28-200 Tamron Version IV

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist D. Any comments?

--
Lance*istD

Lance B said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV
as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has
anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly
good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist
D. Any comments?

Click to expand...

The Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 XR is supposed to be better in spite of the extra zoom ratio.

But it costs more and is a little bigger.

--Sophie

FWIW, the pictures at

http://www.pbase.com/normank/madison_sq

were all taken with the Tamron 28-200. I have it to use when I only want to carry one lens: it's light and fairly well made. I'm not THRILLED with the quality but it's not bad at all, IMHO.

=NLK=

Lance B said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV
as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has
anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly
good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist
D. Any comments?

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------------
http://pbase.com/normank

normank said:

http://www.pbase.com/normank/madison_sq

were all taken with the Tamron 28-200. I have it to use when I only
want to carry one lens: it's light and fairly well made. I'm not
THRILLED with the quality but it's not bad at all, IMHO.

=NLK=

Lance B said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV
as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has
anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly
good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist
D. Any comments?

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------------
http://pbase.com/normank

Click to expand...

The reason I ask about this lens is I would like something in that range to also supplement my 16-45 Pentax lens with maybe some overlap. I was also thinking of the 55-200 Sigma but is this better than the Tamron 28-200 0r 28-300? Is there something better in this range? I have a Pentax FA 28-80 f3.5-4.7 (42-120 digital) and a Pentax FA 100-300 f4.5-5.6 (150-450 digital) but having the two is a bit of a pain to lug around and if I only take the 100-300 then there is a large hole in the 70-150 region (1.5x factor for digital).

I like the idea of a 28-200 or 28-300 but I would still like sharp and contrasty colourful images. A GOOD quality 50-200 or 300 would be nice.

I would like to spend around AU$700 (US$500).
--
Lance*istD

I for one have the Tamron 28-200 XR and like it very much. For its size and what it costs, it is a bargain. I might also recommend the Tamron 24-135.

Lance B said:

normank said:

http://www.pbase.com/normank/madison_sq

were all taken with the Tamron 28-200. I have it to use when I only
want to carry one lens: it's light and fairly well made. I'm not
THRILLED with the quality but it's not bad at all, IMHO.

=NLK=

Lance B said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV
as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has
anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly
good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist
D. Any comments?

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------------
http://pbase.com/normank

Click to expand...

The reason I ask about this lens is I would like something in that
range to also supplement my 16-45 Pentax lens with maybe some
overlap. I was also thinking of the 55-200 Sigma but is this better
than the Tamron 28-200 0r 28-300? Is there something better in this
range? I have a Pentax FA 28-80 f3.5-4.7 (42-120 digital) and a
Pentax FA 100-300 f4.5-5.6 (150-450 digital) but having the two is
a bit of a pain to lug around and if I only take the 100-300 then
there is a large hole in the 70-150 region (1.5x factor for
digital).

I like the idea of a 28-200 or 28-300 but I would still like sharp
and contrasty colourful images. A GOOD quality 50-200 or 300 would
be nice.

I would like to spend around AU$700 (US$500).
--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Eric "Dog Boy" said:

Lance B said:

normank said:

http://www.pbase.com/normank/madison_sq

were all taken with the Tamron 28-200. I have it to use when I only
want to carry one lens: it's light and fairly well made. I'm not
THRILLED with the quality but it's not bad at all, IMHO.

=NLK=

Lance B said:

I was thinking of the Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 (I think) version IV
as a relatively cheap general travel lens to save space etc. Has
anybody used or tried this lens on th *ist D? Write ups are fairly
good for such a lens, but was wondering how it would go on the *ist
D. Any comments?

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

--
------------------------------------
http://pbase.com/normank

Click to expand...

The reason I ask about this lens is I would like something in that
range to also supplement my 16-45 Pentax lens with maybe some
overlap. I was also thinking of the 55-200 Sigma but is this better
than the Tamron 28-200 0r 28-300? Is there something better in this
range? I have a Pentax FA 28-80 f3.5-4.7 (42-120 digital) and a
Pentax FA 100-300 f4.5-5.6 (150-450 digital) but having the two is
a bit of a pain to lug around and if I only take the 100-300 then
there is a large hole in the 70-150 region (1.5x factor for
digital).

I like the idea of a 28-200 or 28-300 but I would still like sharp
and contrasty colourful images. A GOOD quality 50-200 or 300 would
be nice.

I would like to spend around AU$700 (US$500).
--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

i own the 28-200 XR and 100-300 4.5-5.6 pentax and 70-300 SPMacro II APO and 24-135 Tamron .

i only used 24-135mm and 70-300mm SPmacro II APO for travelling due to the pic. (more sharper img.) quality but the 24-135mm tamron is a bit big and a bit underexposure.
For 28-200 XR pic quality is OK but not as good as 24-135mm tamron .
For 100-300 4.5-5.6 pentax it every time show me soft pic.
Sigma 70-300m APO II is sharper that my 24-135mm tamron at 135mm.

Lance B said:

The reason I ask about this lens is I would like something in that
range to also supplement my 16-45 Pentax lens with maybe some
overlap. I was also thinking of the 55-200 Sigma but is this better
than the Tamron 28-200 0r 28-300? Is there something better in this
range? I have a Pentax FA 28-80 f3.5-4.7 (42-120 digital) and a
Pentax FA 100-300 f4.5-5.6 (150-450 digital) but having the two is
a bit of a pain to lug around and if I only take the 100-300 then
there is a large hole in the 70-150 region (1.5x factor for
digital).

I like the idea of a 28-200 or 28-300 but I would still like sharp
and contrasty colourful images. A GOOD quality 50-200 or 300 would
be nice.

I would like to spend around AU$700 (US$500).
--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Lance, me again with my comments!

I have the original Tamron 28-200/3.5-5.6 autofocus which I travelled the world with (30 countries and counting!) in the late 90's and it did a fab job with slide but I would say not all shots were as sharp as they could be. To keep travel lite & handy it was the best thing going. The newer models are better and focus closer.

I since bought the Tamron 28-300 (previous model) and it is a much better lens (although to be fair the 28-200 has been updated a couple of times since). As I have mentioned previously, if used carefully (steady hand or tripod etc.) it will give excellent result especially up to about 180mm -- at 300mm it is not as sharp but first half of the zoom range is as sharp as pretty much anything provided you stop down at least a stop.

Recently I took a family portrait at 100mm (x1.5) on a tripod at f8 and printed at 15"x11" that totally surprised me with sharpness. Every blade of grass and every wrinkle which was incredible given there were 10+ people in the group.

Generally the two lenses I carry are the DA16-45 and the Tamron 28-300 (+sometimes the 50/1.4) --- any more and it becomes a hugh production!

Have you looked at this site for lens MTF data (they stopped testing in 2001 I think so no recent lenses on there but consistent as they used the same equipment for all lenses)? http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Also,

What about the Sigma 70-300 APO II ? AU$462 at centre.net.au
http://shop.centre.net.au/index.html?cat=&it=product&prid=001345

BUT, photodo.com amazingly tested the Tamron 28-300 MTF results as bit BETTER than both this Sigma and your Pentax FA 100-300.

BEST of all long lens available in Pentax mount of course is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (better than the Pentax equivalent) but heavy and at AU$1,948 not in my price range.
http://shop.centre.net.au/index.html?cat=&it=product&prid=000V57

Brett

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

The reason I ask about this lens is I would like something in that
range to also supplement my 16-45 Pentax lens with maybe some
overlap. I was also thinking of the 55-200 Sigma but is this better
than the Tamron 28-200 0r 28-300? Is there something better in this
range? I have a Pentax FA 28-80 f3.5-4.7 (42-120 digital) and a
Pentax FA 100-300 f4.5-5.6 (150-450 digital) but having the two is
a bit of a pain to lug around and if I only take the 100-300 then
there is a large hole in the 70-150 region (1.5x factor for
digital).

I like the idea of a 28-200 or 28-300 but I would still like sharp
and contrasty colourful images. A GOOD quality 50-200 or 300 would
be nice.

I would like to spend around AU$700 (US$500).
--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Lance, me again with my comments!

Click to expand...

Don't apologise. Your comments are very highly regarded. I thank you.

Brett St Pierre said:

I have the original Tamron 28-200/3.5-5.6 autofocus which I
travelled the world with (30 countries and counting!) in the late
90's and it did a fab job with slide but I would say not all shots
were as sharp as they could be. To keep travel lite & handy it was
the best thing going. The newer models are better and focus closer.

I since bought the Tamron 28-300 (previous model) and it is a much
better lens (although to be fair the 28-200 has been updated a
couple of times since). As I have mentioned previously, if used
carefully (steady hand or tripod etc.) it will give excellent
result especially up to about 180mm -- at 300mm it is not as sharp
but first half of the zoom range is as sharp as pretty much
anything provided you stop down at least a stop.
Recently I took a family portrait at 100mm (x1.5) on a tripod at f8
and printed at 15"x11" that totally surprised me with sharpness.
Every blade of grass and every wrinkle which was incredible
given there were 10+ people in the group.
Generally the two lenses I carry are the DA16-45 and the Tamron
28-300 (+sometimes the 50/1.4) --- any more and it becomes a hugh
production!

Have you looked at this site for lens MTF data (they stopped
testing in 2001 I think so no recent lenses on there but consistent
as they used the same equipment for all lenses)?
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

Also,

What about the Sigma 70-300 APO II ? AU$462 at centre.net.au
http://shop.centre.net.au/index.html?cat=&it=product&prid=001345

Click to expand...

Still leaves a hole in the 70-105mm range. The Pentax 16-45 @ 45mm = 70mm and the Sigma is 70 = 105mm

Brett St Pierre said:

BUT, photodo.com amazingly tested the Tamron 28-300 MTF results as
bit BETTER than both this Sigma and your Pentax FA 100-300.

Click to expand...

My Penax 100-300 is a bit soft as the previous poster CSLee said. Not so happy with it, so I may sell it or use it only when I need a longer end from 300-450mm if I do get the 28-200 Tamron.

Brett St Pierre said:

BEST of all long lens available in Pentax mount of course is the
Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX (better than the Pentax equivalent) but heavy
and at AU$1,948 not in my price range.
http://shop.centre.net.au/index.html?cat=&it=product&prid=000V57

Click to expand...

Not in my price range either!

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron 28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the 28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro, Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens - you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the "standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on my older Tamron 28-200.

I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best. It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

I think the choice is between 28-300 and 2 lenses say 16-45 and 55-200.

What will soon becomevery important is not having to change lenses and only carry one lens.

As Brett suggested find a shop that will allow you to try a side by side compariosn, most will gladly do so, the ones that refuse do not deserve your good money.

Find the 28-300 that YOU like the most on the picture situtations that you will be using it in, to a degree all the figures on paper don't help much in real life situations.

The 28-300 may compromise the image quality a bit BUT not having to swap lenses and carry one lens as a walkabout may well be worth it.

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one
reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although
it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER
reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens -
you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the
"standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm
closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on
my older Tamron 28-200.
I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour
reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store
that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like
driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best.
It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Wally.

I am already getting the 16-45. My choice is actually between the 55-200 Sigma and the 28-200 or 300 Tamron as a second lens. The 55-200 Sigma sounds good as you have attested to in your other post of today, but the extra convenience of the 28-200 or 300 is also a bonus. If they are of similar performance then the Tamron gets the gong but if the Sigma is better then it becomes a trade off between better performance of the Sigma versus the convenience of the Tamron.

I will go to Ted's and try the Sigma against the Tamron and take a few shots on one of their tripods. Have a look at the photos at home and then make up my mind.

Wally OZ said:

What will soon becomevery important is not having to change lenses
and only carry one lens.

As Brett suggested find a shop that will allow you to try a side by
side compariosn, most will gladly do so, the ones that refuse do
not deserve your good money.

Find the 28-300 that YOU like the most on the picture situtations
that you will be using it in, to a degree all the figures on paper
don't help much in real life situations.

The 28-300 may compromise the image quality a bit BUT not having to
swap lenses and carry one lens as a walkabout may well be worth it.

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one
reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although
it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER
reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens -
you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the
"standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm
closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on
my older Tamron 28-200.
I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour
reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store
that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like
driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best.
It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

I should mention,

The lens I purchased yesterday was from "Georges" iin George St Sydney.

I dealt with a sales guy called "Pete", he offered to use the shop *istD and try any lens he had in the shop and show the results on his PC screen.

I emphasize he offered, I din't even have to ask.

And if I am not happy with lens for whatever reason, so long as it or the packaging is not damaged, he is willing to swap it within 14 days.

You couldn't ask for more when faced with a tough lens decision.

See my other post, I would like to add IMHO trying something in the shop is not enough, it's a starting point only.

Youll take the lens home try it in more relaxed atmosphere the next few days and maybe find something you don't like, could be anything maybe not even related at all to image quality.

It is much better to come to an arragement with the store that if you don't like something about the lens, so long as it is not damaged by you, you can swapp it for another lens, cheaper or dearer.

It is amazing what you find out in a couple of days of actually using a lens.

I really think your choice is finding the best 28-300 iif having one walkabout lens is important to you.

I know super zooms are supposedly low in image qaulity but by how much, these days not much IMHO.

Lance B said:

I will go to Ted's and try the Sigma against the Tamron and take a
few shots on one of their tripods. Have a look at the photos at
home and then make up my mind.

Wally OZ said:

What will soon becomevery important is not having to change lenses
and only carry one lens.

As Brett suggested find a shop that will allow you to try a side by
side compariosn, most will gladly do so, the ones that refuse do
not deserve your good money.

Find the 28-300 that YOU like the most on the picture situtations
that you will be using it in, to a degree all the figures on paper
don't help much in real life situations.

The 28-300 may compromise the image quality a bit BUT not having to
swap lenses and carry one lens as a walkabout may well be worth it.

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one
reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although
it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER
reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens -
you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the
"standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm
closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on
my older Tamron 28-200.
I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour
reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store
that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like
driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best.
It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Teds do a 45 day replacement policy. If you're not happy within the 45 days, return it and exchange it for something else. Couldn't be happier with that system. I may just try it.

Thanks again Wally.

Wally OZ said:

Youll take the lens home try it in more relaxed atmosphere the next
few days and maybe find something you don't like, could be anything
maybe not even related at all to image quality.

It is much better to come to an arragement with the store that if
you don't like something about the lens, so long as it is not
damaged by you, you can swapp it for another lens, cheaper or
dearer.

It is amazing what you find out in a couple of days of actually
using a lens.

I really think your choice is finding the best 28-300 iif having
one walkabout lens is important to you.

I know super zooms are supposedly low in image qaulity but by how
much, these days not much IMHO.

Lance B said:

I will go to Ted's and try the Sigma against the Tamron and take a
few shots on one of their tripods. Have a look at the photos at
home and then make up my mind.

Wally OZ said:

What will soon becomevery important is not having to change lenses
and only carry one lens.

As Brett suggested find a shop that will allow you to try a side by
side compariosn, most will gladly do so, the ones that refuse do
not deserve your good money.

Find the 28-300 that YOU like the most on the picture situtations
that you will be using it in, to a degree all the figures on paper
don't help much in real life situations.

The 28-300 may compromise the image quality a bit BUT not having to
swap lenses and carry one lens as a walkabout may well be worth it.

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one
reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although
it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER
reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens -
you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the
"standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm
closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on
my older Tamron 28-200.
I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour
reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store
that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like
driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best.
It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

That's great, you can't ask for more.

You can decide at your lesiusre and you will be happy with the store and come back to buy more.

While your trying these lenses make sure that you take a few photos in various controlled setups that you can replicate with each lens, so that when you suddenly see a stratling photo produced by one you can go back and compare the photos taken with one of the other lenses that you no longer have.

Sometimes that startling shot has nothing to do with the lens and more to do with lighting contrast and the subject.

It will save you a lot of head scratching.

Happy testing, I am sure we will read your findings.

Lance B said:

Thanks again Wally.

Wally OZ said:

Youll take the lens home try it in more relaxed atmosphere the next
few days and maybe find something you don't like, could be anything
maybe not even related at all to image quality.

It is much better to come to an arragement with the store that if
you don't like something about the lens, so long as it is not
damaged by you, you can swapp it for another lens, cheaper or
dearer.

It is amazing what you find out in a couple of days of actually
using a lens.

I really think your choice is finding the best 28-300 iif having
one walkabout lens is important to you.

I know super zooms are supposedly low in image qaulity but by how
much, these days not much IMHO.

Lance B said:

I will go to Ted's and try the Sigma against the Tamron and take a
few shots on one of their tripods. Have a look at the photos at
home and then make up my mind.

Wally OZ said:

What will soon becomevery important is not having to change lenses
and only carry one lens.

As Brett suggested find a shop that will allow you to try a side by
side compariosn, most will gladly do so, the ones that refuse do
not deserve your good money.

Find the 28-300 that YOU like the most on the picture situtations
that you will be using it in, to a degree all the figures on paper
don't help much in real life situations.

The 28-300 may compromise the image quality a bit BUT not having to
swap lenses and carry one lens as a walkabout may well be worth it.

Brett St Pierre said:

Lance B said:

It is really between the Sigma 55-200, Tamron 28-200 and Tamron
28-300.

I know WallyOz has the 55-200, but I wonder if he has tried the
28-200 or 300 Tamron? Weight fairly similar Sigma 55-200=310gms
Tamron 28-200=354gms. Min focus Sigma 55-200=110cm 1:4.5 macro,
Tamron 28-200=49cm 1:4 macro.

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Agree with all your comments - the hole between 45 and 70 is one
reason why I don't often take my SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 out (although
it considered by all as a very good consumer zoom) - the OTHER
reason is that 28-200 (or 300) is VERY handy as a walk about lens -
you can feel confident to use the DA16-45 OR the 28-200 as the
"standard" lens to leave on the camera. You may find the 110cm
closest focus of the Sigma annoying at times -- I certainly did on
my older Tamron 28-200.
I honestly don't know which is the sharper or has the best colour
reproduction BUT the other thing you should do is go to a store
that lets you put them on the *istD and jst try them out. Just like
driving a car, you might be surprised by which one FEELS the best.
It isn't always the one that looks good on paper......

Brett

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Lance*istD

Click to expand...