Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 XR AF

rubric · 30th May 2002

Any one uses the Tamron 28-200 lens? Any thoughts about it?

http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/Artic...p?ArticleID=57

Is the lens suitable for general photography for a beginner? (Though i'm more interested in street photography right now.) I've read that to overcome the slow speed, just use ISO400 film. What will the lens be like with a 1.4x teleconvertor? Thanks.

ckiang · 30th May 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by rubric
Any one uses the Tamron 28-200 lens? Any thoughts about it?

http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/Artic...p?ArticleID=57

Is the lens suitable for general photography for a beginner? (Though i'm more interested in street photography right now.) I've read that to overcome the slow speed, just use ISO400 film. What will the lens be like with a 1.4x teleconvertor? Thanks.

While such superzooms do have their purposes, it does have serious limitations with the speed as you've mentioned, as well as sharpness. "Just use high speed film" may not be a good solution depending on what you're after.

With such a slow lens, don't even bother to try a teleconvertor. Even a 1.4x will reduce it to f/8 at 200mm. And it won't be sharp at f/8, so you'll probably need something like f/16. By that time, it's not that useful anymore.

For your intended purpose (street photography), it would be better to either use a 24, 28, 35 or 50mm prime lenses. Get in close to the subject, get involved in the event. That will usually produce better pictures than "sniping" the subject from a distance using a long lens.

Regards
CK

Regards
Ck

30th May 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by rubric
Any one uses the Tamron 28-200 lens? Any thoughts about it?

http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/Artic...p?ArticleID=57

Is the lens suitable for general photography for a beginner? (Though i'm more interested in street photography right now.) I've read that to overcome the slow speed, just use ISO400 film. What will the lens be like with a 1.4x teleconvertor? Thanks.

The older version that I own (1 genation b4 this XR) is good enough for me as a beginner, but I find it slightly on the heavy side, but the newer version is lighter.
With 1.4 teleconvertor it will be 40 -> 280. but normally it will lose 1-2 stop.

But consider that it is slow, is not that slow till you need ISO400 @ broad daylight, and going to be very expensive if you always use ISO400. I normally use 200 or even 100 for this lens, still look good but on tele end you will need a tripod.

But if you really need that speed for your photo taking, it will be better like what CK said, get a better prime.

Sin · 30th May 2002

As CKiang mentioned, the lens does have its uses and purpose.
I've used the first generation 28-200 from Tamron for a couple of years now, and although it aint spectacular, it serves for most of my purpose (mostly travel) then.

As mentioned about the speed, it's not the best choice for street photography as you'll find the speed limiting. I find it OK as I shoot travel and landscape where I have time to put it on a tripod or take my time to brace it.

If your main purpose is street photography, then this should not be your first choice.

Larry · 31st May 2002

that was my first lens actually, not the present version though but probably the previous generation. it's served me faithfully so far, and i still bring it for travelling. hard to beat the 28-200 zoom factor for versatility. but i agree with the rest. don't bother with a teleconverter.

why don't you invest in a cheap 50mm f/1.8 prime for starters? it might not be the most versatile, but you really learn more about going up to your subject and the lens is really sharp...

rubric · 1st June 2002

Thanks everyone, for the answers. I'll try shooting using wide-angle or normal lens with my digital camera and see if I'm comfortable getting close to subjects. BTW, between a minolta 50mm f1.4 and f1.8, which would u recommend? Is the speed difference that great as the price difference is almost 2 times?

ckiang · 1st June 2002

Quote:

Originally posted by rubric
Thanks everyone, for the answers. I'll try shooting using wide-angle or normal lens with my digital camera and see if I'm comfortable getting close to subjects. BTW, between a minolta 50mm f1.4 and f1.8, which would u recommend? Is the speed difference that great as the price difference is almost 2 times?

Go for the 1.8 unless the extra 2/3 stop of speed is REALLY necessary. Otherwise, it's not worth the extra money.

Regards
CK

rubric · 2nd June 2002

Thanks ckiang.

ralphii82sg · 4th June 2002

Eh the minolta one is a 50/f1.7...well price wise between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7 is quite a lot...but in terms of quality..the 50/1.7 is sharp enough..but filter size..quite small(49mm) and the focusing right is a bit to tiny for my hands...got a tiny built in lens hood...

currahee · 6th June 2002

so how much is this lens? where to get it cheapest?

rubric · 6th June 2002

Try Cathay Photo (CP). Get an e-quotation first before going down:
http://www.cathayphoto.com.sg/

I know that the lens is a little slow and images soft, but really like its compact size and light weight. Dislike juggling 2 zoom lenses when i shoot. does anyone have photos to show? I've surfed the web but no results. Thanks.

SNAG · 14th June 2002

Hmm..
Believe you can find some threads on this and photo.net
check out nikonians.org too (or is it nikonians.com ?)
I've seen some.. but it's rather subjective, as the quality of the scanner / slide scanner is impt too...

rubric · 15th June 2002

Some say the lens is very sharp, others say not sharp enough

Just found out yest tt it has plastic elements. Anyone with good scanner wants to share some pixs taken by the Tamron 28-200?

SNAG · 16th June 2002

Hmm..
Me would like to know too.
I'm actually interested in getting this lens too..
But not now... Maybe at the end of the year perhaps?

Once you get it, do scan the pix and let me see ok?
I was deciding this and Nikon's offering... 28 - 200mm

If I get the Tamron, I would have enough cash to spare for another Nikon prime... The Nikon costs twice the money... Not sure if this is justified.

30th May 2002	#1
rubric Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Somewhere East Posts: 727	Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 XR AF Any one uses the Tamron 28-200 lens? Any thoughts about it? http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/Artic...p?ArticleID=57 Is the lens suitable for general photography for a beginner? (Though i'm more interested in street photography right now.) I've read that to overcome the slow speed, just use ISO400 film. What will the lens be like with a 1.4x teleconvertor? Thanks.

30th May 2002	#4
Sin Deregistered Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 136	As CKiang mentioned, the lens does have its uses and purpose. I've used the first generation 28-200 from Tamron for a couple of years now, and although it aint spectacular, it serves for most of my purpose (mostly travel) then. As mentioned about the speed, it's not the best choice for street photography as you'll find the speed limiting. I find it OK as I shoot travel and landscape where I have time to put it on a tripod or take my time to brace it. If your main purpose is street photography, then this should not be your first choice.

31st May 2002	#5
Larry Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: singapore Posts: 6,097	that was my first lens actually, not the present version though but probably the previous generation. it's served me faithfully so far, and i still bring it for travelling. hard to beat the 28-200 zoom factor for versatility. but i agree with the rest. don't bother with a teleconverter. why don't you invest in a cheap 50mm f/1.8 prime for starters? it might not be the most versatile, but you really learn more about going up to your subject and the lens is really sharp...

1st June 2002	#6
rubric Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Somewhere East Posts: 727	Thanks everyone, for the answers. I'll try shooting using wide-angle or normal lens with my digital camera and see if I'm comfortable getting close to subjects. BTW, between a minolta 50mm f1.4 and f1.8, which would u recommend? Is the speed difference that great as the price difference is almost 2 times?

2nd June 2002	#8
rubric Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Somewhere East Posts: 727	Thanks ckiang.

4th June 2002	#9
ralphii82sg Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 523	Eh the minolta one is a 50/f1.7...well price wise between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7 is quite a lot...but in terms of quality..the 50/1.7 is sharp enough..but filter size..quite small(49mm) and the focusing right is a bit to tiny for my hands...got a tiny built in lens hood...

6th June 2002	#10
currahee Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Bishan Posts: 295	so how much is this lens? where to get it cheapest?

14th June 2002	#12
SNAG Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,411	Hmm.. Believe you can find some threads on this and photo.net check out nikonians.org too (or is it nikonians.com ?) I've seen some.. but it's rather subjective, as the quality of the scanner / slide scanner is impt too...

15th June 2002	#13
rubric Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Somewhere East Posts: 727	Some say the lens is very sharp, others say not sharp enough Just found out yest tt it has plastic elements. Anyone with good scanner wants to share some pixs taken by the Tamron 28-200?

16th June 2002	#14
SNAG Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,411	Hmm.. Me would like to know too. I'm actually interested in getting this lens too.. But not now... Maybe at the end of the year perhaps? Once you get it, do scan the pix and let me see ok? I was deciding this and Nikon's offering... 28 - 200mm If I get the Tamron, I would have enough cash to spare for another Nikon prime... The Nikon costs twice the money... Not sure if this is justified.