Tamron Lenses

[welshsaint]

I use a Nikon D3100 with a standard 18-55m lens.

I am thinking of buying an 18 - 200mm lens. Nikon lens costs £678, Tamron lens costs £153 (both Amazon for price comparisons). Is this a no brainer as I don't want to spend more on a lens than the original camera and lens?

[UKHamlet]

This one? (BTW.. Buy from this link and we get a kick back, WS).

I have this lens and while I wouldn't say it's a great lens, it's 150 sobs, so no complaints from me. To quote one of the reviewers:

The lens is not perfect, but for the price it's damn close.
Wide open it's fairly soft at most magnifications, but close it down a stop or two, and the story is very different. Everything seems to sharpen up a huge amount, it then becomes a very capable lens. The colour saturation is spot on, natural and accurate.
Barrel distortion at the wide end is more than acceptable; pincushion at longer settings is also well controlled. Contrast is strong and edge definition is surprisingly good for a lens of this type. Chromatic aberrations are evident, but only in high contrast detail where most lenses exhibit these.

The construction may be mainly plastic but it handles and feels like a quality, well made product. The zoom ring operates smoothly and evenly, as does the manual focus ring. The overall build feels solid, well designed and durable.
Having one lens that covers such a large range of focal lengths is remarkably convenient. for trips, holidays etc it's the ideal "walk round lens" Not having to fumble around changing lenses means your less likely to miss that shot when the moment presents itself.
All lenses of this type are a compromise between convenience and quality, but I would rather catch the shot and sacrifice some quality in absolute terms, than miss the shot altogether!
For the cost, just over £150, this thing is a steal.

That about sums it up. A pro wouldn't entertain it, but for a skilled amateur it is excellent value for money. The one thing I would say is it probably won't last you more than about four or five years before you start getting problems with it.

[JohnBuggy]

Originally Posted by welshsaint

I use a Nikon D3100 with a standard 18-55m lens.

I am thinking of buying an 18 - 200mm lens. Nikon lens costs £678, Tamron lens costs £153 (both Amazon for price comparisons). Is this a no brainer as I don't want to spend more on a lens than the original camera and lens?

Lens prices increase dramatically when you hit the magic number of f2. Unless yer a pro or seriously interested in photography, there's no point in splashing out; yer not going to be taking close up shots of wildlife in low light conditions; I'd imagine that a tamron or sigma should cater for your needs. There's not much difference in image quality between lower end Nikon telefoto (@f4/f3.5-5.6) and Tamrons/Sigmas at the same max f stop (although the engineering in the former is of a superior quality).

[Prysiau]

Originally Posted by welshsaint

I use a Nikon D3100 with a standard 18-55m lens.

I am thinking of buying an 18 - 200mm lens. Nikon lens costs £678, Tamron lens costs £153 (both Amazon for price comparisons). Is this a no brainer as I don't want to spend more on a lens than the original camera and lens?

With lenses you very much get what you pay for. Canon and Nikon lenses cost far more, but they produce some quality shots.

I have one Tamron, 50mm portrait. It's okay, but I only got it as a beginner's lens. I didn't want to jump in at the deep end and shell out £900 on a lens I had no experience with.

If I were you I'd look at other Tamrons and Sigmas in the next price range up - obviously if you have the spare cash lying down the back of your sofa. I promise you'll notice the difference.

By the way, not wanting to piss on Hammy's kickback - this is a brilliant deal for the price: http://www.dalephotographic.co.uk/ma...O%20DG%20MACRO

That was my first lens, and I paid about £200 second hand for it. If you have a strict budget, I'd seriously consider that puppy. Not the quickest AF, and the motor makes a fair bit of noise, but you'll get some decent shots with it.

[Prysiau]

Originally Posted by JohnBuggy

There's not much difference in image quality between lower end Nikon telefoto (@f4/f3.5-5.6) and Tamrons/Sigmas at the same max f stop (although the engineering in the former is of a superior quality).

I can't speak for Nikon, but in my experience the differences between a Canon and its equivalent Tamron/Sigma is huge. Subtle - but huge (if that makes sense).

[JohnBuggy]

Originally Posted by Prysiau

I can't speak for Nikon, but in my experience the differences between a Canon and its equivalent Tamron/Sigma is huge. Subtle - but huge (if that makes sense).

Yeh, I remember seeing some shots you took inside the MS with a Sigma 70-300mm. Nice shot of the military band leader They're pretty good lenses for a beginner.

I've never noticed any significant difference at that aperture. Admittedly I used non dx models, so I'm probably out of my depth here (I do have an f1.8 Nikon non dx prime telefoto , and the difference is enormous, especially if yer taking shots inside a stadium, enlarging etc. Fast lenses are very expensive though).

It's a lot of money to fork out on a lens, especially if it ends up gathering dust in the attic.

[Prysiau]

This is one of my most recent.



At the time I thought I was being all ffwcing clever and original, then the next day I saw an almost identical photo on a birthday card in the hospital shop. Only it was in black and white.

Wankers.

[JohnBuggy]

Nice shot. I took an angled telefoto shot of the head and torch of the Statue of Liberty from a ferry using Kodak ektachrome film (superb film dat, now sadly deceased). A few weeks later I was browsing a holiday brochure, and saw exactly the same shot heading an advert for vacations to NYC. I wasn't too disheartened though; in a way it demonstrated that I was starting to improve my composition.

It's a great hobby. I wish I had more time for it.

[Owain Glyndwr]

The main reason the Tamron lens is so much cheaper is that it does not have image stabilisation. The Tamron lens that does have IS, or VC as they call it, costs about £500. So, for lenses with comparable spec you are looking at a £200 price difference.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with a super-zoom without IS. And if you are serious about your photography I wouldn't bother with a super-zoom at all as there have too many compromises.

[Prysiau]

Originally Posted by JohnBuggy

Nice shot. I took an angled telefoto shot of the head and torch of the Statue of Liberty from a ferry using Kodak ektachrome film (superb film dat, now sadly deceased). A few weeks later I was browsing a holiday brochure, and saw exactly the same shot heading an advert for vacations to NYC. I wasn't too disheartened though; in a way it demonstrated that I was starting to improve my composition.

It's a great hobby. I wish I had more time for it.

That's one way of looking at it. I also took a shot of the Treasury at Petra, just as it creeps into view through the ravine.

Only when I stuck it on Facebook was I informed that was actually a clichéd shot, even used in one of the Indian Jones films.



Mine's the first one...

FML.