If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
old Nikon lens vs. new Tamron
Hi all,
I'm looking into buying a 28-200 AF lens for my Nikon F90. It's the choice between a new Tamron or a used Nikon. A 5-year old Nikon lens is about as much as the new Tamron. Which one should I get? Usually, I would go Nikon, but technology has advanced in the last years (e.g low dispersion glas), which is a strong point for a new lens. Any advice? Thanks, Ruppert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The manufacturer hardly matters. The camera magazines lie for the benefit of
their advertisers when they pimp long zoom lenses of this type. These points have been made many times in this newsgroup: All lenses of this type have significant barrel and pincushion distortion, flare, relatively low contrast and limited sharpness/acuity. They are useful for outdoor snapshot type pictures when the diaphragm will be stopped down and busy subject matter will mask the otherwise obvious distortion and low contrast. Other than for tourist type snapshooting outdoors on a bright day these long zooms will too often yield disappointing, often heartbreaking results when you find your negative/slide does not look like what you saw through the camera viewfinder. If you have the opportunity to shoot a subject against a light brick wall the performance issues of these lenses will be obvious. My sad personal experience is that long zoom lenses are just not worthwhile for general purpose use. The Nikon is probably marginally better than the Tamron but the difference is like choosing between "not very good" and "marginally worse". Nikon never pushed this lens for a good reason: it filled a niche in their catalogue and nothing else. I consider this lens the single worst purchase decision I ever made in photography in the last 20 years, which is a backhanded way of complimenting manufacturers for otherwise generally delivering good value for the money. A lens like the Nikon 28-105 is a much better general use performer. In the real world the wide end of the zoom is more often used than the tele end. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The manufacturer hardly matters. The camera magazines lie for the benefit of
their advertisers when they pimp long zoom lenses of this type. These points have been made many times in this newsgroup: All lenses of this type have significant barrel and pincushion distortion, flare, relatively low contrast and limited sharpness/acuity. They are useful for outdoor snapshot type pictures when the diaphragm will be stopped down and busy subject matter will mask the otherwise obvious distortion and low contrast. Other than for tourist type snapshooting outdoors on a bright day these long zooms will too often yield disappointing, often heartbreaking results when you find your negative/slide does not look like what you saw through the camera viewfinder. If you have the opportunity to shoot a subject against a light brick wall the performance issues of these lenses will be obvious. My sad personal experience is that long zoom lenses are just not worthwhile for general purpose use. The Nikon is probably marginally better than the Tamron but the difference is like choosing between "not very good" and "marginally worse". Nikon never pushed this lens for a good reason: it filled a niche in their catalogue and nothing else. I consider this lens the single worst purchase decision I ever made in photography in the last 20 years, which is a backhanded way of complimenting manufacturers for otherwise generally delivering good value for the money. A lens like the Nikon 28-105 is a much better general use performer. In the real world the wide end of the zoom is more often used than the tele end. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
bmoag wrote:
My sad personal experience is that long zoom lenses are just not worthwhile for general purpose use. The Nikon is probably marginally better than the Tamron but the difference is like choosing between "not very good" and "marginally worse". Nikon never pushed this lens for a good reason: it filled a niche in their catalogue and nothing else. I consider this lens the single worst purchase decision I ever made in photography in the last 20 years, which is a backhanded way of complimenting manufacturers for otherwise generally delivering good value for the money. A lens like the Nikon 28-105 is a much better general use performer. In the real world the wide end of the zoom is more often used than the tele end. When you say 'long zoom lenses', do you mean anything with a focal length of ~200mm [ignoring f2.8 monsters], or do you mean big (5x +) zooms? What would you suggest for focal lengths above 110, nothing at all, fixed focal length, monster lenses only, or other suggestions? -- Ken Tough |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Tough wrote:
bmoag wrote: My sad personal experience is that long zoom lenses are just not worthwhile for general purpose use. When you say 'long zoom lenses', do you mean anything with a focal length of ~200mm [ignoring f2.8 monsters], or do you mean big (5x +) zooms? Yes He means lenses with a large FL ratio. IMO, 10:1 is not practical in a consumer lens. What would you suggest for focal lengths above 110, nothing at all, fixed focal length, monster lenses only, or other suggestions? It depends on what sort of subjects he's gonna shoot. A 200 f4-ish lens will be very sharp and should be reasonably priced. -Greg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Tough wrote:
bmoag wrote: My sad personal experience is that long zoom lenses are just not worthwhile for general purpose use. When you say 'long zoom lenses', do you mean anything with a focal length of ~200mm [ignoring f2.8 monsters], or do you mean big (5x +) zooms? Yes He means lenses with a large FL ratio. IMO, 10:1 is not practical in a consumer lens. What would you suggest for focal lengths above 110, nothing at all, fixed focal length, monster lenses only, or other suggestions? It depends on what sort of subjects he's gonna shoot. A 200 f4-ish lens will be very sharp and should be reasonably priced. -Greg |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Ruppert Koch" wrote in message
om... Hi all, I'm looking into buying a 28-200 AF lens for my Nikon F90. It's the choice between a new Tamron or a used Nikon. A 5-year old Nikon lens is about as much as the new Tamron. Which one should I get? Usually, I would go Nikon, but technology has advanced in the last years (e.g low dispersion glas), which is a strong point for a new lens. Any advice? Thanks, Ruppert Ruppert, It is all a matter of personal preference of course but I would avoid a zoom with that large of a range. In my opinion image quality suffers in order to provide that great of a range. As you seem to be open to using a Tamron lens you may want to look at the 24-135 SP. Not quite as nice as some of the other Nikkor or Tamron SP lenses with shorter ranges but it does work quite well. I use it from time to time when I want to shoot without carrying my bag and it has yielded some fairly good results. Again, all personal preference but for the range you list I generally use two lenses plus a dedicated micro (105). Hope it helps, Bill -- "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." -Theodore Roosevelt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Ruppert Koch" wrote in message
om... Hi all, I'm looking into buying a 28-200 AF lens for my Nikon F90. It's the choice between a new Tamron or a used Nikon. A 5-year old Nikon lens is about as much as the new Tamron. Which one should I get? Usually, I would go Nikon, but technology has advanced in the last years (e.g low dispersion glas), which is a strong point for a new lens. Any advice? Thanks, Ruppert Ruppert, It is all a matter of personal preference of course but I would avoid a zoom with that large of a range. In my opinion image quality suffers in order to provide that great of a range. As you seem to be open to using a Tamron lens you may want to look at the 24-135 SP. Not quite as nice as some of the other Nikkor or Tamron SP lenses with shorter ranges but it does work quite well. I use it from time to time when I want to shoot without carrying my bag and it has yielded some fairly good results. Again, all personal preference but for the range you list I generally use two lenses plus a dedicated micro (105). Hope it helps, Bill -- "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." -Theodore Roosevelt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon lens for D70 | Jan Opach | Digital Photography | 7 | August 31st 04 12:31 AM |
Nikon 70-300 vs Tamron 28-300 | bayydogg | 35mm Photo Equipment | 24 | August 30th 04 04:52 AM |
Lens advice: Tamron 70-300 f/ 4-5.6 vs. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED vs. Sigma 70-300mm. Supra II Macro | Thomas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | July 21st 04 04:04 PM |
Advice needed: Nikon F601 with Tamron AF28-300mm F3.5-6.3XR? | Stephen H. Westin | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 21st 04 01:58 PM |
Nikon D70 Standard Lens Versus 35-70 f2.8 Also wide angle question | Randall Smith | Digital Photography | 6 | July 5th 04 09:54 AM |