Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Is there a difference between a Nikon/Canon 28-200 vs Tamron/Tokina/whatever 28-200?

  1. #1
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Is there a difference between a Nikon/Canon 28-200 vs Tamron/Tokina/whatever 28-200?

    Realise that a Nikon/Canon 28-200 costs so miuch more than a Tamron/Tokina/3P 28-200. is it optically superior? or is it just a brand name thing?

    I recalla photography article which said that the first nikon 28-200 was actually a Tamron in disguise.

    that said, is it worth any bother to buy a original 28-200?

    note that this discussion is only for the purposes of discussion a 28-200, (universally recognised as being poor in optics and sharpness), and hte brands of each lens.

    if a 28-200 is inherently not so good optically , woudl it make any difference whether it comes from Nikon/Canon or a 3P lens maker?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    From what I read, Canon 28-200 is one of the worst Canon lenses in terms of optical quality. The only benefits is fast focussing but it's heavier.

    Nikon one (the new one) seems to be quite good though.

    Tamron's XR version (the 4th generation 28-200 from tamron) is quite highly rated. Performs better than the Canon and much lighter.

  3. #3
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Well the comparison is between the various 28-200s, not between lenses of the same brand (e..g canon 28-200 vs canon(any other lens).

    so from what u're saying, the Tamron's XR can beat Canon (and maybe nikon?)?then who in his right mind will buy the 1st party lenses?



    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    From what I read, Canon 28-200 is one of the worst Canon lenses in terms of optical quality. The only benefits is fast focussing but it's heavier.

    Nikon one (the new one) seems to be quite good though.

    Tamron's XR version (the 4th generation 28-200 from tamron) is quite highly rated. Performs better than the Canon and much lighter.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Well the comparison is between the various 28-200s, not between lenses of the same brand (e..g canon 28-200 vs canon(any other lens).

    so from what u're saying, the Tamron's XR can beat Canon (and maybe nikon?)?then who in his right mind will buy the 1st party lenses?

    i have used the tamron XR before, and i find it very sharp and contrasty. The canon can also produce good pictures, but from the pictures that i have taken, the tamron surpasses the canon.

    however, the canon has faster focusing speed and it is more silent than the tamron.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Well the comparison is between the various 28-200s, not between lenses of the same brand (e..g canon 28-200 vs canon(any other lens).

    so from what u're saying, the Tamron's XR can beat Canon (and maybe nikon?)?then who in his right mind will buy the 1st party lenses?

    Erm, those brand purists?
    Remember that there are always people who still buy Canon/Nikon lens caps, camera straps, bags etc etc.

    And having a reliable after-sale support also counts for some. How much confidence do you have in getting your Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses repaired and returned ON TIME?

  6. #6
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    *joke mode on*

    hehe at half the price i can just buy another one!! HAHAHAH :P


    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Erm, those brand purists?
    Remember that there are always people who still buy Canon/Nikon lens caps, camera straps, bags etc etc.

    And having a reliable after-sale support also counts for some. How much confidence do you have in getting your Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses repaired and returned ON TIME?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Well the comparison is between the various 28-200s, not between lenses of the same brand (e..g canon 28-200 vs canon(any other lens).

    so from what u're saying, the Tamron's XR can beat Canon (and maybe nikon?)?then who in his right mind will buy the 1st party lenses?

    Again, the discussion is in relation to the 28-200. For other lenses, Canon and Nikon are better in some and not as good as others.

    Some people like the brand, speed, and support and don't mind poorer optical quality or performance....

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    so from what u're saying, the Tamron's XR can beat Canon (and maybe nikon?)?then who in his right mind will buy the 1st party lenses?
    1st party lenses cost more, but have better resale value and wider market. Also no compatibility problems with new bodies, just look at all the Sigma lens compatibility issues. And Canon lenses (with USM) usually focus faster and quieter.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    It appears that only Sigma has compatibility problems bec of their reverse engineering to produce HSM for both the Canon and Nikon mounts.

    In any case, I have not heard of any compatibilty problems with Tamrons... they just work fine....

    As for resale value..... what resale value are u talking about?! U buy the lens at 1/2 the price of the 1st party......... u expect the lens to sell at the resale value of the 1st party? Look at it this way..... u tend to lose anything from 30-60% of the new price... if u buy a 3rd party, u lose a smaller absolute figure whichever end of the loss spectrum... so there's motivation for me to buy 3rd party.....

    And in any case, all 3 major 3rd party manufacturers make good lenses, some of which are preferred by pros and freelancers over the 1st party for their optical quality/build/price point.... so dun worry too much about whether they are 3rd party or not..... just look at the optical quality.......

    As for the Tamron 28-200XR.... this lens has gone through 4 revisions...... the XR is the smallest and the best..... and each of this model's iterations has won numerous awards... the curent model included..... in fact, I read somewhere that the 28-200 chromatic aberrations can be observed only at 200-300% magnification... and even then its not very noticeable.

    The best thing about it is that it offers very quality at very affordable prices with good build quality and with very small dimensions...

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Punggol Drive
    Posts
    111

    Wink Is there a difference between a Nikon/Canon 28-200 vs Tamron/Tokina/whatever 28-200?

    I m using the 28-200 mm from nikon.
    i get nice shots from them. the loud focusing sound is what i don't like.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default

    Not all canon lenses are good. And then not all L lenses are good either. Some 3rd party lenses actually surpasses even the L lenses.

    So why buy 1st party lenses?
    Resale value. Build quality (depends on which lens). Service.
    That's about it. Some 3rd party glasses are very good.

    The Tamron 28-200XR has received very good ratings.

    Best that you get your hands on one and try. Many factors involved like focusing speed, build quality, weight n size, sharpness, warmness, coolness, resale value, pestige value (aka snob appeal) and so on. Depends on what you need really...

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    For value for money and range, I'll plump for the Tamron 28-200XR. I think Tamron is coming out with a 24-200mm lens or has come out with one already...... that would be an excellent option if it is going to be an SP lens..... I'll ditch my 24-135 for that if it is available for a good price and optical quality.....

  13. #13

    Default

    There's already a Tokina ATX 242 24-200mm which provides a more useful focal length as a travel lens.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    There's already a Tokina ATX 242 24-200mm which provides a more useful focal length as a travel lens.

    But it's not the Pro range right? Any idea how's the quality? The one thing I dun like about the Tokina lenses are that they are made of metal generally and they weigh a ton!!! I prefer a sturdy plastic body contrary to what pros advise..... better durability. blah blah but hey I'm not about to abuse my lens lar........

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •