Tamron 28-200 "macro"?

[stephen_van_egmond1]

I have an offer from a friend on (his description) "28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 LD

Aspherical IF Super II Macro" lens by Tamron for Pentax for my istDL.

 

My main use for it is a tourist lens, because right now I'm spending my

retirement on prime lenses and I've discovered to my horror I'd rather just grab

the kit lens in many circumstances. Hmm, maybe I need a better bag...

 

My research suggests this is a regular 28-200 zoom, produces no high art, but is

adequate for tourist/family picnic time. No idea what on earth the "Macro"

designation is doing there, though. I was under the impression until now that

Macro lenses were prime, and tuned focusing for close-quarters and borderline

useless for anything.

 

Philip's one line dismissal of macro zooms - http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/ -

suggests that they are useless as macro lenses, and the designation might as

well not even be there, and this just a plan old (some say venerable) 28-200.

[stephen_van_egmond1]

Sorry, I meant to say that (prime) Macro lenses are borderline useless for anything non-macro except maybe portraits.

[andrewg_ny]

For many, 28mm (42mm equiv) isn't wide enough for an all-around lens. This sort of 'travel zoom' lens has been replaced for digital bodies with an 18mm wide end. I assume however that this used lens is substantially less expensive than a new 18-200 or 18-250.

<P>As for "Macro", as you've noted it isn't a true 'macro', as it does not offer 1.0x (1:1) magnification. It actually offers 0.23x magnification. What this really means is that it has a relatively close-focus capability for this type of lens (though 0.23x is not all that impressive). I suppose this was "close" compared to what came before it. For example, that 28-200 can focus as close as 0.5 meters--but a predecessor, the Pentax A 35-210 couldn't focus on anything closer than 1.1m. Contrast these specs with a D-FA 100 f/2.8 Macro prime that can acheive 1.0x magnification focusing at 0.3m (only centimeters from the front element).

<P>Also, in addition to extreme close-focus capability, 'macro' primes are generally of the highest image quality--sharp across the frame. While I have no personal experience with the FA 28-200, I highly doubt it is exceptional in this way. All that being said, 'macro' zooms can still be useful all-rounders.

<P>One other feature that dedicated macro lenses offer is accurate manual focusing. More general-purpose lenses like the one you mention are generally optimized for auto-focus speed by providing a relatively short focus path, often less than 90 degrees. This makes them very touchy for manual focusing, and at close macro distances, critical focus is generally achieved best with manual focus.

[mel_unruh]

I have this lens and its fine as a walk around lens for birthday parties and the kids soccer games, etc. Macro is a bit of a stretch though. 'Close-up' would be a better description. If your idea of macro photography is a flower with dew drops on it or some other object in that size range, then it's fine. If you are looking to count the hairs on the rear of a butterfly, then this is not the lens for you.

 

Mel Unruh

[michael_kuhne]

The "super-zooms" are very useful for these situations- where you want to do group shots, then instantly zoom in for a closeup. Also for candids at a distance. But yes, 28mm will just get you to semi-wide view. Good enough for a small group shot. I have a 28-200mm and put it to these uses. On a DSLR, I prefer my Sigma 24-135mm to get me a bit wider.

 

Super-zooms designed just for DSLR bodies are in the 18-125 to 18-250mm range.

[petrana_batik]

-- "Philip's one line dismissal of macro zooms..."

 

It's obvious that he never had the pleasure of using a real macro zoom. There were some made, with very good optics (the 70-180 by Nikon comes to mind). Some are better than others, of course. There are cheaper ways to go macro than a dedicated macro lens.

 

Stephen, the superzooms are useful-- and when you come to realize their shortcomings, or rather, where their versatility ends, then they are a helpful addition.

[xpiotiavos]

I'll second Andrew's comment that 'macro' zooms are useful as all-around lenses. I have a Sigma 70-300 DG Macro, and have used it (happily) for all kinds of things, from shooting distant wildlife in Africa to macro shots of the orchids in my kitchen window. It's a ways away from pro quality, but for an amateur like me, it's just fine.

[from darkness]

I had such a Tamron an was realy ok. It depends what you do with it and what you want from it.

Small prints - ok. Bigger - (45/30cm I would not advise).

One lens in the kit - perfect if you want to travel light.

 

I have sold it with my ist DL and the guy is very pleasd with it. As I was.

It is a nice lens - very, very versatile.