Tamron
55-200/4-5.6 Di II LD Review - Part II
by Bob Atkins; created 2005
Optical Performance
55mm
All these images are 100% crops from large/fine JPEGs shot using
a Canon EOS 20D. At 55mm comparison shots were made with a EF-S
18-55/3.5-5.6. The first set of images shows performance in the center of the
frame.
As you can see there isn't a lot of difference between these two
lenses in the center of the frame. The Tamron is a stop faster of course and does
show a little increase in sharpness when stopped down to f5.6.
Below are crops taken from the top left corner of the frame.
Here it's pretty clear that the Tamron does better than the Canon
lens, even wide open at f4. It does sharpen up when stopped down from f4 to f5.6,
but even at f4 it's better than the Canon lens stopped down to f8. As I said in
an earlier review of the EF-S 18-55, corner performance wide open at 55mm isn't
it's strong point!
100mm
At 100mm I used a Canon EF70-300/4-5.6 IS lens for comparison.
This is a much more expensive lens ($560), but since it's the curently only zoom
I have that covers 70-200mm, it's what I used! Note that it has an SD glass
element and it is not the same optically as the cheaper 75-300/4-5.6
lenses.
In the center of the frame the Tamron lens isn't quite as sharp
as the Canon when used wide open, but does improve a little when stopped down.
Overall sharpness is pretty good in the center of the frame.
At the corner of the frame, especially wide open, the Tamron is a
little soft. It doesn't really sharpen up fully until stopped down to f8. I ran a
couple of tests on other targets to double check this and I found similar
behavior
200mm
At 200mm center sharpness is pretty good. Not quite up to the
image quality of the more expensive Canon lens, but certainly very
acceptable.
At the corners, you can see some chromatic aberration in the
Tamron lens shots. They're also not quite as sharp as the shots from the Canon EF
70-300/4-5.6 IS, but again I'll remind you that the Canon lens is $560 and the
Tamron lens is closer to $180.
Flare
Flare seems very well controlled. In their press release Tamron
state "By the employment of “Internal Surface Coatings” (i.e.,
multiple-layer coatings on cemented surfaces of plural elements) and new
multiple-layer coating technology on ordinary elements, ghosting and flare due to
reflections that occur when light enters through the front element and
reflections caused by the imagers themselves are reduced to the absolute
minimum". Whatever technology has been used, it does seem quite
effective.
Above are two shots. The one on the left has the sun in the top
left corner of the frame, which is about as sever a test of flare resistance as
you can devise. On the right is the same shot, but this time with my hand used to
block out the direct sun. Though contrast may be very slightly lower in the left
hand image, the difference is small and the lens shows good reistance to
flare.
Macro
Though the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro has "Macro" in its
name, it's not really a macro lens. Maximum magnification is about 1/3 life size
(Tamron spec it at 1:3.5) as you can see from the following image, which was shot
at 200mm and at the closest focus distance (0.9m/37.4"). This isn't too bad, but
it's more of a close focus telephoto lens than a "macro" lens.
Conclusions
The Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro is clearly aimed at a narrow - but
significant - market segment. That's the people who have bought a DSLR with an
included 18-55mm "kit lens" and now find that they'd like something longer than
55mm. Now some people won't blink at paying hundreds of dollars (if not
thousands...) for fast, "L" series glass, and some won't mind carrying lenses
which are significantly larger and heavier than the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD
Macro. However there's certainly a good number of new DSLR
owners who will be looking for something small, light and fairly inexpensive, and
the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro fits that bill. It's only a fraction larger
than the EF-S 18-55 and I'd expect it to retail somewhere around
$170 at reputable discount stores. On a Canon Digital Rebel XT or 20D, a
200mm lens has the same "reach" (field of view) as a 320mm lens has on a full
frame 35mm camera, and that's enough for many users.
Optically, at 55mm the lens is certainly better than the Canon EF-S
18-55/3.5-5.6 (which is where the EF-S lens is weakest). Both center and corner
sharpness are good, especially if you stop down to at least f5.6. At 100mm center
sharpness is good, but corners are soft wide open and don't fully sharpen up
until the lens is stopped down to f8. At 200mm center sharpness is again good and
the corners somewhat softer. Some chromatic aberration (CA) is visible at longer
focal lengths but it's pretty well controlled (the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD
Macro does use one LD element to better control CA).
Overall the Tamron AF 55-200mm Di II LD Macro makes a reasonable companion to
an 18-55. It's optically decent, if not outstanding, especially when stopped down
to f5.6. It would be expected to give good 4x6 and 5x7 prints, but at 8x10 and
up, especially in the corners wide open, it's not going to be as good as a more
expensive lens.
Obviously for around the same price you could get something like a Canon EF
75-300/4-5.6 III USM [though note that this is a different lens from the
70-300/4-5.6IS lens used in the comparison testing here and does not have UD
glass]. The choice here then depends on whether the gap between 55mm and 75mm
would bother you, and whether you want to carry around a significantly larger
lens in order to cover the 200-300mm range. Neither lens is likely to satisfy the
highly critical users, but both are pretty good value for the average
photographer who is mainly interested in smaller prints.
Where to buy
Purchasing through the following links helps to support photo.net.
In our experience Amazon.com offers great service, is trustworthy and has a
generous 30 day return policy. They also have excellent partners that offer
competitive prices.
© 2005 Bob Atkins (www.bobatkins.com)
Add a comment
, January 15, 2006; 08:41 P.M. 
