows what happens if you let stupid people fill out 'reviews' on the internet :confused:

You realize that these are 'user reviews'.
A lot of these very knowledgeable users wanted to contribute based on their assumption
'well, it's $ 100, how bad must it be'.

There is no way that those people 61 who 'rated' the lens knew what the dimensions meant that they were actually rating...

Examples?

Performance wide/stepped down - 'Poor' ... it performs similar to the 20-35/3.5-4.5 that was ranked 'Good'
Distortion - 'Critical' ... there is NO distortion at the wide end. Actually, it is better than the 17-85 in that respect.
Vignetting wide - 'Heavy' ... there is NO vignetting on a 1.6 body. Maybe they used it on a full frame body :lol:
Flare - 'Heavy flare' ... actually, it is one of the most flare resistant ultrawide angle lenses, better than some primes...

Shall I continue?

Best regards,
Andy

[cmM]

you should look into some Quantaray mirror lenses... :-P
No, j/k, please don't! :D:D:D

[Bodog]

Yeah, I agree with Andy. Take those user reviews with a grain of salt. Notice that some of lenses are also rated using the smaller sensors, and they actually rate worse than the lens on a full frame. Go figure...

[Croasdail]

On the subject of the Tamron 200-400mm.... I have one that is many years old that I now use with my 10d and it works fine. It is not L quality, images take some fixing in photoshop, need to pump up color saturation, then bring the reds back down. Focus is slow - and hunts. Being an old timer sports photo guy though I usually resort to manual focus anyway. Positive side is the lens holds focus really well through the range of zooming. Used are available and if you are just buying something to learn with - this will work. If your looking to use it in auto-everything mode... you will be frustrated - it can be slow. Also, very heavy - you will need some kind of support. But this lense has been everywhere and abused - and still is working pretty good. For the money and to get started, this may work. With that said, I have upgraded a lot of my lenses since, and this lense only comes out in hostle environments now, becuase I know it can handle it.

Attached are a couple of samples.