I just saw this but can't find it now...

[Steven M. Anthony]

Okay. I'm realizing that my Canon 28 - 200 USM is a crappy lens. Someone else was asking about lenses for a 10D just a few days ago and I can't find it--even with searching.

So if anyone can point me to it--or let me know about some good lenses in the $400 - $550 price range. Are any of the 28 - 200s any good (sigma, etc) or the 28 - 300s? I like carrying only one lens! :D

Thanks!

[jyrgen]

If you are sure in "one lens only" policy, maybe it would be worth looking at the new Tamron 28-300 Di. Tamron's Di series have so far produced only positive surprises.

I myself just bought Tokina 24-200 for "one lens only" situations. It's reported to be sharp and consistent when stopped down a bit, good build quality, 24- makes a difference to 28-, and it should be parfocal. I will share my own findings gladly, but I will receive it in few weeks.

[Jon, The Elder]

jyrgen -

I have the Tokina - and it is sharp as a tack with reasonably quick AF.

my wife "borrowed" it last week and now I can't get it back.

[gramps]

If you are sure in "one lens only" policy, maybe it would be worth looking at the new Tamron 28-300 Di. Tamron's Di series have so far produced only positive surprises.

I myself just bought Tokina 24-200 for "one lens only" situations. It's reported to be sharp and consistent when stopped down a bit, good build quality, 24- makes a difference to 28-, and it should be parfocal. I will share my own findings gladly, but I will receive it in few weeks.

I tried the Tamrom 20 - 300 a couple of weeks ago...............awfull!!!!!

[HJMinard]

Canon EF 70-200/4L.

Right near the top of your price range, but you won't find anything better for less than $600.

[jyrgen]

setiprime and gramps - thanks for the info!

[Andy_T]

Take a look at the lens reviews at http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html (click on 'lens test guide).

You will note that the 'hyper-zooms' (7x to 10x zooms like 28-200 or 28-300) are not ranked exactly at the top :roll:

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

I had some reasonable results with a sigma 28-300,less so with the tamron XR (can't be sure-my testing was flawed)


The thing is -both equaled or beaten by a humble kit lenses such as 28-80 and 75-300 :shock:
Or a pair like the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and 100-300 are easily better optically

Of course one can't say for sure what you should buy but i can suggest this: The vast majority of comments from owners/users say that the cheap kit zooms and superzooms are just not good enough.
Also the majority say that lenses such as the 28-105+100-300 are very good
I totally agree with these sentiments.I've rarely ever got any great pics with the cheap lenses or superzooms.The throwaway rate with these is huge!
On the other hand the better midrange zooms mostly get very good images


One other thing-i was kind of impressed by both superzooms lack of free play in spite of have multiple extensions.Added to that the tamron looked georgeous (in my opinion) for a mostly plastic lens.Pity it wasn't good enough optically :cry:

[Steven M. Anthony]

Has anyone tried the Tamron 28 - 300 XR "Di"? Is that really any different from the "regular" 28 - 300 XR?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Has anyone tried the Tamron 28 - 300 XR "Di"? Is that really any different from the "regular" 28 - 300 XR?

The biggest difference is it has the letter Di at the end of the name ... :lol: :lol:

[Steven M. Anthony]

Are you saying there really IS NO difference (or just making the joke)?

[ron chappel]

He is partly serious.

To be honest alot of specially made digital lenses are pointless or,at best, not much better than normal lenses.This is because the camera sensors in most cameras is made to use the manufacturers normal lenses so special lenses are not needed.

The most common improvement made is to coat the rear element/s .Because the sensor reflects more light than film does,this light can bounce back and forth reducing contrast.
The most serious change made to digital lenses is to completely change the optical formula so that the 'exit pupil' is much further forward in the lens.They do this because the pixel sites on the sensor are sometimes bucket shaped-they don't like light shining at them from extreme angles.
But as i said before,sensors can be designed many different ways and the current 1.6 crop sensors simply don't need special lenses

I don't know if the tamron 28-300 Di lens is drastically changed or simply has more antireflective coating-the point is it doesn't really matter much.It will work on a DSLR just as well as the previous model and most likely abit better :)