PDA

View Full Version : Tamron lenses.


Sipo
10-28-2006, 04:31 PM
For anyone who has ever used them before, how would you rate the quality, durability, etc of a Tamron lens?

staereo
10-28-2006, 06:51 PM
It has been my experience that you get what you pay for in lenses. There are exceptions, but that is a good general guideline. I have nothing against tamron OR sigma, however I stay in the canon line for my own personal reasons.

Is there a specific tamron lens you're considering?

skypirate
10-28-2006, 09:20 PM
I'll let you know when I get one that works right.

Sipo
10-29-2006, 01:49 AM
I figured I'd get as much. :) Good thing I don't have one, then.

Thanks. :P

Test Type
10-29-2006, 03:15 AM
I figured I'd get as much. :) Good thing I don't have one, then.

Thanks. :P

Tamron lenses are OK. Actually some of them are very, very good and in the USA they come with a six-year warranty.

The 28-75 f/2.8, the 17-50 f/2.8 and the 90mm f/2.8 Macro are all highly rated.

shiroin
10-29-2006, 04:31 AM
the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 has won many awards for its general quality.

first of all, it is about 1/4~1/5 the price of a nikon 28-70 or a canon 24-70 and cheaper than the sigma 24-70.
it is about 1/2 the weight of any other similar lenses (including sigma and tokina).
it has 67mm filter size, which is very reasonable compared to n/c's 72mm or sigma's ridiculous 82mm.
colorwise, n/c is likely better, some say the nikon generates a really unique color; the tamron itself is more saturated in the red and the sigma is more saturated in the yellow.
and likely a big concern, sharpness: needless to say, n/c has better sharpness, but the tamron is actually a VERY sharp lens if you stop it down to 3.2. (on a D2Xs)
also it is the most compact compared to similar lenses, but only concern is its plastic built, and does not have SWM (USM) or FTM.

so spend 4-5 times as much for a similar lens? i think not. tamron 28-75mm is my choice.

the 17-50 was just released recently, but i have been hearing good comments on its skintones and sharpness.

Oklahoma
10-29-2006, 04:44 AM
I cannot say for Tamron but I have used a couple of Sigma lenses before and to say the least I am in the process of replacing them currently. Many 3rd party lenses suffer from compatibility problems with cameras. This means that an older Sigma or Tamron may not work with a newer camera. An example is a Sigma that worked on a Canon 10D may not work on the new 30D. All (I believe) 3rd party lens manufacturers offer what is called rechipping for the lenses to update them to work on newer cameras but that is about the same as sending a Canon lens in for waranty work and can be a hassle (going through that now with canon but have had no problems) and takes time, which you don't always have. All of this is because 3rd party lens makers reverse engineer the signals that go to the lens and if it changes even slightly from one model to the next in bodies that lens will no longer work.

Now not everything is bad about 3rd party lenses. Some are said to be just as good as their canon or nikon counterparts.

Overall I would not say that it is worth it. If you spend the extra and get a lens from the company that made your camera body be it canon, nikon, olympus, or other manufacturer it is pretty much guaranteed that that lens will be sharper than the 3rd party lens and it is guaranteed that it will work on a different body if you ever choose to upgrade what you currently have.

There are pluses and minuses on both sides. I have talked to people that would never purchase a 3rd party lens again because of their experience with it and I have talked to people that would never trade their 3rd party lens. Overall the decision is yours on what to get.

skypirate
10-29-2006, 06:48 AM
I figured I'd get as much. :) Good thing I don't have one, then.

Thanks. :P

Well, both my Tamron and Sigma lenses show tremendous promise. Probably superior to my Canon lenses. However, neither has been a good 'out of the box' experience. In both cases, the first copies I bought had problems. The exchanged copies had different problems.

I've been having to work around their defects and I can say it's heartbreaking for both cosplayer and photographer to have a lens screw up an otherwise great shot.

So, I will be shipping both of them back to their manufacturers to see if they can repair them after the next con. If Tamron can fix the lens, then I've got a fantastic lens. If they can't, then a six year warranty is pretty worthless.

Meanwhile, my Canon lenses, although not spectacular, at least work correctly.

If you have the patience, time and energy to deal with random luck performance, a third party lens might pay off in the long run. Right now, I don't know.

staereo
10-29-2006, 07:25 AM
Canon has a few GREAT non L lenses, but in general, if you want to have your breath taken away, you find yourself buying a lenses with red rings on them.

Bruce
(Edit: thus the slang term 'L'coholic)

Sipo
10-29-2006, 11:22 AM
Wow, looks like mixed feelings on Sigma and Tamron. So, for now, I will stick the with manufactor lenses. I don't have the money to play russian roulette with lenses. (No matter how inexpensive.) Odds are I will pick one up out of curiosity sometime soon, but not today. :)

Thanks all!

Ryouko
10-29-2006, 03:17 PM
I've been working with a Tamron 18-200mm, F/3.5-6.5 lens this summer, and have had no problems with it. It's perfectly compatible with my Canon 30D, too.

Sipo
10-29-2006, 11:34 PM
Ryouko, funny you should name that lens: it's the exact one I was thinking about. I have a Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi) and was pondering how it'd work. :P

Guess I'll have to try one out one of these day.s :)

sting57
10-30-2006, 01:41 AM
Greetings,

My experience with Tamron and Sigma lenses was similar to Skypirate's. I've heard good things and have seen excellent sample images from Tamron's 28-75 and Sigma's 24-70 (which both cost about 1/3 of Canon's 24-70L). My copies; however, were pretty terrible. I could have sent it to the manufacturer for calibration I suppose, but I simply returned them. SInce I live in SoCal, I can drop my Canon lenses off for service at their Irvine location. Turn around time is usually about a week.

For the most part, I'm sticking with Canon lenses unless Canon doesn't offer a similar lens that I want/need. For example, Sigma will be releasing a 18-200mm with OS (Sigma's version of IS). That might be an interesting walk-around lens.

Sincerely,
Abb

shiroin
10-30-2006, 02:22 AM
seems like im the only advocate for tamron lenses areound here :p

well you know what?
a picture is worth more than a thousand words:
http://r-pai.com/temp/film_test3.jpg

http://r-pai.com/temp/film_test4.jpg

Nikon D2Xs + Tamron 28-75mm XR Di F/2.8D

staereo
10-30-2006, 05:41 AM
The tamron 18-200 seems to suffer from bad CA and not the best sharpness/focus that I've seen. Here is a thread comparing it to the sigma 18-200.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7524

In comparison, here are some images taken with the 28-135 canon:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=188563

Of course, the canon gives you USM, and IS, but at double the price, and a little less length of zoom.

Bruce

jtnishi
10-30-2006, 05:13 PM
I'll throw my weight behind the Tamron 28-75/2.8, though it probably isn't as sharp as the 24-70 Canon makes. Thankfully, shots from the lens sharpen very nicely under Photoshop. However, the price is reasonable. I just recommend with all 3rd party lenses, and even the 1st party lenses if you can, to try the lens you buy in the store with your own body. There are a few camera stores that will indeed allow you to do this. I did this with the Tamron I bought precisely because I wanted a good copy. You pay a little more because you can't get an internet price, but the extra price is probably worth the peace of mind.

There are a few good 3rd party lenses for Canon, but they admittedly are mostly exceptions to the rule, and they rarely match or exceed the quality of the 1st party lenses.

Now, on the other hand, about the 3rd party lenses for Nikon with the Zeiss brand... ;)

JadeCat
10-30-2006, 05:36 PM
There are third party lens makers who have really upped their quality on their lenses, like Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron. Yes, there are bad batches. But there are also bad batches of Canon (see DPReview.com about arguements on backfocusing, CA, etc, on *all* lens maker lenses).

Having said that, it really depends on your price point. I decided to go with a Sigma 10-20 mm lens instead of a Canon 10-22 mm for landscape photography. There was about a $400-500 difference, and I felt that the pricepoint and quality for the Sigma was much better than the Canon lens.

The Canon version is an excellent lens, btw, but not within my price range.

Sufficed to say, I love the Sigma lens and glad I purchased it. Having said that, all my other lenses are Canon lenses -- their pricepoint/quality/etc outweighed other 3rd party lenses. I will probably buy another third party lens, if and only if it meets my needs and price range and is comparable to Canon's lenses.

Whether or not you buy the third party lenses depends on your own price points, how you think the third party lenses compare with Canon, etc.

I would guesstimate that most people are relatively happy with their lens purchases. You just have the loud majority on either end who either love or hate the lens they've bought.

staereo
10-30-2006, 06:19 PM
It also depends on your periodic maintanance, calibration, warranty, and replacement schedules.

Ultimately it's just easier for me to keep within a single manufacturer for my paperwork and equipment records.

So, the reason for me has less to do with testing and quality, and more to do with my inventory management.

Bruce

skypirate
10-30-2006, 06:41 PM
seems like im the only advocate for tamron lenses areound here :p

Well, as I said earlier, I think my Tamron shows tremendous promise. Hopefully, four to six weeks from now, I’ll be able to post to this thread what a fantastic job they did calibrating it. So, my final opinion is still pending.

Working within the current lens’s limitations, I’ve managed to take some decent photos with it. My October 2006 gallery was shot entirely with a Tamron.

Ergonomics are important, it’s a nice size, but the zoom ring is the reverse of Canon’s and having a spinning focus ring right where I’d prefer to be holding the lens is a bit annoying. But, if they do a decent job adjusting it, I'll gladly learn to live with it.

Many 3rd party lenses suffer from compatibility problems with cameras. This means that an older Sigma or Tamron may not work with a newer camera. An example is a Sigma that worked on a Canon 10D may not work on the new 30D. All (I believe) 3rd party lens manufacturers offer what is called rechipping for the lenses to update them to work on newer cameras but that is about the same as sending a Canon lens in for waranty work and can be a hassle (going through that now with canon but have had no problems) and takes time, which you don't always have. All of this is because 3rd party lens makers reverse engineer the signals that go to the lens and if it changes even slightly from one model to the next in bodies that lens will no longer work.

I agree with Oklahoma on this. I like using the beep for focus confirmation and even this feature seems uncertain/faint when a third party lens is on my camera. Which tends to hint at 'iffy' communications between lens and camera.

Canon has a few GREAT non L lenses, but in general, if you want to have your breath taken away, you find yourself buying a lenses with red rings on them.

Agreed.

Kukkii-san
10-30-2006, 06:48 PM
i own a tamron 28-200mm lens and i loved it (until my cam broke down, so i'm not using it right now T_T). it used to work fine with my analog canon camera (an F60). i'm not exactly a pro photographer *lol* and i haven't used a canon lens before so i can't compare them.
but i think i've been able to achieve some quality shots with this lens, and i do remember it came at a very reasonable price. i don't think the lens ever screwed up or disappointed me (only the photographer & the cam did ^^; )

Oklahoma
10-30-2006, 07:11 PM
Overall I would say that there is nothing wrong with 3rd party lenses. Many can be very good and they offer options that canon or nikon doesn't or a very similar lens for a lot less. The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to take the chance with them, because it may be a battle to get one that meets your expectations or for that matter works right. Ziggy uses a sigma 30mm f1.8. I just got my canon 28-135 back from canon today and it was fixed wonderfully (turns out all it needed was a good internal cleaning). Every lens is a trade off in what you get, you may have to take the risk of a 3rd party lens to get one that does what you need that is within your budget.

One thing that I have found that I really like about canon lenses is the full time manual. Especially when working with something with a VERY narrow dept of field it is nice to just be able to adjust it without having to change the lens to manual.

Cikgu101
10-30-2006, 07:39 PM
I have but one Tamron lens ... Tamron SP90 DI Macro which also couple as my primary portrait lens that give me pin sharp images during catwalk shoots.

I've not used it in any cosplay shoots so far. :rockon: Hope to try it soon and get great cosplay shots from it.

howzitboy
11-23-2006, 03:12 AM
i use a sigma lens on my nikon d70s and it works perfectly. the reason i bought it was for the price. it cost really cheap and if it ever breaks, ill just toss it out and buy a new one. i have nikon 35-70 2.8 and 80-200 2.8 lens and just leave em at home. if they break, it would cost prob the amount i paid for the sigma lens to get them fixed.
But, i only use the lens at say f5.6 to f11 cuz i shoot with flash all the time and dont rely on only available lighting in low light situations. so i cant say how "sharp" the lens is wide opened.

poporogue
11-24-2006, 11:26 AM
i am a canon user...i hava a canon SLR eos300 and a DSRL eos 400D

there are 2 lens of tamron which is good for shooting cosplay photos
Tamron SP AF 17-50 F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (A16)
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (A09)

these 2 lens are good, they are both F2.8 which is much cheaper compare with the canon's "white" lens (sorry..i'm not familiarize with their names in eng...)
if you are using a dslr,
A09 is not wide enough for shooting portrait.
cos a09 is suitable for both slr and dslr, if you are using a dslr,
you need to multiply 28X1.6 (for canon DSLR)..which is about 44mm..

for XR Di II series, ie A16, this len is only for DSLR
so it is much wider the A09

i'm very sorry that my eng is not so good, you may not quite understand what i am telling.
someone please kindly explain what i mean if it's needed~~^^
Could any one explain

staereo
11-24-2006, 04:34 PM
I think poporogue did a good job. But, as requested, here is a translation (this is NOT my words, just a cleaning up of poporogue's post here: http://forums.cosplay.com/showpost.php?p=1630574&postcount=24
====START====

I am a canon user...i have a digital rebel, and a digital rebel XTi

Tamron makes two good lenses for shooting cosplay photos
Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

These two lenses are good, as they both feature a max aperture of f/2.8, and are much cheaper when compared to Canon's "L" lenses.
If you're using a dSLR, the 28-75mm Di is not wide enough for shooting portraits, because the 28-75 Di is suitable for both film and digital use, and if you're using a dSLR you need to multiply the wide focal length of 28mm by 1.6 (for Canon's dSLRs)..which is about 44mm..

for XR Di II series lenses, like the 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II, this lens is only for dSLR, so it is much wider than the 28-75 Di.

==========END========

staereo
11-24-2006, 04:47 PM
I'm going to have to go ahead and agree and disagree.

First of all, just to clarify, not all of canon's dSLR cameras feature a 1.6 crop factor. I believe the 1D features a 1.3 crop factor, and the 1Ds and 5D are both full frame sensors. This means that this crop factor is NOT the case, unless using the rebels or the 10, 20, 30D, or other APS-C sized sensor.

Now, I believe (and I could be wrong, I don't know Tamron too well), that the Di II are APS-C featured lenses. If they are like the Canon's EF-s only line, they sit further inside of the body. Essentially the difference lies in the fact that the light that is transmitted through the lens covers a smaller area on the focal plane (image sensor). Since it is a smaller sensor on APS-c style sensors, it doesnt require as big of a circle to be cast on the sensor to get the same framing. Sooo, on the Di II series lenses, it delivers a smaller circle of light onto the image sensor, allowing the glass to be smaller as well.

There may be anti-reflective coatings and what-not added to these lenses as well, as light tends to reflect off of image sensors and cause ghosting etc more than it did on film.

On a side note, I think that 44mm of 35mm equivalent field of view is more than enough for portraits. In fact, I would venture to say that 50-130 is the sweet spot.

But this was a good post, got me looking at the Tamron site... and yes, L lenses are pricey, even when they're not white. (As far as I know, the red ring is the actual sign of L lens, and it just happens that quite a few of them are white, particularly in the longer focal lengths.)
:D
Bruce

sting57
11-24-2006, 07:44 PM
Like I mentioned before, I, personally, did not have a good experience with Tamron lenses, but I have seen samples of excellent Tamron lenses out there. Like previously mentioned, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and 17-50/2.8 are both excellent.

Like Staereo mentioned, the Di II lens (the 17-50/2.8) are built for APS-C sensors with 1.6x crops (in the case with Canon), and so it will only work with the digital rebels and the 10, 20, and 30D Canon cameras.

If you are on a tight budget, I would try the Tamron lenses out first. You can always have it sent it for calibration, and depending on the retailer, you may be able to exchange it.

Abb

staereo
11-24-2006, 08:20 PM
If you are on a tight budget, I would try the Tamron lenses out first. You can always have it sent it for calibration, and depending on the retailer, you may be able to exchange it.

Abb

A very good point.

Oklahoma
11-26-2006, 04:16 PM
and yes, L lenses are pricey, even when they're not white. (As far as I know, the red ring is the actual sign of L lens, and it just happens that quite a few of them are white, particularly in the longer focal lengths.)
:D
Bruce

L series lenses are defined by the red ring on the lens not being white. Although all white lenses are L series not all L series are white. White is only used on telephoto because as canon says it helps dissipate the heat when used outside and that the thermal expansion on long lenses can affect image quality. As to how true this is I do not know.

I do find that 28mm is decent for full body portraits if not using a backdrop because it becomes a "normal" lens. If I start to go much wider many lenses start to show larger ammounts of distortion and can look unflattering.

A 24 or 28 to 70 or so with a constant F2.8 makes a great lens just in general. I would say if you cannot get the canon or nikon versions a tamron or sigma would make a decent alternative.

shiroin
11-27-2006, 02:40 AM
L series lenses are defined by the red ring on the lens not being white. Although all white lenses are L series not all L series are white. White is only used on telephoto because as canon says it helps dissipate the heat when used outside and that the thermal expansion on long lenses can affect image quality. As to how true this is I do not know.

I do find that 28mm is decent for full body portraits if not using a backdrop because it becomes a "normal" lens. If I start to go much wider many lenses start to show larger ammounts of distortion and can look unflattering.

A 24 or 28 to 70 or so with a constant F2.8 makes a great lens just in general. I would say if you cannot get the canon or nikon versions a tamron or sigma would make a decent alternative.

Few decades ago, when companies were finding solutions to the chromatic aberration problem, Nikon came out with ED glasses and Canon came out with flourite glasses to reduce color dispersion. Both are very effective, excpet that flourite glasses' physical properties change when the temperature is high, resulting in reduced optical performance, thus white bodies are used to reduce the heat. (white absorbs less light than black does)

SolarTempest
11-27-2006, 10:14 AM
I'm currently using a 70-300mm F4-5.6 ED Sigma lens, which vastly outperforms the equivalent Nikon lens. Honestly, the 70-300mm Nikon ED lens is complete junk!

On the lower end lenses, at least that I've found with Nikon, some of the third party lenses fare better and provide the same functionality as their higher-priced Nikon counterparts.

ZiggyB
11-28-2006, 03:21 PM
I'm also eyeing the Tamron SP AF 17-50 F/2.8 lens. I've heard nothing but good things about it and optically reviews have said it's quite good.

I recently tried it out at a local camera store. My only gripe (since I'm spoiled with Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses which have virtually silent motors) is that the auto focus motor is really loud.

I know I know, it shouldn't matter how it sounds but how well it performs optically, but I can't get over it. X-D I'll probably get it anyway when I can save up the pennies.

shiroin
11-29-2006, 12:51 PM
I'm currently using a 70-300mm F4-5.6 ED Sigma lens, which vastly outperforms the equivalent Nikon lens. Honestly, the 70-300mm Nikon ED lens is complete junk!

On the lower end lenses, at least that I've found with Nikon, some of the third party lenses fare better and provide the same functionality as their higher-priced Nikon counterparts.

I recently read rumors that the Sigma 70-300mms were designed with the aid of Zeiss optics of germany, which could lead to explainations as to why it out performs other lenses in the focal range.

tfcreate
12-22-2006, 10:48 PM
Tamron isn't the company it was 10-15 years ago. Their Nikon and Canon lines were junk a few years ago, now they come very close to OEM performance on the Nikons and
very good to excellent on the Canon lines. But they have also gotten more expensive too. They almost look like reverse-engineered Zeiss lenses, but with fewer groups.
TFC

stefaniecat
03-08-2007, 09:35 PM
I just wanted to add to this that for those of you considering Tamron lenses, they have a student discount program. I got $75 dollars off the purchase of my new Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. - and I tested it before I bought it.


The Educational Purchase Program (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/students.asp)

I know the thread is a bit old... but for anyone searching the archives for information here on Tamron lenses, this little bit of information could be useful.

staereo
03-09-2007, 06:50 AM
For anyone that is interested in Tamron lenses, this is a great find.

Thank you stefaniecat!

UrMastrInuYasha
03-11-2007, 09:42 PM
Just don't make the mistake I did.. I left my 55mm at home, and all I brought with me was a 70-400mm lense to a con... let's just say it was a PITA trying to get pics of cosplayers using the zoom and setting the aperture to make them look good.. All the pics are crappy too.. and since it was film.. i had really no choice but to attempt to edit them and upload.


Using a kit lense is only good for when you can't afford good lenses at the time... if you really into photogrphy, and like to do shoots, using a 55mm lense and knowing apeture, is good. but using a 80-200, or a 70-300mm lense will really give you sharp pictures, with a good blurred background for some really awesome pics

I currently use mainly Nkkor and Vivitar.

staereo
03-12-2007, 09:00 AM
Which kit lens are you referring to?

I would also think a 55 would lead to much of the same problems as a 70 at a con. Though, those are both focal lengths that offer very good portrait angles. They offer very little distortion to the face. One could say 50mm is around the same angle as human eye, and moving towards around 135mm offers flattery of features over and above a normal human perspective.

The problem arises at cons when you are doing walk around photography. This sort of coverage becomes troublesome with longer focal lengths due to crowding issues. Especially if you are using a aps-c or similar sized image sensor on a digital camera. I would say with this sort of crop factor, you are best with around 20ish mm up to 70ish mm. A zoom lens in that range is ideal. You still would want to stay away from the wider focal lengths on a range like that, unless they were of groups and they kept you at least some distance away from your subjects to minimize the optical perspective distortions that a wide angle can cause.

Bruce

UrMastrInuYasha
03-12-2007, 03:06 PM
Which kit lens are you referring to?

I would also think a 55 would lead to much of the same problems as a 70 at a con. Though, those are both focal lengths that offer very good portrait angles. They offer very little distortion to the face. One could say 50mm is around the same angle as human eye, and moving towards around 135mm offers flattery of features over and above a normal human perspective.

The problem arises at cons when you are doing walk around photography. This sort of coverage becomes troublesome with longer focal lengths due to crowding issues. Especially if you are using a aps-c or similar sized image sensor on a digital camera. I would say with this sort of crop factor, you are best with around 20ish mm up to 70ish mm. A zoom lens in that range is ideal. You still would want to stay away from the wider focal lengths on a range like that, unless they were of groups and they kept you at least some distance away from your subjects to minimize the optical perspective distortions that a wide angle can cause.

Bruce

I bought a Canon EOS Rebel T2... I bought just the body, and then bought a 70-300mm lense, I then went out and bought a standard 55mm lense..... Wow did that mother have some Aperture on it! I mainly used it to get people portraits, I borrowed my friends 14-28mm wide angle lense.. and OMG. I loved that lense. I got just enough focal length to get some REALLY good portraits. But not to much focal length so I wouldn't have to stand 349569834750984375 feet in front of the person. but for now.. I am using a P&S Canon S3... It's pretty DSLR like for a p&s camera.. and got it on sale for like $200.. compared to it's $400 MSRP.

Sorry.. I really don't know to much about photography.. I just get me a camera I like.. with a decent lense to get the affects I want.. and that's it.. I hope to learn to be able to get more technically with it when I need to.

staereo
03-12-2007, 05:24 PM
Sorry.. I really don't know to much about photography.. I just get me a camera I like.. with a decent lense to get the affects I want.. and that's it.. I hope to learn to be able to get more technically with it when I need to.

Gosh, never apologize about knowledge level in photography. Theres a range to everything, and if I had to spend my life apologizing for things I hadn't yet mastered, my mouth would never get a break.

Honestly, if you enjoy it then you are on the right road. You know a lot more than many people, and a lot less than others. Just like all of us.

But never apologize. Save apologies for when they matter most, that's what I say. :bigtu:

stefaniecat
03-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Using a kit lense is only good for when you can't afford good lenses at the time...

Don't knock the kit lenses too hard. All I've used at cons thus far is my 18-55 Kit Lens - and my pics are purry enough.

But... yes I've just bought a new lens.

Not because my kit lens stank, but because I wanted just a bit more than 55m on my walk around lens: the 28-75 gives me that last bit of zoom that I needed, and I really like the 2.8 fixed across the barrel. I do miss my 18-28m that I'll be loosing, but I'll still have my kit lens if I need it for super wide stuff :)

My recomendation for people who are new to cameras with interchangeable lenses is to NOT immediatly buy lenses with it, but to get the standard kit lense.

Why? Because you need some time to get used to the camera, and the kit lens will help you do that. And once you figure out how the camera works and what you like to shoot, you'll figure out where this lens limits you: maybe not enough zoom like me, maybe not enough shutter speed, maybe its ________... but getting a feel for what you _want_ out of the lense is one of the benefits of the kit lense. Its a nice all purpose piece of equipment for much cheaper than finding out that you really don't use lens X even though your sales guy raved about its specs. And once you find out what you want in your lense... go get it :)

Av4rice
03-13-2007, 04:43 PM
I prefer my kit lens (18-55) for cons as well.

Though my 50mm is definitely superior for portrait-type shots I can't always back up far enough in cons (either there's a wall or crowds or increased chance of someone walking into the shot, etc). The ability to immediately go wide lets me be way more flexible and then the cosplayer can get on to other things.

staereo
03-13-2007, 06:53 PM
I prefer my kit lens (18-55) for cons as well.

Though my 50mm is definitely superior for portrait-type shots I can't always back up far enough in cons (either there's a wall or crowds or increased chance of someone walking into the shot, etc). The ability to immediately go wide lets me be way more flexible and then the cosplayer can get on to other things.

:bigtu:
:cheers:

SolarTempest
03-13-2007, 08:53 PM
I take the majority of my convention portraits with my 50mm. I usually move out of the small-crowded areas for photos anyway. What I really think though, is that a ~30mm lens would be perfect. Just like what Ziggy's using for his shots.

And if you're reading the thread, is 30mm just perfect for full length portraits and the like Ziggy?

Oklahoma
03-13-2007, 10:19 PM
A 30 works great in tight spaces. I use a 28 and it works wonderfully in the hallways or general areas.
http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=694178

staereo
03-14-2007, 05:23 AM
If you have to shoot wide because of confines in space to shoot, it works, but remember you'll see noticable deformities when shooting wider than 50.

Av4rice
03-15-2007, 02:42 AM
Not necessarily a bad thing. The mild fish-eye effect can look good sometimes...

staereo
03-15-2007, 07:28 AM
Not necessarily a bad thing. The mild fish-eye effect can look good sometimes...

It is very much a stylistic choice. I agree.

From my perspective, I look at it from a commercial viewpoint. I tend to see barrel distortion effects looking good on automotive photography, and the occasional artistic angle of product photography.

Shooting fashion leads you to more or less curb away from effects that make a model look distorted, as the common audience finds models more attractive with less accentuated features. Smaller noses, ears, perfectly symmetrical faces.... All opposites of what a wide angle gives you. In fact, longer focal lengths, to me, are preferred more than typical portrait lengths. Getting above 100, maybe even up 135mm with your glass does worlds for flattery.

Overkill for cosplay, I am sure. But that is the beautiful thing about the photographers found in this market. Everyone approaches cosplay photography from a different angle.

Some shoot it as journalistic, some shoot it as snaps, some shoot it as hyper-processed, some shoot it with artistic disregard for photographic principals, and I shoot with a taste of fashion photography.

None are notably a better style, but it offers a wide selection of stylistic options for a cosplayer to choose from based on the tastes, and the feeling they wish to portray with the images of their cosplay.

While I *have* shot wide angle, it tend to steer as far from it as possible. Used usually only with big groups in small areas with significant standoff distance, or even as a purposeful distortion in the subject's characteristics.

But rarely do I ever use it as a staple of my photographic stock or style. I wouldn't dream of damning anyone that chose to approach their style with a wide angle lens, though. I greatly enjoy seeing the viewpoints of other photographers and the different ways they choose to use their set of tools to give them a feel all of their own.

:bigtu:
Bruce

Cikgu101
04-02-2007, 03:18 AM
Invest in an all Rounder lens like the 18-200 would be Great during Con where both Wide and Tele photography oppotunities are ever present. :rockon:

jtnishi
04-02-2007, 11:51 AM
Invest in an all Rounder lens like the 18-200 would be Great during Con where both Wide and Tele photography oppotunities are ever present. :rockon:
The only argument I have against that is that all rounder lenses aren't particularly good lenses when you need to shoot wide open. Yes, you get good chances at wide and tele opportunities. And yes, if you're starting out, there's a lot of convenience in getting all the lens you might need for 95% of shots in one single lens. But you sacrifice chances during less than ideal light conditions, and you sacrifice the ability to make the DOF shallow somewhat. Plus, in general, the quality of the lens suffers a bit in these high zoom differential lenses.

In general, one sacrifices quality for versatility, and vice versa. The 18-200's a fine starter lens, but I think after a while, lenses like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 start looking better, in combination with an inexpensive kit lens to give the extra distance on the wide (or go without it) and a reasonable telephoto lens.

Of course, I could be biased, since this is exactly the combination I use, with Canon's nifty 50. :toothy:

Cikgu101
04-02-2007, 11:57 AM
Yup...forgot to mention about the limitations of the 18-200...Thanks for pointing that out, jtnishi

americankgb
04-08-2007, 05:24 PM
Has anyone here actually used the nikkor 18-200 vr dx. I'm really looking at getting the lens this spring. I've already read a lot of reviews, but I was looking for personal opinions on it.