Tamron 28-200 worth $70 as a walkaround lens?

<p>I have a D90 with 18-105, 12-24 , 70-300 and a 50mm<br>

Occasionally, I wish I had a single walk around lens--for example at a parade--so you can move in and out</p>

<p>I can buy a decent used Tamron 28-200 for $70.</p>

<p>The reviews on this lens are mediocre, and the wide end is not really wide at 42MM<br>

On the other hand, I might get some pictures I would otherwise miss, and the cost is low<br>

Would appreciate opinions, especially from those who have this lens</p>

<p>Thanks in advance<br>

John</p>

 

<p>Not unless you don't mind walk around with a sub-sub-par 200mm, a so so 135mm, a slow not for macro 50 plus a distorted 28mm :-) There are also better ways of carry extra weight for tummy reduction. BTW, Tamron do make great lens, just not this one and the used price reflect that.</p>

<p>BTW (IMHO), the Nikon 28-200 G is a totally different story. Walk arround with that.</p>

<p>A 28-200 is largely a duplicate of the lenses you already own. IMO the 18-105 is a much better "walk around" lens because it gives you some real wide-angle coverage on a DX body. Please keep in mind that other than the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX, I own none of the other lenses you have listed.</p>

<p>I don't think for 'normal walkaround' the difference between 105 and 200 mm is all that massive to make the difference between getting a shot or not - but your 70-300 can confirm that for your intended uses. Because the $70 is for getting you from 105 to 200, so, check whether it's worth investing a single penny into it.</p>

<p>I have the XR IF version of the lens. Just so you know, there are 3 versions of this lens with each successive version improving on the previous one. That said, mine sits as I have other lenses I prefer more</p>

<p>Your current lenses are much better optics than that 28-200. You'll find it disappointing.</p>

<p> The 18-105 is a far better walkaround lens.</p>

<p>Although I agree with the previous posters, for $70, you might want to consider giving the lens a try. You may find you like it, especially if you are not making large prints. If you don't like it, you should be able to sell it for what you paid for it or possibly more. </p>

<p>Based on what you list as already having, I'd say no to the Tamron for DX. If that was my lens collection, I wouldn't need much else save for a good prime macro, or some special purpose primes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>your 18-105mm is a n excellent walkaround. you have plenty of leeway to crop on a D90 to get closer.</p>

<p>When stopped down a bit any of the versions of the Tamron 28-200 wouldn't be so bad for film, but with crop factor for digital I'd pass it by. Of course, there'd be no crop factor for full frame digital, but anyone with that would likely not be looking at a 28-200. </p>

<p>

<p>I was given the Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 to f5/.6 auto focus zoom lens as a gift from a colleague who was replacing his film equipment with digital equipment. I did not expect much from this lens but was pleasantly surprised by its performance.<br />　<br />Pro:<br />Low price<br />Wide zoom range<br />Relatively sharp even wide open<br />Auto focus (this was my first auto focus lens)<br />72mm filter size is compatible with my filter inventory<br />Manual focus ring rotates in same direction as my other lenses<br />Focal length range works well with 35mm film camera (or FX digital camera)<br />Good lens to use when I only want to carry one 35mm body and one lens.<br />Good backup lens for my prime lenses and my constant aperture zoom lenses of the same focal lengths.<br />Good lens to carry instead of my more expensive lenses when I must shoot in an environment where the lens may be lost, stolen, or damaged.<br />　<br />Con:<br />Variable maximum aperture (my biggest con)<br />The 28mm focal length is not wide enough for DX digital cameras<br />Inaccurate focal lengths (lens focal length is really 29-140mm)<br />Plastic lens housing<br />No tripod mount<br />Image color is different from my other lenses (color is warmer and more saturated)<br />Exposures are not in tune with my other lenses (my Tamron under exposes about 1 f/stop)</p>

<br>

<br />Comments:<br />The Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 G AF-S VR DX lens plays the same role for my DX cameras as the Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8 to f/5.6 played for my 35mm film cameras.<br />.</p>

<p>As long as you walk around that lens, nothing will go wrong.</p>