Anybody used a Tamron 18-200

Squidgy Black

Just a quick question,

spotted this on pixmania, and was thinking it'd be an awesome lense to replace my kit 18-55 for my d3000, and a great walk-about lense
http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/532971/art/tamron/aspherical-if-macro-af-18.html
anybody used one of these or heard about them?

cheers,
stephen

Heebie

I do have a Tamron 70-200mm.. but it's an straight through f2.8.. and it's enormous & very much a pain to carry around.. but takes SUCH nice pictures! =D

Tamron makes decent lenses. I actually have a 70-300 F3.5-5.6 Tamron as well. I rarely use it since I got the f2.8, but I can't really complain about it.. it's just not as sharp or as fast as the other one. (but it's a lot more compact.. the only reason I keep it.. sometimes I don't want to carry the huge blunderbuss f2.8)

a 35mm prime f1.8 wouldn't be a bad thing though.

Squidgy Black

a 70-200 would be awesome, i'd love to get into birds and other nature shots, but you have to be 18 to enter the lotto :P

I think i might just go with the 35 prime, 200 quid just seems to cheap to pass up on a lense everyone's raving about

Thecageyone

If you can, double your money and get the VC version. Or the Nikon 18-200 VR.

personally I don't like those all in one lenses. They try to cram too much in, and it only ever affects IQ at either or both ends.

Keep the 18-55 and get Nikon's 55-200 VR, great little, light weight lens with VR, for very cheap. You'll have that 18-200mm range covered but with better quality. It really does only take a few seconds to switch lenses, the chances you'll miss a shot every time are very slim.

Squidgy Black

I might sell on my sigma 70-300 and pick up the 55-200, i reckon i'll be able to get my money back on the sigma, the 55-200 doesn't seem to go for more than 150 second hand

Thecageyone

There's one on adverts atm for €140 I think. Steal. if you can live without the longer end.

I had a Tamron 70-300 before, non VR/VC - It was alright, but above 200mm there was horrific purple fringing, making that long end useless. The 55-200 is pretty nifty, it's light as anything and so non-fussy to use, just like using a kit lens, but with that VR it is actually very handy for street/landscape etc. Just turn off the VR for anything above 1/250 as higher shutter speeds render VR useless and it'll just suck away battery for no reason.

Squidgy Black

I've got the APO macro version of the lense, and so far i haven't experienced much experience or fringing, just the manual focus at the longer lengths is too much effort to deem it's use.

I'm gonna need to pick up a bigger bag for all this bloody gear now, there's another thing to add onto the list, along with the flash the tripod and filters :rolleyes:

Thecageyone

All you ever need is 3 lenses max. Otherwise you're crossing over focal lengths and it gets messy. I have a 17-50mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 mostly used for portraits, and the 55-200 VR. Though I have been eyeing the Nikon 70-300 VR


I have an old manual 70-210 f/3.5 but it's not been used since I got the 55-200. Though it gets pulled out now and then for it's macro capabilities.

My bag isn't huge, it's tidy and fits the cam with 3 lenses plus flash, blower, batteries, filters ...

Squidgy Black

my bag's just a small shoulder bag, fits my body with the 18-55 fitted and the 70-300 beside it. it's dead easy to throw into a back pack or at a push a satchel bag so it does me fine for now :pac:

Thecageyone

It's all about comfort and accessibility with bags. I had a lowepro slingshot but didn't like it. Sold it on and bought a cheaper bag in the States that's more comfortable and fits more in.

All you're missing is the range between 55 - 70mm, maybe an 18-70mm would be better for you if you kept the 70-300, and get a 50mm or 35mm prime for that bit of better quality and low light/shallow DOF capability in between.

Heebie

I definitely don't agree.. I've got a host of lenses for different occaisons and purposes.

I've got a 10-20 aspherical, and a 10-17mm fisheye. They cross quite a bit.
I've got a 70-200 f 2.8, and a 70-300 f3.5-5.6. The 70-200 is a much better lens, but it's huge & heavy.. the 70-30 is much more convenient if I'm trying to travel light.
I also have a 30mm f1.4, a 50mm f1.4, and 135mm f2.8 Macro, and a 17-70mm f2.8-4.5, and a "Lensbaby" 3 with a bunch of little adapter gizmos. I also have a shift adapter, a tilt adapter, and 3 lenses to use with those.. Pentacon-6 mount 28mm, 50mm and 120mm f2.8 medium-format lenses.
(the 2nd & 3rd primes are actually for my Canon 35mm and I use them with yet another adapter.)

I actually do have a camera bag that will hold all of them, along with piles of accessories.. it weighs probably 30+ kilos full up... but there are times when I carry all of that if I'm in the mood to do any fancy shooting. It even has spots to strap on things like my tripods.

I also have 2 smaller camera bags.. so I can tailor my bag to just how much kit I want to be carrying at any given time.

If I'm traveling light, I generally carry the 10-20, the 17-70, and the 70-300.. and only 1 camera body and 1 flash and only the gorillapod for a tripod.

Thecageyone wrote: »

All you ever need is 3 lenses max. Otherwise you're crossing over focal lengths and it gets messy. I have a 17-50mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 mostly used for portraits, and the 55-200 VR. Though I have been eyeing the Nikon 70-300 VR


I have an old manual 70-210 f/3.5 but it's not been used since I got the 55-200. Though it gets pulled out now and then for it's macro capabilities.

My bag isn't huge, it's tidy and fits the cam with 3 lenses plus flash, blower, batteries, filters ...

Thecageyone

If that suits you, all good

I know I'd rather have less to look after and carry and if I could afford it 'd opt for 3-4 top of the range lenses that didn't cross over. I like simplicity. I'm not a hoarder or gear head, though I'm constantly after something, I prefer to get rid of something else before buying something new. If I do eventually get a 70-300 VR I'll want to get rid of the 55-200, but that might mean getting rid of the 17-50 for something like a 28-70 2.8. I cannot afford the likes of a 70-200 f/2.8 or I'd definitely have it!

Squidgy Black

i can't ever see myself using such a wide angle lense as the 10-20 unless i needed it for landscape or buildings, but even then is it not too wide?

apart from that, most of your lenses seem almost necessary todd :P

Thecageyone

Ah sure isn't it what you produce in the end with them that matters, not how many or how big they are or how much they arch your back

Squidgy Black

Thecageyone wrote: »

Ah sure isn't it what you produce in the end with them that matters, not how many or how big they are or how much they arch your back

Exactly sure old film photographers were never complaining about af tracking systems or vr systems in lenses :pac