answers: 23

  1. Oleg
    17.12.2015

    I have one on Sonya. I would not say slow focus. On a65, a58 quite comfortable. The focus is clear. Photos from him: https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/ofri/tags/t200-400
    There is a lot of HA, and sharpness drops from the open at the long end, but you shouldn't expect miracles from such glass. Although it is much better than the same “Big Pivbank” both in CA and in flares. The drawing is nice. Almost "classic Minoltian". The case is reliable. I like glass. Better for your money not to find. Although I am thinking of selling only because of the fin. crisis.

    Video from him:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyaN66MpuR4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yRuj1hraE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgwNFi9PxNM

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      17.12.2015

      Perhaps the focus for Sony is faster, the motors in Nikon / Sony and gears are different.

      Reply

  2. Eugene
    17.12.2015

    unimaginable shooting capabilities; inherent to super telephoto lenses; Unfortunately, the tripod lamp cannot be disconnected. Small eyes, Arkady. And so, as always on top, on business and without water! Good luck!

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      17.12.2015

      fixed.

      Reply

  3. Anatoly
    17.12.2015

    Apparently - the objective of the release somewhere from the early 90s?
    I have a design similar to Sony, but the 70-300 release is still 92 years old (the first generation still)

    The lens is really super ..

    Reply

    • Arkady Shapoval
      17.12.2015

      Infa is in the review:

      The period From 1994 to 2000, later replaced by Tamron AF LD 200-400mm 1: 5.6 175D (2000-2003)

      Reply

      • Anatoly
        17.12.2015

        Right, thanks, missed ..

        Reply

  4. Anatoly
    17.12.2015

    The photos are excellent ...
    Typically Tamron blur ..
    For this creamy bokeh and love my above mentioned 70-300
    The early Tamrons cannot be confused with anything - they had their own face, their own drawing ...
    Second, third, etc. generations of lenses lowered Tamron to mediocrity ..

    Reply

  5. R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№
    18.12.2015

    as always ... you read, bullshit, you want to look at the pictures, how?

    Reply

    • Lynx
      18.12.2015

      just the lack of experience in looking at different photos and evaluating the nuances.
      All is good.

      Reply

      • Dim
        18.12.2015

        Arkady shoots weddings for him a slow focus + frequent AF blunders is a sentence. That such a thing he takes pictures there - nothing.

        Reply

      • Lynx
        18.12.2015

        So what did you say that to?

        Reply

      • Dim
        18.12.2015

        To Vitaly's post, try reading it, then my answer. You should succeed

        Reply

      • Lynx
        18.12.2015

        Actually, Arkady does not only shoot weddings, this is time, and secondly, far from focusing speed was indicated as a minus. So I conclude that you just did not read anything except the part about the focus, and also did not understand the message of the question as a whole, as well as my answer

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        18.12.2015

        Yes, Lynx said everything for me)

        Reply

  6. Pastor
    18.12.2015

    Cool lens. True, judging by Avito in the Russian Federation, they are rarely sold, but the price is generally divine. For such focal points, anyway. And the presence of a slow autofocus is a huge plus for the glass. It makes sense to buy one for a beginner hunter. In theory, at the entrance price, Nikon will be 55-300 rubles (maybe a little more expensive), it is with a stub, but also not very sharp and without 400mm. And 70-300 are even more expensive. So it's quite an option. And if you paint it with white stripes, it will be like a Canon pump-action 100-400 :) It's a pity there won't be such quality.

    Reply

    • Andy
      19.12.2015

      70-300 will be any cheaper.
      if only because there are a lot of them on the market. Without a stub with a macro 1: 2 in excellent condition it costs $ 50-70, I even bought for $ 30 for a test.

      Reply

      • Pastor
        21.12.2015

        Well, yes, tamrons and sigma are cheaper than 55-200vr per second-hand, but I would not take them, too mediocre quality. In comparison with them, the Nikon 55-200 significantly wins. But in general, yes, you can take a cheap 70-300, you are right. But this tamron is unique precisely 400mm, only for the sake of this it is worth taking it. Although, again, the difference between 300mm and 400mm is not so huge, you can limit yourself to 70-300, especially since this tamron does not have super quality.

        Reply

  7. Andy
    20.12.2015

    Arkady, sorry for offtopic. Where do you keep the photo? What online services / clouds do you use? (interesting)

    Reply

  8. Strannik
    12.02.2017

    I have such, Combat cheap autofocus glass for photography. my first autofocus telephoto! now it is shabby with dust, fungus and a bent frame (anything happened :)) but it still works. In terms of sharpness, the same MTO 500 is sharper on me, the autofocus is slow, it does not keep up with the birds. Advise someone similar to 400-500mm, but sharper and acceptable for a simple labor worker at a price, is there such a thing? :) I'm looking closely at Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 D APO (5-7 k UAH) Nikon Af 80-400mm f / 4.5-5.6D Ed VR (11k UAH) or at the extreme Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM (UAH 15k) - well, here I have to put a collar on my neck and faithfully keep the post for six months :)

    Reply

  9. Vladimir
    24.06.2018

    I got this lens only model 175D. Interesting glass. My copy is quite sharp even with the aperture open, even at 400. Moreover, covering the hole does not greatly affect the sharpness. Autofocus is certainly not lightning fast, but acceptable. Chromatite, of course, it is not childish, but rightly so…. Suitable for editing in the editor. I like glass. For its price, in general, out of competition ...

    Reply

  10. Vadim
    13.04.2022

    I bought myself one for photography and for sports, if I shoot something suitable. I have not yet figured it out, or rather I have not adapted to it. He is without a stub, so if you shoot offhand, there is a marriage. At 5,6 sharpness is acceptable. If you cover up to f / 11, then the sharpness is very, very))) Autofocus is mediocre. Let's see next...

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      13.04.2022

      Too slow for sports. To have less marriage, set the appropriate focal shutter speed. “If you cover up to f / 11”, then the diffraction is “very, very”)

      Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer