| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2006 03:09:49 AM · #1 |
| I've read some reviews on this lens and everything I've read sounds good, I'm in the market for a decent walking around lens, $300 to $400 price range and this lens seems to fit the bill. any input would be appreciated, thanks... |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 03:50:49 AM · #2 |
I had the Tamron 18-200mm Di II Aspherical which is good. But not sharp or fast enough for a lot of photographs. If you want to take so ok photo for the price its good. But if your looking for sharp A-grade photos I would not recommend.
However the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great walk around lens and it's in the same price range.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:17:29 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
I had the Tamron 18-200mm Di II Aspherical which is good. But not sharp or fast enough for a lot of photographs. If you want to take so ok photo for the price its good. But if your looking for sharp A-grade photos I would not recommend.
However the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great walk around lens and it's in the same price range. |
I knew that one would come up and it was on my list of possibilities, from what I here you can't go wrong with the 28-75, thanks for the advice. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:42:13 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:47:36 AM · #5 |
I have that 28-200 (in the Minolta mount), the third generation (model A03M) which I think is the latest version. Yes it's convenient as a travel lens, but I never use it any more. I liked it at first, but as I got better I realised that my shots with it were noticably soft, particularly at the long end, when compared with my other lenses.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 11:59:41 AM · #6 |
For digital the 18-200 is the "preferred" range. 28 is not nearly wide enough.
The downside is every lens (except a prime i suppose) is a compromise. For a 10 or 11:1 zoom (18-200, 28-300, etc) you get extra range at the 'cost' of more distortion and less sharpness, particualry at the extreme ends of the zoom and wide open. stopped down might be fine.
I tried an sigma 18-50 2.8 EX as my walkaround and the 18 end is great - the 50 not long enough. that like the old 28-80 on a film body. I had a 28-80 as my first walk around lens on my rebel and found 28 not wide enough and 80 not long enough.
My compromise was the tamron SP 24-135 3.5-5.6 - an excellent lens optically, extremely sharp. there are times i want more on one end or the other but outdoors it's fast enough and makes carrying one lens bearable.
I was out saturday with it and got all these shots. the lens runs $400.
Once you use good glass you won't like or want to use consumer glass - like the 18-200. Just so you know what you're getting and don't expect too much you'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 12:20:34 PM · #7 |
Message edited by author 2006-06-12 19:53:31.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2006 01:28:19 PM · #8 |
I have the Sigma 18-200, which is a great walk around lense when you work within it's limitations. It is excellent between f8-f18 and pretty sharp through out it's zoom range. It is a little fuzzy wide open. It has done a great job for me, giving me a couple top ten finishes here, but no ribbons:(
Sigma 18-200
But, that being said, you will be much happier buying quality lenses, even though your range will be less. Go with the Tamron 28-75 & you will be happy. |
|
|
|
06/12/2006 04:50:43 PM · #9 |
On a 1.6 crop, you do need a lens that starts at about 18mm as a walking around lens.
Check out the tests of the Sigma and Tamron 18-200 lenses on //www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php Looks like the Sigma is better. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:40:24 PM EDT.
