It is cheap.

I bought it second hand and in the 28mm setting it gives a graduated sharpness from right to left( left is not too bad but right is not sharp at all. Pictures taken a f6.8. Lens has no visible damage. Once zoomed it gets a bit better. However, no choice to take it with me on vacation. I used the lens on a Nikon D610.

Sharp, Great focal length range, IF, Light weight, (Relatively) small, Great IQ, Inexpensive

Maybe the AF a little slow, but for the price there is really nothing to complain about, I love this lens, a true "do everything" lens, i would recommend to anyone to get one, if nothing else, take it with you when travelling

Quality optics Quality Build Very good sharpness Fast focusing in normal daylight Excellent Manual focus

A little heavy, but at the time it was new, probably normal size and weight for the time. A tad slow, would like a F/3.5-4.5, but it will work.

I bought the used version that has "IF" but not the "Super" (I guess the Super is the more compact version and of this one. I believe mine is the 3rd major design change. . First off, the lens is quality built! Very smooth zoom and manual focus ring. I use it on a older Canon EOS 630, and in the early morning light, focusing was good in generally lit scenes. But in scenes where I had no direct sunlight, but open shadow, it hunted from time to time. But remember, it was in early morning light too. later on, it focused just fine. because of the short focus travel from 17" to Infinity, it does pop into focus quite quickly. . As far as sharpness and contrast? I was impressed, even with low light levels or maybe distance haze too. But I did get the soft light and soft colors that morning light would provide. Later on, in brighter light, all was back to normal, good sharpness and contrast.. . The macro at 200mm setting is a blessing!

Customer Service

NONE.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma AF 28-210 back in 2001 (Tamron is a better lens for sure!

excellent colour depth, contract, sharpness. wide zoom range, quick AF.

relatively low speed (f/3.8-5.6) and long minimum focusing distance (0.8 m).

excellent lense! i've used it for about 2 years now on my Nikon F70 and am stunned by the results. i can't imagine getting more value for money on any lense, especially if you look at the wide zoom-range. sure, the quality of a-brand primes that cost a fortune may be better, but you also shouldn't compare a good chevi to a cadillac... by the way, i own the previous version. not the 1st original. only two drawbacks: lense speed is relatively low (f/3.8-5.6) and minimal focusing distance is 0.8 m (almost 3 ft) which is a bit too much.

Customer Service

non needed

Similar Products Used:

Nikon primes

Range

Read review

I recently did a brick wall test with 100 speed slide film a tripod, this lens and a 28-105 canon, 28-105 sigma and an old 35-105 ef. This lens should be used to scoop cow dunn because it certainly dosen't cut it as an excuse for a lens. Yes I am refering to the IF Super version. All of the pics taken with the Tamron were soft, distorted,, and underexposed. Good reviewers must be Tamron reps. Don't believe it.

Customer Service

not yet

Similar Products Used:

Over 13 different zooms, Canon , Nikon, Sigma

Highly versatile zoom range and reasonably good sharpness.

Slow lens speed (f/3.8-5.6) and noticeable linear distortion.

I've recently acquired a well-worn copy of a Tamron 28-200mm zoom for pocket change and it seems like a good investment. It didn't include an owner's manual so I'll make an educated guess and say it's the UPGRADED model because it close-focuses to about 3 feet (the original Tamron 28-200, introduced in '91 or so, had a minimum focus of 7 or 8 feet). I suspect that some of the negative reviews I've read here about this lens refer to that ORIGINAL version before the upgrade. This 28-200 is better for some types of photography jobs than others; at 200mm, pincushion distortion is very noticeable and contrast is slightly flat but I don't care. It it were vitally important to me that I keep my straight lines straight and my contrast and resolution superhigh in my telephoto shots, I've got a Nikkor 180/2.8 ED I can press into service for those shots. Here's where this lens EXCELS; mounted to an AF 35mm SLR loaded with ISO 400 colour neg film and a hotshoe strobe with a motorised zoom head. Subject matter? Social gatherings such as wedding receptions. Here's a good example... Hubby is removing his new bride's garter with his teeth while the deejay is playing "The Stripper" by David Rose (Summer '62 Solid Gold to make you feel old! Lol!) A large group is gathered around. You want to capture as many of them as possible in your shot for their amusing facial expressions, so a 28mm focal length is essential here. Hubby has quite a pitching arm so he lobs the garter way, way back there and it's caught by Delbert... "Well shucks! Duzzat mean I'M next to get married?" Del quips as he holds up the garter with his confused grin. You need a 200mm focal length on your camera RIGHT NOW to fill the frame with that shot and you've got it with just a flick of your wrist on the zoom ring. In this shot, who really gives a flying fig about pincushion distortion?! What about formal shots at the church with the wedding party after the ceremony? You know that 16X20 enlargement in the fancy frame hanging right over the fireplace? Very likely, it's a full-length of the bride with the tail of her flowing white dress spread out in front like a fan and the groom is standing behind her with his hands on her hips. Hmm. Probably NOT a good idea to use a 28-200mm zoom (of whatever make) for that really important shot. As I alluded earlier, there's a lens suited for every job and that huge enlargement for the mantle calls for a prime lens; a 50/1.8 set to f/8 and mounted to a different camera body loaded with Gold 100 or Impresa 50 (or whatever). The level of sharpness in MY copy of this Tamron 28-200 II lens, while not quite up there with my prime lenses, is pretty good and I could probably actually get away with using it for these formals if my clients don't have a critical eye...but I'll play it safe and stick with my primes. :-) For candid shots on the fly, at social gatherings and for action shots at daytime football games, NOTHING beats a 28-200mm zoom (except for maybe a 28-300). I highly recommend this lens for these applications. -Tori Sinclair's Uncle Andy

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Tokina 35-135mm f/4-4.5, Nikon MF mount

compact. light weight. sharp

none

This is one fantastic lens by Tamron. Unbelievably sharp, really!! smooth focus, and easy to set up. Love the great diversity of the focal lengths. I'd stack this up any day to a $1200 Nikor lens!

Customer Service

haven't needed any!

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 60-300 SP lens, Tamron 28-80 Zoom

range and decent color correction

Low end point and shoot quality Dark edges and under exposure until f11 autofocus hunts compared to all canons.

Its time for Popular Photography to stop kissing up to Lens manufacturers, I bought this because they actually gave it better SQF numbers than Canons 28-105! I have used over 50 different lenses over the years and this one is 2nd to last in terms of sharpness. last was an old soligor zoom. Dont believe Pop photos reviews-this is not sharp at all.

Customer Service

not yet

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-105, 8 Nikkors, Canon 100-200, Canon 35-135, Canon 22-55, Canon 135f2.8 Sigma 28-105

Versatile

Distortion at wide angles Quality control Distributor

I have the Nikon D mount model. Distortions at the edges when using wide-angle. Otherwise, images are sharp. Good for general photography outdoors. A good lense to have when travelling. However, I've had 2 problems with the lense 1. Within 3 months of my purchase, a flake of debris landed on the inside of the lense. The debris looked like a piece of coating from the inside of the lense barrel. Had to argue with the distributor (Amphis) to have the repair done under warranty. 2. Recently, when using autofocus, the lense would make a horrible noise and would not focus. Did not happen when using the original Nikon lense (so it wasn't the body). Apparently the focussing gear in the lense was stripped. The distributor decided to repair it as "good will" but apparently would not be covered under warranty. If I had to purchase a lense all over again, I would go with Nikon. Why go after-market if you've invested in name-brand... AND the lense is probably the most important part of the camera.

Customer Service

see above

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 35-85mm, f4-5.6 Nikon 80-200mm, f2.8

Great lens for the price. 8x12 photo enlargements still sharp for a zoom lens of this price

Bad reviews that are not reasonable. I sell enlargements and have never had a complaint about sharpness.

Great price, convinient, sharp enough for most purposes. I dont understand the problem some seem to be having with this lens. It is possible to get a lemon in anything but I would guess operator error would explain most of the probem.

Customer Service

not needed

Similar Products Used:

Sigma, Nikon, Canon zooms