Tamron pkg deal

Dylan · Jan 24, 2007

Please chime in with your thoughts on a package deal I saw on Ebay. here's the link. http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-2-Lens-S...42QQihZ006QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Caveat: Ok I know everyone has issues with aftermarket lenses so put that aside for just a moment. I was about to buy a 17x35mm Tamron lens (low dispersion glass etc) for around 280.00 when I saw this package deal on ebay. The 28~80 is probably the equivlent of your standard kit lens and I've already got that covered with a nice Canon lens anyway. The 70~300 mm di ld (digitally integrated low dispersion) lens is the one I'm most interested in. My concerns are: why so cheap, according to the site this comes with a six year warranty but I've never bought anything from this merchant before, F4~5.6.. Am I going to have issues with that (ie: not enough light reaches the film)?

Ok so I would like you to weigh in on this even if you only buy canon/Nikon etc because I'm naturally suspicious of anything I see on ebay. I need to hear back soon because I've got to spend this money before something else comes up.

fmw · Jan 25, 2007

These would be the equivalent of other cheap Chinese "kit" lenses. The brand is not an issue with any of these. The "kit" lenses aren't made by Canon, Nikon, Tamron or anybody else with whom you may be familiar, despite the logo on them.

Dylan · Jan 25, 2007

From what i've read about the 70~200 it does have some coatings on the lens and supposedly they are using low dispersion glass to minimize the fall off at the edges. When I looked at the specs on their site I was somewhat impressed with the " Digitally Integrated line" . I know the 28~80 is a cheap kit lens and I'm not expecting much from that. I guess the big question is, why do I have to pay 280.00 for a 17~35 wide angle and only 180.00 for the package deal? It just seemed odd to me. Since I can't afford to drop 1000.00 on a really nice Canon I'll just have to be happy with this one. I think I'll get what I pay for and then some.

Johnboy2978 · Jan 25, 2007

My guess would be that the 17-35 was probably a better lens in build and quality. Probably a wider aperture as well which makes it a more expensive lens. These lenses are 'okay' and as such they are an okay price. You get what you pay for. The 28-80 is a f/3.5-5.6 and the 70-300 is f/4-5.6 so neither are going to do well in low light, so you are either going to need a lot of light or a tripod for a slower shutter speed and hope you are shooting something stationary. The will also be fairly light and will have a cheap plasticy feel to them, but will probably serve you for a while.

As far as the seller, I have bought a few things from them, and have never had any problems with them. Shipping has always been fast and arrived as described and in condition advertised. They have a pretty good reputation on ebay. My most recent purchase was a Simga EX 70-200 f/2.8 lens for $700 which was about $125 less than I could get the same lens from B/H. I'd trust the seller as far as that goes.

Don Simon · Jan 25, 2007

I wouldn't say everyone has issues with aftermarket lenses. We can call them "aftermarket" or "third party" but they are optical companies too and as such Tokina, Tamron and Sigma are entirely capable of making great lenses. Some of which are just as good or better than the equivalents from the camera manufacturer and some of which don't even have equivalents because they've seen a gap in the market. Of course some are not so good.

I personally have the 70-300mm, because it was offered for very little with my camera and I didn't have an autofocus lens of that focal length. That is what it does - it gives me that focal length, that field of view. It doesn't give me very good colours, it doesn't give me good bokeh, and the image quality generally starts to drop after 200mm so I usually stop there. On the other hand I don't notice any particularly bad aberrations during general use. It's not especially good, it's not actually bad, it's just average, and since the 28-80 is probably of a similar quality that is a fairly average price.

The 17-35mm is probably better built and is certainly faster (larger maximum aperture) so it's understandable that it will cost more.

If you only have $180 and want that range of focal length then they would do the job. But 28mm is really not very wide on a small digital sensor. I would imagine one of the kit lenses designed for digital, even if they're not wonderful optically would be more useful than the 28-80mm. The other thing to remember is that you don't have to spend $1000 to get a really nice Canon lens... around $70 will get you a 50mm f/1.8 and while most prime lenses are more expensive than that, it's still possible to get better primes or zooms by Canon, Tamron, Sigma and Tokina within a reasonable budget. Of course cheap lenses like these two will do the job... they just won't do it as well as other lenses.