michael_walter1 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 How do y'all feel about Tamron lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gavin martin Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Not used one myself but the reviews i've read are usually very positive. Nice & sharp and usually quite compact too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_shot Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 What kind of Tamron's lens d'you mean? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I guess you mean in the telezoom length that you asked about of the kodak? <BR>Tamron have several different quality zooms in that size starting with a VERY cheap 80-210(i may have the exact size wrong),going up to extremely good constant f2.8 zooms.<BR>That cheapest one in the range really is not very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Why not get the Canon 80-200 F4-5.6? Yes, it is cheap, and yes, the entire thing is made of plastic, but the optics are pretty good (a not unrespectable 3 on photodo), it's very light and very compact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike f Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 If you buy a Canon lens it will always work on a Canon camera. If you buy a Tamron, Sigma etc it will not work on some models in the future. I went the non OEM route and sold all of them to come back to Canon when they wouldn't work with the newer camera bodies. Buy your lens used from the Photo.net classifieds if you are trying to save money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 If I were looking for one of the economy variable-aperture zooms I would look no further than the 75-300-IS. It's optics aren't any better than the others, including the 3rd-party, but since you've got to stop these puppies down to around f/11 to get halfway decent results at a viewable print size, the IS is a strong advantage. That said, buying it new it's not a cheap lens. Two exceptionally good 3rd-party lenses are the 90/2.8 Tamron SP Macro (rated behind only the Leica 100/2.8 APO-Macro-R), and the Sigma 70-200/2.8APO-EX-HSM which from personal experience is optically 99.9% of the Canon non-IS 70-200/2.8. I would strongly suggest buying these lenses mint used, because they depreciate like lead baloons for no other reason than they're 3rd-party and because people buy them and then give in to "brand-name-lust". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catman5 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I now use a Tamron 28-300 XR on my IIe after using the 28-200 Super for several years with excellent results. No disappointments. Light, compact, sharp and not as expensive as Canon lenses. If you are not sure that one will meet your needs, I would recommend renting one to try out. Unless you are looking for the best, I don't think there is a need to spend any more than is necessary. Again, so long as your needs are met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amol Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Hi, I have a Tamron 75-300 LD ($110), it works great, quality of the pictures and lens is good, and I haven't had any compatability issues. However, I have to agree that this may be something to keep in mind later on down the road. How much "zoom" are you thinking about. I'm personally thinking about getting a 28-105 3.5-4 Canon USM II ($220), to compliment my Canon 50 and Tamron 75-300. I would probably stick with Canon if you plan on upgrading anytime soon, otherwise I personally think that Tamron would be fine. Goodluck, Amol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Third party manufacturers, just like Canon or Nikon, make cheapo lenses and higher quality lenses. Avoid the low-end of any manufacturer's line of lenses like the plague and you should be OK. Their higher end gear is usually pretty decent. I have an 8mm, 24mm f1.8, and 105mm macro from Sigma, and a 14mm from Tamron. All are great. If you buy cheapo third party equipment (just like cheapo OEM equipment), quality will suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_t1 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 It is my understanding is that Tamron is the only 3rd party lens manufacture to have made lenses that have worked with every EOS camera to date, IE older tamron lenses are still compatable with current eos cameras, unlike Sigma lenses that have to be re-chipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Each company makes lenses in several levels. For this reason, it is useless to ask if company A is better or worse than company B. Canon, for example, produces some very poor quality lenses but also some of the finest lenses in the world. What you should ask is if lens A is better or worse than lens B. There are numerous of such posts, just search. I have a Tamron 28-105/2.8. It is big and heavy but it is very good at f/2.8 going to excellent at f/4. See my review at http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/Tamron,,AF28-105mm,f-2.8,LD,ASP,(IF)/PRD_83610_3128crx.aspx. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now