PERFECTLY balanced on an EOS 300, but still solid - great combination versatility low price was a bonus good lens hood manual focus

for $269??? if you are looking for prime lens quality, in a $299 28-200 zoom, I suggest you keep looking..

I bought this lens to upgrade the lousy stock lens on my EOS 300. Having had a terrible experience with the pictures from the stock lens, I was willing to spend up to $500 to ensure I got a good lens. Plus, I was going on a long vacation and I wanted to make sure I got good pictures. At first I was considering the Tamron 24-135 or the Canon 28-135 IS to have a good, everyday lens. After looking at the lenses, and totally undecided on the two based on size, weight, feel, etc., the sales rep pointed me to this lens. I was skeptical at first. But trying to keep and open mind, the first thing I noticed was how perfectly the lense balanced on the camera. The rep told me the optics of then lens was not going to give me 'L' quality, or even quality up to the first two, but that I would probably find it acceptable. Plus, it was over $150 cheaper, it's lighter and more versatile, so he said, "give it a try." So I did, and burned through a few rolls - fuji 100s, 400s, 800s - day and night, outside and inside - mostly of people - and had them developed. The pictures were every bit as "acceptable" as he promised. The AF worked like a charm - fairly quick, but the manual focus was easy and more fun. But I was not convinced. So I returned it to try out the Canon. And then returned that for the Tamron 24-135. And I returned those too. The pictures on the Tamron 24-135 and the Canon were suberb. But frankly, not much better than the 28-200 on 5x7s. And overall, they didn't fit the bill the way the 28-200 did. The later two were almost awkwardly balanced on the light EOS 300, which I never got used to. Plus, the additional 135-200 focal length, which still took sharp, contrasty pictures with and without a tripod, gave it added versatility. So I decided on the 28-200 over the other two lenses for the following factors in decreasing importance: versatility, weight (balance) and price. Finally, I just came back from my overseas vacation. The lense worked like a charm. My family from there liked a lot of my pictures better then the postcards I picked up. It really allowed me to get creative on my composition, isolate interesting people in crowds, take good pictures of otherwise inaccesable things and still get good group family pictures. I was not going to lug even 2 lenses around (I'm too lazy) and neither of the more expensive lenses would have given my vacation album the overall quality that this lense gave me.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80 stock lens

PERFECTLY balanced on an EOS 300, but still solid - great combination versatility low price was a bonus good lens hood manual focus

for $269??? if you are looking for prime lens quality, in a $299 28-200 zoom, I suggest you keep looking..

I bought this lens to upgrade the lousy stock lens on my EOS 300. Having had a terrible experience with the pictures from the stock lens, I was willing to spend up to $500 to ensure I got a good lens. Plus, I was going on a long vacation and I wanted to make sure I got good pictures. At first I was considering the Tamron 24-135 or the Canon 28-135 IS to have a good, everyday lens. After looking at the lenses, and totally undecided on the two based on size, weight, feel, etc., the sales rep pointed me to this lens. I was skeptical at first. But trying to keep and open mind, the first thing I noticed was how perfectly the lense balanced on the camera. The rep told me the optics of then lens was not going to give me 'L' quality, or even quality up to the first two, but that I would probably find it acceptable. Plus, it was over $150 cheaper, it's lighter and more versatile, so he said, "give it a try." So I did, and burned through a few rolls - fuji 100s, 400s, 800s - day and night, outside and inside - mostly of people - and had them developed. The pictures were every bit as "acceptable" as he promised. The AF worked like a charm - fairly quick, but the manual focus was easy and more fun. But I was not convinced. So I returned it to try out the Canon. And then returned that for the Tamron 24-135. And I returned those too. The pictures on the Tamron 24-135 and the Canon were suberb. But frankly, not much better than the 28-200 on 5x7s. And overall, they didn't fit the bill the way the 28-200 did. The later two were almost awkwardly balanced on the light EOS 300, which I never got used to. Plus, the additional 135-200 focal length, which still took sharp, contrasty pictures with and without a tripod, gave it added versatility. So I decided on the 28-200 over the other two lenses for the following factors in decreasing importance: versatility, weight (balance) and price. Finally, I just came back from my overseas vacation. The lense worked like a charm. My family from there liked a lot of my pictures better then the postcards I picked up. It really allowed me to get creative on my composition, isolate interesting people in crowds, take good pictures of otherwise inaccesable things and still get good group family pictures. I was not going to lug even 2 lenses around (I'm too lazy) and neither of the more expensive lenses would have given my vacation album the overall quality that this lense gave me.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80 stock lens

compact, lightweight, easy. Perfect hood, internal focus, low chromatic aberations. Nice lenscap. Somewhat more rugged look than canon. Good contrast/color. Nice 28mm lock.

Not USM, zoom is slightly stiff, 5.6 a little slow but fine.

I've never used a tamron lens, except for when I used to use Bronica Medium format (RF645, ETRsi) several years back Tamron bought Bronica and introduced newer technologies to the lens refinement experience. I was looking for a pretty standard lens that would fill the gap that my other lenses left out. I was very impressed with this lenses' size and weight. The build is fine also, it doesn't bother me much. The IF is pretty quick, manual focus is great, smooth. Zoom is a little jerky but I won't be using this lens beyond 105. The focus can be a lttle faster, but it works for me. Sharpness is really good! I ran a few tests with a tripod and a pattern print out. I bracketed each shot at wide open (4.0) unfortunately this 3.8 lens registers as a 4.0 lens on canon eos bodies. Shooting at 5.6 up to 8.0 was perfect. Slight softness wide open but certainly acceptable. I think this is a great lens for the price.

Customer Service

none needed.

Similar Products Used:

canon 80-200 2,8L, sigma 15-30 3.5-4,5

Well made lens,light weight and very compact and covers a very useful range of focal lengths.

Less than indicated focal lengths at less than infinity; slow focussing; washed out sunny ares and very little shadow detail.

I purchased this lens when leaving for a vacation, as a substitute for two zooms and a prime I normally carry. Having read rave reviews in magazines such as Popular photography and Amateur photographer etc., I expected very good picture quality. I found it to be useful as an all purpose lens, but I was disappointed in many ways. I returned this lens and bought a Pentax FA 80-320 lens. One serious shortcoming is that is goes to 200 mm focal lenth ONLY WHEN FOCUSSED AT INFINITY. At lesser focal length of say 7 to 8 feet, that you may need to pull in a face from a crowd, indicated 200 mm is actually only about 100 mm. I put a newspaper page on the wall and tested several indicated focal lengths against a Pentax A series 70-210 F4 lens. Actual focal length was in all cases much less than the indicated. When I proved this to the camera shop salesmen all with 20 plus years experience they were all very surprised. Reading Tamron's brochure in detail I found a mention in small print somethin about " internal focussing Tamrom zoom lenses having a wider angle of view at less than infinity focussing distance". Amazingly none of the afore-mentioned photo magazines menetioned this. Secondly, I found that when I took pictures where a part of the picture was in sun and a part in shade, the sunny areas were completely washed out and at the same time shaded ares were extremely dark with no shadow detail. This is something I have never experienced with Pentax lenses. I suspect it is caused by anamolies of high refractive index plastics used in this lens. I once had eyeglasses made with high index lenses and had noticed strange anamolies with the pair and had it changed. I have gone back to carrying two lenses if necessary rather than putting up with this lens's compromises. In fairness I don't know if all internal focussing lenses have shorter focal length at less than infinity or not.

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Pentax, Nikon and Canon zoom lenses

It is light, althought not lighter than the (very bad) kit lens. The weight is still acceptable for travelling, which is when I mainly use it. I also own a Contax T3, the lens of which is widely aclaimed as being excellent (it's a Zeiss). The photos taken by either lens, I emphasis, are indistinguishable on a 4 by 6. In fact, the Tamron had better photos, probably attributable to its ability to have filters fitted, the metering of the Canon EOS300 behind the lens, and the AF of the SLR cameras. It is however, slightly warmer, which is not very much a problem. I kind of like it warm. The lens feels sturdy. I like the zoom lock at 28mm too. It stops the lens from creeping when I bush-bash with the camera around my neck.

Some people have complained about distortions, but it is not visible in any of my photos so far. Also, some have claimed the 200 end to be soft. This is very minor, and is not as dramatic as some people make it out to be. I was pleasantly surprised when my photos of distant seals taken from a boat in rocky waters, at 200mm, truned out acceptable. The zoom turns in the opposite direction to the kit lens, but you can get used to it soon enough. A very noticable limitation is its slowness, both in its maximum aperture and focusing. The lens would drag in and drag out several times before it makes up its mind. And, its use is really limited used on a cloudy day with 100 films! This really bugged me at first, however, I just use my T3 whenever the Tamron falls below handheld speed.

After reading all the available reviews on the web, I have decided to buy the lens. My other choices were the Canon 24-85 and 28-105. I really wanted the extra distance, so I went with the Tamron

Customer Service

Haven't required it yet.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-80 kit lens. Contax T3 Nikon Coolpix 5000

Light, Smooth zoom, Fast Autofocus, Solid Build. Good from 28mm to 100mm.

Range 135-200mm.

This zoom could be the ideal lens for outdoor photography when you don' t want walking with a bag full of lenses, but it has some optical limits, which may be checked with 20x30 mm prints or 8 x loupe. It has a good mechanic, a fast autocus with my Eos 300, it is very light and shooting with this camera it's a pleasure. From 28 to 100 mm optical performances are good at all aperture range, then begin problems. At 135-150 mm there is a fall of sharpness which became too strong at the end of the zoom; at 200 mm image looks like not only soft, like other reviewers claim, but also slightly out of focus. Anyway it could be a production defect of my model. Then I bought the 28-135 IS Canon, which is more expensive but its performances are very good throught the range, besides the benefit of Stabilizer which can give you, sometimes, the sharpness only allowed with tripod. I can compare this Canon to Zeiss lenses I own. I shooted many portraits with these zooms (same subjects, same film: Fuji Provia) at 100mm, the best Tamron focal, but there is a obvious difference. Color rendition of the skin is very natural with Canon, while Tamron is oversatured. Finally, a good lens if you need a zoom all-in-one for not demanding situations and if you print with small enlargments.

Customer Service

Never needed.

Similar Products Used:

. Canon 28-135 IS Autofocus . Zeiss 85/F1.4, 135/F2.8, 180/F2.8 . Yashica 24/F2.8, 50/F.2 . Sigma 28-70/F2.8

Compact and extreme zoom range with only limited loss of quality. Flare control is excellent and it is well built.

For a zoom of this range and price, what can one say. Yes when wide open it is not as sharp but improved at f8 or so. What can one expect?

An exceptional lens! Any rating on this site is subjective and really rates a lens against expectations. Compared to shorter range zooms,it is not quite as sharp but hey, this lens zooms has a zoom range of 7! But even with this qualification, across the whole range the sharpness is quite exceptional and it takes careful scrutiny under a magnifier to see the difference against my shorter range zooms. Like any zoom compared to a prime lens there is a tradeoff of convenience against sharpness. This lens is very sharp and contrasty and a marked improvement over its predecessor. For its exceptional range with only a small reduction of quality, I have to give this lens 5 stars.

Customer Service

Not required

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 28-70UC, Pentax f1.4, Tamron 70-300, Pentax 80-200

Price is good for a lens in this range Lens is very sharp for basic prints, haven't had anything blown up yet to really test it Solid feel, solid construction Fast autofocus with Nikon F80

None so far...haven't had it long enough yet

I just got this lens recently, and it seems to be a very good match for my Nikon F80. The autofocus is quick, doesn't hunt at all in bright and medium light, and is very minimal in darker light. The lens has a very sold feel, I was actually suprised with the amount of metal in the lens compared to most consumer grade lenses these days; a close inspection reveals that one of the tubes is metal, along with the lens mount (hey, even the Nikon G lenses use a plastic lens mount!). It has a very solid feel to it, and like some of the other reviewers have noted, the zoom barrel loosens up after a little use. I was initially concerned about how stiff it was when I received the lens, but it has worked itself out nicely now. The manual focus ring has a good feel to it as well, it is of course a little more loose feeling than my old manual focus lenses I am used to, but actually has a fair amount of resistance and doesn't feel cheap when you're manually focusing. Comes with a nice lens hood that snaps on and off quickly and doesn't seem to interfere with the built in flash or autofocus assist light even when extended out to 200mm. So far, the pictures I have gotten back are sharp across the whole zoom range. Since I don't shoot arcitechture, I can't speak to the complains some have had with the lens distoring straight lines at the wider angles.

Customer Service

Haven't used it yet

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 35-200 F4-5.6 MF Pentax primes

Weight, filter size, sun shade, lock, sharp focussing. Images were sharp and contrasty.

Strengths outweigh any weakness. Small sacrifice.

Having owned Tamron's previous 28-200 zooms, I was most pleasantly surprised at the weight factor and reduction of filter size from 72mm to 62mm. The sun shade is much better as well and there is even a lock that prevents the lens from "creeping" as it always happened with the older models. Optical quality is great, again more contrasty and sharper than before. I should mention that the focussing ring feels much better too and allows sharper focussing with up to a handy 1:4 magnification. For its size, weight and price I wouldn't think of complaining about aperture being slow. In short, this is great for travelling and I love this lens!

Similar Products Used:

Previous Tamron zooms.

Light and small. 62 filters.Fast and silent focus on my nikon f70/f90X . Sharp images.GREAT range. Solid build.Smooth zoom action.Very good focus lock. Good price compare to the 'bigs leagues'.

A litle less sharp at 28 and distortions.

I had the occasion to test this zoom, and I can say than generaly it's a good zoom, surprisely sharp for a zoom with a range like this one. At 28, it's a little less sharp but very good at 100 and plus, even at 200 . The only problem I found , is distortion ...ouf, all over the place. With pictures of a street with a lot of stores with verticals and horizontals lines I remark at 50 and plus, every lines are bend from the outside to the inside of the picture and it's show more with horizontals lines. At 28, it's funny because , it's the inverse, the lines go from the inside to the outside, but it's not much. I try the sigma and I prefer Tamron for the better DOF and the general feel.