Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    this is actually a pretty good lens.
    read the review for the Sony version of this exact lens here: http://www.alphamountworld.com/revie...-f35-63-review
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    The real price of using long glass ...

    Quote Originally Posted by JPhotoz View Post
    How does my 28-300 Tamron compare to the lens listed by Don?

    I use that for an all around lens. I wish I had found this site prior to lens shopping. Sean suggested that I should get a 70-200 (I think) I have not even taken a picture with my Kit lens yet. Maybe I never will. I was able to get a nice used mini beercan ( 35-70). I have used that a couple of times. I really only use the Tamron. I will be looking for a Tamron 70-200 or 300 2.8. When I have money to spare.

    Jordan
    The TAMRON SP AF 300mm f/2.8 LD is nearly $3000!

    Name:  TAMRON 300mm f28.jpg
Views: 86
Size:  16.7 KB

    The SONY rendition (<-Click this link) ... double that!


    That's a hunk of change for a lens that you admit that you are not really using much, Jordan.

    I recently bought the AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD (Full Frame-compatible) lens to be used on the A900, until I found out that SONY had designed the A900 with a "crop" mode, that allows it to use most all of the SONY DT, SIGMA DC and the TAMRON Di-II line of lenses, too. So, now, it is an "extra lens", sitting in my bag, along with a couple others.

    Running through a recently conducted series of comparison tests against other lenses of its relative range (18-250, 18-200, 28-300, 24-105, 75-300), even after I had its focus "adjusted" by TAMRON, it wound up be a marginal performer, over all. Just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The "best performer" of the group being the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 lens, which easily demonstrated better:
    1. focus performance,
    2. contrast,
    3. color and
    4. CA (chromatic aberration).


    Now, the 28-300 does have a skosh more reach than the 18-250, but it is hardly a point of decision here. You actually have to be shooting subjects beyond twenty-feet away from you to even notice it, other wise your focal length is more like 140mm. The lens, IMO, just does not perform as well as the 18-250 does. Admittedly, the 18-250 has been designed better... as it grew up based on that series of lens designs.

    The 75-300 f/4-5.6 lens is a lot cheaper and gives a true 300mm image, but is also suffers from softness out that far. What can you expect for $150, when a true 300mm f/2.8 costs $3000? That's not by mistake, but by better design. You really need an appreciation of these different optics to know the WHY in how the pricing is actually done.

    That 300mm f/2.8 weighs 6.2 pounds! That's not air, folks, that focus-sharpening, light-collecting glass. It delivers incredible shots, but use a tripod.

    More, later ...
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-28-2008 at 04:46 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    30
    Don, I was not clear in my other post. I was meaning Tamron 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 2.8 or something like that. $3,000 is way out of my range. My wife would kill me. I told her that I wanted to spend about $700 for a lens and she almost flipped on that.

    I am just getting back into this hobby.

    Jordan
    Sony Alpha 350
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70 f/4
    Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Xr Di LD Aspherical Macro

    My Flickr Page

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    30
    You are not saying that I should get rid of my 28-300 for the one you listed are you.

    Jordan
    Sony Alpha 350
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70 f/4
    Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Xr Di LD Aspherical Macro

    My Flickr Page

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557

    Lightbulb Lens talk ...

    Quote Originally Posted by JPhotoz View Post
    You are not saying that I should get rid of my 28-300 for the one you listed are you.

    Jordan
    If you want an margin of imporvement, yes. The 18-250 is just is a better lens, overall. Many comparison and critiques, online, will bear this out, also.

    Personally, I feel the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO is the best bargain for the money. While it, obviously, does not have the focal range of the 18-250 ... it is a quality piece of glass that delivers superbly sharp images. The focus speed is similar to the 18-250, so it is not super fast to focus, but it delivers beautifully colored images and sharpness on par with lenses costing more that twice its price. That's a pretty remarkable claim for ANY zoom lens.

    You just need a good lens at the bottom to compliment it, like the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) or its brother lens, the SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), if you can get one that is okay out of the box. I've personally had a few issues with the latter lens. You can get it "adjusted" by TAMRON if it has issues like that, as it is considered a manufacturer's defect, and when it returns ... it should be perfecto mundo.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,591
    I love the title of this thread.
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,562
    Dr4gon, do you really think the 70-300 Tamron is soft at 300? I have not had this problem. I posted a few of my images to prove it. Maybe you need to get the lens tuned up. Don, how do you feel about this?

    Frank
    Sony A77
    Sony A580
    Sony A 100
    Maxxum 400si.
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70
    Minolta AF 50 f/1.7
    Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD
    Tamron 60mm Macro
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    Tamron 2x Converter
    Sony HVL-F42AM
    Quantaray 70-300 4.5-5.6 Macro
    Slingshot 200 Bag



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22083244@N06/

    http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/sparkie1263/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,557
    Frank, I do not have the latest AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD like the rest of you guys ... I have the edition just prior to it, w/o the digital treatment (non-Di), so mine acts a little different. I get a lot more purple fringe. I guess I could go out and shoot some stuff with it and the 28-300 ... and give you a report back, but I'd be a little skeptical if it reflected what you guys will get with yours (not talking about the 28-300, as it is a Di lens).

    Name:  28-300-vs-70-300.jpg
Views: 85
Size:  398.0 KB

    I will shoot all subjects at ~27 feet to keep the images equal in range and true focal length.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 10-28-2008 at 08:10 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    o.K. time to regroup a bit, Jordan I suggested that the tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di LD lens would have been a good choice for you, I may not have been clear as I didn't put all the info of the lens down. It is a very good cheap lens that almost all of us are using, and like. But as you already have the Tamron 28-300 it might not be the lens to pick up. The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is the new apple of everyones eye here on the forum, a few of us have it, and its a damn sweet lens a nice low light at a very good price for the quality, but it's going to be around $800.00 all said and done.
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    Now that 300mm 2.8, that I could shoot some soccer with!!! Jordan take a look around and see what common lens turn up on our lists here, and most of us lean towards one area or another that we shoot alot of. Then of course there is Don who has more glass then all of us put together, but I am well on my way to being a glass junky! Ask questions, tell us what kinds of things you will be shooting the most, what kinds of shots do you want to do, or go after. We are all here to learn, and to spend other peoples money LOL. Like I said I think you will see a trend of 3 maybe 4 "common" lenses here, most Tamron, and of course Minolta!
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •