Further Explorations with the Tamron SP200-500 Di

[pathfinder]

I continue to explore the usefullness of the Tamron SP200-500 Di lens. I find the light weight and easy carryability very appealing for a quick walk about at home.

It's near focus point at 500mm is only about 8 feet, about half the distance for the near focal point for the Canon 500 f4. I spent some time to day with the 200-500 on a 36mm extension tube for macro work.

The extension tube helped capture these images with a 20D

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92509639-L.jpg

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92508949-L.jpg

Without the extension tube I captured these images today. A nice sunny day was helpful

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92508727-L.jpg

I found a frog :):

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92502693-L.jpg

and the green heron I shot previously

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92501861-L.jpg

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/92502818-L.jpg

I think this lens is a useful tool, that is capable of capturing satisfactory images. When shot from a tripod, it is a capable optic. A 20D and the Tammy 200-500 will fit in a case made for a 300mm lens. A rather small package for optics with such reach. Small enough to transport on two wheels even.

[Osprey Whisperer]

Some nice pics Jim. Now that you have that focal length covered with this lens........... you can give me your 300mm f/2.8. :D

[pathfinder]

Nice try, Mike.

I think I will keep my Canon Primes. Just trying to get an idea what this little Tammy is capable of. The 200-500mm range is a nice range zoom.

Down there in Fla, you really don't need more than 200mm for birds though, do ya??:D :D

[Osprey Whisperer]

Nice try, Mike.

I think I will keep my Canon Primes. Just trying to get an idea what this little Tammy is capable of. The 200-500mm range is a nice range zoom.

Down there in Fla, you really don't need more than 200mm for birds though, do ya??:D :D

No...probably not, but that 300mm would impress the chicks 'cause it's so big. :huh :D

[pathfinder]

That's why I need to keep it, to impress the chicks.

I need all the help I can get anymore.:uhoh

I actually am carrying the Tammy 200-500 on a 20D in a soft nylon case made by Kinesis specifically for the 300mm f2.8 IS L.

That is how small the 20D and the Tammy lens are together. Rather handy. And lighter than the 300f2.8 without a body.

[Dick on Aruba]

Nice captures. I like the 1st the most.

Thanks for sharing.

Dick.

[jwear]

the last greeny shot good color and sharper

[raptorcaptor]

Nice shots Jim! :D

[gluwater]

That's why I need to keep it, to impress the chicks.

I need all the help I can get anymore.:uhoh
Better watch out Jim, or I'm going to tell Nightingale on you :D.

These are really great shots. The second one looks a bit ratty though, what did you do to that poor butterfly? I think you got a really good copy of the lens Jim. I have seen others post pics from this lens and the CA was terrible for them, I'm just not seeing it in your shots.

[pathfinder]

the last greeny shot - good color and sharper

Thanks Jeff.

The EXIF speaks for itself -- ISO 200 f10 1/100th shot from a tripod -

I MAY have even had mirror lock up too - not sure - tried it for a few frames from this location.

Shutter speed was still way too slow, but it does speak to the optical quality of the glass itself doesn't it?? Having the critter in a sun beam doesn't hurt either. My previous shots of this rascal were at ISO 800 or so, and 1/13th or 1/15th of second due to the darkness of the shade I originally caught it in.

[pathfinder]

These are really great shots. The second one looks a bit ratty though, what did you do to that poor butterfly? I think you got a really good copy of the lens Jim. I have seen others post pics from this lens and the CA was terrible for them, I'm just not seeing it in your shots.


I see so many perfect tiger swallowtails that I am becoming intrigued by the ones that have been through the mill. A butterflies life is not an easy one, as that poor swallowtail demonstrates so nicely.

I have heard that people comment about CA with this lens, but my copy, so far, seems not troubled by that much at all. If I hold the lens still, it will do a credible job. Thanks for stopping by, Nick:):

[jwear]

Thanks Jeff.

The EXIF speaks for itself -- ISO 200 f10 1/100th shot from a tripod -

I MAY have even had mirror lock up too - not sure - tried it for a few frames from this location.

Shutter speed was still way too slow, but it does speak to the optical quality of the glass itself doesn't it?? Having the critter in a sun beam doesn't hurt either. My previous shots of this rascal were at ISO 800 or so, and 1/13th or 1/15th of second due to the darkness of the shade I originally caught it in. I see no exif - just a ??? but why not f8 the speed would kick up and the shot would look about the same [ I like the shot the color is good and a grennie is not easy to get good color ]the other shot you can tell the condition was not good

[Harryb]

Very interesting PF. It appears to be an excellent lens for the price. The last shot has excellent details. If I didn't have the 80-400 I would definitely consider the lens.