 Posted 8/17/2008 5:03:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know much about the Tamron 28-300 lens? Its meant to be equiv of a Nikkor but 1/3 of price. I have heard that the Tamron 90mm is great and sharp for portraits, but I would like to buy a nice sharp lens preferably not more than $600 AUS... Any ideas? I"m buying either the Nikon D40x or D60
 http://www.dailyawards.com/myprofile.aspx?CID=520 When all else fails eat more chocolate 
|
|
|
Posted 8/17/2008 5:32:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Kyles (8/17/2008)
Does anyone know much about the Tamron 28-300 lens? Its meant to be equiv of a Nikkor but 1/3 of price. I have heard that the Tamron 90mm is great and sharp for portraits, but I would like to buy a nice sharp lens preferably not more than $600 AUS... Any ideas? I"m buying either the Nikon D40x or D60
Ok, lets start at the beginning.... the owners of the Tamron factory are just as intent as those owning the Nikon factory on getting rich, so there must be another reason for the price difference....
And that always comes (mainly) from the quality of materials used (up to 20% could be labor). While with a metal file it may reduce itself to the fact that you need to buy six cheap ones in the time you use up one expensive one, with optics we have many other considerations besides that.
I don't know if you remember the great flop the "pocket cameras" were? in principle it was a good idea, you reduce the film size and therefore the camera size. After all, Minox (those little "spy" cameras you see in old movies)had done that since the 1940s.
The problem here is, that the smaller the imagining surface (the film or CCD) the higher quality optics you need to achieve the same quality image. Because in the case of the pocket cameras not only the cameras were made out of plastic but so were the lenses and such were the resulting pictures... with one exception: the Pentax 110 SLR that made an acceptable quality if you did not blow the images up above 5x7"... and that one had good optics.
I told the whole story above so you get an understanding of how crucial for the quality of your images your lens will be.
Now, is a Nikon lens better than a Tamron lens? If we talk durability the definite answer is yes, the optical quality could be of dispute, both have their weakness.
see here
http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/tamron/35mm-zoom/PRD_142959_3128crx.aspx
In any case, a zoom with a tenfold amplification has several optical issues that need to be worked around, a pair 28-80 and 80-300 will probably give a better result.
If you have a problem with reality, quit taking photos and take up painting
|
|
|
Posted 8/22/2008 8:15:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted 8/23/2008 2:03:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Jorge (8/22/2008)
What about Sigma?
depends on the model, but optically most are great.
If you have a problem with reality, quit taking photos and take up painting
|
|
|
|
