comment /opinion about tamron 18-200mm lens needed.

[levi_legaspi]

I just need any review/comment on tamron 18-200mm lens for Nikon

D70s. Help me if it's worth to buy a thrid party lens like this as

general/travel lens.

 

Any comparison with other brand of near specs and focal length?

 

Thanks a lot!

[ShunCheung]

The general rule of thumb is that it is extremely difficult to make good zooms whose range is beyond 4x to 5x, especially if it goes from wide to tele. If the entire range is tele, such as the 80-400mm VR, it is still ok. The 24-120mm has plenty of distortion at 24mm.

 

The really excellent zooms such as the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S have a more limited zooms range like 2x or 3x. The 35-70mm/f2.8 is great but I find its range limiting. Essentially you have a trade off between quality and convenience.

[douglas_green1]

I'd agree that it's hard to design a lens for such a wide range without sufferring from alot of distortion. If I were you, I'd break it up into 2 zooms. One from wide to normal, and one from short tele to long tele.

[klix]

18-200mm is an extremely wide range for one lens, but if that's what your budget allows, I guess it's better than nothing... not much better, mind you :-(

 

As others have and will say, you're better off splitiing that range into 2 lenses, although it may not be cheap.

 

Which 2 lenses to cover 18-200mm? I'd get the 18-70mm kit lens, which is a good value, and a telephoto zoom in the

70/80-200/210/300mm range, depending on your budget (if you have the money, then the obvious choice is the 70-200mm/2.8 AFS VR).

 

CHeers.

 

KL

[douglas_green1]

I might suggest that for a digital camera, the 18-70mm will probably meet 70-80% of most people's needs. If you really need a long tele, something in the 80-200 / 70-210 range can be gotten with better speed and not much money, or if the speed isn't so important, a 100-300 class lens can also be gotten inexpensively.

[greg_barringer]

The Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF, is an excellent all around travel lense. It works great on my D70. Keep in mind that this lense is not made for digital. It will have a multiplier of 1.5 in focal length. So really it is a 42-300mm lense when mounted on a digital camera. This is true of all non-digital lenses. Nikon digital lenses are DX.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Levi Legaspi, jul 02, 2005; 10:27 a.m.</B>

<br>

I just need any review/comment on tamron 18-200mm lens for Nikon D70s.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

In a word: <B>YUCK!</B>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Help me if it's worth to buy a thrid party lens like this as general/travel lens.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

"Third-party" isn't the problem.  There is plenty of third-party glass out there (including some from Tamron) which not only represents excellent value, but are genuinely good lenses in the absolute sense.

<br>

<br>

But this isn't one of them.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Any comparison with other brand of near specs and focal length?

<br>

<br>

Thanks a lot!

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

It's those "specs and focal length" which *are* the problem.  Any lens with an 11:1 zoom factor is pretty much doomed from the start, regardless of who makes it, or how much money goes into it.  To quote Scotty: "Ye can'na change the laws of physics, Cap'n!".  When you then also mandate that it be sold at retail for a relative bargain-basement price *and* everybody along the way gets to make money on it in the process, well...  TANSTAAFL.

<br>

<br>

In short:  You need to seriously re-think your approach to filling out your kit bag.

<br>

<br>

Did you get the 18-70mm "kit" lens with your D70?  If so, you're already halfway home.  While far from perfect, that is really a pretty decent lens, especially for what it cost ($200-300, when bought as part of the "D70 Outfit").  So take advantage of that, and *use* it.  If you want something longer, you can then supplement it (as opposed to replacing it) with something like the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED-AF (far from a *great* lens; but way better than the 11:1 wonder), or better (if you can swing the cost) the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM, or possibly a used Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6D, presuming you find a nice one at a reasonable (under $200) cost.  Also, don't overlook primes, as opposed to zooms -- as a general rule, the good ones are MUCH sharper, faster, contrastier, more resistant to both flare/ghosting and chromatic aberration, and both lighter and more compact than a zoom of similar focal length and max. aperture.  The Nikon 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF is a *superb* example of this; and if the budget is a problem, used ones can be had (in nice shape) for within (at most) $100-200 of what that crappy Tamron zoom would cost you (or maybe even less, if you're willing to accept significantly less than perfect cosmetics).

<br>

<br>

[aj_nadershahi]

Sigma 18-125 has actually proven to be quite a good lens that surpasses what its size and

price would indicate.

 

I don't have links to the tests that were conducted with this lens which compared it to Canon

and Nikon kit lenses, but that's what helped me decide to get one. And it has proven to be as

good as the testers discovered.

[hash]

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/printthread.php?t=7524

 

It's a direct comparison between the 18-200 lenses by Tamron and Sigma.

[joe_simonis]

the tamron 18-200 is a damn fine lens! I have read all the negative reports on line and all I can say is BS! I have shot at wide to tele and it does not show me the distortion or poor sharpness on the long end I have read so much about. I have made 8x10 and 11x14 and they please me. I'm not a beginner at photography , I've played around with it most of my life , so I think I know what is good and what is not. it is solidly made and handles very well also. mine is used on my nikon d70s. yeah the focusing can be a little slow if it goes through the whole range, but no worse than others i have used. try it, you will like it!

[geoffs]

Hi Levi,

I have been using my Tamron 18-200 lens on my Nikon D70s now for two months and would highly reccommend it!

I initially bought the Sigma 18-200 but I found it to be awful.

The Tamron is compact in size when at wide angle and at full zoom feels light and well balanced "weight wise" on my camera compared to the 70-300 Nikkor lens I used to own,which felt heavy to me.

I have printed off lovely crisp 12" x 8" photo`s and the convenience of using it all day without having to change lenses is great.!It is not a "fast" lens but I believe the advantages far outweigh any compromises you make with it.!

I suggest you buy it.<div></div>

[alien3333_alien3333]

Just ordered mine should come in this week. I have good experience

with tamron lens, even the cheap 28-80mm ($50 USD), I found it

sharp is fast/accurate focus, color is vivid, and CA is minimal

too. Hopefully, the recent review of 18-200mm is true and

I will get a good copy of it.

 

alien

[rudy_pataky1]

Hi there. Just ordered the Tamron for my daughter. She has the Nikon 18-70mm on her D70s now. I'll sell the 18-70 on eBay to recoupe some of the money used for the Tamron. I purchased this lens based on the last few reviews. I own a D200 and Nikon 18-200mm VR lens however my daughter cannot afford the lens.

 

She is a casual user and will be traveling to FIJI in the summer. She is not one for carring alot of lens around and this all-in-one lens should make her happy.

 

Thanks for the reviews.

[joe_simonis]

Popular Photo says the Tamron came through with flying colors for sharpness and contrast at three of four focal lenghts tested. Only at 200mm did it drop somewhat. Also it showed more magnifying power than the Sigma for better close ups. They say, ( Pretty amazing for a lens that takes you all the way to 35mm equivelent of 300mm.) I own it , I like it! Popular Photography October 2006 issue.