Tamron SP 200-500 f/5.6 Zoom Resolution Tests

[cooltouch]

I won this Tamron SP 200-500 f/5.6 at auction on eBay several months ago. Since winning it, I haven't used it much. I've been busy with other projects and just haven't had much time for photography. I decided to take a break from my projects and, since I haven't tested this Tamron yet, I decided I should put it through the same set of tests I put all my telephoto primes and zooms through -- typically 300mm and beyond, though.

Any of you who have read through my telephoto lens tests in the past know that I have a favorite subject for my tests. It's a water kiosk about 400 meters down the street from my house and I always take a picture of the same sign, focusing as well as I can on the small words at its base: "We care about the water you drink." There's nothing scientific about this test, but it is a consistent yardstick I can use to compare my telephotos to, which in turn gives me a good idea as to their sharpness.

The camera I use is a 10.1 mp Canon XS (1000D), set to ISO 100, and mounted to a sturdy tripod. I use Live View to achieve as much focusing accuracy as I can. I then take shots from the largest aperture down to f/16. It's been my experience that, any aperture smaller than f/16 with my telephotos and they are beginning to get soft.

Because this lens is a long telephoto zoom, I decided to do two tests, one at 500mm and another at 300mm. I took photos at f/5.6, f/8. f/11, and f/16, which are shown below.

@ 500mm:






@ 300mm:






Observations and Conclusions:

At both 500mm and 300mm focal lengths the lens shows noticeable CA -- the purple variety -- all the way up to f/11. At f/16 the CA is essentially gone. Fortunately, I have found the purple CA to be very easy to remove with the image processing software I use: Paint Shop Pro X2. I've been able to do the same in PhotoShop CS5, but since I don't use it as much, I find it much faster to do the corrections in PSP.

Sharpness is remarkably consistent across the span of selected apertures. There is very little difference in sharpness between f/5.6 and f/16. Contrast is somewhat low at wider apertures, but this is an easy fix in PP. At 500mm, this zoom compares favorably with my sharpest 500mm telephotos. At 300mm, it is just as sharp as my sharpest 300mm. If you look closely at the text, you will note that wherever there is a blurry looking letter that just below it the white frame also shows signs of waviness, which means there was some convection currents causing air turbulence. So it's best to compare the sharpest groupings of text and ignore those that have been affected by the convection currents.

I'm really surprised by the image quality produced by this lens. In terms of sharpness, it rivals the sharpest zoom I've ever owned, which was a manual focus Nikon 200-400mm f/4 ED AIs. That Nikkor sells for $4000 and up these days, while typically you'll see this Tamron on eBay for $500 and up. I really lucked out on this one. The seller offered it as a straight auction with a low opening bid amount instead of as a Buy It Now, and there really wasn't much bidding interest. I bought it for $219.50. It didn't come with its original case and it has a bit of slight wear to its exterior. But the glass is perfect and it is mechanically sound.

For a complete description of this lens, with photo and schematic, go here: http://adaptall-2.org/lenses/31A.html

The biggest drawback to this lens is its size and weight. 2.72 kg or an even 6 lb. Whew! It is bigger and heavier than my Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD. Shorter than my Century 500mm telephoto prime, but it weighs more. So if a person is willing to deal with the heft of this lens, it can definitely provide excellent images. IMNSHO.

[ManualFocus-G]

Fascinating, I've been waiting for someone to test this one for years Looks nice and sharp, but like the other sp zooms, it's not optimised for digital and thus the fringing is a bit scary! I look forward to some more samples

[cooltouch]

Yeah, it isn't optimized for digital, but I can live with that. But you know Tamron makes a current AF model. Sells for about $950 new at your major discount photo retailers. I see quite few used on eBay that sell for about the same amount as this old Adaptall-2 one does. So there's always that option. But it isn't a constant aperture zoom: f/5.6-6.3.

Now the reason why I say that the CA doesn't bother me much is because the image processing software I most often use, Paint Shop Pro, has a routine that usually does a very good job of getting rid of it. I'm using a 5-year-old version of PSP -- X2. Current version is X6, which is the only version since X2 that I would recommend. X5 was pretty good, but X3 was terrible and X4 wasn't much better. I'll probably be upgrading to X6 in the not too distant future.

But anyway, I got to thinking that I might should oughta take the softest of the above images and put it through my typical selection of PSP tools to see what I can make of it. I just finished. So here is the first image from above, the one taken at 500mm @ f/5.6, post processed:



I may have overdone it bit. Sometimes I need to look at a shot over a period of time before I can finally make my mind up about it. If you look closely, you will note that the windmill vane to the right still exhibits some light magenta fringe CA. I tried getting rid of it, but when I did, large hunks of blue that were supposed to be there disappeared and were replaced by green (magenta and green are complementary colors). So I had to leave it in. I could have actually gone in at high magnification and cloned it all out, but I didn't feel like messing with it.

But as far as removing the CA goes, you really should look at the entire photo, not just a crop, and see a before and after of it. Here's a before and after of the entire photo:




On the other hand . . . I guess you can't see much unless you can zoom in on various points of the photo. The most notable spot of CA in the full image is the small round reflection off the back of the car in the foreground. It's surrounded by a very bright purple and magenta ring of CA. Using PSP's CA controls, I can select that one bit of CA and it gets rid of almost all the purple/magenta CA in the entire image.

Oops, I just noticed that the above two images are from an earlier set I took. Those guys were in the process of taking down that white canopy, which was partially obscuring the last bit of writing on the sign. When I saw that they had taken it down, I shot the series again. Same difference.

[Lloydy]

I could live with that lens for sure, I could certainly live with it for the price and having to perform a bit of of basic PP. It's probably better than some of the cheaper / simpler 400 tubes out there?

[CuriousOne]

Thanks a lot!

are these crops or downsizes?

If crops, than lens is so-so (to my taste), if downsize and still that lo-res - then unusable (to my taste again)

[cooltouch]

Lloyd, if you're talking about the cheapo 400mm presets, I would think it outperforms them, although I've read on many occasion that those 400's do a fine job.

Curiosone, the "close ups" are 100% crops. This lens has an excellent write-up at adapt all-2.org, so I'm not prepared to regard it as "adequate" or "unacceptable," especially when it's performance clearly indicates it isn't either of these things. Please bear in mind that these images were shot with "only" a 10 mp DSLR. If I were using one with a higher mp count, more detail would have been evident. One of the things I find aggravating about this Canon of mine is that when images are displayed at 100%, pixelation occurs unless I turn the in-camera sharpness down to, say, 2. Which results in very soft images. If, on the other hand, I display the images at 80%, the pixelation disappears. With all of the above photos the in-camera sharpness was set to 4 and the raw files were bumped up to 7 before conversion to .tif.

I use this same kiosk for evaluating all my long tele primes and zooms. I own two other 500's that are quite sharp and this SP zoom compares favorably with them, using this simple test as the comparison. I need to take it out and shoot more subjects with it, though, to give it an honest workout.

[visualopsins]

[cooltouch]

What you say makes sense. But I don't convert to a "lossy" image format until I'm ready to save the final image file. I keep my images as raw or .tif, neither of which are "lossy." I have found that if I take a raw file that was originally shot at an in-camera sharpness of 3 and then boost it to 8 or 9 in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, stairsteps to diagonals and other artifacts will appear. Perhaps this is what I was seeing. And this is the raw image before processing. So, I must disagree with your claim that sharpness settings do not have an effect. I can provide examples. Well lit, diagonal lines are the best example. But other artifacts similar to noise also appear.

Nonetheless, after 5 years using this DSLR I'm really feeling the pains of being so limited in resolution. Hey, I have a P&S Nikon, an L28, that captures 20mp images, albeit only under the right circumstances. Bought it at auction a year ago at shopgoodwill.com in as new condition for 40 bucks, still under warranty -- although the warranty expires this month. It is nice being able to work with these larger files that it provides, and it is rather surprising that its tiny little zoom lens is capable of resolving these 20mp images. But it is frustratingly limited. No user controlled ISO, for example, and unless the scene is very brightly lit or the flash is used at close range, it bumps things up to ISO 400, which is unfortunately quite noisy, or even higher.

[visualopsins]

To display, DPP is 'developing' the raw file contents, applying the 'Shot settings' in the DPP RAW pane. I don't think there is any difference between raw files shot with different in-camera sharpness settings, provided they are viewed using the same sharpness level. I.e., a raw without in-camera sharpness and one with sharpness 3 -- both will display the same if software sharpness is set to say 5.

I remember there was a lot of past discussion which hung on whether lens sharpness should compared without using software sharpening, or with software sharpening, figuring to compare the best that can be finagled, rather than only the unedited results.

[buerokratiehasser]

Crops? Nice stopped down.
the remaining fringing on the left and right angled parts of the pyramid may be spherochromatism "color bokeh" (out of focus)

[marcusBMG]

[cooltouch]

[marcusBMG]

Camera: Pentax K-r, 12MPx. Off the card jpg's. (first pic taken with my sigma superwide II)



As you can see I use a macro rail and a DIY'ed second support to solve the balance problems. The advantage of the rail is the balance can be fine tuned for different bodies or when the lens is tilted (and its cheap).

General observations: for me this is a pretty, I can say remarkably, consistent lens. Its perhaps a bit softer at 500mm and a bit softer at f5.6, but - sign of quality - only marginally so IMO. Images taken at 200/300/400/500mm in general I note similarity of IQ.
There is definitely a proneness to a bit of fringing, very noticeable on the castle towers, particularly when a bit OoF. In LV 10x, I can actually see a degree of fringing/coma in some circumstances like a high contrast transition with reflection on the bright side, partly a trick of the camera but inherently due to the lens.
Contrast and colours IMO good, certainly some bird pics I took at the same time with my soligor 400mm highlighted that. The soligor held its own re sharpness for example on shots of the church spire cockeral, but its pics from the bird reserve were positively anaemic side by side with 31A's.

CHURCH SPIRE a friendly subject actually, strongly illuminated by the sun at a favourable angle. My soligor 400mm f6.3 liked this too.

400mm f8


500mm f5.6, f8, f11


soligor 400mm f8


INFORMATION SIGN from about 30m, 400mm f8. The soligor is the crop to the right. Lest we get hung up on 31A's chromatic weaknesses here is a counterpoint. The writing shows a hint of purple but pretty much is colour true, unlike the Soligor, whose weaker contrast is also highlighted.



CASTLE from about 1/4 mile+ down the road .



200mm f8


400mm f11


500mm f5.6


I was pleased with this pic of a lapwing from the bird reserve, particularly since it's cropped at 100%. ~ 450mm f8.



I was interested to see how this lens performed close up (CFD is 2.5m) so I grabbed a handful of shots of the lily, done rather hastily before the evening light went. But sufficient to say I would really like to see how much quality can be pulled from a more diligent attempt.

f11 ~ 300mm


100% crop


At CFD f5.6


100%


500mm f11


100% crop (!missed focus on the stamen)

[cooltouch]

Wow, thanks for all the examples, Marcus! Now,, I'm really gonna have to take mine out and give it a workout.

Yours exhibits a noticeable amount of CA in the castle close-ups, but even so, that much can pretty easily be removed in post.

I think I'll look for similar high contrast targets, see how mine fairs. Might not be able to get that done today - it's overcast. But there are other subjects that can work fine, even under overcast skies.

[marcusBMG]

I have been trying to work with this combo, but results have been a bit disappointing. Today I determinedly took the lens round to the castle to get a proper appreciation of the IQ. Relatively ideal conditions, strong sunlight, good subject - the castle towers.

Results looking better here's a sample 100% crop Pentax K-r, jpg, tweaked in faststone, f11, 500mm (= 700mm f16).

[cooltouch]

Really not so bad, Marcus. Was this shot hand held or did you use a support?

Noticeable purple fringing that can be eliminated in post, but the sharpness is still good for a 100% crop.

I've just been futzing around with mine, mostly just shooting pics of subjects in the neighborhood, but I was using a tripod. That is one heavy zoom and even at high shutter speeds it can be a chore to use offhand. I'm on my iPad at the moment, so I can't do anything with the images I have right now, but once I get to my desk, I'll go through them to see if I have anything worth posting.

[marcusBMG]

[cooltouch]

327 BP is about 550 USD, which is about right for most of the prices I see on US eBay. I really lucked into a deal on this one.

We closed escrow on a new house yesterday, so it's time to say goodbye to my shooting targets in this neighborhood. But I went ahead and looked for another target. Found a fire hydrant about 100 meters from my house. The numbering on it, as well as its surface texture, make for good sharpness evaluations.

These are raw, unprocessed 100% crops. In-camera sharpness was set to 5 and I did not change this during the conversion to .tif files. I cropped and saved the files as jpegs, which are displayed here. As you can see, there's a fair amount of CA, which can be easily handled in post. Sharpness is consistent across all apertures from f/5.6 to f/16, although the contrast is somewhat soft at f/5.6 and f/16. I even shot pics at f/22 and f/32, and they still retained the sharpness. I think the f/11 and f/16 photos below are the best.

@ f/5.6:


@ f/8:


@ f/11:


@ f/16:


Next, I'll upload the same images, lightly processed.

[cooltouch]

Here are the same four crops, lightly processed. I removed the CA, added a touch of contrast and unsharp masking. The white ghosting coming off the top of the hydrant is pretty much gone by f/16.

@ f/5.6:


@ f/8:


@ f/11:


@ f/16:

[marcusBMG]

Great test pics Michael. Quite frankly the detail on the hydrant is of a level that even with lenses costing well into 4 fig sums one would have to pixel peep microscopically to identify superiority of resolution.

I've acquired a smallish tripod bag to carry mine on the bike to the bird reserve - almost perfect fit. Padded it at the bottom with a good thickness of high density closed call foam.

[cooltouch]

Sounds like that'll work.

Be sure to share some bird pics with us once you've had a chance to capture a few.

[visualopsins]

[marcusBMG]

[kryss]

I bought mine about 6months ago and haven't had chance to use it(may never) it does not look as if it will go well with my Olympus EPM2 Pics not in focus because I did not have my contacts in.

[marcusBMG]

Nice kryss, imposing lens ain't it.

Why do you think the 31A won't do so well with your Pen? I've used mine with my Lumix, also MFT, does fine - way better than my 55BB 500mm mirror!