V
vince123123
Guest
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?
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?