Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Springtime in Sweden/Tamron 400/4 (was springtime in Texas)

Subject: Re: [OM] Springtime in Sweden/Tamron 400/4 (was springtime in Texas)
From: Gary Edwards <edwardsg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 21:21:51 -0500
I agree with everything that Ulf has so clearly written about the Tamron 400/4.
I suspect that Tamron was considering cameras heavier than OMs when the tripod
bracket was sized.  Ever pick up a Nikon F1 with a motor?  I think if you added
about that much lead to an OM-4t the balance might be just right.

Both Gary Reese and Ulf have commented that the Zuiko 1.4X-A fits this lens.
I'll have to try it again; my first two tries convinced me that it would not
fit. The Tamron SP 1.4x TC is certainly a pain to swap out.  I did shoot several
shots of a shy merlin in the top of a tree with both the Tamron SP 1.4x and the
Zuiko 2X-A.  Not surprisinly, I don't recommend that combination after seeing
the results.  I still need to try the Zuiko 2X alone with this lens.

I seriously considered the Canon IS 300/4.  I am glad I didn't buy it after
reading Ulf's comments.

Regards,
Gary Edwards

Ulf Westerberg wrote:

> Yepp, it's springtime here as well and never before have I been so busy
> capturing birdies right here in my own surroundings. This of course greatly
> due to my new (for me, that is) tool, my Tamron 400/4. I guess it's
> evaluation time.
>
> I've used this lens for birds and nothing but birds. And I will continue to
> use this lens solely for birds and possibly other wildlife. Film has been
> exclusively Fuji Provia 100, sometimes push-processed 1 stop to ISO 200.
>
> Overall handling and feeling is good and could have been great IF the tripod
> mount had been mounted further to the front of the lens. As of now, this
> lens does not balance very good and dips easily, your ballhead has to be
> locked quite hard.
> Weight of this lens is 2.4 kgs which actually makes it kind of lightweight.
> But together with a 4 kg tripod+ballhead and other equipment, well, you're
> not in for any longer hikes, that's for sure!
> Internal focus fells very good, much better than in my previous experiences,
> is very fast and takes some practice getting used to. With my Sigma 400/5.6
> I almost always turned too far on the focus ring, I find I don't do this
> with the Tamron, simply because of better feel. I did have some focusing
> errors initially, but with practice now feel very confident. BTW, I've used
> OM'4's with 2-4 screens.
>
> 90 0f the time I've used it with the 1.4X Sp converter, thus creating a
> potent, relatively lightweight 560/5.6 lens. Some shots were made with the
> Zuiko 1.4X (yes, it's fits) and the Zuiko 2X. Later, I also shot some
> Dunlin's (small wader) with the 2X SP. I do have all converters, so thought
> I might as well try them.
>
> In field use (real life) the 560/5.6 is absolutely beautiful to work with
> IMO. A great compromise between everything, but for real action-shots the
> 400/4 setting may be better if you can get close to the birds, that is. The
> 800/8 setting, hmm, view is extremely narrow, if the bird persists in moving
> (he-he, do birds move?) you may very well loose the shot completely as you
> face the risk of not finding it in the viewfinder, not to mention the slow
> shutter speed and eventual blurring due to movements. Camera-shake is really
> a problem at these focal lengths. And flying birds, well, jsut forget it
> with 800mm! But the Dunlin-shots turned out good, I push-processed 1 stop
> for this. For certain applications such as shy resting raptors, I will
> continue to use 800mm.
>
> Image-quality: in 400mm, even wide-open, excellent. Not much more to say,
> really, seems very sharp and nice to me. No vignetting either.
>
> With 1.4X's: Some degradation wide-open, but a very acceptable one. Some
> vignetting, but it so soft, it's hardly worth mentioning. I haven't seen any
> image-difference between using the 1.4x SP and 1.4x Zuiko, but as all
> experiences have proved that a matched converter is better than a
> non-matched, I've very reluctantly been using the Zuiko.
>
> With 2X. Fair performance, better than I expected. But terrible vignetting
> with the Zuiko, much less and same quailty with the (much cheaper) 2XSP.
> Here the difference between a matched and non-matched converter really
> shows. Oh, stopping down 1/2 stop at 800mm, increases sharpness
> significantly.
>
> Out of the very first roll that came out, one shot of tufted ducks taken
> with 560/5.6 was published in a local magazine, the editor got remarks that
> this picture was very sharp and easy to print.
>
> One slightly annoying thing is the disassembling and assembling of the
> adaptall ring when switching to or from converters, this really takes some
> time in the field. I plan to do some formal testing on both 1.4X converters,
> if the Zuiko equals the SP, the ring can stay on the lens making this switch
> of course unnecessary. Then, when using two adapt-alls, I guess the process
> can be made faster (I have to put fibre-glass in the screws in my second
> specimen before using it).
>
> I also have several sharp shots, and being sharp for the very reason that
> that is a fairly fast lens compared to the Canon 300/4+2X with stabilizer
> which seemed like a ligthweight high-tech alternative, even for me. But, not
> only does this combo render rather soft images (yes, I've seen them) but
> also is the slow speed of this lenscombo still evident when shooting birds.
> I have a few perfectly sharp fences and branches taken with the Tamron with
> a blurred bird on top, in all these cases I have succeded in getting at
> least one of two perfectly sharp images. If using a slower shutter speed I
> would have ended up with none. Which is just as I anticipated, there is no
> substitute for fast speed lenses. (not to say that a stabilizing lens isn't
> of great use, it's just that when shooting moving subjects it is of no
> greater advantage).
>
> The downside of it all, well, 2.4 kgs is 2.4 kgs. And it's quite bulky,
> requires an enormous rucksack or whatever when travelling. Fortunately, OM's
> are still OM's, just 750 grams with a Winder.
>
> What matters most to me is of a lens performs well in real, life, for me,
> that is, can I take succesful pictures with this lens? Does it match my
> vision? Will I use it or is it too heavy, too cumbersome to take with me?
> Well, the 560/5.6 with a monopod is a fantastic tool, perfect for stalking
> in the bushes and should the light go down, the 400/4 is there with an
> additional stop. The 800/8 (with SP2X, not the Zuiko) can be used from a car
> etc with good results, so all in all I think the Tamron 400/4 is very
> versatile tool for the wildlife photographer who insists on using OM gear
> (and other brands) even in this field of use. I certainly have already made
> many of my best bird shots ever just using it for two months. I'm just as
> happy as could be.
>
> Happy tele-shooting all
> Ulf Westerberg
> *****************************************************************
> ***   Nature- and Travel Photography
> ***   at www.start.at/westerberg
> *****************************************************************
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz