Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:18 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

Hi everyone. I need help. I need to decide on a telephoto lens for my new K100D before Christmas (this will be my wife and son's gift to me). The cost needs to be $200 or less, which I already know isn't going to give me a great lens, but I'm sure I'll be more than happy with what I get. After seeing and playing around with a few lenses, I have decided that I definitely want the long end of the zoom to be 300mm. I just really love that "reach".

Two lenses which seem to fit my price range andmy 300mm requirement are both made by Tamron. Here are the candidates:

Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro. It's available for around $130. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...amp;sku=231638

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR LD Aspherical IF Macro. It'sright at my $200 limit. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

I'm new at this and I don't know much about lenses. So far I only have the 18-55mm kit lens which came with my K100D. To me, I see the obvious advantage of the wider range (both in focal length and f/stop) on the 28-300 lens. I also like the fact that it's smaller and lighter than the 75-300mm lens. I guess my main questionsis; Is it really worth the 77% higher price? Besides the price and size difference, is there a quality difference? Will one be any clearer? I really need some advice. Thanks.



gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 18, 2006, 9:54 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
ccallana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 130
Default

I don't have either lens - but typically the long the range the lens has to cover, the lower quality it is. This isn't always true of course, but in general.

I would also look at the fact that @ 300mm, on is f/5.6 and the other is 6.3 - depending on what you are shooting, this could make a difference.

I've heard great things about Sigma's70-300 as well - might consider that.


ccallana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 11:08 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

Thanks for the input. Like I said earlier, I don't expect a 300mm lens for $200 to be spectacular quality, but I'm sure it'll work for me. I'm just trying to decide between my two choices and also if the one is worth the extra $70.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 11:30 AM   #4
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

I don't have the 28-300mm, but I do have the 28-200mm XR.

I used it during my entire trip to Turkey and it served very well.

If you buy it new the zoom ring will be a little stiff at first, but don't worry, it'll loosen a little after some use.

Colors seem to be a little less saturated (could be my cheap UV filter too though).

Of course it's not as sharp as a prime, and barrel distortion is noticable, but for the shots I took, not that big of an issue...


Good value if you can get one for a price between 100 and 200$

TDN
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 11:50 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
wadue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 914
Default

I'm not familar with the 28-300 but I do have the 75-300mm & have had good luck with it but truthfully I (in my very amateur status) cannot tell much of a difference between that & my Promaster of the same features. I think if you have the time, you may want to surf on Ebay to find the same lens or better quality for less $. BTW, I picked up the tamron with a pentax zx-7 (film) for $125 about 17 months ago. So, the bargains are out there if you have the time. I noticed that both lenses that you're interested are macro so I thought I would post an example of what the lens can do. This is a lotus taken at the Missouri Botanical Garden in late June.

Good Luck with your purchase!

Ron


Attached Images
 
wadue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 12:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

wadue wrote:
Quote:
...I thought I would post an example of what the lens can do. This is a lotus taken at the Missouri Botanical Garden in late June.

Good Luck with your purchase!

Ron
Nice shot! That looks great. I have a feeling that if I were to get the 75-300mm, I would be perfectly happy with it and I will have saved $70. I just like the idea of having the smaller 28-300mm lens to carry. I also noticed that the 75-300 didn't say anything about having any aspherical elements, but the 28-300mm does. I don't know about camera lenses, but I've had rifle scopes with aspherical lenses and they make a BIG difference in brightness and clarity. Especially out at the edges.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2006, 10:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

Seeing as you have the kit lens, I would recommend the 75-300 for a 2nd lens. I believe it also has a 1:2 macro ratio, which is quite useful.....cheers.....Don.
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 7:56 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

thekman620 wrote:
Quote:
Seeing as you have the kit lens, I would recommend the 75-300 for a 2nd lens. I believe it also has a 1:2 macro ratio, which is quite useful.....cheers.....Don.
With the two given ranges (28-300 & 75-300) I was thinking it would be nice to have a little over-lap instead of a gap.My kit lens is 18-55mm. If I get the 75-300, I will not have alens that coversfrom 55mm to 75mm. I don't know if that will matter; it's just something I noticed.

On paper, the 28-300mm seems like the better lens. It seems to have better glass and be smaller and lighter. I'm just not sure it will be worth an extra $70 over the 75-300mm.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 11:16 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
thekman620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,084
Default

I was thinking the macro addition on the 75-300 would be a good feature to have. I don't think you'd miss those 20mm too much, and if it was critical to have it, you could always do a small crop to make up the difference. Check out some of the other forums and do a search on them for 28-300 lenses, and see what you come up with. That could help..cheers....Don.


gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
thekman620 wrote:
Quote:
Seeing as you have the kit lens, I would recommend the 75-300 for a 2nd lens. I believe it also has a 1:2 macro ratio, which is quite useful.....cheers.....Don.
With the two given ranges (28-300 & 75-300) I was thinking it would be nice to have a little over-lap instead of a gap.My kit lens is 18-55mm. If I get the 75-300, I will not have alens that coversfrom 55mm to 75mm. I don't know if that will matter; it's just something I noticed.

On paper, the 28-300mm seems like the better lens. It seems to have better glass and be smaller and lighter. I'm just not sure it will be worth an extra $70 over the 75-300mm.
thekman620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2006, 7:57 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I would recommend the Tamron 70-300mm, F4-5.6, Macro. Does Macro to 1/2 ratio, which I understand the 75-300mm will not do. Photo of Everglades Snail Kite taken yesterday with Tokina 70-300mm.

Ed
Attached Images
 
  Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:35 AM.