The Utility Lens (or the "Mom lens")

[DonSchap]

A lot of folks have asked, "What lens can I buy that will kind of cover all the bases and one I will not have to change all the time.

The answer is and has been the "utility" lens. It was originally introduced by TAMRON back in 1992, as the AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 LD. It has since had a digital redesign and face lift, resulting in one of the best ones on the market ... now, this is a mouthful but here it is:

AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/18-250--A100.jpg

After doing some rather extensive testing on my own, the images that result from using this lens are on par or better than any other lens of its kind. It runs about $450-500, depending on where you get one, but it is handy as heck for vacations or just running around, when you cannot keep your assortment of glass at your side.

Now, there are some things about a lens that has this broad a focal length. It really is more like an 18-135mm, when your subject is standing 10-feet away. If they get to 27 feet away ... because of the focus adjustment, it effectively extends the focal length to the advertised 250mm. You really have to witness this to appreciate it, but that's the way the lens works.

It also shoots a little darker after 70mm, because of the f-stop drop that occurs in a longer tube. If you are outdoors, it usually is not an issue. If you telephoto indoors ... better have an external flash handy.



Once again, this is the convenience lens (the "mom" lens) and is the grab&go alternative to your lens case. It's not perfect, but its not bad, either. A far cry better and brighter than most kit lenses (18-50/18-70).

[Elisha]

i want the Sony version of this lens....

[DonSchap]

I believe it will serve you well. Good luck!

[dr4gon]

i want the Sony version of this lens....


I believe it will serve you well. Good luck!

That's a good choice. It does focus faster (because it requires less AF screw turns). But the Tamron warranty has got it beat by an ADDITIONAL 5 years and a $~75 less price tag.

Anyways, yes good luck. This is certainly a must have vacation lens. It's one end of the path away from the kit lens.

[Elisha]

lol unfortunately i will have to wait till after i come back from my trip to Singapore and Malaysia in December.
hopefully i can pick up some used glass down there for cheap.

[seanhoxx]

If your going to Singapore and malaysia I hope you have a couple of pieces of good glass to go with you. A good zoom for sure, something fast for low light. maybe a wide angle? Again the Tamron 70-300 won't break the bank and could be handy. I hope we will see plenty of pics from your trip.

[Elisha]

there is a guy here selling the Tamron LD Macro 1:2 used here for $140 and i have been contemplating it but i still want a Beercan :-)

[seanhoxx]

beercan is big and heavy, go for about $200.00 at the very least. I haven't used one but they are said to be very nice, how much is fact and how much is myth / legend? You may want to get a couple of good digital lensesbefore you start picking up film lenses, Don helped me understand that

[dr4gon]

Beercans are pretty popular. F4 is nice to have at something like ~210mm. The Tamron 70-300 was like $145 when I got mine, so it's pretty cheap. The beercan's quality though is probably better, but doesn't quite have the range. (But at the 300mm end of the Tamron, it's pretty soft anyway).

[JPhotoz]

How does my 28-300 Tamron compare to the lens listed by Don?

I use that for an all around lens. I wish I had found this site prior to lens shopping. Sean suggested that I should get a 70-200 (I think) I have not even taken a picture with my Kit lens yet. Maybe I never will. I was able to get a nice used mini beercan ( 35-70). I have used that a couple of times. I really only use the Tamron. I will be looking for a Tamron 70-200 or 300 2.8. When I have money to spare.

Jordan

[Elisha]

this is actually a pretty good lens.
read the review for the Sony version of this exact lens here: http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-18-250mm-f35-63-review

[DonSchap]

How does my 28-300 Tamron compare to the lens listed by Don?

I use that for an all around lens. I wish I had found this site prior to lens shopping. Sean suggested that I should get a 70-200 (I think) I have not even taken a picture with my Kit lens yet. Maybe I never will. I was able to get a nice used mini beercan ( 35-70). I have used that a couple of times. I really only use the Tamron. I will be looking for a Tamron 70-200 or 300 2.8. When I have money to spare.

Jordan

The TAMRON SP AF 300mm f/2.8 LD is nearly $3000!

41440

The SONY rendition (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665079072) (<-Click this link) ... double that!


That's a hunk of change for a lens that you admit that you are not really using much, Jordan.

I recently bought the AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD (Full Frame-compatible) lens to be used on the A900, until I found out that SONY had designed the A900 with a "crop" mode, that allows it to use most all of the SONY DT, SIGMA DC and the TAMRON Di-II line of lenses, too. So, now, it is an "extra lens", sitting in my bag, along with a couple others.

Running through a recently conducted series of comparison tests against other lenses of its relative range (18-250, 18-200, 28-300, 24-105, 75-300), even after I had its focus "adjusted" by TAMRON, it wound up be a marginal performer, over all. Just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The "best performer" of the group being the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens, which easily demonstrated better:

focus performance,
contrast,
color and
CA (chromatic aberration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)).


Now, the 28-300 does have a skosh more reach than the 18-250, but it is hardly a point of decision here. You actually have to be shooting subjects beyond twenty-feet away from you to even notice it, other wise your focal length is more like 140mm. The lens, IMO, just does not perform as well as the 18-250 does. Admittedly, the 18-250 has been designed better... as it grew up based on that series of lens designs.

The 75-300 f/4-5.6 lens is a lot cheaper and gives a true 300mm image, but is also suffers from softness out that far. What can you expect for $150, when a true 300mm f/2.8 costs $3000? That's not by mistake, but by better design. You really need an appreciation of these different optics to know the WHY in how the pricing is actually done.

That 300mm f/2.8 weighs 6.2 pounds! That's not air, folks, that focus-sharpening, light-collecting glass. It delivers incredible shots, but use a tripod.

More, later ...

[JPhotoz]

Don, I was not clear in my other post. I was meaning Tamron 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 2.8 or something like that. $3,000 is way out of my range. My wife would kill me. I told her that I wanted to spend about $700 for a lens and she almost flipped on that.

I am just getting back into this hobby.

Jordan

[JPhotoz]

You are not saying that I should get rid of my 28-300 for the one you listed are you.

Jordan

[DonSchap]

You are not saying that I should get rid of my 28-300 for the one you listed are you.

Jordan

If you want an margin of imporvement, yes. The 18-250 is just is a better lens, overall. Many comparison and critiques, online, will bear this out, also.

Personally, I feel the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO is the best bargain for the money. While it, obviously, does not have the focal range of the 18-250 ... it is a quality piece of glass that delivers superbly sharp images. The focus speed is similar to the 18-250, so it is not super fast to focus, but it delivers beautifully colored images and sharpness on par with lenses costing more that twice its price. That's a pretty remarkable claim for ANY zoom lens.

You just need a good lens at the bottom to compliment it, like the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) or its brother lens, the SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), if you can get one that is okay out of the box. I've personally had a few issues with the latter lens. You can get it "adjusted" by TAMRON if it has issues like that, as it is considered a manufacturer's defect, and when it returns ... it should be perfecto mundo. :D

[TheWengler]

I love the title of this thread. :D

[sparkie1263]

Dr4gon, do you really think the 70-300 Tamron is soft at 300? I have not had this problem. I posted a few of my images to prove it. Maybe you need to get the lens tuned up. Don, how do you feel about this?

Frank

[DonSchap]

Frank, I do not have the latest AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD like the rest of you guys ... I have the edition just prior to it, w/o the digital treatment (non-Di), so mine acts a little different. I get a lot more purple fringe. I guess I could go out and shoot some stuff with it and the 28-300 ... and give you a report back, but I'd be a little skeptical if it reflected what you guys will get with yours (not talking about the 28-300, as it is a Di lens).

41457

I will shoot all subjects at ~27 feet to keep the images equal in range and true focal length.

[seanhoxx]

o.K. time to regroup a bit, Jordan I suggested that the tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di LD lens would have been a good choice for you, I may not have been clear as I didn't put all the info of the lens down. It is a very good cheap lens that almost all of us are using, and like. But as you already have the Tamron 28-300 it might not be the lens to pick up. The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is the new apple of everyones eye here on the forum, a few of us have it, and its a damn sweet lens a nice low light at a very good price for the quality, but it's going to be around $800.00 all said and done.

[seanhoxx]

Now that 300mm 2.8, that I could shoot some soccer with!!! Jordan take a look around and see what common lens turn up on our lists here, and most of us lean towards one area or another that we shoot alot of. Then of course there is Don who has more glass then all of us put together, but I am well on my way to being a glass junky! Ask questions, tell us what kinds of things you will be shooting the most, what kinds of shots do you want to do, or go after. We are all here to learn, and to spend other peoples money LOL. Like I said I think you will see a trend of 3 maybe 4 "common" lenses here, most Tamron, and of course Minolta!

[DonSchap]

Okay, sunny day ... here is the overall base shot, at about 50mm. Nothing special, just an old house, blue sky .. and lots o' sun.

41468

I then zoomed to 300mm and I have posted the 100% crops of the sign in from of the house.

First the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 300mm (indicated) 100% CROP!
41469

Then, the TAMRON AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD@ full stretch 100% CROP
41470

Finally, the TAMRON AF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) @ full stretch 100% CROP
41471

EDIT: OKAY, AS DISCUSSED LATER IN THIS THREAD, here's the
TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD Super Zoom @ 300mm (indicated) 100% CROP
41508

Clearly, unparalleled sharpness of focus ... and yes, it was taken at a different time of day (more high noon, than later afternoon - hence darker shadows and brighter highlights, because of the additional solar power), but that only changes the color of the light ... not the razor exactness that the lens offers. Like they say, "Get a bigger gun!" :D END EDIT

Do not worry about the settings ... this is about soft focus. Check it out, it makes itself quite clear. I am going to surmise that it should be relatively easy for folks to understand why I tend to use the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 rather than any other long zoom. Again, the purple fringe is a little more than the Di lenses, because it is a film lens, but still ... crisper focus for a $500 telephoto zoom.

Also, like I mentioned ... you can see that the 75-300mm and the 28-300mm match up pretty well in focal length once your subject is beyond 27 feet. Also, my 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 has been "tweaked" by TAMRON, so it stands to reason that it really is a lot better than most on the street. Calibration is important and this is about the best you can expect from it.. It's also double the price of the 75-300mm f/4-5.6.

[Elisha]

i found a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DL Macro for cheap!
any opinions about this lens?
i only found one user review on Dyxum and one article about it but nothing else.

[DonSchap]

What's that tell ya?

Either they are speechless at the astounding performance of the lens ...

or they are so disappointed they couldn't bear the shame to admit they purchased it.

Anyway, I would be a tad bit skeptical, considering all the photographers running around out there.

[Elisha]

lol for $65 maybe it is worth the risk.

[DonSchap]

Well ... you know what lenses are proven to deliver the good (sharply focused, chromatically clear and true color) shots. It's YOUR photography and I wish you luck with whatever equipment you elect to use. Make the best of it.

A lot of effort has been put forth to ADVISE you of the pitfalls ... and if you insist on "stepping in it" and repeating them, you are more than welcome to. It's your money and time.

Have a superior day in whatever you decide.

BTW: I have a lens that normally sells for well over $150 online and based on these specifications, what would you pay?

AF 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8

Wow, huh?

Yeah, I paid all of $5 and I feel like I got ripped off! :eek:

I will not shoot through it and feel like giving it away. Oh, it works and all that, but IQ is just tragic. It suffers from "lens creep" in ways that I can't even begin to describe. I keep it around, just in case I go to the beach with my DSLR and do not want to spoil a "good" lens in doing so. Kind of like the "kit lens" only brighter and longer. Tell you what ... YOU pay the shipping and it is yours, my friend. Then you can tell me all about what qualifies as "good glass?" :cool:

[Elisha]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

[DonSchap]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

Look, my 75-300 is a little older than everyone elses. Also, not everyone has a piece of glass they can do a fair comparison (Sean?). I tried to make that clear, when I participated in this thread. I recommend you shoot through any lens you plan on buying and then look closely at the image. It may be just fine, but you won't know a lot until you blow it on your screen (no more than 100%) and compare it to some other lens at the same distance and focal length.

I just wanted to have you take a look at what you can expect with various lenses. Only you know what you want to do with it and how much you want to spend. I'm a little picky ... and have shot through several different pieces of glass, looking for the most "cost-effective" results I could acheive.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that if you spend $1000+ on a lens, it should be a nice item. But, when you are only coughing up $150 - $400 ... you have to do a little more work in picking one out otherwise you get terrible results, overall.

I have a lot of the "usual" selections and from them, I have my favorites and ones I would highly recommend for the price. I have also published warnings for some lenses that were supposed to be "okay", out-of-the-box, but wound up being ... unacceptable and needed some further adjustment.

It takes time to build a good camera bag ... because of these considerations, but I am not trying to lead anyone down a path that will result in poor photographic results. I just shoot through them and try to be honest with the results.

I looked for a full year to find the AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 that fit my SONY.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/A700-w-ATX840.jpg

They had quit making them back in 2004 ... so it was a search. I wound up getting it from Japan. It is a great lens for what it does. The comparable SONY lists out at $1500 and will not be available until January 2009 and weighes a lot more. It would be nice if Tokina were able to produce the SONY mount, but they just won't and cannot get permission from SONY to produce it. They have some humdinger lenses, now.

Minimum Focus Distance (M.F.D.) is about 8-feet with this one.

[dr4gon]

lol i can only make do with what is available to me.
everyone praised the TAMRON AF 70-300mm but based on your photos above it is pretty bad so i'm lucky i didn't pick it up cause i was gonna go meet a guy about it tomorrow.

I praise it for its price, but to criticize it for its softness beyond 200mm. It just became so evident in my lunar photography and then my trip to the zoo. It's great for the size I mean, the 70-200/2.8 isn't something I can readily take and use anywhere.... :D

Nothing can really touch the 70-300 for the price range. One that might be a touch better, although with Sigma's quality, you might be frustrated is their 70-300 APO version.

The Tamron is really making me want to step up to the SONY G some time in the future.

[Elisha]

i'd definitely love to get the 70-300G but it is around $800 CAD now. in good time is what i keep telling myself.

[DonSchap]

Anyway, it is what it is. Good luck.

Oh, one other thought. If your really want sharp shots at 300mm, 400mm or even 500mm ... I highly recommend the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) lens. Now this is a piece of glass that is lightweight, flexible as all get out and sharp as they come for the price. A true "sleeper" lens for people wanting some serious reach in their bag. It is no shorty, but definitely worth a LONG look, if you can find a store that has one. It is definitely a full sun optic ... but delivers excellent images!

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/Don-takes-a-shot.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/Oshkosh/F-22_Panorama.jpg

I'm kind of sorry I didn't take it along for these evaluation shots. That would have been cool. :(


WHAT'S IN YOUR CAMERA BAG?

[seanhoxx]

What would be a good side by side shooting activity Don for my 70-300 and Tokina 80-400? looks like fun. I feel lucky that I was able to snag a Tokina pretty quickly at a fair price, that lens does rock, But it is heavy and really likes the light. I would advise getting one if you can, and have a need for the range, be a shame to have it and not use it! I used the tamron 70-300 last night with the 'low light' settings we talked about in another thread. A gym with the lights turned off! very soft low low lights and glow sticks. ISO 3200, images almost acceptable.

[dr4gon]

Anyway, it is what it is. Good luck.

Oh, one other thought. If your really want sharp shots at 300mm, 400mm or even 500mm ... I highly recommend the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) lens. Now this is a piece of glass that is lightweight, flexible as all get out and sharp as they come for the price. A true "sleeper" lens for people wanting some serious reach in their bag. It is no shorty, but definitely worth a LONG look, if you can find a store that has one. It is definitely a full sun optic ... but delivers excellent images!

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/Don-takes-a-shot.jpg

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/Oshkosh/F-22_Panorama.jpg

I'm kind of sorry I didn't take it along for these evaluation shots. That would have been cool. :(


WHAT'S IN YOUR CAMERA BAG?

I was about to bring that lens up. ;)

I cannot decide what to wish for for Christmas! :confused:

I'm sure you could have hand-held those airshow shots right?

[DonSchap]

What would be a good side by side shooting activity, Don, for my 70-300 and Tokina 80-400? Looks like fun. I feel lucky that I was able to snag a Tokina pretty quickly at a fair price, that lens does rock, But, it is heavy and really likes the light. I would advise getting one, if you can, and have a need for the range, be a shame to have it and not use it! I used the tamron 70-300, last night, with the 'low light' settings we talked about in another thread. A gym with the lights turned off! very soft low low lights and glow sticks. ISO 3200, images almost acceptable.

At long range, the Tokina and TAMRON are almost identical, except the Tokina is a little darker from 250mm to 280mm, as it is at f/5.6 and the TAMRON is still at f/5 the sliding maximum aperture. Problem is ... 300mm f/5.6 is where it all ends for TAMRON ... and you still can get an f/5.6 shot @ 400mm with the Tokina, and see the twinkle in her eye you would have probably missed. LOL

[DonSchap]

I'm sure you could have hand-held those airshow shots right?

Actually, the two pictures, above, are from successive years at Oshkosh. If you look close, in the upper one (2007), I had a Canon EOS 20D that the TAMRON 200-500 (Canon-mount) was mounted on.

In 2008, this "Raptor" shot was hand held at 1/2000 sec with that lens (SONY-mount), on the SONY A700. That was the main reason I went with SONY, to kind of eliminate the need for tripods ... and at 1/2000 second, who the heck needs one, anyway? I shut off the darn SSS and fire away! :D

[seanhoxx]

And to throw into the mix I saw a Sigma 500mm on ebay today it's AF and like a f/7 - 8.5 or something, let me find a link.
ahhh Christmas lists, I am torn between the 200-500, or the HVL 58 !! if I go with the lens I will "have" to get a good monopod and plate.

[seanhoxx]

http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-or-SONY-MAXXUM-LENS-AF-500-mm_W0QQitemZ270292769296QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item27 0292769296&_trkparms=72%3A1417%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C 240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Now that looks like a big piece of glass!

[DonSchap]

The 200-500mm lens will offer reach beyond your current selection. It is also a sharp shooter. If you need to get close, across a field, from the grandstand, this baby is the choice (Graduation ceremonies - hint, hint).

A flash isn't of much use, there.

If you are planning a lot of indoor stuff, the long tube won't offer much use. That flash could really come in handy. It is the wintertime. Yeah, that's what I say ... "GET BOTH!" :D

[DonSchap]

http://cgi.ebay.com/MINOLTA-or-SONY-MAXXUM-LENS-AF-500-mm_W0QQitemZ270292769296QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item27 0292769296&_trkparms=72%3A1417%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C 240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
Now that looks like a big piece of glass!

Sean, read these reviews (http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=228) ... I think it may be a lot more trouble to use than you realize. It is 2.4 lbs. or almost 40 ounces. About the same as the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 200-500mm f/5-6.3

[seanhoxx]

LOL don't worry Don not bidding on it, I think I am a set Tamron / Minolta fan, and maybe a Tokina here and there. I also thought the Sony cato. 500mm f8 was the only 500mm fixed lens in alpha mount?

[dr4gon]

LOL don't worry Don not bidding on it, I think I am a set Tamron / Minolta fan, and maybe a Tokina here and there. I also thought the Sony cato. 500mm f8 was the only 500mm fixed lens in alpha mount?

yeah the reflex lens. from what I've seen, I'm not too impressed with it. the bokeh also results in a donut lol :D

[DonSchap]

Well, I can get donuts out of other lenses, too. That's not an issue, but what is ... is focal sharpness in my book.

I looked at the reviews and what they were complaining about, with such a tight aperture, some of the outer focusing points become ineffective. With that f/7.2 vs the Reflex f/8 ... weight-wise I would wind up with the Reflex.

When you throw the 200-500mm into the mix, screw the weight. At 43 ounces, it's pretty balanced for its length and easy to use. Zooming in and out is always an asset to me, because I really do not enjoy having to move back away or in on something natural. Birds take off, animals bolt and the rangers come over and yell at you. LOL

Ah me ... that's the way I see it, for what it is worth. :)

[DonSchap]

Okay, I went back to the Historical Society's House with the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD lens to shoot at 300mm. I have added the shot to the three from the other lenses. Yes, it is "handheld", just as the others were.

You tell me what you want in your lens bag for Christmas?

Click this LINK (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=337235&postcount=21), it 'll take you right back to the images in this thread.

Have a hay-day! ;)

[Elisha]

that TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD Super Zoom @ 300mm is crazy sharp.

[sparkie1263]

Anybody want to buy my Tamron 70-300. LOL Wow I am going to get a lens for indoor shooting than I will get one of these. Thanks Don for the testing. I guess the 70-300 isn't that sharp.
Frank

[dr4gon]

wow that's pretty dang sharp! thanks!

What aperture were you shooting at? f/8? and was the sign your focus point?

[DonSchap]

Okay, yes, as with all the comparison shots, the sign was the subject, at 300mm it's about all that fits nicely into the frame.

I just showed the house in the earlier posting in order to give you all an idea of the relative distance and location,

Original shot, resized
41513
EXIF: A700 w/ TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
@ 300mm f/5.6 1/250 sec ISO-800 AWB-Daylight

The image is a little overexposed, but that's what you get when you shoot in AUTO and let the camera decide your shot. I was just looking for focusing results and I want to emulate a standard shooting situation that everyone could do. If I spent ten minutes setting up the shot, that really is wasted time for this exercise and people start to gawk, when you have a lens this large hanging off your ciamera ... in the middle of the downtown apartment/condo area. LOL Who's spying on who?

* Important Note: You guys need to know that the minimum focusing distance (M.F.D.) for this lens is 10-feet! You will be across the room, no matter what focal length you pick ... and are going to need a bigger bag. :o

[dr4gon]

Okay, yes, as with all the comparison shots, the sign was the subject, at 300mm it's about all that fits nicely into the frame.

I just showed the house in the earlier posting in order to give you all an idea of the relative distance and location,

Original shot, resized
41513
EXIF: A700 w/ TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
@ 300mm f/5.6 1/250 sec ISO-800 AWB-Daylight

The image is a little overexposed, but that's what you get when you shoot in AUTO and let the camera decide your shot. I was just looking for focusing results and I want to emulate a standard shooting situation that everyone could do. If I spent ten minutes setting up the shot, that really is wasted time for this exercise and people start to gawk, when you have a lens this large hanging off your ciamera ... in the middle of the downtown apartment/condo area. LOL Who's spying on who?

* Important Note: You guys need to know that the minimum focusing distance (M.F.D.) for this lens is 10-feet! You will be across the room, no matter what focal length you pick ... and are going to need a bigger bag. :o

Great thanks, I thought something was strange. Yeah, 200-500 is definitely an outdoors bright light lens.

[seanhoxx]

Still not letting go of my Tamron 70-300 it's still a great lens for the price!! But that 200 - 500 keeps moving up on the top ten things to buy list!

[DonSchap]

Look long ... then buy it. It delivers the image and that's all she wrote.

Like I may have mentioned, this lens is not convenient, but it is far lighter than most long PRIMES and covers the spread, provided you have decent lighting. A true "sleeper lens" because many people do not take it seriously, until they actually shoot through it. Then ... they do.

Good luck and hope you enjoy it. I know I have, twice now (two different mounts).

[seanhoxx]

Don does it come with a real lens case or one of those Tamron stuff sacks LOL. Also while I am thinking about it what model Lowepro case did you get for the 70-200? and you also have the Tokina 80-400 riding external on your bag also, what case is it in?

[DonSchap]

The AT-X 840 is usually mounted on the A700, in the Tamrac Velocity 8x Sling Bag. I currently do not have an external LowePro case for it. I believe a LC3 just might do it, but I still have to test it.

The TAMRON 70-200mm is in a LowePro LC4, that wrote about earlier (see this LINK (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41093))

You will also see the very case that TAMRON includes for the 200-500mm.