Have 28-200mm lenses improved significantly?

[salil_s]

No I dont own one and have heard this statement more times than I

care to count--- "You are much better off with a point-and-shoot

rather than using a 28-200mm lens on an SLR." Anyways, while reading

an issue of practical photography I came across this: "Something like

the tiny and light Tamron 28-200mm superzoom is a great option for

landscape shooting if you want to travel light and have lots of

pictorial flexibility."

 

Kind of makes you wonder--- do the newer 28-200's offer you image

quality that is significantly better than point-and-shoots or is it

totally worthless using one of these superzooms on an SLR? Are we

carrying over our prejudice regarding the early 28-200mm lenses to

their newer siblings without actually using them?

[chip l.]

A lot depends on the size of the final prints. For upto 8x10's and in some cases a 11x14 the current Tamron XR series does well. I think the issue is that some of us are only open to the best quality that is available if if that means carrying more lenses than would care for.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Chip

[carina]

In the case of Tamron/Sigma, they may or may not have made them optically better, but they have both succeeded in dropping the weight almost or more than in half from the early models, and with this, the filters have dropped from 77mm to 72mm to 62mm. No zoom p&S wiuth any long zoom range will rival a 28-200/300 third party lens (and rarely do you have control over the image). Sure, the best single focal length p&S or RFs will beat a monster zoom at that one particular focal length. But, people buy such a zoom as it is the only lens they will use or carry on a particular day. I have borrowed or tested all 3 eras of the Sigma 28-200/300's, and the older Tamrons of the same range. In many cases, for example with a 28-200, then lens is really pretty decent from 28-135, acceptable from 135-175, and merely o.k. on the long end. Tha makers had to weigh things (it is VERY hard to make a 10x zoom light and inexpensive - hence the cost of the 35-350L from Canon). The more you rack out the zoom, the more you must stop down to maintain the same quality - and on the extreme end you need a tripod almost regardless of film speed. Anyone can tell a 8x12/11x14 shot from my 100mm f2 EOS apart from the 28-200 Sigma @ 100mm, but that didnt stop me from buyig the Sigma for certain things. The new Tamron big zoom on a Rebel ti or on the light, little Minolta SLR might not lend itself to poster size prints, but it offers a lot of possibilities in a tiny package (and what p&s offers 200-300mm range? or decent flash options?). If you are thinking of buying, borrow or rent one for a day and you will know if it is minimally acceptable to you.

[al_kaplan1]

It's really a shame that the standard by which most people judge lenses has gone from "it's not as sharp as a top camera maker's prime lens" to "it's significantly better that the zoom lens in a point and shoot". Do we judge perfume by comparing it to the smell of garbage?

[stemked]

My Wife owns the older Tamron (Pentax mount) and my sister has the newer version (Nikon mount). For several years my wife loved the photos she got back with her 'Superzoom', but ultimately she found she did a lot better with a mix of lenses. Not a problem because my wife and I can both share in lens carrying. Noses up in the air the lens rarely gets used now.

 

My sister LOVES her 28-200. She came back from South Africa with everything from wildlife to wedding shots and landscapes. Don't expect the shots to show up in National Geographic next year. But shooting without a tripod handheld, I'd say, not bad-better than the average snap shooter (Provided the snap shooter isn't named Brandenberg!)

 

For what they are I think they are 'decent' optics. If you are a light weight shooter, keep shots 4X6 (inches) or under, and realize that this is for personal use, then I'm almost certain you'll be happy with this lens.

 

Remember many of these consumer point and shoot zooms have f stops well into the f13 and higher!

[carina]

Of course, if you want to show that a lens is bad, produce the LPM scores for it, or field reviews in any printed source in which the lens is ripped. Instead of this, you usually get opinions from people who have never used the lens, and have no idea of its capabilities nor drawbacks. Anyone who tells you you are better off with a P&S than a SLR with 28-200mm is, almost always, someone who have never owned either (more bull from the RF crowd). No p&S of any serious focal-length range will begin to rival even a mediocre SLR lens. If you cant take travel-documentary-personal use pictures with the new Tamron 28-300, well, you probably cant take decent pictures of any kind with any lens. The lens is as good, in most respects, as the many zooms people used throughout the 1970's-1980's. Not as good as a good prime, but a hundred time better than a p&S. You are certainly not limited to 4x6 prints; put the lens on a tripod and see for yourself. What P&S are people mentioning (I bet they never name one as that would require knowledge of the cameras in question) - a Rollei QZ35W, which costs more than two Canon A2's!

[neil_lupin]

Salil, with a 28-200 or 28-300 you will get more image distortion at the long and short ends than say with a 28-80 and 70-300 twin set of lenses - that's because they have to pack so much glass in. If space or convenience is the reason for getting one then fine - but look at Sigma and Tamron. Ultimately you are likely to trade up quickly to several lenses to improve image quality if you are serious about your photography. SLRs will ALWAYS give better performance and flexibility than a point and shoot.

[salil_s]

Thanks to all for your replies. Pro zooms have more or less caught up with prime lenses in a manufacturers line-up so I see no reason why these super zooms cant catch up with the good midrange zooms soon. I am not planning on buying one, yet. I asked the question as I have seen the Tamron 28-200XR recommended quite often. So I thought that maybe these 28-200s have finally caught up with the better midrange zooms. And as for the passionate response of Al Kaplan, well, point taken. But I bet you own a Leica.