IQ and lens cost - Tamron 55-200mm macro

[NickB]

A while ago I bought a cheap f4-f5.6 Tamron 55-200mm macro zoom following Eccles' examples on this forum. Given that I usually use a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro and Kenco 3000 Pro 1.4xTC it has mostly stayed in the bag. However, following a few days chasing Frits in Devon, I switched for one afternoon, when they were quite active and also quite high on the brambles, thistles and bracken. etc, to give myself some extra reach. Luckily the conditions were quite good, mostly sunny and diffused light through cloud, so the f4-f5.6 rating was not a problem. What was difficult was the movement of the Frits nectaring, especially the HBFs - spending 5-10 seconds max on each thistle flower head before moving on - and SWFs on the brambles. I took the opportunity for some shots using my trusty mono-pod and Nikon D300.
Since it is a low-end consumer lens I had few real expectations of IQ at 200mm but took a few for reference; I tended to go for something around 150mm to see what IQ it could deliver. I was also looking at shooting around f8 for maximum sharpness, with low ISO's for detail and also to compensate for the movement I also needed to shoot at high speeds if possible. Following the Photo workshop this year (and earlier lessons) I also routinely underexpose by up to 1-step and compensate later. Some results follow:
The first is at 200mm, ISO 160, f8 @1/640th second, -0.7ve:

A surprisingly good image , but a little soft with low IQ close-up.
The next is at 135mm, ISO 160, f9@1/250th second, -0.7ve:

A noticeable improvement in IQ; quite sharp and surprising for a cheap lens
For comparison I include one using my 90mm+TC taken earlier in the day during a more cloudy period:
ISO 200, f5.6 @1/200th second, -0.3ve:

Given that the first lens is generally less than £80 now (tho' by some fluke I managed to find a special offer for around £32 last year ) and the second, plus TC, around £430, the Tamron 55-200mm is surprisingly good value; given good lighting conditions and used at less than fullest extent at 200mm, for better IQ, I am quite pleased with the results.

[Dave McCormick]

I have started using my Tamron 18-200mm and its not a bad lens, image quality is good, but not the best, Sigma Macro lens (105, 150 and I think 180mm) are better maybe because in the 18-200 is 1:3.5-5.6 not 1:2.8 F, but for larger insects where my 105mm won't reach, I tend to use it occationally. I gave it to my dad as he uses my 400D now and I think for the price the Tamron Macro lenses are good and don't give too bad an image, they give a good image, but not a high quality one like the Sigmas could do, but I like the lens myself and its good if your starting into butterfly photography and when you get the hang of it, the higher quality macro lenses might be better.

I use the 18-200 for insects and general shots becaus it starts at 18mm I can use it for landscapes without changing lenses to my 18-55 IS lens and because my camera has a movie mode, shooting movies is good with it too but thats not what most people would use a DSLR for anyway.

I have to try the lens on some butterflies myself and see what results I get, but I know it does not gat as close up to some insects and plants as my Sigma 105mm does, but for the price (I got mine for around £120 which is good as they usually start at £150) which was a lot less than I paid for my sigma (around £300 at time) Anyway, I'll get shots tomorrow if rain stays off and see how it compares to my Sigma and post them here like you did Nick. Only one thing I did notice in comparison to my Sigma, the image did not appear as sharp on the Tamron.

[NickB]

Fair point about the HBF photo using my Tamron 90mm set-up. It was taken earlier in much more overcast conditions - a fairer comparison would be with this SWF taken the same afternoon, which I think demonstrates the difference in IQ a proper prime can make in similar conditions - and also shows what a good macro it is

SWF ISO 200 @f5, 1/320th second, -0.3 ve

[Dave McCormick]

Your right there Nick, thats a very good shot

[eccles]

Nick, I think the reason why the first shot isn't so good is that it appears to be front focussed. The wing tip closest to the camera is sharper than the body of the butterfly.

My 55-200 is actually a Sony, but it is simply a rebadged Tamron and is optically very similar to yours. I got it as a virtual freebie with an A700 kit in the Spring of 2008, and no, it isn't Sony 'G' or the Nikon/Canon equivalent, yet alone a macro prime, but it's not at all bad. My old Minolta 70-210 F4 'beercan' outresolves it, and for that reason I carry the latter in preference, but it is quite a bit heavier. However, if I want a set up in an easy-to-carry package then the 55-200 with the 18-70 kit and my old A100 body is great. My Canon 500D close-up lens gets me closer if I need to.

I had a day out with my mother and siblings on 5th July at Dyrham Park and used the light set-up.

This shot was taken with the A100 and 55-200 at 200mm and f6.3, just 1/3 stop from wide open.

This one was also taken with the A100/55-200 and the Canon 500D attached. Aperture was f8.

[eccles]

Further, Dave, don't confuse the Tamron 90mm macro with the low end so-called macro zooms. Optically, the 90mm macro that Nick uses is evidently every bit as good as your 105 Sigma, maybe even a smidgin better.

[Dave McCormick]

Further, Dave, don't confuse the Tamron 90mm macro with the low end so-called macro zooms. Optically, the 90mm macro that Nick uses is evidently every bit as good as your 105 Sigma, maybe even a smidgin better.

Yeah I know, I like the Tamron 90mm and know its better than lower end macro lenes. I have been seeing this recently. Is the Tamron 18-200mm Macro same quality as 55-200 or different does anyone know?

[eccles]

Dyxum's user reviews rate the 55-200 a little higher I think, but the 18-200 is by no means a bad lens. Besides, I wouldn't underestimate the value of going out all day with a one lens solution. An 11x zoom range is inevitably going to involve some compromises.

[NickB]

Nice shots Eccles - amply demonstrate that for the money the 55-200mm can produce very good results and gives great flexibility as an "all day" lens. Can be a bit more difficult in lower light conditions and I guess this is another reason for going for a prime that goes down to f2.8 if you are getting more serious about your shooting. (If you NEED a reason to buy more "toys" )
N
Yes - first shot more front-focussed; but a head-focus left the nearer wing-tips out-of-focus....that perennial struggle with dof ....