Tamron Lens

I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.

Steve wrote:

I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.

Generally, zoom ranges of 10x or so result in compromizes. The ultimate
in 28-300 lenses is probably the Canon 28-300 IS, and it has not gotten
great reviews -- considering its size, wt and price. But you should be
able to get by with two easily enough.

What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.


USM is much faster (e.g., factor of 3). I don't get the dust reference.

Phil

Steve wrote:

I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.

Generally, zoom ranges of 10x or so result in compromizes. The ultimate
in 28-300 lenses is probably the Canon 28-300 IS, and it has not gotten
great reviews -- considering its size, wt and price. But you should be
able to get by with two easily enough.

What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.


USM is much faster (e.g., factor of 3). I don't get the dust reference.

Phil

Steve wrote:

I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.

Generally, zoom ranges of 10x or so result in compromizes. The ultimate
in 28-300 lenses is probably the Canon 28-300 IS, and it has not gotten
great reviews -- considering its size, wt and price. But you should be
able to get by with two easily enough.

What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.


USM is much faster (e.g., factor of 3). I don't get the dust reference.

Phil

You will get a sharper picture, faster quieter focusing, and IS with the
28-135 IS lens. It is a hell of a lot more lens than the rather muddy
all-in-ones.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve" wrote in message
news4VUc.43366$TI1.20508@attbi_s52...
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for
the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is
the
USMs much faster for focus.

You will get a sharper picture, faster quieter focusing, and IS with the
28-135 IS lens. It is a hell of a lot more lens than the rather muddy
all-in-ones.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve" wrote in message
news4VUc.43366$TI1.20508@attbi_s52...
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for
the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is
the
USMs much faster for focus.

Steve wrote:
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.

See here what horrible results you get with a Tamron 28-200 lens:
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This is a scan of a slide taken with an SLR and the Tamron lens (scanned
with a Nikon LS50 4000 dpi scanner). Very blurry and lots of chromatic
aberrations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Steve wrote:
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is the
USMs much faster for focus.

See here what horrible results you get with a Tamron 28-200 lens:
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This is a scan of a slide taken with an SLR and the Tamron lens (scanned
with a Nikon LS50 4000 dpi scanner). Very blurry and lots of chromatic
aberrations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

That is a nonsensical picture. Maybe the Tamro 28-200 is bad, but it's not
that bad. Several people think highly of the Tokina 24-200 he
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29
and there is endless discussion of 28-200 and 28-300 lenses at
www.dpreview.com.

In general they are though to be considerably less good than primes, and
somewhat less good (terms of picture quality) than smaller range zooms.
That said, apparently there are lots of ways to go wrong in even good brand
lenses, even Canon lenses, so do some research. I have used the Sigma
28-300 CHZ (67 mm filters) zoom and it's pretty good especially from 28-200,
gradually getting softer between 200 and 300. It is usable for snapshots at
all points, but for important shots you want to take extra care.

The Canon 28-135 IS ($400) get good reviews most places, but some places
(incl the Miranda site) seem to not think all that much of it. THe IS is
useful, of course, but things go soft awful quick with it, or so some recent
examples suggest.






"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for
the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is
the
USMs much faster for focus.

See here what horrible results you get with a Tamron 28-200 lens:
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This is a scan of a slide taken with an SLR and the Tamron lens (scanned
with a Nikon LS50 4000 dpi scanner). Very blurry and lots of chromatic
aberrations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

That is a nonsensical picture. Maybe the Tamro 28-200 is bad, but it's not
that bad. Several people think highly of the Tokina 24-200 he
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=29
and there is endless discussion of 28-200 and 28-300 lenses at
www.dpreview.com.

In general they are though to be considerably less good than primes, and
somewhat less good (terms of picture quality) than smaller range zooms.
That said, apparently there are lots of ways to go wrong in even good brand
lenses, even Canon lenses, so do some research. I have used the Sigma
28-300 CHZ (67 mm filters) zoom and it's pretty good especially from 28-200,
gradually getting softer between 200 and 300. It is usable for snapshots at
all points, but for important shots you want to take extra care.

The Canon 28-135 IS ($400) get good reviews most places, but some places
(incl the Miranda site) seem to not think all that much of it. THe IS is
useful, of course, but things go soft awful quick with it, or so some recent
examples suggest.






"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
I have seen that the Canon 28-135 is an good lens accourding to some for
the
Canon 10D, what is wrong with the Tamron AF 28-300mm Ultra Zoom as a all
around lens for most shooting. Is the distortion really that bad for the
price or do I need to carry around three lenses to do the same range.
What is the point, are the others really that much better
such as the 28-135 which allows dust into it worth the extra cost and is
the
USMs much faster for focus.

See here what horrible results you get with a Tamron 28-200 lens:
http://www.ddde.de/F21_35.jpg

This is a scan of a slide taken with an SLR and the Tamron lens (scanned
with a Nikon LS50 4000 dpi scanner). Very blurry and lots of chromatic
aberrations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html