Responses to posts about 28-200 Tamron....

bijazdune@aol.com (Bijazdune):
I read David Ruethers post, which prompted the critique below by another
poster, and I have to vote with David. He didn't say go out and buy an
expensive 35-70 f 2.8 Nikkor and 80-200 f 2.8 Nikkor instead of the 28-200
Tamron, he just pointed out that fixed lenses are overlooked, cheap and
give the kind of results that people expect from slr's - or that's what I
think he is saying. It's true, a 50 f 1.8 is under $100 and much less
used, for example, and where else can you get the speed and quality that
such a lens has? Try taking cafe, natural lighting pix with the 28-200! It
is not a question of being economically unobtainable, the N70 is pretty
expensive and so is the 28-200 (I would understand the price limitation
argument better if we were talking about an $80 35-80 on a Canon Rebel
G...) so it is well worth it to scrounge a 50 somewhere, even a manual
focus (oh, the beauty of Nikons which are backwards compatible!) and if
you like that, try a 35 or 28...

Where I think lenses like the 28-200 shine is for people who would
normally shoot an 80-200; then the 28-80 range is a bonus thrown in. But
if you principally shoot in the 28-80 range, I honestly believe a zoom
made for that range is much higher in quality, lighter and smaller, and a
better starting point anyway.

Keppler writes about zooms and the 28-200 in June Pop Photog. His
conclusion is that the 28-105 range is the "sweetest" right now,
professionally sharp, but the 28-200 lenses while CONVENIENT just aren't
up to snuff in terms of overall picture quality yet.

Now put it in context: about three times a year he also seems to tell us
to take our pix back to the lab to complain about lousy quality and have
them redone. So, for most people, shooting with N70's and 28-200 but then
getting Costco no-name processing (instead of, for example, the equally
available - at Costco - Kodak Premium), what difference will it make? It
is funny how people in our beloved country pay big bucks for cameras then
assume the cheapest photoprocessing at any old drugstore or supermarket is
the way to go....

At least the Tamron is "best of the breed" and will now focus reasonably
close (unlike the Sigma which is still 5-6 feet).... and it IS better than
a point and shoot, which has nowhere near the reach and is generally much
slower and not even multicoated....

Just my 2 cents.

BD


ORIGINAL POST (NO > ADDED) FOLLOWS BELOW:
__________________________________________________________________
David:
I appreciate your taking the time to send me an email on this subject.
I have read many of your posts and consider you to be one of the most
reasonable and knowledgable people in the newsgroup. However, I think
in this case you have forgotten the context of the message. The
original poster was asking about 28-200mm lenses and was obviously
interested in this lens because of its price and convenience factor.
There were several posts that related to the original question, some of
which compared the Tamron to the Sigma 28-200, and some of which
compared the Tamron Super to other zooms with ranges that might be
considered reasonably close. The message which prompted my response was
one which, in my opinion, did not address anything that the original
poster was interested in, and simply pointed out what most people know,
that primes are better at any one focal length than zooms. He also took
pains to characterize his superior "fussiness" and then insinuated that
people who don't purchase primes are not "real" photographers. I admit
it, there are certain things that ring my bell, and condescending
superior attitudes are right at the top of my list. I have to admit
that your missive has a ring of that same condescension when you say:
"If someone really wants only snapshots, P&S's are more practical and
convenient." If you really think that a N70 with the Tamron 28-200 is
comparable to a "P&S" then I have to say that I can find any number of
medium or large format photographers who sneer at the "tiny little
negative" you find on all 35mm cameras and who would consider a prized
Leica with a $5,000 prime lens to be little improvement over a Nikon
One-Touch. They have a point, and they have a right to their opinion,
but they are nevertheless overlooking the very real improvement of the
Leica over the P&S, and in my opinion, you are doing the same. The
Tamron Super is a good lens, and for my budget, it allows me to take
photos I could never take before. The photos are sharper than any I've
taken with other "affordable" lenses, like my Tokina, Soligor and
Sigmas. Now, of course, you'll say "Why didn't you just buy a REAL lens
instead of wasting your money on those cheap pieces of junk." And I'll
say, "because that's all I could afford at the time, and if I had waited
until I could afford something that passed muster with the lens police,
I would have missed thousands of photos, some of which somehow turned
out pretty good.

-sdg
Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
> In article <33C31668.38B8@earthlink.net>, seangolden@earthlink.net
says...
> >Fred Whitlock wrote:
>
>SNIP

> >> Please temper these comments with the knowledge that I use some very
sharp
> >> lenses and I'm very fussy. While I was dissatisfied with the
sharpness of
> >> this lens most photographers would be content with the lens's
performance
> >> stopped down to f11 or less.
> >>
> >> Fred
>
>SNIP
>
> >
> >If you're like Fred and expect a 7:1 zoom to compare to $1,000 primes,
> >then don't get this lens. If you have more realistic expectations, you
> >won't find a better lens for the price anywhere. Of course, I'm a rank
> >amateur without the discerning taste of true professionals, or the
> >bottomless wallet to apply to my hobby, but I'll bet so are most of
you.
> >
> >-sdg
>
> Sorry, I can't resist...
> I must respect your choice to select a lens of less than stellar
> performance due to its perceived convenience factor (I don't find
> zooms very convenient to use, relative to primes, myself - and
> use them only when fast FL change is a must [they actually slow
> down my shooting speed, in undesireable ways...]), but if you think
> the higher quality alternative costs $1000, check out the price of
> a new or used normal lens for your camera - and it will be (in addition
> to being cheaper), noticeably faster, sharper, contrastier, lighter,
> smaller, easier to focus, faster to operate, probably more fun to use,
> closer focusing, brighter in the viewfinder, etc., etc. For myself, I
> can never understand the choice to use a lens that forever places a low
> limit on the technical quality of the images one makes... If someone
> really wants only snapshots, P&S's are more practical and convenient
> (being even smaller, lighter, and easier to use than an SLR with a
> zoom...). If higher quality is desired, a good 28mm, 50mm, and
> 70/80-200/210mm (which can be excellent...) set of lenses can provide
> both reasonable convenience and top image quality at a reasonable
> price...
> Hope This Helps
> (David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether )


````````````````
"Fred Whitlock" :
This post got so long I had to cut it out. I was the individual first
flamed for criticizing the Tamron lens. I didn't compare the lens to
primes. I didn't compare the lens to higher quality zooms with less
extreme designs. I simply said that it vignettes at the short end and is
soft at the long end and it does and it is. I tested it because I
genuinely wanted to buy one. It didn't satisfy my standards. I said my
standards are high and that this lens, when stopped down significantly,
would satisfy many photographers and it does since it is one of the best
selling lenses in the world.

David Reuther pointed out correctly that primes are better optically than
zooms and that a collection of primes is not as expensive as many people
may think. The readers need to put things into perspective, though. I
have to satisfy people who are used to seeing images that, technically at
least, are near perfection. It's not possible to satisfy clients like
these with soft or otherwise flawed images. David spends a good deal of
time testing lenses and sees, probably better than any of the rest of us,
the differences between superior and inferior lens designs. Neither one of
us is typical of 35mm SLR users. Both of us are more critical than average
because of the areas of photography in which we are involved.

It bothers me a little to hear the term condescension. People are simply
providing information or opinions and just trying to help. The information
is not always correct and every opinion is subject to disagreement. I was
attempting to provide a perspective that I admitted was from an individual
with critical standards. David was trying to help someone understand that
it might be possible to get superior optical perfomance from a collection
of lenses without taking out a second mortgage.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement. It makes the newsgroup more
interesting. I would prefer to read fewer personal slings, though, when
one disagrees. I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry. It really didn't
pertain to 35mm photographic equipment.

Fred
Maplewood Photography