Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR LD Aspherical (IF) Macro


Status
Not open for further replies.

Nickle

New Member
May 5, 2003
60
0
0
Visit site
#1
Hi everyone,

Does anyone have experience with the above lens? I am thinking of using it as a multi-purpose lens for travelling.

All experiences and comments (good or bad) are welcomed.

Thanks!
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#2
have not used 28-300 but both 28-200 and 28-300 are good lenses for travel...compact and good range. of course sharpness suffers, but what do u expect for a cheap lens with good zoom ratio.

imho 28-200 is more value for money than 28-300
 

joe

New Member
Feb 23, 2003
1,462
0
0
45
singapore
Visit site
#3
vince123123 said:
have not used 28-300 but both 28-200 and 28-300 are good lenses for travel...compact and good range. of course sharpness suffers, but what do u expect for a cheap lens with good zoom ratio.

imho 28-200 is more value for money than 28-300
Hi there,
there is no such rang as in 28-200mm.Why don't you buy seprately 17mm-35mm for wide angle 70mm-300mm for zooming or you can get a 70mm-300mm with micro for taking insect and they do have one 90mm prime lens with micro.


Joe
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#4
joe said:
Hi there,
there is no such rang as in 28-200mm.Why don't you buy seprately 17mm-35mm for wide angle 70mm-300mm for zooming or you can get a 70mm-300mm with micro for taking insect and they do have one 90mm prime lens with micro.


Joe
No such range???
Are you kidding??

Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Tamron, and even Tokina all has that range (tokina's 24-200)

Nikon is even release a newer version with ED glass but it's a G lens.

The post was for A travel lens (meaning it's only 1 lens for travelling)

Hence a 24-200, 28-200 or 28-300, is pretty good as it has wide to telephoto though it's not as fast on the aperature.

The Tamron's 28-200mm has a better rating than their 28-300mm
 

joe

New Member
Feb 23, 2003
1,462
0
0
45
singapore
Visit site
#5
Winston said:
No such range???
Are you kidding??

Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Tamron, and even Tokina all has that range (tokina's 24-200)

Nikon is even release a newer version with ED glass but it's a G lens.

The post was for A travel lens (meaning it's only 1 lens for travelling)

Hence a 24-200, 28-200 or 28-300, is pretty good as it has wide to telephoto though it's not as fast on the aperature.

The Tamron's 28-200mm has a better rating than their 28-300mm
Hi there,
yesterday I just went to one of the camra shop and they don't sell any 28mm-200mm for Tamron or you buy them serperatly cos they zoom very slow.By the time you do forcusing the object is already gone especially moden shoot.

Joe
 

joe

New Member
Feb 23, 2003
1,462
0
0
45
singapore
Visit site
#6
joe said:
Hi there,
yesterday I just went to one of the camra shop and they don't sell any 28mm-200mm for Tamron or you buy them serperatly cos they zoom very slow.By the time you do forcusing the object is already gone especially moden shoot.

Joe
if you bought it,you will regret and I not frighten you.It is true.if you still don't believe me.You can ask any of the cs people there.

Joe
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#7
joe said:
Hi there,
yesterday I just went to one of the camra shop and they don't sell any 28mm-200mm for Tamron or you buy them serperatly cos they zoom very slow.By the time you do forcusing the object is already gone especially moden shoot.

Joe
AP has lots of them behind the counter.

And it's not that slow lah.

I have tested it before and my friend is using one too.

For it's price, it's a pretty good performer.
 

joe

New Member
Feb 23, 2003
1,462
0
0
45
singapore
Visit site
#8
Winston said:
AP has lots of them behind the counter.

And it's not that slow lah.

I have tested it before and my friend is using one too.

For it's price, it's a pretty good performer.
what is 'AP'?
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
42
Clementi
#12
Nickle said:
Hi everyone,

Does anyone have experience with the above lens? I am thinking of using it as a multi-purpose lens for travelling.

All experiences and comments (good or bad) are welcomed.

Thanks!


I have been following the Tamron super zoom lens for some time as I had wanted to buy one as well. But I later settled for the 24-135SP which I felt had better glass although was a lot wider(in diameter) and heavier than the 28-200XR. These were my considerations about 1.5 years ago before I went for a 2 week holiday in Britain:

IMO, the 28-200XR has the best glass of the 3 (28-200 II, 28-200 XR, 28-300XR) lens and the most compact form factor. It's also internal focusing so u can use any filter u want without readjusting. In addition, it has the benefit of being long enough but not so long that u need to pack a tripod. Outdoors, u'll easily get 1/250 at max aperture of f/5.6. So u can hand hold easily and still get sharp shots. The wide end is only moderately wide, good enough if u dun need to take wide expanses. Chromatic abberations are invisible at 4R or even 8x12 (saw a review at photo.de if I remember correctly). The XR version has the smallest and lightest form factor - compared to the 28-200 (1st gen) and the 28-200 II. Also has a moderate macro at the long end to boot. Quite worth.

However, I decided against the 28-200XR as I preferred to have a wider end. At that time the 24-135SP was launched. It has good glass, focuses quite fast even on a slow 505si and there was little distortion all round at both ends. Pictures were sharp mostly but can be a little soft at the long end. But u have got to be really looking for it. The only problem I faced was when I stacked a circular polariser on top of a UV filter, the two filters caused the lens to vignette at the wide end (widest 24mm). However, the vignetting was minimal. Usually on the top two corners had a little blue smudge. To the untrained eye, it was not obvious at all. But of course ayone who frequents ClubSnap should be able to spot it a mile off. It served me superbly on my trip and it is my usual one-size-fits-all lens that I carry around these days. The wide end is really quite good since u can really capture quite a lot especially when u are constrained by space. I was taking Picaddily Circus and could only stand at the little pavement about < 2m from my subject. The 24mm end could swallow enough of the curvature of the buildings ringing the Circus so that the shot was quite dramatic. If the wide end had been 28mm, it would not have been such a good shot! Paid $580 for the 24-135SP new. U might get it cheaper now tho'. Hardly any on the 2nd hand market.

Hope this helps!
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
42
Clementi
#13
These kind of reviews are to be taken with a large dose of salt. U'll find that they vary rather wildly. The professional reviews tend to be a little more objective. Although finally what is acceptable quality is down to the user. The 28-200XR is cheap and very good value. Get it if u are just looking for a lens to travel.
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#14
TME said:
I have been following the Tamron super zoom lens for some time as I had wanted to buy one as well. But I later settled for the 24-135SP which I felt had better glass although was a lot wider(in diameter) and heavier than the 28-200XR. These were my considerations about 1.5 years ago before I went for a 2 week holiday in Britain:

IMO, the 28-200XR has the best glass of the 3 (28-200 II, 28-200 XR, 28-300XR) lens and the most compact form factor. It's also internal focusing so u can use any filter u want without readjusting. In addition, it has the benefit of being long enough but not so long that u need to pack a tripod. Outdoors, u'll easily get 1/250 at max aperture of f/5.6. So u can hand hold easily and still get sharp shots. The wide end is only moderately wide, good enough if u dun need to take wide expanses. Chromatic abberations are invisible at 4R or even 8x12 (saw a review at photo.de if I remember correctly). The XR version has the smallest and lightest form factor - compared to the 28-200 (1st gen) and the 28-200 II. Also has a moderate macro at the long end to boot. Quite worth.

However, I decided against the 28-200XR as I preferred to have a wider end. At that time the 24-135SP was launched. It has good glass, focuses quite fast even on a slow 505si and there was little distortion all round at both ends. Pictures were sharp mostly but can be a little soft at the long end. But u have got to be really looking for it. The only problem I faced was when I stacked a circular polariser on top of a UV filter, the two filters caused the lens to vignette at the wide end (widest 24mm). However, the vignetting was minimal. Usually on the top two corners had a little blue smudge. To the untrained eye, it was not obvious at all. But of course ayone who frequents ClubSnap should be able to spot it a mile off. It served me superbly on my trip and it is my usual one-size-fits-all lens that I carry around these days. The wide end is really quite good since u can really capture quite a lot especially when u are constrained by space. I was taking Picaddily Circus and could only stand at the little pavement about < 2m from my subject. The 24mm end could swallow enough of the curvature of the buildings ringing the Circus so that the shot was quite dramatic. If the wide end had been 28mm, it would not have been such a good shot! Paid $580 for the 24-135SP new. U might get it cheaper now tho'. Hardly any on the 2nd hand market.

Hope this helps!
Yes the Tamron SP AF24-135 is a very good lens too.

Surprisingly I also wanted to get the 28-200 initially but got the 24-135 in the end.

As for the 2nd hand market...

I just posted mine for sale in Buy/Sell yesterday and sold it.
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#15
TME said:
These kind of reviews are to be taken with a large dose of salt. U'll find that they vary rather wildly. The professional reviews tend to be a little more objective. Although finally what is acceptable quality is down to the user. The 28-200XR is cheap and very good value. Get it if u are just looking for a lens to travel.
yes, the reviews should not be trusted totally but it is a pretty good "guideline".

As for all lens purchase, I always lug my laptop down to shoot the lens and check the result on my laptop on the spot.

Among the 28-200's out there, the Tamron has the best price-to-quality ratio.
Nikon's ED version (soon to be released) may be better but it's definitely costlier by a lot.
 

Nickle

New Member
May 5, 2003
60
0
0
Visit site
#16
Winston said:
Yes the Tamron SP AF24-135 is a very good lens too.

Surprisingly I also wanted to get the 28-200 initially but got the 24-135 in the end.

As for the 2nd hand market...

I just posted mine for sale in Buy/Sell yesterday and sold it.
That being the case, how does the Tamron SP AF24-135 match up to the Nikon AF-S 24-85 IF-ED?
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
42
Clementi
#17
Nickle said:
That being the case, how does the Tamron SP AF24-135 match up to the Nikon AF-S 24-85 IF-ED?
The Tamron is 24-135 f/3.5 - 5.6. I'm not sure about the new Nikon lens but the Tamron has Aspherical glass versus the ED for the Nikon. I dun think the difference would be significant, except for optical distortion at the wide end. I dare say the Nikon might perform better only bec it has a much shorter range. So the barrel distortion might be less. Although after more than 40 rolls, I have never really noticed significant barrel distotion at the wide end nor pinscushion at the long end.... it's been a really good lens so far not to mention much cheaper than many original zooms of the same range.....
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#18
Nickle said:
That being the case, how does the Tamron SP AF24-135 match up to the Nikon AF-S 24-85 IF-ED?
Comparing the 2.

The Nikon will have a faster AF, due to the Slient Wave Motor.
The nikon also has the ED glass element.

But the Tamron has a further reach of 135mm
It's really up to the individual. If you need a wider range so you don't have to constantly change lens, then a 24-135 is a good travel lens too.
 

Winston

New Member
May 11, 2003
638
0
0
Visit site
#19
TME said:
The Tamron is 24-135 f/3.5 - 5.6. I'm not sure about the new Nikon lens but the Tamron has Aspherical glass versus the ED for the Nikon. I dun think the difference would be significant, except for optical distortion at the wide end. I dare say the Nikon might perform better only bec it has a much shorter range. So the barrel distortion might be less. Although after more than 40 rolls, I have never really noticed significant barrel distotion at the wide end nor pinscushion at the long end.... it's been a really good lens so far not to mention much cheaper than many original zooms of the same range.....
The AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 has an aspherical lens element too.

From Nikon Singapore,
"Compact size and high performance realized by new optical system including an aspherical lens and ED glass element "
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
42
Clementi
#20
Winston said:
The AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 has an aspherical lens element too.

From Nikon Singapore,
"Compact size and high performance realized by new optical system including an aspherical lens and ED glass element "

Hmm... I see...... so chromatic abberation should be kept in check..... didn't know that this lens had a built-in motor. At any rate its f-stops aren't any faster than the Tamron. I get f/4.5 at 85mm as well....... but the glass might be better though....... any idea?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom