Best 28-200mm Lens

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Andrew K-V, Jun 8, 2004.

  1. Andrew K-V

    Skip M Guest

    I've never seen a 28-135 look that bad. If my lens did that, you can be
    assured that I would no longer own it. The image on the left looks out of
    focus, not soft. The center one and the one on the right look ok, but not
    great.
     
    Skip M, Jun 10, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Check photodo's MTF tests; they tested several of the superzooms.

    Two key facts can increase the relative optical quality of a superzoom:

    1. Size of enlargement. If you're only making 8X10s, the relative
    differences between lenses will be much less visible. That's why
    Pop Photo's SQF tests are reported by print size. (Please skip
    slams of pop photo here; your opinion of their tests is irrelevant to
    the truth of this statement: the importance of lens resolution goes
    up with print size. If you always get 4X6s, you'll never see the
    difference). If you're looking for is a lens for 4X6s and occasional
    8X10s, a 28-200 is an excellent choice (actually I'd check out the
    24-200 or 24-135 if it's for a 1.6x digital camera, or even the
    new Sigma 18-135).

    2. Differences diminish as you stop down. Look at the article
    below, cited by someone else in this thread:

    http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml

    The best 28-200s are better than the Tamron 28-300.
    The Tamron is inferior at 300 to the 70-300 Canon lenses (duh),
    but note that the telephoto end is the worst case for a superzoom,
    and note that the difference is *much* smaller when the lens is
    stopped down 2-3 stops from its max aperture. The Tamron looks
    amazingly competitive at f/11.

    f/11 is pretty slow at 300mm, but think about how you shoot -- if
    you're mostly going to be shooting from a tripod and can stop down,
    the superzoom will look good.

    I used to use the 28-135 IS as my "walking around" lens, having sold
    a 28-200 because the extra telephoto wasn't worth the optical deficit
    and lack of IS. Now I'm frustrated again because I'm shooting digital
    and the 28-135 is a much-less-desirable 45-215.

    Russell Williams
    not speaking for Adobe Systems
     
    Russell Williams, Jun 10, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andrew K-V

    Skip M Guest

    As an addendum to my previous reply, looking at the images, there seems to
    be no reason to buy any but the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS lens, at least at 70mm. Of
    course, that begs the question of how he got a lens that has a wide end of
    75mm to go to 70mm, but, oh, what the heck.
    To my eye, the 75-300 (I'm guessing it's actually at 75mm), the 70-300 DO
    and the 70-200 f2.8L are pretty much the same.
     
    Skip M, Jun 11, 2004
    #23
  4. Andrew K-V

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Interesting that there would be so much sample variation.
    Back in May 2003, Peter Charles (a professional fishing writer)
    complained that he got better results with his Minolta APS P&S,
    a Weathermatic Vectis, than with a Canon A2E and 28-105/3.5-4.5.
    I chalked it up to sample variation. Two threads can be found
    with this groups.google.com search:

    group:rec.photo.equipment.35mm insubject:surprising insubject:results
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jun 11, 2004
    #24
  5. Andrew K-V

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Yes, and I'd say the 70-300 DO is very very close to the 70-200/2.8 L,
    the only advantage of the latter big-honker being it's faster a the
    short end (but doesn't have a long end).
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jun 11, 2004
    #25
  6. What a shame you use Canon and not Pentax. You could have had the excellent
    and portable Pentax 24-90
     
    Kevin Stephens, Jun 11, 2004
    #26
  7. There is a respectable old school of though which believes "if it looks
    sharp at 10x8 it will look sharp at any size". I kind of agree, provided
    you view larger prints from a commensurately greater distance; I must
    admit though that I can never resist getting close up to a big print.
     
    David Littlewood, Jun 11, 2004
    #27
  8. Andrew K-V

    TP Guest


    Superzooms only "look good" if you completely ignore distortion,
    colour fringing and other aberrations that hugely detract from the
    optical quality of a lens.

    If central sharpness is the only criterion, any old junk lens stopped
    down to f/8 or f/11 will satisfy you, and you will be able to post
    your praises on this newsgroup along with other owners of junk lenses.
     
    TP, Jun 11, 2004
    #28
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.