Want opinions on a lens

[dataz722]

I am thinking about getting the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC and would like to get other people's opinion on this lens. Thanks.

 

[iflynething]

What camera. What are you shooting. Low light situations? Give us some more information and we can help you out

~Michael~

 

[reg]

More info.

 

[dataz722]

I am considering getting a Cannon 30D and this would probably be the lens I would get. I am just looking for a good all purpose lens so use for it would be VERY varied. I do want something that will be able to do decent macro shots but also sports and action shots.
I plan on doing some product photography in the near future and would like it if I could use this lens for alot of that as well but its not too important to be able to handle that.

 

[ANDS!]

"Jack of all trades, Master of none" is an apt description for many of the "entry" level wide-to-telephoto lenses out there. This isn't to say the lens wont perform well, but it wont perform as well as lenses who are more "limited" in their scope, and thus more designed to perform within their specific focal lengths.

Says this lens goes for around 600 bucks. Thats quite an investment in something you could realistically split into two lenses, without really increasing your "carry" load by that much.

 

[kundalini]

Fred Miranda review.

f/3.5-6.3 isn't brilliant by any means. Kinda agree with ANDS! The greater the coverage of focal lengths, the less the IQ, generally speaking. Of cousre, could be great for you.

 

[Dao]

Canon is coming out with a 18-200 IS soon, so you may want to see how good that lens IQ is. And of course, I do not expect it is as good as the L. The last one EF-S telephone zoom Canon made 55-250 IS is not too bad. So I expect that is going to be better than the 3rd party version. (In terms of image quality)

 

[Overread18 6]

I have used a sigma 70-300mm macro before and I agree with the others - I think a 28-300mm macro is really pushing things as far as zooms go firstly - and for its price bracket I think its quality will be too low for proper sports use.
My sigma I found was good up to around 5-6m then after that at the longer extensions it started to get soft very quickly. So for sports this lens might be a bit soft when you shoot
Also its macro mode is not true macro - its only 1:2 macro - which means you won't be able to get shots as close as 1:1 (true macro)
eg
1:2 macro
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my%20works/random%20g%20-%20macro%20plant/1000/IMG_0008.jpg

1:1 macro
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/insect 6/IMG_0021.jpg

a big difference between the two.

These sorts of budget lens are good for starting on and for getting your feet wet, but it won't take long before you are after more specialist lenses. Overall I think they are good starter lenses and they do let you see what 300mm actually looks like and a go at macro is fun --

 

[dataz722]

Ok, well is there anything else that someone could recommend to me or possible a combination of two lenses that would work decently for about the same price? Thanks

 

[Flur]

Noob to noob here, it might not be a bad idea to get one of the kit lenses that comes with the camera. You'll get an okay lens for cheap, and once you start shooting you'll find things you like and don't like about it, and those preferences will guide you to the right lenses.

 

[maulrat]

I have been researching an all around/ all purpose lens myself that wouldn't break my bank. I have set my mind on the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-SLR-Cameras/dp/B00006I53S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1222442484&sr=1-1"]Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM[/ame] It seems to be some pretty quality glass. Also, since I have a crop camera, it really comes out to a 45-216mm lens which should be enough zoom for me.

As for the wide angle portion, I've already decided what lens to save up for. Currently, I only own 1 lens; the Canon 50mm (80mm w/crop camera). So the Canon 28-135mm should keep me satisfied for a while... until I can scrap up the dough for the Sigma 10-20

 

[ANDS!]

As said, you're going to have a very difficult time finding something that performs well as an all purpose lens, because they just don't make those. I mean a 12-300 f/1.8 1:1 AF-S lens. . .I can only imagine what the cost on that would be - but thats about what you are looking for.

If you were willing to spend 600 on the Tamron - split it up and get a walk around lens (18-70 - thats not the length of the lens you want, but the wide should be near 18 or so, and the long near the 70), a Telephoto lens, and if the walk around lens is limiting you in the wide landscape shots you'd like to get, then get a used dedicated wide.

There isn't a single person shooting that has one lens, that they're willing to sell every other lens they have because THAT lens does all they need it to do (well unless they have the kit lens and are cool with that).

As for what I would get:
Sigma 24-60 F/2.8 for about 200 bucks NEW.
Canon 100-300 USM for about 200-250 bucks NEW or the Canon 55-200 for less than 200.

 

[scottsmac]

As said, you're going to have a very difficult time finding something that performs well as an all purpose lens, because they just don't make those. I mean a 12-300 f/1.8 1:1 AF-S lens. . .I can only imagine what the cost on that would be - but thats about what you are looking for.

So where do you think someone could sell their soul for something like that?

 

[TBAM]

I've got a Tamron 28-200mm f1:3.8-5.6 on my old Pentax dSLR, and I must say that it's more an entry-level all purpose lens, than anything.

It does come up a bit soft at the further extensions, i guess it depends on what you're looking for.

I wouldn't use it for professional photography or sports photography, but it's a great lens if you don't want to carry much and want an all purpose lens that you can pull out at any point and know that you can get most compositions.

The only thing that was frustratin with it was I was continually saying to myself "I need more light damnit!" It was just difficult getting good exposures at times, especially when most situations required some zoom to get the right composition.

In a quick reflection, perhaps you use the zoom to accomodate more than you should. I find myself moving a lot more and framing shots a lot more when I know the zoom isn't there, than when I had the benefit of a 28-200mm zoom.

Anyways, it's up to you.

 

[maulrat]

Since my last reply to this thread around 3 weeks ago, I've changed my mind on a "jack of all trades, master of none" lens. I just have to wait for my next paycheck then I'm putting my cash down on a Sigma 18-200mm OS. You might want to check into it. The Canon 18-200mm off of its new 50D might be better but I wouldn't spend over $600 for it.