PDA

View Full Version : Tamron 28-200 AF lens compatible with D80?



tjh
12-07-2007, 12:07 PM
Will a Tamron 28-200 AF lens work with a Nikon D80?

I have this lens on my old Nikon N70 (predigital SLR).

ssil2000
12-07-2007, 01:54 PM
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35698 check out this thread from the other week

tjh
12-07-2007, 02:06 PM
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35698 check out this thread from the other week

Thanks, but the posts were were over my head. Can you (or anyone) interpret?

coldrain
12-07-2007, 02:15 PM
That Tamron 28-200mm should work fine on a D80.
The only thing that will be different is that the field of view will change:
from 28-200mm to 42-300mm.

So you will gain in the long end, and lose in the wide end. Take that onto consideration (and if you use the wide end often, get a Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 lens to accompany your old Tamron).

Otherwise, you can also consider getting other lenses. But since you have that lens, you can start with it and see if you are content with the combination.

tjh
12-07-2007, 02:24 PM
That Tamron 28-200mm should work fine on a D80.
The only thing that will be different is that the field of view will change:
from 28-200mm to 42-300mm.

So you will gain in the long end, and lose in the wide end. Take that onto consideration (and if you use the wide end often, get a Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 lens to accompany your old Tamron).

Otherwise, you can also consider getting other lenses. But since you have that lens, you can start with it and see if you are content with the combination.

Sweet!
The lens obviously does not have image stabilization, but neither did my ancient 70-300 manual focus lens for my ancient Minolta X700 back in the old tripod days.

I was prepared for you to tell me the lens would not be compatible, and was looking at getting the following combo from Costco for $1.5k:
-D80
-18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR Lens
-70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR Lens with optical image stabilization

So the 28-200 lens I have will be equiv to a 42-300...Other than the
-42 vs 70
-image stabilization on the 70-300

what other differences would you see between these 2 lenses?

Or does that 70-300 really mean eg 110-450 in digital terms???

Sorry, I'm still used to old pre-digital numbers.

Rooz
12-07-2007, 02:35 PM
the d80, as with 99% of other dslr's out, there has a cropped sensor. in your case 1.5x. so you need to multiply the focal lengths of every lens you have by 1.5.

coldrain
12-08-2007, 02:09 AM
the d80, as with 99% of other dslr's out, there has a cropped sensor. in your case 1.5x. so you need to multiply the focal lengths of every lens you have by 1.5.
uhmm... Canon 350D/400D/40D/1DmkIII/Nikon D40/D40x/D80/D300/Sony A100/A700/Olympus E330/E410/E510/E3/Panasonic L1/L10/Pentax K100/K10/Sigma SD14

vs

Canon 1Ds MK III/5D/Nikon D3

That is more like 84.2% have a cropped sensor, Rooz :D:D:D

tjh, the 28-200mm Tamron may lack some sharpness for today's standards. But you can try out first, and then make a decision of what lenses you would like to add.

Personally I would avoid the 18-135mm, because of its vignetting, barrel distortion and such... but that is just me. The 70-300 VR is a nice (and heavy) lens to have, the cheapest way to have a good 300mm (450mm 35mm film equivalent) lens on Nikon. I'd pair it with the 18-55mm kit lens from Nikon, because it is light, cheap, and surprisingly good. And a nice match with the 70-300.

K1W1
12-08-2007, 02:12 AM
Coldy forgot to ad the Samsung DSLR's and the D200 so his maths has been found wanting. :D

tjh
12-08-2007, 04:22 AM
Personally I would avoid the 18-135mm, because of its vignetting, barrel distortion and such... but that is just me. The 70-300 VR is a nice (and heavy) lens to have, the cheapest way to have a good 300mm (450mm 35mm film equivalent) lens on Nikon. I'd pair it with the 18-55mm kit lens from Nikon, because it is light, cheap, and surprisingly good. And a nice match with the 70-300.

Excellent thoughts.

However Costco currently has an offer on the 18-135 and 70-300 combo that would save $100-150 compared to most other sites.

Also, photozone's review of the 18-55 was not too great. Their review of the 18-135 seemed happier:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556_II/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/index.htm

At 18mm comparing SMIA TV Distortion
55: 2.72%
135: 3.36%

Basically the differences between the 2:
-18-55: costs perhaps $100 less; little less distortion;
-18-135: more versatile lens; would not need the 70-300 as much; switch lenses less often.

for 70-135 focal lengths, which lens would do a better job?
-18-135; lighter
-70-300; heavier; has image stabilization

BTW weight may make some difference for me b/c I have carpal tunnel in my Right arm.

Thanks, I'd like to make a decision today.

K1W1
12-08-2007, 04:47 AM
Also, photozone's review of the 18-55 was not too great. Their review of the 18-135 seemed happier

If you based your life around reviews on Internet sites you would never buy anything because for every positive review there is an equally negative one somewhere.
The REALITY is the the 18-55 is a great little lens that will has has produced millions of excellent images in the hands of tens of thousands of users.
Rather than reading theoretical reviews that are often biased, inaccurate or incomprehensible to most people the best place to check out any lens is to go to photo hosting sites like Flickr or Smugmug and search for real world photos taken by that lens in situations similar to the photography you envisage for yourself.

tjh
12-08-2007, 04:58 AM
The REALITY is the the 18-55 is a great little lens that will has has produced millions of excellent images in the hands of tens of thousands of users.


Thanks. That's helpful.

for 70-135 focal lengths, which lens yield better picture quality?
-18-135; lighter
-70-300; heavier; has image stabilization

Rooz
12-08-2007, 01:15 PM
@70mm the 18-135 should be better. but from say 100-135mm the 70-300 will be better. most lens lose a bit of perfromance at their extreme focal lengths. i think you;re pixel peeping a little too much here mind you. there's not that much in it in real terms and you're comparing 2 different lens. VR, good length and its cheap price alone are reason enuf to look at the 70-300.