Anyone using a 28-300 with a DSLR?

[denizenx]

yeah I know these lenses not critically acclaimed... but great for travel..
so was thinking the slowness is compensated by ISO on the DSLR...
so anyone using this combi?

 

[mylau]

Originally posted by denizenx
yeah I know these lenses not critically acclaimed... but great for travel..
so was thinking the slowness is compensated by ISO on the DSLR...
so anyone using this combi?

I've used the tamron 28-300 before.

yes, the slow f-stop can be compensated by high ISO, but with loss of image quality.

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by mylau
I've used the tamron 28-300 before.

yes, the slow f-stop can be compensated by high ISO, but with loss of image quality.

is the tradeoff really obvious? vs typical film? eg fuji 200?

then I supposed most pics wd be rescaled smaller for viewing either pixel-wise or dpi-wise.. so let's say something on screen about A4 and paper on A4 dimensions... wd it be very obviously poor quality? nothing that a little USM wun help?

I believe my tradeoff is not so much about cost but rather flexibility and weight/portability...

for example I have seen tomshen's shots on a 50-500, how wd that compare to any 28-300? better than let's say prosumer digicam?

 

[vince123123]

am using a 28-200, so far looks nice up to 5R. haven tried anything bigger yet.

Cheers

 

[ckiang]

Using a 28-300 class lens on a DSLR is a waste of the DSLR. :devil:

Regards
CK

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by ckiang
Using a 28-300 class lens on a DSLR is a waste of the DSLR. :devil:

Regards
CK

I know I know.. but keeping a DSLR at home becos the system too bulky to go out with is even greater evil...

 

[vince123123]

May not be a waste, all depends on your needs

Originally posted by ckiang
Using a 28-300 class lens on a DSLR is a waste of the DSLR. :devil:

Regards
CK

 

[Tweek]

Originally posted by ckiang
Using a 28-300 class lens on a DSLR is a waste of the DSLR. :devil:

Regards
CK

why is that so?

 

[oceanxp]

Originally posted by denizenx
yeah I know these lenses not critically acclaimed... but great for travel..
so was thinking the slowness is compensated by ISO on the DSLR...
so anyone using this combi?

i am using sigma 28-300mm with F80 initially. It was pretty slow on F80. After i upgrade to F100, the lens became faster !! and it has been my fav lens other than AFS 24-85 Nikon.

THe end results ? It was good. It works very well in motor show 2002 last year and i received compliments from the shoots. IN all, it is great for travelling also .... a few others of my friend brought the lens as a results.

However, my scenario is using F100 and this lens. You need a faster motor to speed the AF of this lens.

Overall, when i show pro photographers my shots using sigma 28-300mm, they couldn't tell from the start and they believe i am using nikon lens ...

However, it is a soft lens ... so will not turn out sharp as compared to nikon. Overall, it is great for portrait. may not works well in low light , pictures not as clear ... works better in daylight ...

On low budget , should consider this ...

 

[gavinjung]

sharpness, speed, distortion and chromatic abberation are all issues with lenses such as these. i have a tamron 28-200 XR and it's nice and compact and lightweight with my F80. great for travelling and optically is fine for 4R prints or a little larger. the sigma 28-300 is significantly worse than the 28-200XR, but should still be okay for 4R. and really, either of these lenses are still optically better than any compact cam, digital or otherwise. (chromatic abberation and distortion really really suck on those things). so if you're talking about quality in comparison to a compact camera, then a 28-300 would be pretty good. if you're talking about quality in comparison to other SLR lenses... you may be disappointed (a 28-200 would be better). i figure, if you're going to carry around a heavy and bulky DSLR anways, you might think about spliting up the focal range and carry 2 light weight lenses. that way, you'd get better quality and only have to carry a bit more. otherwise, if you don't wanna go with the bulk, instead of buying at 28-300, take the money and buy a compact digital cam. quality is worse, but heck it fits in your pocket and you'd probably get a lot more pictures. with your DSLR and it's crop factor, you're not going to get wide landscape photos at 28mm anyways (if you're into that). and at 300mm, the equvalent is going to be around 450... that's enough to shoot small birds... I dunno if that's what you're looking for in a travel lens...

basically, if i were you and wanna go cheap, i'd go with a couple lighter weight lenses (if i had them to begin with) or bring something shorter. if you really needed to save weight and want high quality, then buy yourself an AFS 24-85G if you're NIKON (sweet sweet lens that around the same price) and with your DSLR would give you ~36-125 or so, that's no worse than a compact cam.. you don't really need 200 do you? if none of these appeal, go buy a compact digicam.

This is just my opinion.

GJ

 

[oceanxp]

Originally posted by gavinjung
....
basically, if i were you and wanna go cheap, i'd go with a couple lighter weight lenses (if i had them to begin with) or bring something shorter. if you really needed to save weight and want high quality, then buy yourself an AFS 24-85G if you're NIKON (sweet sweet lens that around the same price) and with your DSLR would give you ~36-125 or so, that's no worse than a compact cam.. you don't really need 200 do you? if none of these appeal, go buy a compact digicam.

This is just my opinion.

GJ [/B]

the AFS 24-85 Nikon is indeed a better lens than sigma 28-300mm. You will notice the visual is clearer at nite, comparing these two lens. The sigma 28 -300mm can be compensate using a higher F values.

 

[nivlekx]

I have the Sigma 28-200 DL for use with a Minolta 700si. The pictures aren't as sharp when u put it up in 8R size, but generally still acceptable. Of course if you were to compare it to Canon's L or Nikon's G lenses its definitely the loser, but let's compare it to lenses in the same class.

It is probably close to if not as good as most consumer lenses can go. But one thing about all hyperzooms is that I notice the vignetting and chromatic abberations are significantly higher than that of most consumer lenses. Low light performance is also rather bad. But for the price of $350 and a 8X optical zoom, its probably good enuff for a beginner!! As for DSLRs, sorry but I really don't have any expereince.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Tweek
why is that so?

Image quality is sub-par.

Here's a true story.

Long before we have 6 megapixel DSLRs, a colleague of mine bought the spanking new Canon D30 when it first came out. For convenience he bought a Tamron 28-300 (that time no XR yet). After just a month of using, he sold the whole thing away coz images were "too soft".

It's pretty well known at that time (and when DSLRs were new) that D30s (and possibly other DSLRs) tend to be a bit soft as there's not much sharpening in-camera. Coupled with the additional softness of the superzoom gives poor images.

It's not until Red Dawn bought his D30 and a 50mm f/1.8 that I realize what's wrong. The lens makes a big difference. Especially for digital, even though most DSLRs crop the centre portion only.

I wouldn't sacrifice quality for convenience. Doesn't mean one have to use those heavy f/2.8 zooms, just take a couple of those 3.5-4.5 ones - some of them are pretty good, and are not heavy.

Regards
CK

 

[denizenx]

hmm the thing is here I dun wanna go back to my 19-35, 50 and 75-300 combi again leh... too much stuff to bring out...
if the 28-300 is that bad... hmmm...
anyway I was thinking of this and the 15mm diag fisheye...
but now u guys make it seem inevitable that I must retread the old partition path.. hmmm see how.. maybe nikon will have more DX lenses..

anyway I have my 38-380mm 2mp LLSLR (looks like SLR) c2100uz... just no wide and I dun wanna buy 1600 film...

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by denizenx
hmm the thing is here I dun wanna go back to my 19-35, 50 and 75-300 combi again leh... too much stuff to bring out...
if the 28-300 is that bad... hmmm...
anyway I was thinking of this and the 15mm diag fisheye...
but now u guys make it seem inevitable that I must retread the old partition path.. hmmm see how.. maybe nikon will have more DX lenses..

anyway I have my 38-380mm 2mp LLSLR (looks like SLR) c2100uz... just no wide and I dun wanna buy 1600 film...

With your combi, you can actually drop the 50. Alternatively, try something like 24, 50, 75-300.

Regards
CK

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by ckiang
With your combi, you can actually drop the 50. Alternatively, try something like 24, 50, 75-300.

Regards
CK

dumped the whole lot already.. too much screw-unscrew.. sigh..

 

[Tweek]

ckiang, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it was used on a FSLR or DSLR. If the quality is sub-standard on a DSLR, it probably will be so on a FSLR. But if a FSLR user prints 4R most of the time and is satisfied with the quality on small prints, he would probably be satisfied with 4R prints from a DSLR with the same lens as well.

I guess I sound a bit obscure, but I just can't quite catch why using such a lens is a waste of the DSLR. It shouldn't matter if it is D or F.

Anyway, denizenx, I don't think the 28-300 will be a good carry-along lens. It gives you an effective 45-480 f4-6.3 lens. Not quite wide enough for everyday usage, and 480mm at 6.3 is a torture, unless you lug your three-legged friend along all the time. Last of all, I don't think you will be satisfied with the image quality, regardless of whether you are viewing it full-frame on screen or scrutinising a 4R print.

I use a tamron super 24-135 as my stay-on lens. Gives me a 38-216mm f3.5-5.6. Very useful and image quality is great.

 

[denizenx]

so tele is not impt huh?

I was thking of 50mm f/1.4 and that's it... LOL

back to more contemplation...

 

[Tweek]

not that tele is not impt...it depends on your shooting needs.

For casual everyday stuffs, 38-216mm is sufficient. How often do you shoot beyond 200mm?

If I can foresee that I need 300mm or more, I would bring along the 70-200 f2.8 and probably a TC, which are definitely not my carry-along items usually.

Similarly, if I'll be shooting landscapes or enclosed areas, I'd bring along the nice 19-35 you sold me, cos 38mm may not be enough.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Tweek
ckiang, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if it was used on a FSLR or DSLR. If the quality is sub-standard on a DSLR, it probably will be so on a FSLR. But if a FSLR user prints 4R most of the time and is satisfied with the quality on small prints, he would probably be satisfied with 4R prints from a DSLR with the same lens as well.

I guess I sound a bit obscure, but I just can't quite catch why using such a lens is a waste of the DSLR. It shouldn't matter if it is D or F.

Anyway, denizenx, I don't think the 28-300 will be a good carry-along lens. It gives you an effective 45-480 f4-6.3 lens. Not quite wide enough for everyday usage, and 480mm at 6.3 is a torture, unless you lug your three-legged friend along all the time. Last of all, I don't think you will be satisfied with the image quality, regardless of whether you are viewing it full-frame on screen or scrutinising a 4R print.

I use a tamron super 24-135 as my stay-on lens. Gives me a 38-216mm f3.5-5.6. Very useful and image quality is great.

The reason why I said that is, too many people spend $4k on DSLRs and unwilling to spend more for a proper lens and get a superzoom instead. And becoz we tend to view digital pix at 100%, all the flaws become very obvious.

On film cameras, where you simply print 4Rs at the lab, it may not be that bad.

Regards
CK