tamron 200-500 lens

[marypar4]

<p>I recently purchased a used telephoto from Tamron. I have had it one week. I have literally taken hundreds of shots with this lens trying to find answers.I have used all the techniques available to me after researching how to's on the net regarding this lens. My question is..using a D90 vs D300 with this lens..would I see any difference in sharpness . I am beginning to think the camera I am using my not be quick enough to pick up the some movements of the birds and ducks I am trying to photograph. I am stumped as I have seen some captured nice sharp images with this lens on this site. The subjects are not in flight and not moving that much and my pictures are not acceptable.I am not expecting miracles..just acceptable. Perhaps my standards are too high but I also shoot with a 70-300 vr nikon and love that lens so I not in the $5000 catagory nor can I afford that at the moment. ANy advice would be appreciated.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Zoomed out to 500mm, the f-stop of your 200-500mm lens is some of the problem. Nikon AF systems like f5.6 (or brighter) to operate just right. You may have to resort to a tripod, focus on a spot -- then wait for the bird to cross that spot. Shooting in bright sunshine may help. Shooting in dim (early or late afternoon) light may not help.</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Virtually no difference in the sensor between the D90 and D300. D300 autofocus should be superior and it's high ISO performance should be better. If this is an f6.3 lens try zooming back until you get f5.6.</p>

<p>Try some lens tests with still subjects, like a street sign or billboard etc. Use the Tamron at 300mm f5.6 and the VR at 300mm f5.6. Preferably outdoors in full sun on the D300 and with a tripod. Preferably you're at 1/500 to 1/1000. Does the Tamron appear acceptable?</p>

[juanparmenides]

<p>F factor is important, sure, f8 for maximum sharpness, but the most important is a very solid tripod, becuase blur at 500 focal is caused most of the times by movement, remember 500 x 1,5 = 750mm equivalente in your cameras.<br>

I bought the Sigma 120-400 OS a couple of months ago, because I could not buy the Nikon 200-400 (more than 6.000 Euros in Spain) , probably my wife would hang me by my neck if I did that. I could test the Sigma before buy and I am happy with it. Does not know the Tamron, but a solid tripod is very important.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>I thought about the sigma 120-400 Juan as I heard some nice things about it..also the bigma 150-500 but the Tamron I purchased for $400. At the price I thought I would give it a try as all those lenses need support. I always use a tripod..with this lens as well as holding down the front of the lens ..I do not use mirror flip as it is to slow for what I am shooting. I have been trying F8 through F10 and always shutter over 500 mostly 1000 with ISO at around 400-500 depending on light..I have tried various AF modes..AF-s AF-c with camera set in various setting as in dynamic or single..the main thing I have noticed is the more light I have the better the shot..but too much glare knocks that all out of whack ..so its many throw outs..and even when conditions are perfect..the images are soft and blurry at 500mm..they look almost smeared. Very weird. again..is it camera or lens or both?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>between d90 and d300: difference in sharpness no AF accuracy yes.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>example?</p>

[mary_naughton]

<p>I also have the Nikon 70-300VR and love it but needed more reach so bought the Tamron 200-500. I've had decent success using it on my D70 with a monopod since it's too heavy to handhold. I find using the tripod slows me down when trying to shoot birds in flight. It is a "slow" lens so will work better the more light available. As with many zooms, it will be softer when fully zoomed to 500mm but I haven't experienced "smeared" images at 500mm. While unlikely, it could be you got a "bad" copy of this lens.</p>

[juanparmenides]

<p>Check this<br>

<a href="00Xy1W?start=20">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Xy1W?start=20</a></p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>I briefly owned the Bigma 50-500mm lens. I too wanted more reach over my 70-300mm VR. After some testing of the two, I found the cropped images of my 70-300mm VR at 300mm to have better color, contrast and detail over the 500mm image from the Bigma even when cropped and upsized to the equivalent of 500mm.</p>

<p>You should test your lenses with a tripod on a stationery object to see how the lens is working for you in a controlled setting. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mary,<br>

Examples would help, with full EXIF data. Also, what kind of tripod?<br>

For 500mm, I use the 300 f/4 with 1.7 TC which gives a f/6.7 lens. My D80 hardly wanted to AF with this lens except in bright sunlight. The D300 is far more decisive with it. In that sense, a D300 could help, but for fast moving anything, at 500mm with an aperture below f/5.6, it will be a struggle, and a fraction of the images will really work. So, don't expect miracles in upgrading.<br>

For the second point, using a tripod should help, but only if the tripod is up to the job. My ballhead, rated for 16 kilos, creeps like hell with a D300 and 300 f/4 on it, and the tripod collar of the 300 f/4 itself is shaky too. Drop below 1/250th, and it all shows very clearly. In fact, I am consistently better at handholding than the tripod - and that's not my virtue (in other words, I need a better ballhead).<br>

Also to bear in mind, a lot of longer telezooms are weaker at the long end. Try ~400 mm, aperture one stop down (so f/8 probably) and see how it does then.</p>

<p>So, to better understand your issue, it would help to have more info on your tripod with some example fotos with shooting data. Otherwise, it's a bit of a guess.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>My tripod is a vanguard carbon ..with a vanguard ballhead.. weight I believe goes to 22lbs..terrific setup..and rock solid. I usually leave the center post down when using this tamron setup to avoid any unnecessary vibration. I keep one hand lightly resting on front of lens . I will include one photo of a hooded merganser. To me this is not that sharp even after some post process.</p><div></div>

[marypar4]

<p>This second image is a bit better as F9 seems to be the sweet spot. I really was wondering about the D300s to get that AF focused quicker.. but perhaps not going to be that crucial. I have never shot with one so not sure if it will make a huge difference compared to D90...that is my dilemma.</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mary,<br>

Agreed the first one does not look supersharp. The second is better. But the first one, to me, is not that bad at all; does not look like an AF error (=D300 would not have done better). However, the comparison isn't really fair: the first one is at the extreme end of the zoom, wide open. The second one in the middle (380mm), stopped down. Sure, the second ought to be better.</p>

<p>As for the tripod, despite my comment earlier, my tripod is pretty terrific too, the legs can carry the load easily and it won't tip over easily... but these heavy big lenses do show any weakness way more. Mine has no issues with normal lenses, but mount something considerably larger and the ballhead (despite its weight-rating!) will show it's not what I need. Don't take that as a negative comment on the tripod you have, but rather as a why the much heavier duty (and vastly more expensive) tripods are on the market. Either way, it was just a thing to consider, this lens puts some extra demands on its support.</p>

[jason_walker2]

<p>There is a similar thread on another forum about this lense. The short version is that upon seeing a very nice, super sharp image taken by a member with the Tamron, they (finally) purchased one as well....However, it was used at about $350. After a good bit of testing, and not being able to reproduce reuslts of between the two known lenses, the second was sent to tamron, and that resolved the problem. (though not cheaply)<br>

As a side note: it was at this point a Mod came in and noted that on any given production line, small things creating larger things break down or need servicing; producing bad examples of great gear (the example here might be a polishing bit needing to be replaced resulting in a less than perfect internal glass). Now, I love my Tamron 28-300 and the 200-500 is next on my list, I have shot it many times as my uncle has one, and it's the only >400 lense that I can SOMEWHAT handhold. This being said, it is only prolonging the inivetable...a 500 prime!<br>

The Tamron is a great lense that has produced super sharp results for lots of photographers, perhaps this is why you found this example at less than 50% MSRP?<br>

Sorry you're not happy with it :(. I hope I don't come accross arrogant, but I take my monitor with me when buying used lenses, and do some quick test shots on a tripod against a lense I own and am comfortable with. Sometimes there are just flukes!</p>

<p>~Jason</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>There does not seem to be any significant problem with the lens that we can see here. I see no "smeared" effects and the images are as good as I would expect from this lens.</p>

<p>You really need to take a half an hour and do some testing on your tripod with both of your zooms set at 300mm as I described above. Take some with the Tamron at 500 and see if you are happier with blowing up images from the 300.</p>

<p>It will not surprise me at all if you are better off with enlarging from your Nikon zoom. The third party megazooms are not very good. Unfortunately to beat your Nikon zoom you will have to spend close to $1000 USD on the used market for a lens/converter combo to get you into the 400 to 500mm range. There are quite a few options.</p>

<p>From your question I thought you had a D90 <em>and</em> D300. Obviously I was wrong. There is nothing between the D90, D300 and D300s that would make any significant difference when using this lens.</p>

<p>You have to be careful when evaluating pictures on this site or any website viewed on your monitor because it is easy to make a poor shot look sharp and beautiful. For instance your "wigeon" shot looks fine here but obviously it does not hold up under the magnification that you would like. </p>

[marypar4]

<p>I appreciate all the input. I agree now with the comment about the tripod. I never realized how much that thing moves until I went out today to shoot in the wind..now I am depressed. I think I may go to my local camera store and see what they recommend. I bought the original one from them ..and it definitely moves about. I also noticed the lens is a bit loose at the connection to the camera... something that may cause a problem as well. I also contacted tamron to see how much it would cost to have them take a look..but I really don't think the lens is the problem...I think it a combination of human error and poor stability at long length. The lens-camera does not respond quickly at f8-10000..my thought was perhaps the cameras speed a bit slow...not sure how that works. The lens locks in..but the cameras speed seems slow to release the shutter..I do know that in very good light the pictures are acceptable which thrills me. I had the very same lens last year which I purchased through AMazon..that was returned do to error messages... As I stated earlier..my question...would a d300s be a better bet with this lens seems to have been answered..no not really. I still am perplexed ..as if your autofocus is quicker..and your frame rate highter..your chances of a sharper images should be greater..well I guess I was wrong! Thanks again for all the great feedback and advice..much appreciate.</p>

 

[marypar4]

<p>An image from today ..sand bag hooked on to bottom holding down tripod..backed off to 440mm ..so not too bad, I coud live with this...</p><div></div>

[chris_letts]

<p>As a matter of interest, what percentage of your shots are 'reasonable' clarity ?<br>

I have the Tamron 200-500 on my D200, and I have found that circumstances have to be near perfect to get a really good shot (i.e. fairly bright day, solid tripod, no wind, etc).<br>

Bear in mind that at '500' on my D200, I'm using the equivalent of 700 or so on an old 35mm camera. At that length you'd expect any tele lens to be rather fussy about light and stability.<br>

You're also taking a difficult subject - even on the water, birds can be moving pretty quick ! I too take lots of bird photos, and I'm finding I need to take 10-12 shots to get a really good one, but that's no problem on digital..<br>

I use spot metering and spot focussing.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>Also (I forgot to mention) I fire the sutter by wireless remote to avoid that extra possible movement.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>I think my percentages are in line with yours. I shoot with a D90..and I find it very challenging to shoot song birds. I am hoping to get some nice shoots off larger birds like herons and egrets when I go to hilton Head this spring. They are a lot less active..also there Woodstorks etc in the refuge areas so that should be fun. I have a new found respect for wildlife photographers.</p>

 

[rjmelone]

<p>Mary, you have a good technique and are asking all the right questions. Just be patient with yourself and continue to strive for images that may rival those of much more expensive equipment. In the process, your technique (and images) will improve. Anyway, this has been my approach with a D90 and 70-300 VR lens (handheld). I did want to mention a few things about technique: When shooting birds in water always use “C” autofocus on the D90. If it is quiet, you should be able to hear the camera track your subject. When you are ready, gently ”squeeze” the shutter. I know with me, I get excited when I have an interesting bird in the viewfinder, and I have a tendency to get aggressive with the shutter thinking that I am going to freeze the bird by pressing hard. This will almost always blur your subject, unless you have a fast shutter (e.g. >1000). If you can see your subject in the viewfinder after you press the shutter you should be good. If, (like me, often) you press the shutter and then either close your eyes or move quickly for your next shot, then you may be adding some movement (blur) to your image --- you may be fine with this, but I wanted to mention it. Based upon your samples, it looks like you are getting good exposure, but I also wanted to mention that you don’t want to shoot in “Vivid” mode. While this mode makes colors pop, it will also limit detail in the bird’s feathers by exaggerating (and smearing) the colors. You can try standard or neutral (I think it is) and see how you make out. Speaking about smearing, remember that wet feathers may also contribute to a blurred look. I’m not saying that you can’t get sharp images of birds with wet feathers, you can, but sometimes, depending on the bird, wet feathers do not help with that beautiful detailed look we love so much. Lastly, if it is very windy with both the water and bird moving as a result, you may want to just pack it in and try another day (i.e. if you get frustrated with your results as I do). All best of success…</p><div></div>

[marypar4]

<p>Thanks Robert...I had switched to vivid after I noticed my images were a bit flat. I agree vivid is not the way to go..I also notice with vivid that the camera meter overexposes a bit. I am back to standard. Funny I was laughing when I read the part about getting excited. So true..you almost have to be in a coma like state..I do tend to get much like you described..photograhy reminds me a bit like golf..the harder you try the worse you get..loosey goosey is much better..take your time..relax. I have also lowered the legs on my tripod..the skinny ones on bottom..to get a bit more stablity. As you said..its a learning curve with the long lenses. I was spoiled with the 70-300vr..so easy..great colors..etc. I use that lens on my kayak and get some stunning results. The Tamron is like the bad child that needs extra attention..and still acts up even when I do everything right.</p>

[rjmelone]

<p>Mary, I have never shot with a 500mm lens but would think that “aggressive shuttering” would be even more of an issue than it is with my 300mm lens. Sure would like to see more of your images as you overcome these issues.</p>

[marypar4]

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

I am getting better at this long lens shooting trying to stay calm..I shot this at our local national preserve in NJ (Forsythe) No tripod..shot out of back seat of the car..engine off..sitting lens and camera on a handmade car mount. sharpening in PS. Not too bad for $400 lens. I am happy with the lens. Tamron is great if you buy new. They will recalibrate your lens to your camera and make sure its right..having a used one will cost. This shot at F-9 shutter at 1250 Iso 400 ..AF-C on center meter. Thanks again for all the advice from everyone.</p><div></div>