mark_mitchell

I've had the Tamron 200-400 for over 2 years & mine is quite sharp &

contrasty. I primarily use Velvia & Astia, and at 400mm at f8-f11 I

get great results.

No one will find Del's to be the cheapest, and a number of his used

items do sell for as much as B&H grey market, but he has a liberal

return policy, warrantees his used items well & is extremely honest

and is good to deal with.

I have to agree with Ron. I bought an F5, and the RGB metering may

have helped out on a number of photos, the faster AF probably has

come in handy on some action shots, but I bought primarily to use for

8-10 years and for it's durability. None of the 'new toys' will

really help one's photography. But I do wish that Moose Petersen and

others would really divulge when they are compensated by the Canons

and Nikons of the world so we & others could take their comments

about the equipment at something other than face value. I've been

around photo gear long enough to know what I'm looking for, and for

what I like & don't like. Others may really be swayed because

BigNamePhotographer is using X brand & wouldn't be caught dead

without it. Those less experienced may not realized $ just changed

hands ( and not for the equipment!).

The best price I've seen (presuming it was grey market), was from

Del's at 2099.00. I've seen the 1700-1800 range from the sharks

listed in PP, but assumed they're not really selling at those prices.

Give a long look at the line of Kaiser ballheads. Kirk enterprises

(among others) sells them, and they are great. They will answer your

concerns without the price of the Arca.

Wow, a question close to my heart ( Dad left me about 40 old

Polaroids including a '51 Model 95 & '52 Model 95a). I've thought of

using a Polaroid for 'instant composition' determination, but haven't

given thought to an NPC back. Has any one else found it useful to

tote a Polaroid around?

Steve, the 200mm is probably the all-around perfect choice. I just

got one & like the perspective much better. But to be fair, I will

still on occassion use the 70-300 with the 5/6T ( the 5 is sharper &

doesn't exhibit quite the same softness in the corners as the 6T ) and

will get excellent results. For 1:1, the 200mm is great, much better

( to my vision ) than the 60 or 105.

Stan is absolutely right. It is a total give & take senario. I've

taken tens (hundreds?) of thousands of photos, and feel accomplished

in Nature, animal & sports photography, but become very humbled when

I realize the true number of 'keepers' I have. In the grand scheme of

things, equipment means virtually nothing. Look at the real artists,

Cliborne, Itzak Perlman, or great photographers and they accomplish

so much with so little. True talent. That's not to take anything away

from anyone else, but I think some of us become too obsessed with all

aspects of photography and sometimes lose sight of what it was we

wanted to accomplish in the beginning.

No matter where I'm going, I always seem to just bring everything

along, which is usally 1 or 2 N90s, 1 F5, 20/24/28 2.8 Nikons, 28-105

Tamron, 80-200 2.8 Nikon, 70-300 Tamron, 300 f4 Nikon, Tamron 200-

400, 1 SB26 flash, Polarizers, ND and warming filters for all lenses,

sc-17 connecting cord, remote releases for the camera bodies, flash

manual, a leatherman tool, cell phone and a bogen 3021 with the

Kaiser medium ballhead & stroboframe quick release unit with spare

plates. I pack it in a Super Phototrekker.

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"?

Anthony, you may have already made a decision/purchase by now, but if

not: I just picked up the new 80-200 2.8 - truly fabulous! I had

the old 80-200 2.8 & sold it to use a Tamron 70-210 2.8, an excellent

lense. You can go the TCxx route, but I also have the 200-400 5.6

Tamron, bought an early model & I continue to see comments about this

len's lack of sharpness. Mine it truly tack sharp at 300-400mm.

Don't know if I was lucky, or what. I would add that take your film

into account, as emulsions like ektar 25 & velvia will give you the

sharpness you're looking for.

Yep, In a perfect world, we could all go out and pickup a 400 2.8 & shot to our hearts content. I personally can't afford one, but a year

ago found the Tamron 200-400 5.6 and have been very happy since.

Sharp? Yes, just not as sharp as the 400 2.8. The color and contrast is also very good, and it only relieved my wallet of $495.00.

I've been involved in photograph for 23 years. I've have around

350 - 400,000 exposures, and have been very fortunate to have

several pictures published. But to reply, I'm lucky if I get 12-15 really

good images per year (out of 400 + rolls). Why? I'm my own worst

critic. The more demanding you are of yourself, the higher your

standards become. Usually, I know what the vision is that I see

mentally, but cannot always translate it to film.

All of the above responses lend credence to 'Why Nature' question.

Man has a creative streak. We like to make things. I don't 'take'

pictures, I create photographs. I borrow that scene for the express

purpose of creating an image, one that I may never see again.

On the rare occassion an excellent image is made, I gain personal

satisfaction and am proud to display it to friends and family, not for

the compliments, merely to state 'I made this image'. There is much

I do not understand about nature, and photography really helps me

with this a great deal.