Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro Review
February, 2009 Carl Garrard
| The Tamron 55-200mm f4-5.6 Di II LD Macro is a lens that hasn't quite had its share of fair press yet is a lens I believe that will give you quite a bit for your money in return. For about $150.00 to $200.00 USD new, the Tamron won't break your wallet either. Since money seems to be comparatively thin nowadays for many, I thought it would be nice to review a lens that gives you quite a bang for the buck. I've had this lens for some time now and have taken a vast amount of images through it. It is a lightweight and inexpensive lens with a relatively useful zoom range even when compared to the 70/75-300 budget class lenses. It gives you slightly wider field of view than that class and still maintains a smaller than average minimum focus area to boot of about 1:3.5 (APS-C). It is an APS-C specific lens that subsequently won't work for your full frame film camera or A900 without vignetting in the corners. Other than that it is a relatively simple no frill lens design that I believe is great for beginners or enthusiasts that demand a lightweight lens with decent to very good quality images. The only other real competition for this focal length this lens has is of course the Sony 55-200 variant (with a larger front filter and focusing ring), and the Sigma 55-200. The Tamron can be had for less than either. |  |
Introduction
 |
 |
 |
The Tamron 55-200mm f4-5.6 Di II LD Macro was originally introduced in early 2006. Since then, it has gained quite a favorable overall impression with photography enthusiasts from just about every major brand. Its build quality is very decent overall, with a single cam design that extends a bit from the end of the lens itself but does not exhibit much wobble as a result. The zoom and focus rings both operate smooth enough with the focus ring being the smoother of the two. The lens mount is plastic however which may turn off a few lens collectors out there. Then again, the price of the lens alone may keep this aspect from ruining the overall experience. The Tamron is light enough overall to warrant such a mount and to date I've never had any issues with a plastic rear mount on any lens.
Tamron's use of plastics make for some of the better built lenses out there amongst the choices in the budget category, and I particularly like the way the rubber on the zoom ring is designed to give you good grip yet without trapping every particle of dust that happens to come across its way. All Tamrons exude a durable presence and the 55-200mm is of no exception here especially when considering the price.
Characteristics and Performance
Some of the Tamron's personality traits worth mentioning are the fact that the front element does rotate when focusing, so using position specific filters such a polarizer will make for a frustrating experience. Speaking of focusing, the manual focus ring is quite thin overall, and why it was designed this way always has me scratching my head. However, I find that it is still quite usable despite many of the negative comments I have seen. Also, I wished at times that the zoom range would be more useful if it were a bit wider at the start, say 40mm vs 55mm. I think this would set it apart when comparing it to the other budget options on the market without changing the overall design characteristics much, but that may be wishful thinking. Either way I think the range is fine enough all considered.
Those issues aside, I found the 55-200 a lens that is not only easy on the budget but is also easy on the neck due to its rather light weight at just under 300 grams (295 to be exact). For those who like to go on long hikes for birding or just need a lightweight lens that carries well all day, this lens should be one to consider for sure.
Optically, I find the Tamron 55-200mm f4-5.6 Di II LD Macro to behave very well. Color is neutral and so are contrast (can be a bit low) through the aperture range which does make for very natural and believable images. Sharpness is there too, while not tack sharp at all apertures you'll find it plenty sharp even when shooting wide open at f4 (which by the way is available all the way to 135mm).
Chromatic aberrations are controlled surprisingly well considering this lens doesn't have any corrective elements implemented into its design. What CA I did find wasn't at all that harsh wide open and stopping down even one stop helps to reduce the issue considerably. Barrel and pincushion distortion are hardly field relevant either which makes for some time savings when post processing. This is one of the benefits of not using a super zoom lens, and going through the hassle of making an occasional lens change or two.
Bokeh is probably my favorite characteristic optically of this lens. Out of focus areas exhibit surprisingly smooth transitions without hard edging on background circles (due to aperture position at the time of exposure). Honestly I have a hard time believing that this lens performs as well as it does overall, and bokeh is one of the areas that I think I am most impressed with. There are some longitudinal CA's associated with the bokeh but overall nothing to get into a fit about whatsoever. What you will see instead are non distracting and smooth backgrounds that will impress you. Normally a lens that has a max aperture of f4 would suffer a bit since the depth of field increase would make backgrounds (and foregrounds) a bit more in focus or sharp yet the Tamron seems to get along just fine despite that limitation. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for the much better than expected bokeh is due to the 9 curved aperture blades this lens has (yes I counted them just to be sure), which is quite uncommon indeed!
Vignetting (darkening of the corners) is apparent below f6.3 but doesn't seem to be a major issue. This is due to the fact that this lens has a smaller image circle for APS-C sized sensors and doesn't benefit from a full frame image circle "sweet spot". Based on images reviewed from a white board shot I'd say there is a difference of about 3/4 of a stop from the centers and corners at f4. Beyond f6.3 it is basically not much of an issue at all through the whole zoom range.
Tamron 55-200mm Image Samples
All Images below were shot with the Sony A700. They all vary in aperture use and were mainly shot in lower ISO settings. Click on the thumbnails to view the original full size image (warning up to 6MB in size).
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Conclusion
Overall I find the Tamron to be a nice alternative the the budget 70/75-300 class, yet really does fill more of a niche. Even though that class typically has a maximum magnification ratio of 1:2 (which by the way still isn't true macro) and a longer focal range overall, those numbers really aren't missed much while shooting. The Tamron 55-200 still focuses close enough where you don't feel like you are missing much, and the overall wider angle (field of view) than the 70/75-300 class can be welcome. It is also smaller and lighter than that class although none of the Tamron/Sigma/Sony variants in the 70/75-300 budget class should be considered heavy by any means.
Where the Tamron 55-200 stands out against its peers is in distortion control (less vignetting due to APS-C specific design) and surprisingly good bokeh and sharpness. Chromatic aberrations are in the one up category over its peers as well (except when compared to the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro, where it may exhibit better control at some apertures). Price is about the same when compared to the 70/75-300 class, so the question really comes down to size/weight and optical performance. Working within the limitations of the Tamron I find it to be hard to beat when looking for a budget lens. Speaking of limitations, if you think that losing 100mm on the long end of telephoto is a real isssue, do remember that the budget 70/75-300 class never really seem to perform very well from 200-300mm ... truly the weakest focal range of those lenses. So when making a final choice keep all these things in mind and you should be able to pick the right lens for you.
Overall, I only wish this lens was an internal focus design so that the front element didn't rotate and that it had a slightly larger focusing ring. Other than that it is hard to bash this lens from any angle. Given it has 9 curved aperture blades in a package less that $200.00 I am not complaining. I believe you will be surprised at the output overall. Please consider this lens when deciding on your next budget purchase or, buy both it and another budget zoom in the 70/75-300 class and do your own direct comparison. You may find the results quite surprising!
I wish you happy and create shooting opportunities and as always, safety first.
-C.Garrard
Lens Specifications
- Weight- 300 Grams, 10.4 Ounces
- Filter Size- 52mm
- Aperture Range- f4-f32 (@ 200mm)
- Aperture Blades- 9, Curved
- Elements/Groups-13 elements in 9 groups
- Maximum Magnification- 1:3.5
- Minimum Focus Distance 37.4" (manufacture specification, I found it to be a bit less)
- Minimum Focus Distance Changes During Zooming- No
- Front Element Rotates During Focus- Yes
Hard to Find
Hi Carl.
Thanks for this review. It's nice that those of us who can't afford $700+ for lens are being catered to. I had been considering this lens for some time on the basis of the reviews I had seen which your own review confirms. The problem is it seems almost impossible to get hold of this lens at the moment.
Both Adorama and B&H list it as back-ordered even though they have versions for Nikon and Canon in stock. I've been watching these site for some months and this has been the situation for quite some time now. Amazon also has Canon and Nikon fits but lists the Sony/Minolta fit as available in 1-3 weeks. However, there is a comment from one person who ordered the lens in August and had still not received it at the end of October.
It is in stock in the UK - both Amazon UK and Warehouse Express list it. I've no idea why there is such a problem in the US market. In the end I gave up on it and got the Sony version.
After a couple of weeks of use I'll second all you say about it - optical and construction quality are excellent for the price. Most importantly, it is tiny - small and light. The result is that I put it in a ziploc bag, stick it in my pocket and carry it with me every time I'm out with the camera.
Thanks again for the review - if you ever feel like doing a review of the Sigma 30 1.4 I'd be very happy. It's next on my list.
Good review.
Hi Carl,
Good review as usual, and I agree with what you have said about this lens. For a quality and value point of view it is indeed very hard to beat. In the UK it is often offered as a twin lens deal with entry DSLRs and I think it is the ideal second lens.
As you say the focus ring could indeed do with being a bit larger, but given the target audience, perhaps this can be ignored. Personally I would have preferred a metal mount like the Sigma 55-200 lens as it shouldn't cost too much more but will add durability, again perhaps for the target market this is a non-issue.
Great lens overall and a good review.
I like the sea shore wave
I like the sea shore wave shot, works great for me, nice bit of dramatic action.
Not sure on prices, I have seen the Tamron for as little as £69 in some places. I know the sony version is over double that.
Looks good to me for a not expensive, and lightweight lens. Agree a metal mount would be better, but I have not had any problems with the plastic ones I have had.
Any other Sony differences?
Nice review, Carl, as always. Does the Sony version of this lens also have a plastic lens mount? There are a lot of these available at Circuit City these days for about $161 as of yesterday in my area. Possibly even cheaper elsewhere.
Andy
Pricing/Availability US
Tamron $159.00-$189.00 on amazon (see block on left)
Sony version $229.00 (currently available and in stock). Bigger front focus ring, matches Alpha cameras and bigger/more popular diameter filter mount 55mm vs 52mm... to me may be worth it, optically they should be the same (see block on right).
Non-Availability US
Block on left takes you to Tamron for Nikon. Search Tamron for Sony and its not in stock.
Regarding the plastic mount - good plastic is better than cheap metal. Tamron offer the same six year guarantee irrespective of the material used in the mount. I can't see anything to worry about.
Tamron 55-200 in US
Updated link thanks, I just did a quick look around at other places I found 47thstreetphoto.com lists it in stock for minolta.
And the Sony 55-200...??
Hi, good review.
I brough the Sony version in CircuitCity for $109.99.
This lens was for my a200, I wanted to sell the a200 and the 18-70 + 55-200, but I put this lens in my a700 and I fell in love with it...
I like this lens, is light, compact and a just optical quality for the price.
I would like to see a review of this lens and a comparation with the Tamron...
Good job...
Working on it Alex
have all the test images already shot, and notes written down.
Just need to find time to throw the rest of the article together and walla, review completed :).
Carl
Make it a good review, Carl
Just picked up a Sony 55-200 at CC for $92 plus tax. Need it like another hole in the head, but, hey, it's lighter than a 70-200/2.8 and the price was right.
Andy
Tamron
This is the worst lens I ever had. Never gain. It's a waste of money.
Washed out, blurred photos. Thats all what you get and you have even to pay about £100 for this ?
No thank you !
Copyrat
Interesting comments, certainly your position is in the minority. Bummer you think that way.
Do you think you got a bad copy by chance? I haven't heard of any problems with focus on these lenses, and I don't know what you mean by "washed out" care to explain?
Carl
Tamron
Yes might be that I'm in the minority. But do you really think that the majority is using a lens like this one?
Everything is possible, who can tell if I have a bad copy. But seldom comes seldom as they say . . .
Washed out means kind of bleached out colours, soft tones, not sharp. The more you zoom, the worse it gets.
But for £80 you can't apparently complain. My next lens will be the Sony 18-250mm.
Well by majority im talking
Well by majority im talking about the majority of those who own this lens, not that a majority of photographers overall own this lens. In the review I do state that it does seem to be more of niche lens, and that it isn't for everybody.
On color- My samples certainly don't look bleached out, and are they plenty sharp. Depends on what you expect for sharp spending less than $200.00 USD. I find this lens shaper than Tamron 70-300 LD Macro in the range they share. So for a budget lens it is better in this area. It isn't 70-300G sharp but it will give it a run for the money.
The Sony 18-250mm is a great lens, its hard to ever argue anyone buying that lens.
Carl
Supporting Comments
Reviewing the Tamron 55-200 f/4-5.6 lens in photoworld, David Kilpatrick commented that: "Not only is this lens very small and light, it can be bought for well under 100 pounds and as a brief test showed us is stunningly sharp and free from vices. In fact, it should be rated better in relative terms than the full frame Tamron 70-300mm, for which it is an almost exact equivalent on the smaller digital format." He went on to say, I think referring to the Sony version of this lens, that: "Putting it simply, this little lens is possibly the best tele zoom we have used in the 200mm range." Pretty positive comments about a lens that cost me all of $92 plus sales tax.
Andy
Tamron
I know what you meant by majority. That was not the point.
Here for UK, I cant say that it is a niche product. They give for this lens heavily discount - when you buy a Sony 300 bundle. That was the reason why I bought it.
This lens is surely better then nothing, but in most of the cases, it does more a bad job. That you had no issues with this lens is surprising to me.But maybe
my photography skills are just crap. I dont know.When I compare my washed out blured photos with others, I'm always disspaointed. And for the time being I
blame the lens, rather then my person :-)
I know nothing about a Tamron 70-300 LD, but I dont fancy anymore regarding Tamron. This was my first and last lense from Tamron.
From now on, before I buy a lense I will read all available reviews before.
This is a great lens!
This is a great lens. Being inexpensive, I think people expect it to be a poor performer, but it will surprise you, as it has many others. As has been mentioned, in addition to Carl, see the comments from David K. There are many others, if you look. One of the online reviews remarked about how sharp it was, much moreso than would be expected given its price-point.
Copyrat, it's a shame you got a bad copy. Perhaps you can send it in for warranty repair, since you don't want to use it anyway? It's pretty clear that yours is the unusual situation; I doubt it's your "photography skills", probably just a bad copy. I blame your individual lens, not the person and not all of the lenses. :-)
One thing that Carl didn't mention is that this lens is f4 for much of its zoom travel! Yeah, I know, it's not an f4 constant like the old Beercan, but if you're a bit closer and you don't need the 200mm setting, it's usable at f4. It's f4 (max. aperture) through 120mm and f4.5 through 150mm! This makes it more versatile for indoors or certain places than my 100-300. There are times where I need to be in the 100-150 range, and being at or near f4 helps.
On the other hand, there are situations where 200mm isn't long enough, and that's where the 100-300 comes in (or 7x-300). Many of the (lesser-expensive) xx-300 lenses jump to f5.6 fairly quickly as you zoom. This is OK, if my subject is outside -- which hopefully it is with 300mm. (Well, except for deer in the woods -- while that is outside, it can be kind of dim in the woods and f5.6 means I have to go with high ISO and rely on SSS, but that's another topic.) I guess my point is, I can see situations where I might favor one type of lens over another.
About the bokeh, I think it's often good, sometimes wonderful, and sometimes not so much. It is certainly better than some other cheap lenses I've seen, but probably not better than the Beercan or some higher-end lenses. Photos I've seen from the Sony 70-300G look great, particularly the bokeh. With the 55-200, I've had the occasional photo with a busy background where the bokeh wasn't the best, but it just as often has a very pleasant non-distracting bokeh. I guess I'd rate it in the middle.
Overall, what you have with the Tamron 55-200 is a fantastic bang-for-the-buck deal. The range is useful for some situations, and for others, it is not.
Hi GaryW a quote from the review
"while not tack sharp at all apertures you'll find it plenty sharp even when shooting wide open at f4 (which by the way is available all the way to 135mm). "
:)
Carl
Sorry, I missed that. But my
Sorry, I missed that. But my copy is f4 only out to 120mm. I tried again, and 135mm is f4.5 max. Minor quibble, but there it is....
OH, one more thing -- the "focus ring" may be small, but with the hood attached, either normally or reversed, you can use that to focus with, and it's huge! :) Not sure if that's proper, tho.... Probably better to use the ring designed for the purpose.
Anyway, thanks for the review. Nice to see reviews of some "normal" enthusiast equipment, and not just the expensive stuff. :)
55-200 theft: guilty as charged
Amazon had three of these at $165 - now 2, since one is on its way! I'm expecting this to replace my two old-favorite Maxxum lenses, the original 35-105 and 100-200. I used these on a zoo trip recently, and got some great shots.. but the one-lens solution with AF to 1:3.5 will be much easier (I didn't do the AF hack). The light weight of this lens will also be appreciated.. maybe I really can carry a heavier camera body if my lenses can weigh so little & still be sharp! :^) Thanks for the great review, Carl.
so tamron 55-200 or 70-300 better?s
i'm looking for telephoto lens as my second lens, since i only have the efs18-55 is.
after i read your review, i think this lens suit me especially for the cheap price.
i would like to get some suggestion from you guys:
should i take tamron 55-200 or 70-300 since the 70-300 cost me 50 dollar more (rougly $150 vs $200)?
is this 55-200 image quality is better than 70-300? and the marco 1:2 is it important for shooting some wild life or insert?
hope you guys can help me with it. :)
Hi, what lens is better the
Hi, what lens is better the tamron or sony 55-200mm in terms of image quality bearing in mind I can get them both for £100.
Thanks