Reviews and Problems with Tamron AF28-200 f/3.8-5.6 Super II Macro
Showing 1-7 of 7
Great value if you can get it cheap.
9 March 2012
Summary: I gave this lens 5 stars for value based strictly on its performance relative to the LOW price I paid for it. The autofocus has an awful hunting problem in low light and long zoom ranges. This may be a malfunction with my particular example, and not indicative of a problem with every lens of this type. However, in daytime sunlight, it is much better, and generally locks right onto the subject even at 200mm.
Summary: This lens is an alternate to the Nikon 28-200 version, which retails for $250 or so. It also works with film cameras. For a 'kit' lens, it performs well, but is a bit slow to focus. My pictures are reasonably crisp and color saturation is OK. It's not a 'dog' of a lens by any means. But, as my words suggest, you're getting a lens whose quality matches the price you pay. Tamron has made better lenses.
Summary: If you're looking for a backup lens or if you're starting out and need a good all-in-one lens, THIS is the one you want to get! I've only owned it for about a week, but have shot portraits, macro, and journalistic with success. The large diameter lens captures light better than my similar nikon, although there seems to be slightly better gradients and sharpness with the Nikon. As long as you pay less than $150 for this, you're making out like a bandit.
Summary: Like so many other amateur photographers, I grew weary of ALWAYS having to bring along a slew of lenses when I travel. Even a two-zoom outfit comprising 28-70 and a 75-300 mm. lenses sometimes became wearisome, as there are times when changing lenses *at all* is simply too much of a bother. So I took a chance and bought a Tamron 28-200 Super II all-in-one zoom.