SLRGear.com: Interactive Lens Reviews and Opinion.
Digital Camera Reviews



Reviews Views Date of last review
2 42101 1/3/2015
Recommended By Average Purchase
50% of reviewers $130.00
Reader Review Rating Averages
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
Readers'
Overall Rating
spacerspacer
8.00
spacerspacer
6.50
spacerspacer
7.50
1tamron28-200f38-56di.jpg


Keywords: Tamron Canon Nikon Minolta Pentax Wide Mid Tele Zoom 35mm Di


joe88

Registered: January 2014
Posts: 37
Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro AF review by joe88
Review Date: 1/3/2015 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $80.00| Rating: 10 

 
Pros: big zoom range and extremely sharp betwee 50 and 135mm
Cons: some CA's, sometimes visible

it is comprehensible that it is very difficult for a manufacturer of lenses to correct image mistakes of such a big zoom range.


Nevertheless the middle range is phantastic; the extremes of tele and wide angle are still very good, with some CA's. ok. But everybody has a good photo program, nowadays.


With Phsh 4 or 8 I can eliminate the CA's quickly by a hidden switch. And if I sharpem the extremes additionally, this lens allows me big posters up to 15x20" with a good cam.


very highly recommended by me.
cjbowlsby

Registered: November 2006
Posts: 17
Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR Di Aspherical IF Macro AF review by cjbowlsby
Review Date: 12/14/2006 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $180.00| Rating: 5 

 
Pros: size, range, weight, price
Cons: wide open performance is soft, 28mm on the wide end is restricting on a 1.6x crop

It's not bad for a 7x zoom that's REALLY cheap. But then... it's REALLY cheap. It's soft especially at the long end while wide open. If you stop it down to f8 to f11, it's acceptable.


If you really need the telephoto capability, the either of the most recent 70-300 tamrons are significantly better performers for a similar price. If you NEED the zoom range, I'd strongly suggest shelling out for the more expensive 18-200 or 28-300, both of which are far better performers, although they are nearly twice as expensive.


 






This document copyright © 2009-2015, SLRgear.com, all rights reserved.