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

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.

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.

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

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

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

"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

"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