Field test of Tamron 18-200 & the new Tamron 28-300 VC

Frost

I was up at The Camera Shop in Muskegon MI Saturday the 10th, http://justtamron.com and had the opportunity to take a few pictures of a lens cap off my Nikon 55-200 VR zoom by 2 lenses made by Tamron. I had owned an 18-250 Tamron lens for about 6 days and returned it to the camera store I bought it from (in Kalamazoo, not one in Muskegon) and exchanged it for the 55-200 VR Nikon.

While I had the 18-250 Tamron I had a chance to do test shots at similar focal length and camera settings to compare to the few shots I had made at the Kalamazoo camera store with my Nikon D80 and the Nikon 55-200 VR. I could not replicate the fine detail in the lens I had bought (18-250 Tamron) with the picture taken of a lens cap made with the Nikon lens. Then to top it all off, I tried my older Tamron 28-200 Di I zoom lens (made for either 35mm film or digital *has larger image circle), and was shocked to see that this older lens showed the finesse of the Nikon lens for detail and crispness. So I returned the 18-250 back to the store and exchanged for the Nikon 55-200VR lens.

Now, Saturday, I shot at the camera store in Muskegon, the Nikon lens cap using 2 different Tamron lenses. First lens was the Tamron 18-200 Di II lens and second was the new Tamron 28-300 VC with the similar "Vibration Compensation" as with the Nikon lens (and others). The reason I did this is I believe that lenses are ALL individuals. You might try 5 different 18-200 lenses in a similar controlled test and there will be a chance that one is exemplary and one is mediocre. My opinion.

The crops show the chromatic aberration of the Tamron 18-200 lens and the lack of chromatic aberration on the Tamron 28-200 VC lens. I included a "resized" full frame picture of each to show the overall. I also included heavy crops of just the finger, showing fingerprint detail. The Tamron 28-300 VC was a very clear winner.

Just thought I'd post these here for observations. Either lens would work great in normal 4X6, 5X7 or 8X10 printed pictures, but if you crop heavily and then go 8X10 or larger I believe that you will see a degradation of quality on the Tamron 18-200 lens over the 28-300 VC lens. I have also seen SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) tests done on both of these lenses at www.popphoto.com and the results kind of bear this out.

Tamron 18-200 in full frame 200mm @ f6.3


Tamron 28-300 in full frame 185mm @ f 6.3


18-200 crop of the word "Nikon"


28-300 crop of the word "Nikon"


Close up crop of the finger/fingerprint from 18-200 Tamron lens:


Close up crop of the finger/fingerprint from 28-300 VC Tamron lens:


The fingerprint comparisons are showing the better detail retained in the 28-300 VC Tamron lens.

Also note that I am not holding the cap in these pictures. Jim, at the store held them for me at around 5' distance, same as I was trying to emulate with the Nikon 55-200 VR lens (that I now have). The Nikon cannot close focus much below 5 feet, so I wanted to compare apples to apples, 200mm to 200mm etc etc. Settings were never changed on the camera (Nikon D80).

Here is the original picture taken with the Nikon 55-200 VR that my wife held for me at the store in Kalamazoo. This is what got my curiosity going.

Really pretty sharp lens!

ziggy53

I guess the 1 Million Dollar question is:

Do you have a detail crop of the Nikon 55-200 VR image for the lettering on the cap and for the fingerprints?

What is your final conclusion among all of these lenses?

(OK, that's two questions. )

Thanks for doing the comparison and for your comments. Please do keep us in mind for more examples from the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR as I suspect it is a very interesting lens and probably going to be pretty popular.

ChatKat

18-200 vs 28-300 vc
I had the 18-200 Tamron (for Canon) when I had my 20d a couple years ago and that lens had just come out I loved the idea of such a wide range of focal lengths for travel instead of taking a bag of lenses. The images I took with it were okay - some of my images were stunningly beautiful but a little soft. Color was terrific. After I sold it I said I'd never get anything but Canon lenses.

That said, at a local Photography trade show, I checked out the Tamron 28-300 VC and was blown away how improved it was over the 18-200 and I bought it to use on my 5d for travel. The weight and white lens issue of the 70-200 while one of my best lenses are a hinderance for travel. I've taken the lens out for a spin a couple times and the color is wonderful and the images are sharp enough for some personal work. I might even consider it for a nice backup lens for work. I really like it.

Frost

ziggy53 wrote:

I guess the 1 Million Dollar question is:

Do you have a detail crop of the Nikon 55-200 VR image for the lettering on the cap and for the fingerprints?

What is your final conclusion among all of these lenses?

(OK, that's two questions. )

Thanks for doing the comparison and for your comments. Please do keep us in mind for more examples from the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR as I suspect it is a very interesting lens and probably going to be pretty popular.

Hi Ziggy53!! Yes, to first questions and here they are:

HEAVY crop of the word NIKON from the Nikon 55-200 VR lens:


And the crop of the lower fingerprint of the Nikon 55-200 VR lens:


Both pictures were pretty downsized with Adobe to fit and upload without too much fanfare, so they may be lacking in what the original was.

Your second question of opinion on these lenses is..... If I had one lens to grab up, and I had NO lenses, just a camera body, and these lenses were laid out on a table and I was told "Pick one to keep and shoot on your daily basis", it would be the 28-300 Tamron VR.
SECOND would be the 28-200 XR (IF) zoom I have now.
THIRD would be the 55-200 Nikon VR lens
FOURTH would be the 18-200 lens. I had a 18-250 lens, as you recall in the above post so it would be the toss up of the fourth choice. Given that all are free, but I only get one.

I look at the 28-200 XR (IF) that I now have and the 28-300 VC lens I tried as a bit better because they get the image more from the center of the lens, since they are both full frame (35mm) designed lenses and have a bit larger image circle. Remember, the lens is sharpest, with the least amount of distortion, and vignetting in the center of it's image circle. DX lenses are "just" wide enough to cover the intended imager on the DX cameras. However, a lens that shoots for FX or full frame has to have a larger image circle or else it vignettes badly on 35mm film/digital. That, I think, is it's advantage. The 28-200 or 28-300, although not truly a great wide angle, would work for me, as I rarely shoot at the wide end, and more middle to telephoto end.

Since these are Tamron's Di designated lenses, they are also a coated a bit differently inside the barrel and glass of the lens to reduce the amount of reflection off the imager to a very minimum, IE eliminates flare and some softness.

I'd really like to try out the Tamron 28-300 XR (IF) zoom lens sometime to se how it worked. It doesn't have the VC (Vibration Control) but it, too, has a larger image circle and one would just have to shoot at a bit higher ISO, brace, or use a tripod for lower light. Plus, it can probably be found for a whole lot less used.