Tamron 28-200 v Nikon 24-120 & Nikon 28-200
Neale Maynard
image quality in any of the US magazine tests? I've seen postings in this
news group suggesting that the Nikon 24-120 is sharper than the Nikon
28-200, but wasn't sure how the Tamron zoom rated
Thanks,
Neale Maynard
Chuck Ross
<may...@mail.powerup.com.au> wrote:
I have a similar question, but mine is in the EOS mount. I've heard
of reviews posted that apparently feel the lens is superb. I think it's
quite good, so far, altho I am just beginning to check out it's quality
having just gotten it a few days ago.
I will say that, altho the large focal length range seems very nice,
the lens is well, really -large-, and also quite impressive-looking.
There are times when I wish I'd gotten a smaller lens, but you
can't have everything. Or can you?
The magazine review I've heard about must have appeared in Popular
Photography, and the review was by Herbert Keppler. I haven't actually
seen it. If anyone knows if it's posted somewhere on the web, I'd like
to know where.
--
"Outside of that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
If you have nothing else to do, check my photo page at
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross
Cowan Stark
one was outstanding. I used to have the older "non-super" 28-200 for EOS.
I bought it not because of magazine reviews but because I fell for the wide
zoom ratio and its convenience and was very disappointed with it. I later
even considered getting the Super version hoping it would be better, and
Tamron promised to send me some reviews and literature about what made it
"super" and it never arrived. Much happier with Canon zooms in narrower
zoom ranges.
Cowan
Neale Maynard wrote in message <36bd...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
Aigner
>
> Anyone have any references as to how the Tamron 28-200 rated in terms of
> image quality in any of the US magazine tests? I've seen postings in this
> news group suggesting that the Nikon 24-120 is sharper than the Nikon
> 28-200, but wasn't sure how the Tamron zoom rated
> Thanks,
> Neale Maynard
The new Tamron 28-200 got better marks in some tests because of a
minimal focus of 0.52 metres at 135mm and the image quality of the
Tamron 28-200 is even better because it is the 2nd generation of this
Objektive from Tamron (Nikons 28-200 is just the first generation).
The Maximum Aperture f/3,5-5,6 of the Nikon is a bit better than the
Tamron Maximum Aperture f/3,8-5,6.
There is one even more importent reason for the Tamron! The price is
only the half. So buy the new TAMRON AF 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical
IF Zoom Lens Super
I'm sure the Nikon 24-105 is better because of the slower focal length.
There will be less distortion, I think.
Yours Thomas
Kevin Harren
November, 1996 and February 1997 issues. Your local library may have back
issues. I recently purchased the lens used and although I haven't yet fully
tried it out, I like the feel of the lens, the convenience of the wide focal
length range is terrific, and the quality, although not quite as good as a
good prime lens, is really pretty good. I think i'll keep it.
Neale Maynard wrote in message <36bd...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
W Scott Elliot
using prime lenses. I bought it based on the good reviews in magazines.
The image quality from this lens does not come anywhere close to what I can
achieve with my 20+ year old prime lenses.
It is fine for travel to take 4x6 inch snap shots for a photo album. The
problem comes when you get a really good shot and want to blow it up to
16x24 inches. Compared to a better lens the image is just not acceptable.
Because of this I hardly ever use the lens and consider it one of the worst
choices I have made in purchasing equipment.
Everyone has their own expectations about the quality they hope to achieve.
For my purposes I have decided to stick to prime lenses or pro-quality
zooms. This is much more expensive, but I am not satisfied with my result
with the 28-200.
I am not familiar with the Nikon lenses and have no idea about their
capabilities.
Scott
Buzzeb
the 24-120 clearly betters the 28-200s in every aspect of image quality.
Comparing the two 28-200s, though, seems to be a bit dicier. In the Pop Photo
reviews previously mentioned, the Nikkor consisitently has an edge in the
Subjective Quality charts, but only by the slightest of margins. One
interesting note, accroding to Pop Photo measurements, while the Nikkor is
indeed faster at max aperature at the wide end (f3.44 vs f.3.69), the Tamron is
slightly faster at 200 mm (f5.3 vs f5.44).
The Nikkor does seem to be have far better build quality than the Tamron
(which, to me, feels a bit like a toy). It should also hold its value better.
Lenses such as these, of course, exist primarily for the sake of convenience.
It should certainly come as no surprise that their image quality suffers in
comparison to a bunch of primes or a 28-70/2.8 80-200/2.8 combo. However, I'm
not sure that they're quite as abysmal as they are often made out to be. I've
read a number of reviews of both lenses (including two by John Shaw, a man who
I think knows something about producing quality images!) and they have all been
positive. Joe Cornish reviewed the Tamron Super two years ago in Photo
Technique, and reported that he was amazed to find that in his tests, the
Tamron equalled his Nikkor 20-35 and 35-135 in terms of sharpness (it did
suffer from more distortion and light falloff, however). FWIW, last summer I
borrowed a Tamron Super and tested it against a Series E 75-150. While I fully
expected the 75-150 to win hands down, to my shock and chagrin, the results
were the opposite. At high magnification, the Tamron images were clearly
sharper (even my kids could see it).
Michael
DFS
looking for a zoom that covers the normal plus portrait lens ranges, and
I've done some research on the Nikkor AF 24-120, 35-105, and 35-135.
For what it's worth, Photodo in its MTF ratings rates the 24-120 clearly the
*worst* of the three - even worse than the Tamron and Nikon 28-200s. In
fact, it's one of the worst Nikkor lens in their database. What am I to make
of that? From remarks here, the general consensus seems to be that the
24-120 and 80-200 f/2.8 are the best of the Nikon zooms......
I'm leaning toward the 35-105. Any opinions wd. be appreciated, especially
those based on personal experience.
Dean
zig...@my-dejanews.com
"DFS" <hil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I'd also like to add a request for opinions to the original poster's. I'm
> looking for a zoom that covers the normal plus portrait lens ranges, and
> I've done some research on the Nikkor AF 24-120, 35-105, and 35-135.
>
> For what it's worth, Photodo in its MTF ratings rates the 24-120 clearly the
> *worst* of the three - even worse than the Tamron and Nikon 28-200s.
There must be a lot of sample-sample variation. I bought a Tamron 28-200 LD
Super, was not happy with the sharpness, exchanged it with another one which
wasn't any better, so I exchanged the second Tamron for a Nikkor 24-120. I've
tried two 24-120's (the first one had an internal coating flaw, so I returned
it too - but it was just as sharp as the second 24-120). Huge improvement in
sharpness, especially at the long end. I take only slides, usually on a
tripod so I'm picky about sharpness. I tested all 4 lenses with the standard
brick-wall and newspaper tests. The 24-120 is not perfect (both of the ones I
tried have some very slight color fringing at the edges), but it is *much*
sharper than the Tamron 28-200 LD Super (smaller too). My 8008's AF also
doesn't seem to hunt as much with the Nikkor as it did with the Tamron. See
if you can take a roll of Velvia slide film at the camera store with both the
Tamron and Nikkor before you buy one - you should see a big difference.
Zig
> In
> fact, it's one of the worst Nikkor lens in their database. What am I to make
> of that? From remarks here, the general consensus seems to be that the
> 24-120 and 80-200 f/2.8 are the best of the Nikon zooms......
>
> I'm leaning toward the 35-105. Any opinions wd. be appreciated, especially
> those based on personal experience.
>
> Dean
>
> Neale Maynard wrote in message <36bd...@grissom.powerup.com.au>...
> >Anyone have any references as to how the Tamron 28-200 rated in terms of
> >image quality in any of the US magazine tests? I've seen postings in this
> >news group suggesting that the Nikon 24-120 is sharper than the Nikon
> >28-200, but wasn't sure how the Tamron zoom rated
> >Thanks,
> >Neale Maynard
> >
> >
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bucks
>For what it's worth, Photodo in its MTF ratings rates the 24-120 clearly the
>fact, it's one of the worst Nikkor lens in their database. What am I to make
>of that? From remarks here, the general consensus seems to be that the
>24-120 and 80-200 f/2.8 are the best of the Nikon zooms......
They must have forgotten to take the lens cap off the 24-120. I can't think of
any other reason for such a result.
Kevin