Tamron 28-200 xr macro lens

[nikonbob]

I don't know if other members have any experience with this lens but I had the loan of one today. It just confirmed that it is a pretty good all arounder for travel and each version gets better. I tried it on a D700 and found out that it behaved the way most reviewers have stated. Yes, there is barrel and pin cushion distortion depending where you are in the zoom range which is easily taken care of in post processing if the subject warrants it. The colours are strong and the lens has good contrast. It has good sharpness even wide open though is not the fastest at focusing but does a good job of it none the less. This type of lens requires a whole lot of compromises to make it work and Tamron have done a good job of getting the right balance in that regard. I would have no hesitation to take it as a travel lens. I think this lens on the used market hovers around $100 so qualifies for bargain status in my opinion. No I don't really care about junking up an expensive body with a cheap lens because it works well for it's intended purpose. Just a long winded way of saying sometimes internet reviewers get it right.

Bob

Edit

To add these photos. These were cropped for 8x10. The windmill was at 55mm/4.5 and the other two were at 200mm/5.6.

[Reiska]

With the modern PP software pincushion and even chromatic aberrations are not so severe because most of the distortions etc. are rather easy to repair. Even a low contrast is not a big problem. Sharpness is more important because of the decreasing pixel count. Lens should be well-matched with a sensor.

Tamron seems to be OK with a full-frame sensor. I have two new Tamron lenses and I am really satisfied with them. One is a "cheapo" 55-200 1:4.5,6 Macro (84Euro) and the other is Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] whic is excellent.
I use those Tamrons with my Sony DSLR (Sorry about the sacrilege!)

Tamron "pirates" seems to have a very good prise-quality ratio, better than for instance Sigma lenses. I don't know about Tokina. I own only old Tokina lenses and I have not tried them recently.

[mickeyobe]

My Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210 CF Tele Macro f3.8-f4 is the most used lens on my Pentak K100d.
I particularly like its ability to close focus at a reasonable distance.
It is not really a macro (1:1) as its maximum magnification is 1:2.8 at .9 meter.
It is manual focus.
It cost me $5 CDN with caps, hood and case at a camera fair, sans adapter.
It took me several months to find a KA adapter that cost $25 CDN.

Mickey

[Reiska]

Couple of days ago with 17-50mm Tamron. The subject is Red admiral (Vanessa atalanta)
on the (Golden Groundsel) Ligularia dentata.



Couple of minutes ago. A Peacock butterfly (Pavo cristatus) on a Shavalski's Ligularia (Ligularia prezewalskii)

[nikonbob]

Mickey

Don't you just love when an adapter costs more than the lens. I don't have any older Tamrons left but they sure were well built and sharp too.

Reijo

I have heard good things about both of the lenses you mentioned. That 17-50 must focus very closely or those beautiful butterflies are very big. The colours and sharpness look good on my monitor. I have a 20 year old 20-40 AF Tamron that was good on film but on the D700 seemed less sharp somehow. I did some focusing tests at it's near limit and wound up dialing in +20 on the focus correction option in the D700 to get it to focus on the mark. Very strange to me but it is back to being a good performer on the D700. I would be very interested in the 17-50 if it was for FF.

Bob

[Deleted]

Nice shots. As part of another deal I recently acquired a Vivitar 28-200 Macro zoom ---might have been made by Tamron although it has the Kiron look. Haven't had a chance to try it out yet.

Wayne

[nikonbob]

Turns out that I liked the lens enough that when he offered it to me I bought it. We have a trip to the Rockies coming up so we will give it a good work out. Let see if I have as high a regard for it when I get back.

Bob