Team-BHP - The Digital Camera Thread: Questions, discussions, etc.

Dear experts

Any feedback on the Tamron 18-250 F/3.5-6.3 (Nikon mount)? Some reviews say it is not meant for Full Frame DSLRs - why is that and is the impact great enough? There's one from the office that's been put up for sale at a rather cheap rate after our cameraman moved from a D70 to the D3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai (Post 871684)

Any Superzoom is just bad news, but camera makers make them because people will buy anything with a big zoom. People who know photography go the other way, wide angle is way more useful than zoom.

That is why I won't consider any P&S which doesn't have at least 28mm wide lens. The Lumix FX35 interests me because of 25mm wide.

Samurai, The nikon P80 has 27mm wide angle. I don't think a DSLR is the way to go for me as I plan to get a camera first just to start off and see if it interests me. After that will see if it interests me then maybe go for an entry level DSLR.

I wanted to try full manual to experiment as much as possible. These super zooms are the only ones which have full manual control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by s0uljah (Post 875832)

Viddy what kind of problems have been reported?

Got a good deal for this at around 14000/- planning to pick it up for my brother.

Mainly lens motor issue. One guy had a motor problem and the other guy had some lens issue and he was told to pay some amount and exchange for a new piece as it was out of warranty but it was a known defect and Canon was replacing the cameras.

Quote:

Steeroid

: Any feedback on the Tamron 18-250 F/3.5-6.3 (Nikon mount)? Some reviews say it is not meant for Full Frame DSLRs - why is that and is the impact great enough?

Apart from expert reviews, four reasons that would keep me away from this one :

the glass - I would prefer Nikkor over a Tamrom for my Nikon's.
18-250 : The lens is stretching it's reach in both directions. While the coverage may look good on paper, I doubt a lens will be good through out it's range, esp a range as wide as this one. I would rather have a good super-wide and a good tele.
Aperture - widest is only 3.5.
No VR. Unless your camera body has it.

And, a camera man is giving up on that lens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk1979 (Post 880925)

I would take cameralabs reviews with a bucketload of salt.

I don't share that opinion, they are pretty detailed and unbiased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk1979 (Post 880925)

dpreview is a better site.

If it ain't Canon/Nikon, by the time dpreview reviews, it will get obsolete. After lots of badgering from Olympus fans, now they are giving faster reviews to Olympus cams too. Still, they always give hard time to Olympus cameras. Despite that, Olympus dSLR always make it highly recommended list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk1979 (Post 880925)

That said, A200 is indeed a "not so good" camera, but I won't call it a sorry little camera

When you are looking for dSLR, "not so good" doesn't cut it. Taking dpreview as reference, any dSLR camera that doesn't get dpreview's Highly Recommended stamp should be avoided. This standard can be relaxed in P&S cameras though. BTW, Sony A-350 didn't make it to HR list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeroid (Post 880998)

There are many happy owners of this lens. Like @condor pointed out,it may not be that successful on Nikon mounts because of lack of in-body IS. Most of the owners say it is one step ahead of the typical 18-200 zooms in terms of image quality. The same lens sells as pentax da 18-250 and sony 18-250. Quite popular in pentax forums atleast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeroid (Post 880998)

Dont worry about the full frame aspects. This is a lens specifically designed for cropped sensor DSLR's. Similar lenses by nikon are branded DX and those by canon are branded EF-S. unless you plan to invest in the $5000 D3 or the anticipated full frame D700 (expected price around $3000), dont bother with the fact that its not a full frame lens

however, there are a couple of things to bear in mind-
superzoom's tend to have a poorer image quality than separate smaller range zooms in the same focal length.
you will really miss VR at the long end of this lens, especially given the small f-stop at the long end. also f 6.3 might give you AF problems (check user reviews online to see if people have had problems with this)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaibir (Post 881106)

unless you plan to invest in the $5000 D3 or the anticipated full frame D700 (expected price around $3000), dont bother with the fact that its not a full frame lens

however, there are a couple of things to bear in mind-
superzoom's tend to have a poorer image quality than separate smaller range zooms in

I thought the D300 also had a full frame sensor?

This lens is being considered for versatility and not quality - I hope to be able to sell my nikkor 18-200 if I get this one as the nikkor gives soft-ish images.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeroid (Post 881119)

This lens is being considered for versatility and not quality - I hope to be able to sell my nikkor 18-200 if I get this one as the nikkor gives soft-ish images.

I'm not sure you can expect better IQ from the Tamron than the Nikkor. I'd suggest testing the lens if possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai (Post 880921)

Advait, if a deal is too good to be true...

The catch is A200, it is a sorry little camera, don't start your dSLR initiation with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk1979 (Post 880925)

I would take cameralabs reviews with a bucketload of salt.
dpreview is a better site.
That said, A200 is indeed a "not so good" camera, but I won't call it a sorry little camera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai (Post 881063)

When you are looking for dSLR, "not so good" doesn't cut it.

Thanks for your inputs guys! :thumbs up
I've gone through the reviews from most of these known reviewers - dpreview, cameralabs, steves, etc. etc.
I'm going to shop around at B&H & Willoughbys this weekend and see whats what.

Finally added two new lenses to my gear list.

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD

The 17-50 f2.8 is my new standar lens, really good colors and sharpness,
and with f2.8 you can really use it indoors with good results. A really good buy, It is well built and surprisingly light and compact.
The real charm of this lens is the fast F2.8 throughout the zoom range.

Tamron SP Autofocus 90mm f/2.8 DI 1:1 Macro

My first macro lens, and I am very pleased with it. It is well-made, light,
and the optics are sharp corner-to-corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellcat (Post 883448)

How much did they cost you?? and pls post a couple of the snaps taken with these lenses

A query here. Why did you choose 17-50 over 28-75. Both are 2.8 through out the range and 28-75 fits better with 70-200 range. Is it because you wanted to better on the Wider aspect?

I asked because I am looking to fit on these two lens in my repertoire. It would help me if I know how would you cover 50-70 range action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellcat (Post 883448)