Comment on Tamron 28-200s for 300D use.

[robert_thommes]

From a small amount of research, I see that Tamron has made several

of these (28-200mm 3.8-5.6 LD IF)lenses. I have an opportunity to

get one of the older models (non-XR, non-Super, non-Di) for use on my

300D as a walk-around lens. With the 1.6X factor, the range is

perfect for my photo applications. But is this model any good?

Specifically, it's either the 71D or the 171D, but am leaning towards

the 71D; as I'm thinking the other is the "super".

I need to know just how decent(or not) this lens is.

Thanks,

Bob

[andrew robertson]

That lens will impress the other soccer moms for sure.

 

But a lens with that wide of a zoom range is not going to be any better than optically

mediocre.

 

Why don't you get a 'real' walkaround lens, the 17-85 IS?

[wolver]

If you want an even better walk around lens get yourself a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and for less money than the overpriced Canon 17-85. Check the ratings/reviews on the two lenses and you will see what I mean.

[yakim_peled1]

>> From a small amount of research, I see that Tamron has made several of these (28-200mm 3.8-5.6 LD IF) lenses.

 

If you had searched a bit more I'm sure you'd find that hyperzooms are not liked around here due to poor optical quality.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[leonard_richmond7]

Bob Atkins compares a similar lens, the Tamron 28-300, to the Canon 75-300IS Canon 300/4L and here at photo.net:<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_300_Di/page2.html">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_300_Di/page2.html</a><p>

 

Bob says, "if you're using a monitor which gives you a 12" wide image (typical 17" monitor) and you're viewing at 1024 x 768 pixels, a 200% crop represents a section of what would be an 82" x 54" image! So if the images look a little "fuzzy", that's the reason why! At normal print sizes (say 8x10), many of these crops would look pretty sharp."

 

To see what an 8x10 would look like from 12 inches away, stand 8 feet back from your monitor, look at the crops and compare to the others he shows.

 

Bob concludes "In answer to the original question 'Does the Tamron 28-300 deserve respect', I'd have to answer that it does. While I think you could probably do better with two zooms, one covering something like 28-100mm and one covering 100-300mm, not everyone wants to do that. For those who don't, the Tamron 28-300 may be a good choice.

<p>

"The bottom line is that if you hate swapping lenses, need one small, light, lens to do everything, and you're prepared to make some compromises, the Tamron SP AF28-300/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro isn't a bad choice."<p>

Thank Bob for giving you comparison shots so you make up your own mind as to the value of the Tamron.

[andrew robertson]

Sharpness is not the be all end all of image quality. There's color accuracy, CA, curvature of

field, distortion, coma, contrast, and other aberrations. Despite the fact that the hyperzoom

is 2/3rds as sharp as the other lenses, it suffers in other departments.