 Steve Warren |
28-300 Lens quality Hey, Does anyone have any experience with the wide range 28-300 mm lenses, digital or film? They look oh-so-tempting for the convenience, but I worry about image quality. Thanks in advance all!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Cyndee Wanyonyi |
Me too...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I have a Sigma 28-300mm lens. I really like it for its versatility. It's not as sharp or as fast-focusing as my Canon primes, but I can live with the trade-off. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I have a Tamron 28-200 mm. [OK - you asked about 28-300 mm. I know, I know.] My camera bodiees and 28-200 mm lens have served me well for more than seven years. I've been to Hawaii, Italy, the Canadian Northwest, and a cruise of the Greek Isles - with one body, one lens, lots of film, no neck strap and with no [N]ever-ready Case. My prints are sharp and I've had several win awards in state-wide competition. You need to check out lens ratings - see Pop Photo's for one. Since I use a Canon EOS 3, I was particularly interested to learn that the Canon 28-200 mm zoom did not perform as well as my first generation Tamron. Also, the second and third generation Tamrons are not as good as the first and fourth. Of course, manufacturers continue to release new models.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
We all want something for nothing. A general rule of thumb when it comes to lenses is the jack of all trades is the master of none. What this means is that wide-range zoom lenses often suffer in comparison to close range zooms or fixed-focal length lenses. For non-critical applications such as snapshots and informal portraiture, these lenses will suffice. For more demanding applications such as landscapes, fine portraiture, and macro use, they will not be as sharp as the alternatives due to distortion and chromatic abberation. The differences can be seen. Personally, I think the new Sigma 18-125mm, or something in that same range, is about as wide as I would go. On most dSLRs, that 125mm equates to a 200mm lens on a 35mm SLR, or about 4x magnification. It's hard to go longer than that without a tripod. I have the Sigma 18-50 DC lens and find its quality is adequate, although image quality is visibly inferior to my Sigma 50/2.8 EX macro, my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX, or the various decades-old Pentax Super Takumar fixed-focus lenses. My recommendation would be to pick up something along the lines of the 18-125 or perhaps the 18-200, but no wider, and realize the limitations in image quality you get for the flexibility of focal length.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||