What lens gets around?

[seanhoxx]

The Tamron 70-200 is seeing a huge amount of use and work, I would say 90% of the time it is on the 700, then the 17-50 followed by the 80-400, I really like the 80-400 and hope to use it more once the weather gets nice, it really is a bright light great outdoors lens!

[Elisha]

@Don, yeah i realize the MFD on that lens it not so good for indoor use, but i really wanted a piece of the legend so i had to buy it :-)
just like the beercan which i rarely use :-)
but i'm sure i'll find new uses for them in spring!

[sparkie1263]

Well the only way I can fit everything in my bag is with the 70-300 on it. But I do use that for all me bird shots. I use the 50mm inside all the time. And use the lens I borrowed for all me landscape shots. So I guess all my lenses get used about the same.

Frank

[Peekayoh]

Peter,

I believe that the new AF 24-105mm f/4 G SSM is their compromise. It's MFD is a lot closer.

Yes, but still a rumour though. It's going to have to be really something to persuade me away from my trusty old 28-135 (MFD or no MFD).

Don't take my word for it, have a look here. I'll be interested to hear what you all think.

http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...=134&Itemid=43

[Elisha]

but does the MFD not decrease when in Macro mode? or is there a disadvantage shooting portraits in macro on the 28-135mm?

[Rooz]

35/2 mostly.

[Peekayoh]

but does the MFD not decrease when in Macro mode? or is there a disadvantage shooting portraits in macro on the 28-135mm?

Macro only works at the Wide end. Never found it that useful, definitely not for portraits. Step back and zoom to 60/70mm (aps-c).

[DonSchap]

It has an impressive performance in the light of day, there is no doubt ... as you examine these shots. Even Minolta felt it was a true winner ... but then again, most MFDs were around 5 feet back then. Anything close, zoom-wise, was remarkable. That is way primes were so popular. They offered great MFD and low light performance, for slower film speed.

Peter, it looks to be a great lens for outdoor use.

Personally, I like not having to back up over a couch to take a flash image. As always, it depends on what you are shooting. If you only grab the camera for outdoor stuff, your selection of lenses opens up enormously.

[Panda Bear]

70-300 because most of the time, I'm shooting sports, and I need the reach.

A Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 is on my list once the budget will allow, and I'd expect it's versatility will make it the new go to lens. I expect it to be similar to the 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Don uses for the same reason he uses it so much, except I know how much the 70-300 is at full reach, so I know I need to retain that. I don't use the short end that much, and when I do, my 28-80 usually comes out.

Eventually, I'll catch a deal on a fast Minolta prime, or either the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8, but that range is not, at this time, what pays the bills.

[DonSchap]

Panda ... I think you may be a little disappointed with the 28-300mm.

In my evaluations, between the 18-200, 28-300, 18-250 lenses, the 18-250 delivers the best all-around shots in this class, bar NONE! It simply shoots circles around the others.

If a utility lens is what you want ... that is the one, otherwise your Image Quality will be rather "iffy" and, usually, in need of improvement. If you have the time ... take a CF card to the local lens store and shoot a side-by-side series, yourself, with each one. I guarantee that you will be a "believer" once you do.

Please take a few minutes to review this test series (<-Click on this) ... to see why I say this.

Good luck