Best EOS body for Tamaron 28-200 lense?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I've got a Tamaron 28-200 lense with which I've been reasonably happy. I take portraits and landscapes, mostly in 3rd world countries - South India next. I'm reasonably happy with the portraits but no the landscapes. Can't explain exactly why though.

I've been using an EOS 500 body which has frustrated me because it is so slow to focus resulting in missed moments when photographing people. I've found a new Rebel 2000 for $229 about which I have several questions: 1.) Are there various models of Rebel 2000 - otherwise, why such a cheap price? 2.) Assuming there is only one Rebel 2000, how does it differ from the EOS 500? 3.) I've read on this forum a recommendation against the Tamaron 28-200. I'm wondering if my frustration with my landscapes is related to the lense.

-- Charles Kalish (chkalish@ix.netcom.com), November 11, 2001

Answers

The tamron 28-200 is not known to be a very strong performer at either end. just out of curiosity, however, do you generally try to shoot your landscapes at no lower than f8? There is alot that goes into taking good landscape photos. I can shoot people without a problem, stick a mountain in front of me and, uggghhh!!, it is just more intimidating.

Other than that, what you gain in convenience with the super-teles, you lose in image quality. It is a trade off. I would suggest a Canon wideangle lens, the 28mm f2.8 is quite inexpensive. You will have to change lenses for your landscape shots. I am not too familiar with the Rebel line.

-- Roger Shrader (rashrader@hotmail.com), November 11, 2001.


I respectfully disagree with the hits on the 28-200. This lens gets more that its bad share of hits. As I've said here before, it my experience (with my IIE) that the lens performs very well in the mid F-stops. Of course, compared with the hugely expensive Canon lenses it will pale by comparison, but that is not a fair comparison. And the range is great. So, Charles, my answser to your question 3 is that I have had exclelent results and made a lot of money with the second generation of the 28-200 Tamron with my IIE. I'm thinking of buying the newest Tamron 28-200 to go with a new 7e I plan to pick up but the cost of the filters alone (I don't like adapter rings) would cost more than the lens. But I'll probably do it anyway. All this said, I am not a hard core professional so there will surely be differing opinions.

-- Victor (Catmanman@aol.com), November 11, 2001.

yeah, for travel photographs the new tamron 28-200xr is great because it is small and light. they make them to fit on the rebel 2000, which by the way is a great camera. don't let people try to tell you that you need primes to make great photographs. its not the camera but what is behind it.

-- jeff nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), November 12, 2001.

The Tamron 28-200 isn't a bad lens, it's just not a great lens. Other lenses really ARE sharper and it IS visible on enlargements. The differences are usually not that great for most photographs. With portraits that seldom matters but with landscapes it might. Perhaps that's what's causing your frustration, but perhaps it's just technique.

There is only one Rebel 2000 and it's the exact same camera as the EOS 300. Only the name is changed. Sometimes low prices are for a international grey market EOS 300 instead of the USA warranty Rebel 2000. A lot of marketers advertise the USA name but when you go to order, they tell you it will cost extra if you want the USA warrantied Rebel 2000. Also there are a lot of very bad camera marketers out there. It seems like just about everybody that mail orders cameras out of New York City is a shyster except for B&H Photo and Adorama. I would be very skeptical of any very low advertised price.

The EOS 500/Rebel X was replaced by the 500N/Rebel G which was replaced by the 300/Rebel 2000. The 500 and 500N had three AF points and could shoot at 1 fps. The 300 has 7 AF points and shoots at 1.5 fps. The 500N & 300 added the superior E-TTL flash metering, along with flash exposure lock and high speed sync. The 300 adds depth of field preview and faster AF speed. The 300 is smaller. There are other differences as well, but the end result is the 300 is generally a better camera. The 500 and 500N use a bigger battery though.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), November 12, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ