Quality of Tamron 200-400 Zoom

[ed_thanz]

I purchased a Tamron 200-400 zoom lens for a Minolta camera and am not very satisfied with the results. I find the ability to focus on birds, etc. in the field difficult at best. I have rarely gotten sharp images and would like some feedback on this lens from other points of view.

[bobatkins]

It's not a very sharp lens at 400mm, judged by reasonably critical

standards. I reviewed it for "Nature Photographer" magazine. It's

a decent lens at 200 and 300mm, but at 400mm it's not going to

make you very happy if your standards are high. It would be fine

for an uncritical user, or one who judged images by small (4x6)

prints.

 

<p>

 

The sample I tested (on an EOS body) seemed to focus OK. If you're

attempting to shoot birds in flight, then I'm not suprised that

your images aren't sharp. That's tricky and takes some practice,

even with the best AF systems and lenses.

 

<p>

 

If your images of static subjects aren't sharp, especially at focal

lengths of less than 300mm, then you have other problems. Under those

conditions you should be getting decent results.

[anthony___1]

Ed, I have the same problem at the 400mm end. I recently tried to use this lens in the early morning shooting deer and was very disappointed in it's lack of speed. I also used it on an eagle shhot and even close with caged bald eagles images were soft.

[carol_keeler]

I bought the Tamron 200-400 after a review done by John Shaw in Outdoor and Nature Photography magazine. He said it was very sharp at the 400mm end. It's not bad but not as critically sharp as my Nikon lenses. I've done a lot of bird photography with it and gotten good results, but it just doesn't compare with my Nikons. Because its a long zoom, I've found it very useful when cropping pictures, etc.

[bobatkins]

"He said it was very sharp at the 400mm end". Really? My impression

of his review was that he deliberately didn't say anything bad, but

he seemd to carefully avoid saying anything really good about the

lens, other than vague stuff about the focal length range being useful and such. If you have the review

handy, read it again. Let us know. I'll do the same if I haven't

tossed out that issue of OP!

 

<p>

 

I think you read into the review exactly what OP and Tamron hoped

you would, not what John Shaw actually wrote. I could be wrong of

course.

[bobatkins]

I checked the OP review. As I had remembered, John Shaw said

absolutely nothing at all about the optical performance of the

lens! He said it AF'd properly and all exposure modes performed

well and that MF was simple. That's it. No comment on optical

performance at all. I guess he was following the "if you can't

say something good, say nothing at all" rule.

 

<p>

 

He also said that Tamron wanted to make the lens sharp wide open,

hence the use of LD elements. What he did not say. or even suggest anywhere is that they achieved their goal! If you want to read that

into what he actually said, I'm sure Tamron would be delighted.

 

<p>

 

It's actually a classic OP lens "review". May 1995, p28-29. The

only amazing thing about it is John Shaw's name is on it.

[terry_danks]

I have this lens. I do not understand people having a problem

with it as far as focus speed is concerned. It just snaps into

focus beautifully on my F90X. It is my first experience with

AF and it seems amazing to me.

My only real problem is that I do not find long zooms

useful. I have NEVER, not even once, used this lens

at other than fully racked out to 400mm. My interest

is birds and 400mm seems never enough. Also the manual

focus ring is pretty dinky for those occasions when you

have to turn AF off.

Unless the zoom feature is really important to you, I would

suggest fixed focal length 400 over the Tamron.

As far as sharpness is concerned: My 500mm Nikkor mirror

seems sharper to me but the Tamron seems OK too.

[pete_dickson1]

I keep meaning to reply to the criticism of John Shaw's lens reviews in Outdoor Photographer. I read those same reviews (Tamron 200-400, Nikon 28-200 & 70-300) and put them all in the category of damning with faint praise. If John Shaw thought they were great lenses he would say so. He didn't say that, did he? If the best they can get out of him, even when they pay him handsomly (I assume) is "it's a useful focal length range," you should know what that means. What I picked up on from the most recent review was that he mentioned an "old" lens, the 28-70/3.3-4.5. I know he does, indeed, use this one - so it must be ok. There IS useful information in these reviews. It's just hidden. If the original poster is "not very satisfied with the results," with the Tamron 200-400 then no further comment is necessary. The best equipment review is the one done by the person you trust most - yourself.

 

<p>

 

Pete

[keith_kennedy1]

I too read John Shaw's review of the Tamron 200-400 lens--basically it was a "nothing-burger" of a a review. I am a fan of John's but I have to say I was greatly dissapointed that he provided no useful information/advice--apparently on purpose!. I am dissapointed that someone who has so much to offer in terms of expertise and experience, would waste both his time and mine--just for the $$. I realize he deserves an opportunity to 'earn a living' but I would suggest the integrity of his project selection has slipped a bit and some of us noticed it.

[mark_mitchell]

I bought this lense shortly after it's introduction, mainly just

wanting something in the 300/400 mm range. My is really much sharper

than I imagined. I think it's more of a matter with specific

expectations, your technique, film(s) used, etc. Of course it can't

compete with a 400 2.8/5.6 Nikon/Canon/etc, but for the money, I

think its a very good value. Also, hasn't John Shaw said "A good

photographer will take good photographs with mediocre equipment

easier than a poor photographer will with expesive gear"?

[nahum_prashizky]

Hi, guys... I actually got one after being newbie in the whole thing, and been told that it is a great lens by seller, and that it is very sharp one...

Ok, now, after taking a lot of pics, I know that 390 mm (actuall top range of lense) isn't that useful. Pictures come out really soft, thought the shooting speed is 1/2000, sometimes even 1/3000 on 5.6 on static sitting bird fully focused on... (I live in Israel, so sunny days are common here...)

When shooting at lower ranges, from 205 to even I'd say 350 - it gives not bad results...

My REAL disappointment came from reading review on http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/tamron.shtml#Tamron

It got full ... 1.2 marks of possible 5... :-( That was when I was disappointed, and understood that problem not only in my hands, but softness has to do with lens. Looking to get one of cheaper primes now (after getting that cheap 50/1.8 Mark II, I was so amazed with quality of output...) So, want to go for another prime, but only after checking their photodo results...

[gregory_gusse]

I've owned this lens for about 5 years and think its a pretty fine lens but not for birders or action photography. Mine is a tad soft at 400mm but not unacceptably so. I think, on reading the postings, the issue maybe the body(s) that are being used. At least in my experience lens' don't perform equally in every system. I use it on Canon EOS camera's like one of the othe posters who found it a very exceptable lens. It is also quiet fast, 5.6 at 400mm or even 300mm isn'y bad at all. Sure my 70-200mm Canon 2.8 L IS is lighting fast but it apples and oranges, I couple that to a 5D and I can catch some fowl. Somebody also said something about the weight, which again for a 400mm lens is actually quite light. I also have a Sigma 50-500mm which comes in around 2.5 kilos. So all things considered, speed, weight, quality of image, and especially price...its really not too bad at all.