214°
EXPIRED
Tamron 55-200mm F4/5.6 DI II Lens For Canon EOS £75.99 @Wilkinson Cameras
Tamron 55-200mm F4/5.6 DI II Lens For Canon EOS £75.99 @Wilkinson Cameras

Tamron 55-200mm F4/5.6 DI II Lens For Canon EOS £75.99 @Wilkinson Cameras

Buy forBuy forBuy for£75.99
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Amazing optical quality for a budget lens, good reviews:
testfreaks.co.uk/len…ld/

Features:
● Lens Construction (Groups/Elements): 9/13
● Angle of View:28°28'-7°59' (APS-C size equivalent)
● Diaphragm Blade Number: 9
● Minimum Aperture: F/32
● Minimum Focus Distance: 0.95m (37.4") (entire zoom range)
● Macro Magnification Ratio: 1:3.5 (at f=200, MFD 0.95m)
● Filter Diameter: 52mm
● Weight: 300g (10.4oz)
● Diameter x Length: 2.8 x 3.3in. (71.6 x 83.0mm

30 Comments

Please dont be encouraging people new to photography to waste money on these door stops! please!!:-(

Not everyone can afford L glass but these are just likely to put people off photography :-(

I know someone who after sending it back 2 times, eventually got a mildly sharp copy... too hit and miss for me... save your self some time and just by Canon

You gets what you pay for with lenses and to be honest you are not really getting much with this.

Here's some user opinions on this lens: dpreview

With the EOS 550 and other high megapixel sensors, they are very critical of poor lens quality. Unless you use a premium lens you will only highlight the lens imperfections, due to the more sensitive sensor picking all of them up.

Out come the lens snobs - it's only £75!

Rather than slate it - why not give some decent suggestions.

I've just been playing with this lens today for the first time.

Using a Nikon D70s - all manual but that's ok. No Photoshopping - as is. Exposure problems down to me - not the lens.

p.s. oops - was shooting in RAW and forgot to sharpen before saving as jpeg...

http://a.imageshack.us/img265/622/dsc0007r.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img690/6998/dsc0014ry.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img163/7358/dsc0022ro.jpg
http://a.imageshack.us/img29/9420/dsc0029em.jpg




Edited by: "paolo" 3rd Sep 2010

i used this lens with my nikon d40, manual focus. not much to be said, i went back to nikon lens very quickly. standard kit lens much better then these

PS: i found mine on this site, paid about 45£ and flogged it for 35£
Edited by: "MajorCockUp" 3rd Sep 2010

Waste of money. If you cant afford something better, maybe SLR photography isn't your best long term option.

paolo

Out come the lens snobs - it's only £75!Rather than slate it - why not … Out come the lens snobs - it's only £75!Rather than slate it - why not give some decent suggestions.



I suggest that spending £500 on a body, and £70 on a lens is not the best allocation. You need to spend same/more on the lens. A good body will never correct the problems with a cheap lens...

Jeese lot of glass snobs about today...... If your new to SLR photography or doing it for a hobby and don't have loads to spend then this lens is fine.

paolo

Out come the lens snobs - it's only £75!Rather than slate it - why not … Out come the lens snobs - it's only £75!Rather than slate it - why not give some decent suggestions.I've just been playing with this lens today for the first time.Using a Nikon D70s - all manual but that's ok. No Photoshopping - as is. Exposure problems down to me - not the lens.p.s. oops - was shooting in RAW and forgot to sharpen before saving as jpeg...



That last photo has a very shallow DOF for a F4, be interested to see the exif data.

Its easy to say L Glass is the way to go but I will be honest you can pick up some very capable cheaper lenses some are nothing more than coke bottle bottom quality but there are some gems to be found. Realisticly you just can't compare £1000 optics to £75 ones but it just depends on what you need and you ability.

A pro tog will get far more out of a naff lens than a novice because they will know what to compensate for on the body. Having said that there isn't a lot you can do for CA, Vignetting and soft focus.

Celticsun

That last photo has a very shallow DOF for a F4, be interested to see the … That last photo has a very shallow DOF for a F4, be interested to see the exif data.Its easy to say L Glass is the way to go but I will be honest you can pick up some very capable cheaper lenses some are nothing more than coke bottle bottom quality but there are some gems to be found. Realisticly you just can't compare £1000 optics to £75 ones but it just depends on what you need and you ability.A pro tog will get far more out of a naff lens than a novice because they will know what to compensate for on the body. Having said that there isn't a lot you can do for CA, Vignetting and soft focus.



Could just be that what ever in the background is far away. Thats what I try to do with my cheap olympus 40-140 f3.5-4.5

Not so long ago these Curry's had the Nikon fit of these for £55. Snapped up a few and flogged them on fleabay for £100 each.

Golaboots888

Could just be that what ever in the background is far away. Thats what I … Could just be that what ever in the background is far away. Thats what I try to do with my cheap olympus 40-140 f3.5-4.5



Appreciated but the actual back body of the flutterby is OOF

user name

Waste of money. If you cant afford something better, maybe SLR … Waste of money. If you cant afford something better, maybe SLR photography isn't your best long term option.



Blimey...! I've been doing SLR photography for about 20 years now. I now have decent kit, but that wasn't always the case. I still produced some great work with my cheap glass and cameras.

If attitudes like the ones on these boards were the norm, then how many lower-income families would be able to allow their teenager who was interested in photography to get their first kit? How many people would never try it?

In these days of internet reviews and all, you can find out what you are getting before parting with the cash, and if it's up to scratch for you at the time, then great!

Not everyone can afford the best, or even the second best, but as a way in, these lenses are fine, and open up the world of SLR photography for a lot of people who wouldn't be able to go there otherwise.

As one of my favourite photographers (David DuChemin) says, "Gear is good, but vision is better". In other words, a great lens/camera does not necessarily a good image make...

Golaboots888

Could just be that what ever in the background is far away. Thats what I … Could just be that what ever in the background is far away. Thats what I try to do with my cheap olympus 40-140 f3.5-4.5




He's talking about the DOF on the butterfly and the flower itself, not the background throwout.

Out of interest, which lens options should I be considering for a 450D?

Looking for a telephoto zoom range perhaps 55-70 to 150-200mm that sort of range.
Looking for a faster lens than this
IS/OS preferred.
Budget around £500
Edited by: "BritishDragon" 3rd Sep 2010

This doesn't seem to be so bad for the price, as long as you are not demanding on image quality (most photographers would).
Just make sure the focal length is what you really want/need, otherwise just stick with your kit lens and save up for higher quality glass.

Axemanbob

Blimey...! I've been doing SLR photography for about 20 years now. I … Blimey...! I've been doing SLR photography for about 20 years now. I now have decent kit, but that wasn't always the case. I still produced some great work with my cheap glass and cameras. If attitudes like the ones on these boards were the norm, then how many lower-income families would be able to allow their teenager who was interested in photography to get their first kit? How many people would never try it?In these days of internet reviews and all, you can find out what you are getting before parting with the cash, and if it's up to scratch for you at the time, then great! Not everyone can afford the best, or even the second best, but as a way in, these lenses are fine, and open up the world of SLR photography for a lot of people who wouldn't be able to go there otherwise. As one of my favourite photographers (David DuChemin) says, "Gear is good, but vision is better". In other words, a great lens/camera does not necessarily a good image make...



seconded. no expert myself but i much prefer to see an interesting photo that may be taken with technical imperfections than a sterile, technically perfectly taken one. there's a big difference between a photographer with natural 'vision' and one who likes to show off the fact that that he knows how to use his rather expensive piece of kit....even that fruitcake mr rockwell will back us up on that one!!

user name

Waste of money. If you cant afford something better, maybe SLR … Waste of money. If you cant afford something better, maybe SLR photography isn't your best long term option.



So as I have other demands on my money I shouldn't be allowed to practise a hobby I enjoy? Great comment

ngard81

save your self some time and just by Canon



I own seven or eight lenses, inc two Canon 'L' lenses.

None of mine are Tamron, admitedly, but I can tell you that Sigma and Tokina produce some great glass.

This is hilarious - if a bit predictable :o)

A D70 body is coming at under £200 so a £75 lens makes fun photography VERY ACCESSIBLE to most people.

http://a.imageshack.us/img705/3640/exif.png




BritishDragon

Out of interest, which lens options should I be considering for a … Out of interest, which lens options should I be considering for a 450D?Looking for a telephoto zoom range perhaps 55-70 to 150-200mm that sort of range.Looking for a faster lens than thisIS/OS preferred.Budget around £500


Have a look at the Canon 55-250, a surprisingly good lens with image stabilisation (read the reviews) and it can be bought for less than £200.
Google Camera Price Buster for prices.

inspectorblakey

Have a look at the Canon 55-250, a surprisingly good lens with image … Have a look at the Canon 55-250, a surprisingly good lens with image stabilisation (read the reviews) and it can be bought for less than £200.Google Camera Price Buster for prices.



Thanks. I was looking for something with a larger aperture. Where might be a good place to read reviews/experiences of this one (or alternatives)

Sigma 50-150mm f2.8

martinscamerashop.co.uk/sig…asp

Lots of snobbery going on here. I've got one of these and for the money it's excellent. Not everybody can justify £500 for a zoom and it's better than not having one or using extenders.

paolo

This is hilarious - if a bit predictable :o)A D70 body is coming at under … This is hilarious - if a bit predictable :o)A D70 body is coming at under £200 so a £75 lens makes fun photography VERY ACCESSIBLE to most people.



Thats really shallow for f8, has quite a good BOKEH too, as you say if your a hobbyist and it fits your kit requirements you can't really argue for the price.

I use my old m42 lenses for proper work anyway, this will be a fine snapper beating the range of the kit lens. Nice find OP, appreciate it. Besides Tamron were always pretty good bits of kit, underrated and hopefully this won't be a bad lens, and for this price worth the punt.

A deal is seen differently by many. I would suggest if your budget less than £100 and you only have the kit lens, this is a cheap way into the telephoto world. You will be able to capture the world from a different perspective and be happy that you wouldn’t have blown hundreds on a lens that you find out that doesn’t suit your style – after all you may prefer an ultra-wide perspective ie landscape photography. Be prepared for a bit of camera shake at the 200mm end (due to f5.6) which will spoil plenty of your shots in the beginning, but crank up the shutter speed by using higher ISO to get crisper shots. I do own L telephotos, yes they are better, but I have less money for my other hobbies as a result.

For the price it’s a good deal if you want to explore the world of compressed perspectives.

If you had a little more the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS is a cracking lens at around £175 and has stabilisation built in to pretty good optics.

Celticsun

Appreciated but the actual back body of the flutterby is OOF



If this was shot at 200mm at f8 from say a distance of 1.5m the depth of field would be quite small say 1cm so I guess you would expect the back of the "flutterby" to be OOF. I would suggest this shot is a pretty good attempt at capturing an insect at this range. Well done.

I know this isn't a photography forum but hey...

Here's an example at f/16 -

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9262/bfly.png

This little fly got in by accident so not really in focus. Gives you an idea of what you could get though - cropped at 200%. Bear in mind that this isn't a macro lens and it's 'only' a 6 megapixel body...

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5359/closeup.png


Edited by: "paolo" 4th Sep 2010

paolo

I know this isn't a photography forum but hey...Here's an example at f/16 … I know this isn't a photography forum but hey...Here's an example at f/16 - This little fly got in by accident so not really in focus. Gives you an idea of what you could get though - cropped at 200%. Bear in mind that this isn't a macro lens and it's 'only' a 6 megapixel body...



paolo: Goes to show what you can do with a D70 and a "crap" lens!!X) It can certainly take good close-ups, I guess f8 - f16 looks like its sweet spot. Well impressed. Hopefully the doubters in previous posts may be kind enough to say what they think of these shots.

Thanks for sharing.

Gary
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text