Tam 90mm vs 28-300mm 3.5/6.3 for zoom capability

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/26/2006 08:56:08 PM · #1

I love my Tamron 90mm macro lens for my d50. I paid about $516. I took some pictures from the nosebleed seats in a huge sports arena. The photos did not look great while on the camera, yet I was able to zoom in through on my photo software. I was able to make out individual faces. So, I was wondering if I purchased the 28-300mm 3.5/6.3 , would I have clearer telephoto shots?($360-400) I am somewhat of a novice, however I can work a software program pretty well to get a nice photo. I do this for fun, not business. Any thoughts? Well appreciated.

Message edited by author 2006-06-26 20:57:10.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

06/26/2006 09:05:49 PM · #2

I previously had the Tamron AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon. It was a good walk around lens but soft on each end. I have several shots in my portfolio with that lens if you would like to take a look.
To me the best is the 28-75 f/2.8, It's fast! and Clean.

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

06/27/2006 07:55:30 AM · #3

Thank You. Now how does the 28-75 f/2.8 compare to the 90mm macro? What do you mean by soft on each end? I would still welcome a reply from my original posting.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

06/27/2006 08:03:53 AM · #4

The 28-75 is a great lens, very sharp; I haven't used the 90mm, so I don't know how they compare exactly. Prime lenses tend to be a bit faster and often are very sharp themselves. However, 90mm is significantly longer than 75mm, so I don't think the 28-75 is what you're looking for, judging from your original post.

The 28-300 you are talking about is going to have a few drawbacks, which you will have to decide if you can live with. First, because it covers such a huge range, it will tend to be soft at both ends, as Southern Gentleman mentioned. This means that it just won't be as sharp - compared to your 90, you will likely notice the difference. Second, it will be a slower lens, because of the f/3.5-6.3 setting. This means that if you're shooting in low light, you're gonna' have slower shutter speeds, and are far more prone to blurry photos.

All that said, if you're just a sports fan shooting for your own fun, and attend mostly day games, this is probably a relativly cheap lens and not a bad next step for you. However, if you're looking for real performance, then you'll want to check out some fast, pro-level glass - something like the 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8.

Hope this helps!

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/27/2006 08:09:13 AM · #5

Personally, I would think getting a decent shot at the long end of the Sigman 28-300 (say 250mm) would be easier to work with than trying to crop down your shots from the Tamron 90mm - better quality image to start with. Of course, that's just in theory. I'm still a novice myself. ;^)

As for the "soft on each end"...from what I've read a telephoto/zoom lens will not perform as well at the extreme ends of it's capability (i.e. 28mm and 300mm in your example). This has something to do with the number of lens elements needed to produce the wider focal range. Soft meaning the image isn't as sharp or focused. The sharp range may be something in-between, say 40mm to 270mm. Again, I'm just throwing out what I've read. I have a Tamron 90mm macro and I've found that it does take sharper images overall than the Sigma 70-300 I have.

Hang in there. I'm sure you'll be hearing from some DPCr's more knowledgeable on the subject quite soon. ;^)

edit to add: See? ;^) I took WAY too long to type up that response.

Message edited by author 2006-06-27 08:10:42.

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/27/2006 08:26:09 AM · #6

I have the 28-300 and wasn't happy with it at all but if you in Toronto then your more then welcome to come and try it so you can see for yourself.

Prof_Fate

06/27/2006 08:52:45 AM · #7

the 28-300 is an all in one consumer grade lens and not known for good optics.

the sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO Super macro is a very good zoom lens for the price, $200 or so. It is sharp all the way out. It would be a better choice than the 28-300 optically/picture quality and less costly too.

You didn't say what camera you have - canon/nikon/other. So I don't know what OEM lens to recomend.

Canon's 300 f4 IS lens is very good and can be had for $900ish. The 70-200 f4 is good, but lacks the reach you might need at a ball game - a 1.4x teleconverter will help somewhat, but you'll probably be upto $700 at this point, and the 300 is a prime so it's gonna be sharper, is a stop faster or same speed w/ 1.4TC and longer, and has IS.

colyla

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

06/27/2006 10:18:29 AM · #8

I have the tamron 28-300....it was my first lens that I bought after the kit lens. Is it spectacular and sharp? No....is it good for walking around and taking snapshot of your family outings and such? Yes.

So if you're looking for that extra long lens for sports you will want something definitely sharp. You can pick up the 70-200L lens used for around $500 on fredmiranda.com ... that's where I got mine. However...if you're really wanting a 28-300 tamron...holler, because I'll sell you mine! :)

Edit to Add: brainfart...you're nikon, I'm canon :/

Message edited by author 2006-06-27 10:19:17.

Prof_Fate

06/27/2006 10:52:22 AM · #9

Originally posted by colyla:

Edit to Add: brainfart...you're nikon, I'm canon :/

ductape, and some of that silver gum wrapper paper.
Works for Macguyver!

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

06/27/2006 03:29:24 PM · #10

Original poster here: thanks to all of you for responding. Now, I have a lot more research to do. I have a Nikon D50. It came with a 18-55 and a 55-200. I still feel that the the zoom capability on the 55-200 is not there; I am not truly happy. But, I heard about the Tamron 90mm and bought it--I am SO pleased w/ the quality of my shots--which are family, friends and sporting events. The quality is much better than the 18-55 for close up. I would like to be able to take better sports shots from a longer distance--the Tamron 90mm zoom is my two feet. I would like to not have to move to get a great telephoto shot. So, any more ideas? I would prefer not to buy my lens from Nikon because the cost is greater for a product I am not sure is better now that I have seen what a Tamron can do.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

06/27/2006 03:34:39 PM · #11

The easy step looks like a Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm. It has the cons previously mentioned, but either brand has decent reviews and is effective if you can live with it's limitations. Short of some pricy, big-time glass, it's really your only option beyond the 200mm mark. The quality won't match your 90mm, but it won't be awful by any means - you'll just notice the difference.

If you want to maintain that higher level of sharpness, speed, etc., then you're going to have to look at "pro-level" glass. I'm not sure what Tamron/Sigma offer in this field, but I know Canon has 300mm and 400mm lenses, so I'm sure Nikon must offer their version, too.

You might want to look at the "Bigma", Sigma's 500mm lens - some folks around here have it and seem to enjoy it, and it certainly has the reach you want.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/27/2006 03:47:38 PM · #12

Nikon makes excellent lenses. Their quality is just as good, if not better than, that of Tamron or Sigma. Although the Sigma 50-500mm ("Bigma") is a great lens, it won't fit your $360-$400 budget as it goes for just under $1000. You won't find very much, if anything, for long lenses in that price range that are as fast and/or as sharp as the pro level lenses. By the way, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but the way to distinguish between pro and not pro lenses from different manufacturers is the labels they add onto the lens names:

Tamron: SP
Sigma: EX
Canon: L
Nikon: not sure, anyone want to fill in on this?

If you want to push your budget further, definitely look into the Sigma 50-500mm ($1000) and maybe even the Nikon 18-200mm VR (about $750 if you can find one). Nikon also has a 300mm lens, it's a prime lens too, for about $1000.

Good luck!

06/27/2006 03:55:06 PM · #13

angela, if you click on my home and then my preferences you can add your camera and lenses to your account here. Then you won't have to walk around with a vote only tag :-)

06/27/2006 04:07:25 PM · #14

Question : do the additional letters mean pro or not pro lenses?

thanks

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

06/27/2006 04:10:33 PM · #15

the letters mean what line the lenses are in. Generally there are different classes of lens in each manufacture camp. The ones listed up there are the top of the line for each manufacture listed.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

06/27/2006 04:11:50 PM · #16

SamDoe listed the "pro" designators for several brands.

The other additional letters mean a whole variety of things. I don't know them all, but often the item description (if you're viewing the items at a store, like [url=//www.bhphotovideo.com]B&H[/url) will tell you what they stand for.

For example, I know that LD stands for "low-dispertion" glass, I think in Tamron. All brands have different letters that often mean the same thing. Like I said before, read the description of the item, it usually spells out what the letters mean.

06/27/2006 04:19:54 PM · #17

I went on the Sigma sight. The Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO SUper Macro goes for $300. Not bad; but, am I getting anything more than I have with my tamron 90mm for taking longer distance shots?

06/27/2006 04:21:29 PM · #18

Originally posted by angela61:

I went on the Sigma sight. The Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO SUper Macro goes for $300. Not bad; but, am I getting anything more than I have with my tamron 90mm for taking longer distance shots?

Well at 300mm vs 90mm you'll be getting almost 4x the "zoom" you're getting now.

Message edited by author 2006-06-27 16:21:54.

06/27/2006 04:28:31 PM · #19

will I sacrifice quality?

06/27/2006 04:30:55 PM · #20

Well you'll have more quality to start with if you fill the frame more with the lens instead of with cropping. But the images won't be nearly as sharp as the 90mm as it's a magnificent lens and a prime lens at that. This zoom won't compare very well at 90mm to the tamron.

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

06/28/2006 08:42:44 AM · #21

TY, everyone. After speaking w/ a person from B&H, I went with the Nikon 70-300.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

06/28/2006 08:52:27 AM · #22

Originally posted by angela61:

TY, everyone. After speaking w/ a person from B&H, I went with the Nikon 70-300.

Originally posted by angela61:

... I would prefer not to buy my lens from Nikon because the cost is greater for a product I am not sure is better now that I have seen what a Tamron can do.

B&H have some good sales personnel. ;^)

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

06/28/2006 03:24:06 PM · #23

Probably a dopey question, but does anyone know whether the TAMRON SP 90mm F/2.8(model SP 52 BB, think it's MF) is compatible with digital Canon SLR (rebel) ? I've checked Tamron's site and B&H and googled, and no soap.

Is there any systematic way to determine which film camera lenses are compatible with digital - or is it all on a case by case basis?