kevin_smith23

Mark,

I have the Tamron 70-200 and I think it's a good, but not quite great lens. First and foremost, I love the lens for its optical quality and handling. It really has minimal distortion, and very good contrast. Where it lacks is focusing. The focusing is very fast and very accurate...down to a certain lighting level. I haven't taken a lux measurement, but usually its when I'm pushing ISO 1600 and shutter speeds longer than 1/60 (which means we're already thinking about a tripod or monopod). I've also noticed that it performs significantly better on the center focal point (for both the D50 and D90), than on the non-cross-type sensors.

I've compared it to few Nikkors, notably the 18-200 VR and the 70-300 VR. Focusing is not quite as fast as either Nikkor, which is expected given the more basic focusing motor. In daylight conditions, it's still pretty fast. IQ is solidly better than the 18-200 VR and, in my perspective, better than the 70-300 VR, although at f/8, its close. At f/2.8 optically its very good, moving toward excellent by f/4 (note this my own interpretation, I don't tend to bother with MTF or optical detail charts).

The other missing component on this lens is VR. Obviously, you know what you're buying, but VR can definitely spoil a photographer (especially an amateur like me). With good handling technique and a good tripod, this can be overcome, but it's something to think about.

I bought it for portraits and low light concerts where the f/5.6 just wasn't enough. For those purposes now, I'd probably buy it again. I dismissed the comparable sigma because of quality concerns and back-focus issues, and figured that if the Tamron wasn't good enough, I'd return it.

I'd hesitate to recommend it for you fully without knowing what you want it for..., but I really enjoy it, especially with the D90.

-- Kevin

D90, D50, 18-200 VR, 70-300 VR, Tamron 70-200, 50 f/1.8

Great Answers all around. I bought my D50 a little over 2 and a half years ago. I started with the kit lens, stepped up to the Nikon 18-200 and have loved every minute of it. I've shot over 40,000 total pictures and have some really fantastic shots, especially of my little guy. With that said (and my collection of lenses expanded), I just took the jump for the D90.

Haven't had it very long, but my impressions are that its the D50, only faster, easier (although more complex), and more accurate exposure and WB. The ISO capabilities are awesome, good at 1600 and usable at 3200 for most applications. The live view is nice, but focusing is very slow. The movie mode may be a perk, but I expect to use it sparingly unless I really need video. Granted, it'll be better than haven't to carry another camera for video clips.

Be happy with the D50, and when you're ready to step up, get the lenses first. Then if you still have money left, the D90 will be waiting with more speed and a beautiful 3" LCD.

Kevin, Seattle

D50, D90, 18-200 VR, 70-300 VR, 50 f/1.8, 18-105 VR, 70-200 Tamron f/2.8

Bas,

Well said on the variety of lenses. It's an interesting perspective, and one that I can't really appreciate, as I'm still learning to use the lenses I have. The 28-105 f/2.8 was a sigma for $210 at BH. I agree with the posting above that certain camera will "feel" good, and as it has been said before, all three of these cameras we've been discussing (E-500, 350D and D50) can take great pictures, its all about how you use and configure them.

Best of Luck!

Kevin

Hey guys, this is my first contribution to the forum, but I wondered about a couple things that may clarify this question. I've read all the reviews and I think its fairly clear that the image quality of the E-500 and 350D are pretty close, except at the high ISOs. It should be noted that the Nikon D50 also recieved a Highly Recommended from DPReview. What I'm still struggling with is the lens comparisons... The kit lens with the olympus is a 14-45 f3.5-5.6, not the 14-54 f2.8 that has been referenced a couple times here. That lens (the 14-54 f2.8) is in the neighborhood of $450 new. Similarly the portrait & macro lens currently offered by Olympus (50mm f/2) is also around $450. Compare those options to the Nikon lineup, where there are at least three companies makings lenses including a 28-105 f/2.8 around $200 and a 50mm f/1.8 around $100. For the amateur just getting into DSLR territory, this seems to be a very economical way to get exposure to quite good (but not great) lenses that each provide a different use for the DSLR.

Is there something that I'm not seeing about the E-500 that makes it such a good alternative to the 350D and the Nikon D50?

I'd love to hear your thoughts, as I'm very new myself and still learning more each day.

I appreciate reading all of your comments and analysis.

Thanks, Kevin