Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 87489] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/%5Brecovered-thread-87489%5D-85393/)

mtclimber Apr 1, 2006 8:49 PM

Today we have a choice of three excellent lenses. Naturally the recently introduced Nikkor 18-200mm VRII Lens has received the Lion's share of the publicity lately, as the Tamron and Sigma models were both introduced well prior to the Nikkor's introduction.

I think it would be fair to say that we are now at a juncture where there are enough lenses in actual day to day use, that itseems to be a goodtime to get somereal time feedback from folks out there using these lenses.

Understandably, each brand most probably has its own supporters. But how about some everyday, working details with these lenses. We will really appreciate yourcomments. For example, I have found the Olympus Zukio 50-200mm lens to be a great lens, but just bigger than I really want to deal with as a so called, "walkaround lens."

Will the Nikkor, the Sigma, or the Tamron be more likely to fill that role for me? I need something more compact and shortlike the Nikkor 24-120mm VR lens. I truly believe that I am attempting to voice some of the feelings felt by many of who would like a single, work every day kind of, "walk around" lens that would put to rest those perilous dust/grit problems of switching lenses while in the field.

So please tell us your experiences. Surely there is a wide diversity in price between these lenses. A Nikkor 18-200mm VRII just sold on E-Bay for nearly $(US) 1,000, while the Tamron is selling for around $(US) 325, and the Sigma is selling for around $(US) 315. Is that spread within the price range justified?

We all will look forward to your replies. Thanks in advance for sharing with all of us.

MT

big_potato Apr 3, 2006 12:14 PM

Do Sigma & Tamron have any plans to make VR or equivalent lenses for Nikon?

Or is the VR a proprietary or patented by Nikon itself already?

JimC Apr 3, 2006 2:10 PM

big_potato wrote:
Quote:

Do Sigma & Tamron have any plans to make VR or equivalent lenses for Nikon?
Canon designates their stabilized lenses with IS (for Image Stabilization), Nikon calls theirs VR (Vibration Reduction), and Sigma calls theirs OS (Optical Stabilization).

Sigma has one lens with OS (Optical Stabilization) now, which is their version of Nikon's VR. It's an 80-400mm lens.

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/le...mp;navigator=3

You'd have to ask Sigma about their future plans (but, they're unlikely to tell you anything).

Tamron does not have any lenses using similar technology yet.



SilentBob Apr 9, 2006 12:56 PM

All I can tell you is that I was originally debating between an ultrazoom camera and getting a Canon Digital Rebel with either the Sigma or Tamron 18-200 lens. I found a lot of shortcomings with the ultrazoom cameras, however, the majority of the user reviews that I looked at, people were in general not happy with the Sigma or Tamron lenses. In addition to slow AF times, and a frustrating tendancy to hunt for focus, it also came to light from several sources that the lenses actually only actually zoom to around 160mm vs. the advertised 200mm..

After finding all of this and then finding almost total satisfaction with the nikon lens, I decided to get the D50 instead of the Canon strictly because of the availability of a good 18-200 lens.

I was going to get the canon just because I have friends with canons and figured that we would be able to share lenses....

JimC Apr 9, 2006 3:10 PM

SilentBob wrote:
Quote:

In addition to slow AF times, and a frustrating tendancy to hunt for focus, it also came to light from several sources that the lenses actually only actually zoom to around 160mm vs. the advertised 200mm..
Tell your "sources" to check again, with the lenses focused to infinity. :-)

If you focus on something closer, it's not uncommon to see a wider angle of view than you should have with many lenses, since the focal length can change with focus point, especially in some of the newer compact lens designs.

So, when someone compares lenses and notices one appears to be wider than another at the same focal length settings, this kind of information gets spread around the forums.

If you focus on something further away, the focal length will be very close to what is advertised.


mtclimber Apr 9, 2006 9:57 PM

Of the two 18-200mm 3rd party lenses in the market, the Sigma 18-200mm lens seems to get the nod ahead of the Tamron 18-200mm lens. Unfortunately, the Nikkor 18-200mm VRII, while a great lens, is just too darned expensive for my blood/and pocket book.

Has any one used these (Sigma or Tamron) Lens? Please share with us your experiences won't you.

MT

wtparilla Apr 11, 2006 10:44 PM

Does anyone know where to find the nikon vr dx in stock? I have decided to make the plunge.

JimC Apr 11, 2006 10:57 PM

wtparilla wrote:
Quote:

Does anyone know where to find the nikon vr dx in stock? I have decided to make the plunge.
Best Buy and Circuit City (850ish at both).

If you're not in a hurry, you can probably save a hundred bucks or so if you wait for more vendors to get them in (most will be getting $749 for it).





big_potato Apr 12, 2006 3:59 AM

In additon to the lower cost of Tamron compared with Nikkor VRII, it's also lighter:

398g vs 560g.

Together with my 600g D50, it's just under 1kg - a semi P&S DSLR for me.



mtclimber Apr 12, 2006 10:01 AM

Big Potato-

So I am assuming that your chased the Tamron 18-200mm lens. Did you consider the Sigma 18-200mm? And what have your images been like. The Tamron 18-200mmis suppossed to have a bit more reach than the Sigma 18-200mm. Thanks for the input.

MT

big_potato Apr 12, 2006 10:09 AM

Sorry, in fact, I am "using" Tamron 18-200mm already (borrowed from my brother for indefinite period).

My comments comparing with Nikkor were purely based on paper specs.

I really have NO experience with Sigma.

But I did read some reviews comparing Tamron vs Sigma in magazines.

In general, they said Sigma has higher resolution at the tele-end. But the aperture is narrower also at that end (by 1 f-stop ???). And Sigma is yellow-biased vs Tamron is blue-biased, and therefore they said Sigma may be more natural for human portrait (especially for we Chinese, the "yellow" people :) ) )

kassandro Apr 12, 2006 3:18 PM

JimC wrote:
Quote:

SilentBob wrote:
Quote:

In addition to slow AF times, and a frustrating tendancy to hunt for focus, it also came to light from several sources that the lenses actually only actually zoom to around 160mm vs. the advertised 200mm..
Tell your "sources" to check again, with the lenses focused to infinity. :-)

If you focus on something closer, it's not uncommon to see a wider angle of view than you should have with many lenses, since the focal length can change with focus point, especially in some of the newer compact lens designs.

So, when someone compares lenses and notices one appears to be wider than another at the same focal length settings, this kind of information gets spread around the forums.

If you focus on something further away, the focal length will be very close to what is advertised.

For all lenses the focal length changes somewhat, when the focus changes. However, for lenses with internal focusing this phenomenon ismuch stronger than with a more traditional lense design. On the other hand with internal focusing you can use flower shaped lense hoodsfor better protection against flare. Also it is much easier to use a pol filter. Finally the autofocus of a lense with internal focusing is usually faster than that of a similar lense with a traditional design.

zygh Apr 14, 2006 6:05 PM

Well, my choice was Sigma 18-200. I also got 3 macro add-on lenses and a Hama UV filter.

mtclimber Apr 14, 2006 10:59 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Zygh-

Congratulations on the Sigma 18-200mm lens. Following up on our previous exchange concerning the Tamron 28-300mm XD Di lens. The lens arrived today and here is the first shot.

MT

zygh Apr 15, 2006 3:23 AM

thanks, mtclimber. congratulations on your tamron 28-300, as well. i decided on the sigma 18-200 thinking that i needed wide more than tele and that 450mm (35mm eguiv.) on the tamron/sigma 28-300 was going to result in shaky pictures without vibration reduction and/or in low light conditions.

can you post pictures in low light condition without blitz and, if possible, both at 28 and at 300? thanks.

cheers!

mtclimber Apr 16, 2006 5:28 PM

Zygh-

It raining here today so these were taken inside. The first image is the Tamron 28-300mm XR Di at 28mm. The exposure is 1/80 at F 6.3 and the image is cropped to 100%. The second image is the Tamron 28-300mm at 300mm. The exposure is 1/25 at F 6.3 and the image is cropped 100%. The third image is made with the Sigma 30mm F 1.4. The exposure, with fill flash, was 1/500 at F 4.0 and the image was cropped 100%.

MT

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...041606D-50.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...041606D-50.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...0mm100crop.jpg

mtclimber Apr 18, 2006 1:27 PM

Zygh-

I received delivery on my Tamron 18-200 XR Di II lens this morning. So far it looks excellent, quite like the 28-300 XD Di. Here are two sample photos taken from the same position. The first is taken at the 18mm setting and the second at the 200mm setting. This could be an ideal walk around lens offering both a creditable wide angle setting and a moderate zoom.

MT

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...411806D-50.jpg

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e2...411806D-50.jpg

zygh Apr 18, 2006 3:34 PM

mtclimber, why would you get both the tamron 18-200AND the 28-300? :?

i personally went for the sigma 18-200 both because of my limited budgetand my previous addiction from the fz30 of havingwide and tele in the same lens.

i don't know what to say but if i were you i would have got a 100-400 in the place of the 28-300. but that's just me.

anyway, lately i've been looking at the panny lc1 and came to the conclusion that that was/is an absolutely beautiful camera. i'm sorta hoping that the new l1 won't cost so much. mimicking the design of the lc1, the l1 is also a gorgeous camera. speaking of my tastes only, that's the way i'd like to see an dslr look. :roll:

mtclimber Apr 18, 2006 4:03 PM

1 Attachment(s)
zygh-

You are correct that there is some overlap in the two lenses. If the Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II lens proves to be a true walk around lens, I will sell the 28-300mm XR Di. Here is another sample from the Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II lens at 200mm taken through a window.

MT

mtclimber Apr 18, 2006 6:16 PM

1 Attachment(s)
zygh-

Here is another Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II sample for you. It is also at 200mm and taken through a windows.

MT

mtclimber Apr 18, 2006 11:57 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Zygh-

Purely as an experiment, when I was picking up a prescription this afternoon, I took this existing light photo of my friend Deanwith my Nikon D-50 equipped withmy Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II lens. The lighting was terrible because it was all overhead flourescent lighting. The exposuure was 1/200th at F 7.1 with the ISO set to 1600.

MT


zygh Apr 19, 2006 3:39 AM

not bad, mtclimber. the tamron's not a bad lens. i can hardly wait for my sigma to arrive. then i'll post some pics too. :G

tommysdad Apr 19, 2006 4:07 PM

Thats an impressive low light shot MT.I have been following this thread and have found it very helpful.

Can anyone verify that the Tamron 18-200 has more reach than the Sigma 18-200

Thanks

TD

mtclimber Apr 19, 2006 4:37 PM

TD-

I don't own the Sigma 18-200mm lens. Zygh is waiting for delivery of his Sigma so perhaps he can offer some insight on the Sigma 18-200mm lens.

In using the Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II lens I feel that it gives me a full 200mm after comparing its performance to the Nikkor 55-200mm lens.

MT

tommysdad Apr 19, 2006 4:59 PM

Thanks for the quickreply MT.I`m swaying towards the Tamron on the strength of your test shots.My used Tamron 28-200 feels like its going to fall apart sometime soon.I definately need a replacementand I have the money for the Tamron 18-200at the present UK price of £250.My 12-24 will have to wait.

Thanks again

TD

mtclimber Apr 19, 2006 5:17 PM

1 Attachment(s)
TD-

I think that you will be very pleased with the Tamron 18-200mm XR Di II lens. I know that I am. Here is is another sample from that lens.

MT

tommysdad Apr 19, 2006 7:45 PM

Thanks MT ,thats nice and sharp at the 200mm.Its good that I can see comparison shots to help me make a choice.Thank you for posting all the test shots.

TD

Mare Apr 24, 2006 2:29 PM

Nice shots, MT. Love the birds. That Tamron looks like a sweet deal!

mare

mtclimber Apr 25, 2006 12:09 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Mare-

Yes, I am pleased with the Tamron 18-200mm lens on my D-50. It is a nice all in one lens solution. Here is another sample using the wide angle portion of the lens with a bit of exposure compensation.

MT

zygh Apr 25, 2006 1:50 PM

Uuuh, nice one, mtclimber!

What shutter speed and aperture did you use to take this photo?

My Sigma 18-200 is on the way. I can't wait to start posting some shots with it! :D

mtclimber Apr 25, 2006 2:34 PM

Zygh-

The shot was done at 1/80th at f 4.5 using -0.7 exposure compensation on my D-50.

MT

chhetri_inside Apr 25, 2006 11:00 PM

hi mtclimber ... in the range of 28-200 how did you find tamron 18-200 Vs tamron 28-300 as far as optical quality goes.

mtclimber Apr 26, 2006 8:24 AM

The Tamron 18-200mm XD Di Seems to have less lens flare and it is a bit sharper than the 28-300mm XR Di.

MT

Mare Apr 26, 2006 8:34 AM

mt - your pix using the tamron makes me wonder why i spent $769 on the nikon! wishing that my impulse buying wouldn't get the best of me!

be of good cheer!

mare

mtclimber Apr 26, 2006 10:31 AM

Mare-

Thanks for the good cheer. I too, looked at the Nikkor 18-200mm VR II with a lot of lens lust. Then I decided to bite the bullet and to go for the Tamron 18-200 XR Di after seeing how it performed on my brother's D-70.

Please don't feel badly.

MT

djkostya Apr 27, 2006 4:18 PM

Guys, what about real focal Length?

Is the Tamron 18-200 made for 35mm cameras or just for digital series? And for D50 it becomes 27-300 or doesn't?

And look what I don't understand.

Tamron AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical Camera Lens

http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/s...305421377.html

and

Tamron XR Di-II 18-200 mm Macro Lens

http://www.bizrate.com/marketplace/s...353498555.html

It looks like different modifications. But maybe it is a glitch?

Please, help me deal with this, because I'm really stuck in it.
Thanks.

rey Apr 27, 2006 6:04 PM

I'm pretty sure this two are the same.

According to Tamron's Website, the Di-II is Digital only. And yes, you have to multiply it by 1.5 to get it's 35mm equivalence.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/default.asp



tommysdad Apr 27, 2006 6:36 PM

Thanks for the link Rey, In all my research into the 18-200 , I forgot to look on the Tamron site :?.

Ordered, despatched ,hopefully will arrive before the weekend :D



TD

Mare Apr 27, 2006 9:00 PM

djk...

the first link is for the Nikon mount - The second link is for pentax mount.

same lens.

I only noticed it when checking for prices.



mare

Quikster Apr 28, 2006 9:33 AM

After doing some research I've noticed that I can go 1 of 3 ways for about the same price (~950.00).

1) I could buy the Camera body + a seperate Tamron 18-200mm lens

or

2) I could get a Camera body + Nikon 18-70mm & Nikon 55-200mm

or

3) I could buy the Camera body + a seperate Sigma 18-200mm lens

Since they cost about the same which combination would give me the best pictures. Or is there another combination for about the same price that would be even better?



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:58 AM.