Tamron Lens 28-200mm worth the money?

[R.P.M]

Hi guys, first post in this forum!

Have had a EOS400d for a while now and have been getting on fine with the stock lens 18-55mm.

I am going on honeymoon next month and would love a lens with a bit more flexability as i'm hoping there will be lots of subjects to shoot!

I believe I dont have the skill/knowledge of photography to really do an expensive lense justice, although I do understand the saying 'you get what you pay for!'

So is the Tamron Lens 28-200mm f3.8-5.6 XR Di http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-tamron-lens-28-2...

at £150 money well spent or would I live to regret it by having poor quality images and wishing I had spent more?

cheers
rpm

[millband]

Well, I got the Tamron 55-200 for £90 (online - NOT Jessops!) to complement the kit lens on my 400D. I doubt it'd win any prizes for outright quality and the focus is not mega fast, but it'll do for now until I can afford better.

The 55-200 got some good reviews for it's price but I don't know about the 28-200. At £90 you're losing less money on a stop-gap lens if you want to upgrade later, and as far as quality goes I'm happy with my lens - but then this is my first D-SLR and I've yet to be exposed to the delights of "L" glass

A couple of examples taken with the 55-200:




How much could you spend if quality was essential?

Cheers,

Steve

Edited by millband on Monday 9th July 22:13

[R.P.M]

millband said:

Well, I got the Tamron 55-200 for £90 (online - NOT Jessops!) to complement the kit lens on my 400D. I doubt it'd win any prizes for outright quality and the focus is not mega fast, but it'll do for now until I can afford better.

The 55-200 got some good reviews for it's price but I don't know about the 28-200. At £90 you're losing less money on a stop-gap lens if you want to upgrade later, and as far as quality goes I'm happy with my lens - but then this is my first D-SLR and I've yet to be exposed to the delights of "L" glass

How much could you spend if quality was essential?

Cheers,

Steve

hey nice pics!
am looking at the 55-200 as well and pleased to see your results, i do like the small size of the 28-200 though.
I'm not sure I could justify spending more than £200 at the mo, as i'm only just getting into it.

thanks very much for your reply.

[millband]

No worries, I'm just after any excuse to re-live Le Mans, even if it's completely off-topic

I've just checked my EXIF data and it looks like this picture (click for full size) was also taken with my 55-200.

That 28-200 seems to get some good reviews though, just been surfing around out of interest.

Steve

[R.P.M]

millband said:

No worries, I'm just after any excuse to re-live Le Mans, even if it's completely off-topic

I've just checked my EXIF data and it looks like this picture (click for full size) was also taken with my 55-200.

That 28-200 seems to get some good reviews though, just been surfing around out of interest.

Steve

Just found this weeks desk top pic

[size13]

For not a lot more, you could get the 28-300 which I've been using for the past 2 years and think is great for an all-rounder (especially at the price)

[ae111sr]

I had one of these when I had a Nikon D70. but sold it it with the body when I upgraded to a D200. I wasn't happy with it - slow focus and lots of chromatic abberation. Very handy though if you just want to carry one lens around.

[poah]

If you only have £200 to spend thne consider the canon EF 100-300 USM. for the price nothing else will beat it and it has proper USM not the micro verson found in other lenses. you'll find it on ebay

[stigmundfreud]

poah said:

If you only have £200 to spend thne consider the canon EF 100-300 USM. for the price nothing else will beat it and it has proper USM not the micro verson found in other lenses. you'll find it on ebay

bingo, great fast (focus at least) lens - I have one, I have the equiv tamron too purely for macro, nice lense I paid 99 quid new for it. But its sloooooooower than a slow thing on auto focus.

[R.P.M]

stigmundfreud said:

poah said:

If you only have £200 to spend thne consider the canon EF 100-300 USM. for the price nothing else will beat it and it has proper USM not the micro verson found in other lenses. you'll find it on ebay

bingo, great fast (focus at least) lens - I have one, I have the equiv tamron too purely for macro, nice lense I paid 99 quid new for it. But its sloooooooower than a slow thing on auto focus.

hmm will have a look, but really i need one lens for all things, so i can take it on hols and not have to worry about lugging extra lenses with me. I feel that if I went with say 100-300 or even a 75-200 I would still need a 'closer' lens for all those shots of the lovely lady.... o and of the gf

thanks for your replies

[stigmundfreud]

if you want a lense for all things then seriously look at the sigma ex dg 24-135

fantastic lens. Its my take anywhere - cost is fairly cheap too and the focus is fast, build is good, image results really nice. I get no noticable CA on a 5d which would be potentially more prone to it.

If you have no requirement to upgrade to a non-efs body in the future try to get an EF-s designed lens. The reason is that ef-s lenses sit closer to the sensor to overcome cropping so 100mm is 100 not 160mm it also means the sweet spot of the lens is correct rather than shooting through the sweet spot which can result in a slightly soft image.

personally in your position, I'd take the sigma over the tamron. It has a nice fast autofocus almost like USM. All my tamron experiences have found theirs to be slow.

Actually I think the sigma I have might even be one of their cheaper ones. Not sure but this http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/?/photo/lenstech... could be the same one. Image quality is really good for the price. With the 1.6 factor thats a 216mm lens

[R.P.M]

stigmundfreud said:

if you want a lense for all things then seriously look at the sigma ex dg 24-135

fantastic lens. Its my take anywhere - cost is fairly cheap too and the focus is fast, build is good, image results really nice. I get no noticable CA on a 5d which would be potentially more prone to it.

If you have no requirement to upgrade to a non-efs body in the future try to get an EF-s designed lens. The reason is that ef-s lenses sit closer to the sensor to overcome cropping so 100mm is 100 not 160mm it also means the sweet spot of the lens is correct rather than shooting through the sweet spot which can result in a slightly soft image.

personally in your position, I'd take the sigma over the tamron. It has a nice fast autofocus almost like USM. All my tamron experiences have found theirs to be slow.

Actually I think the sigma I have might even be one of their cheaper ones. Not sure but this http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/?/photo/lenstech... could be the same one. Image quality is really good for the price. With the 1.6 factor thats a 216mm lens

oops thanks for the advice but i think its too late! Ive just won a tamron 28-200 on ebay . ............................................................................................................................................................o well it was only £60 and if it aint right ill put it back on!
sorry about not waiting for your advice! i'm an impaitent bleeder sometimes!

I'll report back with my thoughts on the product when it arrives (if anyones interested!)

Edited by R.P.M on Tuesday 10th July 22:40

[stigmundfreud]

oh I'm impatient too its why I've got more lenses than I actually need!

[millband]

stigmundfreud said:

It has a nice fast autofocus almost like USM. All my tamron experiences have found theirs to be slow.

Just to say this is def. true for my Tamron 55-200. On the big wheel at Le Mans the cameras AF would sometimes catch the framework of the wheel instead the of the car I was trying to photograph, and it took it's sweet time to refocus. But then is was only £90

RPM - let us all know how you get on with the new lens!

Steve