nashvegasphotographer Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I do A LOT of backpacking and space and weight are always a concern. I've been lugging around a Sigma EX 28-70 and a Sigma 70- 300. These weight a ton and take up a lot of space in my pack. I've been looking for a solution and came across this Tamron 28-300 in a backpacking magazine. It will fill my "usual" focal range and weighs right at 1 pound. The local camera shops say this lens produces sharp pictures, but I'm not sure if they're just saying that to sell me some product. Are there opinions on this lens? I don't make a living shooting pictures at this time, however I do sell my work here and there so I need good results. I can't afford $1500 lenses at this time. I understand this won't be top of the line, but will it produce pictures simalar to my Sigma 28-70? If so then I'll be satisfied. P.S. I tried to search out this question, but the search function seems broken? Thanks in advance, -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_potts Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 This is NOT a sharp lens. With this type of focal range, the Canon 35-350 may be the only one that would be decent, but it is big, heavy and somewhat expensive. I would focus on the exact focal range that you really care about and buy a lens that matches it. For instance, the 70-200 f/4L is high quality at a reasonable price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgo Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 You'd be much better off with the Canon 28-135 IS or the Tamron 24-135 which I have ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Sharpness is in the eye of the beholder. For your use the Tamron may be perfect choice; but someone else may think coke bottles would make better lenses. You should look for a dealer that will allow you to shoot the lens for a week or two so you can see for yourself if the combo works for you. I have sold the Tamron 28-300XR, and most of my customers have been very happy with it. It really boils down to the size prints that you want to make also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Use the search link at the top of this page, the one on the "ask a question" page is brain damaged. I always wonder how many of the people who comment on lenses have actually used the lens in question.... If you're buying the lens from your local camera store, they should let you mount the lens on your 10D and fire off a few test shots. Try it and see how happy YOU are with the results. 28-300 (and 28-200) lens discussions here seem to bring out a knee-jerk reaction that they're no good. I'm not sure that's entirely true, it all depends on your needs. Each individual is different. I'm working on a review of a frequently maligned lens right now (no, not the 28-300 or 28-200) and it's actually turning out to be significantly better than I expected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogi_logy Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 I took the Tamron 28-300 (the one before the XR) to Europe three times when I had to limit the total baggage to 20 lb. The zoom ring is very stiff and in fact slipped on the first trip. Of course I had to continue shooting and managed by squeezing the barrel really tight. Afterwards, Tamron repaired the lens under warranty but told me I was abusing the lens. Anyway, stiff zoom ring is one compromise for a super zoom, among others. I have three Tamron super zooms and they all have stiff zoom rings. I also have the Canon 28-135 and 75-300 IS and I would carry one or both if I knew up front that they would fit the event AND if weight is not an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nashvegasphotographer Posted July 12, 2003 Author Share Posted July 12, 2003 In my case space and weight are always a concern when backpacking. I don't do just day hikes. I'm frequently out for days at a time and can't carry a lot of extra weight. My pack and food already weigh upwards of 30 pounds, add in all the camera equipment like tripod, ball head, and camera and I'm at about 40 pounds. My current lenses put me aroud the 50 pound mark easily. I'm looking to lighten this load substantially. Carrying 50 pounds while hiking 15 or more miles up mountains is getting to be a little much and my backpacking gear is already some of the most light weight money can buy. My tripod and ballhead are very light as well (Acratech Ultimate Ball Head and Bogen 3001BD Tripod). I'm soon heading to the Grand Canyon to hike it and need to lighten up these lenses. I can deal with stiff zoom rings, my concern is the image quality of this lens. Yogi, how did your Europe pictures turn out with this lens? Keep the thoughts coming. If there's another lightweight solution I'm all ears. -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_collins2 Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Just yesterday I did a back to back comparison with the Tamron 28-300 and a Canon 28-200. I tried both lenses on a 10D and a D30. On both cameras the Canon lens came out much sharper than the Tamron. I took the Tamron back for a refund. Of course the price of the Canon is more, but it's fully worth the extra money. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nashvegasphotographer Posted July 13, 2003 Author Share Posted July 13, 2003 Thanks Steve, The Canon looks like a good solution, although I lose 100mm over the Tamron, if the images are sharper that's what counts. The Canon only weighs about 8oz more so I can live with that as well. The Canon is also $100 more, not a real big deal considering the 10D cost me $1400. Does Canon make a 28-300 that is lightweight and compact? Thanks, -J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Steve, To be fair you needed to test the Tamron 28-200 against the Canon 28-200. It was great that you saw a difference, but not everyone will. Also for someone looking for the widest range in the smallest package the Canon 28-200 falls short on both. These super zooms are a compromise. As such they can't hope to satisfy everyone. Case in point is the Tamron 200-400 zoom. Reviews show that it is mid-range performer. Yet customers of mine that took the challenge of testing the lens were happy with the results for their use. Speaking of tests, photozone.de ranks the Canon 28-200 lower than either the Tamron 28-200 and 28-300. Lens do vary from sample to sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogi_logy Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 J: I am not a professional photographer and my demands are not particularly high, therefore, I find the Tamron 28-300 suitable for my needs. Besides I shoot handheld. Below is a Sensia slide taken with the lens. The slide was scanned at 4000 dpi with an original file size of 5266x3607 pixels. The central and upper right corner regions are included so you can see for yourself. The magnified regions are approximately 250x375 pixels each. BTW, Italy has photographic opportunities in abundance. As a back packer, you'll love the Dolomites.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogi_logy Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Here's another slide under better lighting condition. The slide shown is not full width. The two magnified regions are scanned at 4000 dpi and are approx 250x250 each.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 >> "Sharpness is in the eye of the beholder". I fully agree. I found my 50/1.8 to be better than my 70-200/4 USM L. Another one found it to be about the same as his Sigma 28-200. Happy shooting ,Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgo Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 "I found my 50/1.8 to be better than my 70-200/4 USM L. <u>Another one found it to be about the same as his Sigma 28-200.</u>" Time to get those eyes checked ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 Forgot the original question. Well, I would certainly NOT be the one recommending any hyper-zoom. How about 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 + 135/2.8 SF ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now