Tamron to Nikkor??

Giphsub · September 11, 2007

Hi guys, I have just been reading through a number of other posts in an attempt to answer my question but just get overwhelmed with all the info.

I have been using a Tamron 28-300mm lens on my d70 for the last few years and have been pretty happy with it. But I am now thinking of upgrading both camera and lens. I am eyeing of the d200 or possibly the d300 when it is released. I have been mostly happy with the pics I have taken with my current setup and really love having the zoom out to over 400 (non dx lense), but have sometimes, and perhaps more recently wished for clearer shots with less noise in them. Anyway, I have read many good things about the nikkor 18-200 VR and am very tempted. What are your thoughts on Tamron lenses? Will I see a noticeable difference in picture quality? Also, my hesitation with the nikkor lens is that it will more than half the zoom capacity which I have been using a lot up until now. Would I be better going for the 70-300? Other options? I have used the Tamron lens as my one-in-all lens so if I had the 70-300 nikkor then I would also need to get a another lense for closer range pics right? Maybe I need to bite the bullet and just get used to using 2 lenses...

Mitchell · September 11, 2007

The classic dillema of lens selection. If you are truly satisfied with your present lens, why change anything?

You are entering the realm of compromise. All lens selection is about compromise. You now have a wide range zoom, but this lens is probably slow (high f stop) and is probably soft or distorts at the extremes.

As you narrow down the zoom range (Nikkor 18-200mm), the zoom is still slow, but it is probably sharper than your tammy at the extremes.

There are faster zooms (f2.8) which have a narrower zoom range but offer better image quality (Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8) at the expense of greater size, weight and cost.

Your last compromise is fixed focal length primes which offer better speed and image quality but have no flexibility of a zoom.

Welcome to the wonderful world of lens lust and uncertainty!

dancorder · September 11, 2007

I haven't used the Tamron but I do have the Nikon 18-200 and use it most of the time, like you I like the flexibility of a huge zoom range

. Also I really like the VR that you get on this lens, it really does help in low light.

From I have read here I would expect the Nikon to be better in terms of picture quality over this kind of zoom range (I'm certainly happy with mine but as I said I've never tried the Tamron). I know the 18-200 is difficult to find, but could you ask to try it in a shop before buying? Alternatively you probably wouldn't have much trouble selling an 18-200 on if you didn't like it.

You wouldn't be halving the zoom range with the Nikon as the focal lengths on DX lenses are specified in the same way as other lenses so you need to compare 200mm with 300mm (not 450).

Edit: Mitchell, both lenses actually have about the same amount of zoom (11 times), it's just that the Nikon starts wider.

Giphsub · September 11, 2007

thanks guys.

yeah I know it is a compromise... bugger! As I said, my tamron has satisfied me for the ost part but the softness has been starting to grab my attention more recently.

I'm actually in Japan and I think the 18-200 is fairly easy to get hold of (but I could be wrong).

So the dx lenses still magnify by 50% then? So I wouldn't be losing quite as much as I was thinking then. Hmmm. That makes it sound a bit better.

More to ponder. Thanks guys.

Mitchell · September 11, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

thanks guys.

yeah I know it is a compromise... bugger! As I said, my tamron has satisfied me for the ost part but the softness has been starting to grab my attention more recently.

I'm actually in Japan and I think the 18-200 is fairly easy to get hold of (but I could be wrong).

So the dx lenses still magnify by 50% then? So I wouldn't be losing quite as much as I was thinking then. Hmmm. That makes it sound a bit better.

More to ponder. Thanks guys.

No, your DX lenses are the actual focal lengths listed without the crop factor. These lenses are designed to be used on your cropped cameras. Non DX lenses will have the crop factor applied.

dancorder · September 11, 2007

Mitchell wrote:

No, your DX lenses are the actual focal lengths listed without the crop factor. These lenses are designed to be used on your cropped cameras. Non DX lenses will have the crop factor applied.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but if you have a 200mm DX lens and a 200mm non-DX lens and you put them on a DX camera you will get the same field of view (equivalent to about 300mm on a 35mm camera) from both.

Giphsub · September 11, 2007

dancorder wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but if you have a 200mm DX lens and a 200mm non-DX lens and you put them on a DX camera you will get the same field of view (equivalent to about 300mm on a 35mm camera) from both.

hmmm, now I am confused! So for arguments sake, let's say my tamron is also 200mm. It is non DX. The nikkor 200mm is DX. Will they both go out to 300mm on the d300?

Mitchell · September 11, 2007

dancorder wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here, but if you have a 200mm DX lens and a 200mm non-DX lens and you put them on a DX camera you will get the same field of view (equivalent to about 300mm on a 35mm camera) from both.

This is not correct. The DX series of lenses were designed specifically for the crop factor built into the present sensor in the Nikon DSLR line of cameras. My 10.5mm DX lens gives me a FOV of 10.5mm on my D2Xs. My Nikkor 200mm nonDX lens gives me 300mm. Your 18-200mm DX, AF-S VR gives you 18-200mm!

Mitchell · September 11, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

hmmm, now I am confused! So for arguments sake, let's say my tamron is also 200mm. It is non DX. The nikkor 200mm is DX. Will they both go out to 300mm on the d300?

Sorry, but the D300 is not a full frame camera and will have the same crop factor present in the current Nikon DSLR lineup.

The Nikkor 200mmDX lens will only give your 200mm. It was designed specifically for the crop sensors on the Nikon DSLRs.

HarveyMushman · September 11, 2007

Mitchell wrote:

This is not correct. The DX series of lenses were designed specifically for the crop factor built into the present sensor in the Nikon DSLR line of cameras. My 10.5mm DX lens gives me a FOV of 10.5mm on my D2Xs. My Nikkor 200mm nonDX lens gives me 300mm. Your 18-200mm DX, AF-S VR gives you 18-200mm!

You are confusing focal length with field-of-view.

Shane422 · September 11, 2007

This is a common misconception and routinely gets propagated on forums and in camera shops everywhere. The NonDX 200MM on a crop or a full frame camera will still be 200MM. There is no extra magnification gained by using a nonDX lens on a DX camera. The only difference will be that the field of view will be cropped (i.e. smaller) on a DX camera.

Think of it as if you are framing an 11x14 print but you're using a mat with only a 8x10 opening, or probably even smaller. The DX camera only sees the inner portion of what the lens is passing on to it.

Mitchell · September 11, 2007

Shane422 wrote:

This is a common misconception and routinely gets propagated on forums and in camera shops everywhere. The NonDX 200MM on a crop or a full frame camera will still be 200MM. There is no extra magnification gained by using a nonDX lens on a DX camera. The only difference will be that the field of view will be cropped (i.e. smaller) on a DX camera.

Think of it as if you are framing an 11x14 print but you're using a mat with only a 8x10 opening, or probably even smaller. The DX camera only sees the inner portion of what the lens is passing on to it.

Shane, this is absolutely correct. Certainly you are not denying that a 200mm non-DX lens on my D2X gives me the effective reach on my sensor of a 300mm lens?

jonh68 · September 11, 2007

If you can afford it, get the 18-200 VR before you upgrade your camera. Use it for everything you do and then you will start to see the limits of the lens. Buy other lenses to compesate for what the 18-200 can't do or you feel the another lens can do significantly better.

If you like walkabout photography, this lens cannot be beat. You can take a close up of a flower, zoom in on a bird in a tree, and take a wide angle shot in seconds. There are lenses that do a better job with each one, but you will get pictures other miss because you are not switching out lenses.

Giphsub · September 11, 2007

jonh68 wrote:

If you can afford it, get the 18-200 VR before you upgrade your camera. Use it for everything you do and then you will start to see the limits of the lens. Buy other lenses to compesate for what the 18-200 can't do or you feel the another lens can do significantly better.

If you like walkabout photography, this lens cannot be beat. You can take a close up of a flower, zoom in on a bird in a tree, and take a wide angle shot in seconds. There are lenses that do a better job with each one, but you will get pictures other miss because you are not switching out lenses.

Thanks. That is exactly the kind of photography I do most. If I had to stop and change to a zoom lense, then I would miss many of the shots that I get.

All this talk about magnification is just confusing me further. It makes sense to me that the DX lense should not be magnified. After all, they have made it specific for digital sensors, and labelled it as 200. Why would they do that if it actually was working at 300?? But do the non dx lenses get magnified or not? If not then there won't be a dramatic difference in difference between my current 300mm (at least it will be one I can possibly live with), but if there is, then I will see quite a large difference - more than halved! This is worrying me because I use the zoom to that range quite frequently, but not exclusively.

Also, getting back to my original question, am I really likely to see a big difference in quality between my Tamron 28-300 and the nikkor 18-200? Is it worth shelling out all that money?

Giphsub · September 12, 2007

am I getting this straight?

The non dx lenses are just getting the sides cropped off, rather than true magnification. So if I were to take a pic in full format then crop off the same areas I would have EXACTLY the same resulting image right? That is why it seems to be magnified, but it actually isn't because it is only working like a crop, which in fact has less res over the whole picture?

If that is right, then doesn't it still remain true that the lens is providing the cropped image, but the sensor is still recording at a the same resolution (not lessened by any crop/zoom work)? So in effect, that should mean it does give a cropped but magnified image recorded at a higher resolution than the same wider image cropped to those dimensions afterwards on a pc.

Sorry if this makes no sense... still trying to figure that one out.

Those teleconverter lenses look interesting too. Would you guys recommend coupling one with the 218-200?

HarveyMushman · September 12, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

am I getting this straight?

The non dx lenses are just getting the sides cropped off, rather than true magnification. So if I were to take a pic in full format then crop off the same areas I would have EXACTLY the same resulting image right? That is why it seems to be magnified, but it actually isn't because it is only working like a crop, which in fact has less res over the whole picture?

If that is right, then doesn't it still remain true that the lens is providing the cropped image, but the sensor is still recording at a the same resolution (not lessened by any crop/zoom work)? So in effect, that should mean it does give a cropped but magnified image recorded at a higher resolution than the same wider image cropped to those dimensions afterwards on a pc.

No. The sensor is doing the cropping, not the lens. There is no magnification. Nikon's DX lenses are optimized for use on a crop-sensor body, which means all of Nikon's bodies except the new D3.

jonh68 · September 12, 2007

Also, getting back to my original question, am I really likely to see a big difference in quality between my Tamron 28-300 and the nikkor 18-200? Is it worth shelling out all that money?

Yes!

HoofClix · September 12, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

am I getting this straight?

The non dx lenses are just getting the sides cropped off, rather than true magnification. So if I were to take a pic in full format then crop off the same areas I would have EXACTLY the same resulting image right? That is why it seems to be magnified, but it actually isn't because it is only working like a crop, which in fact has less res over the whole picture?

If that is right, then doesn't it still remain true that the lens is providing the cropped image, but the sensor is still recording at a the same resolution (not lessened by any crop/zoom work)? So in effect, that should mean it does give a cropped but magnified image recorded at a higher resolution than the same wider image cropped to those dimensions afterwards on a pc.

Sorry if this makes no sense... still trying to figure that one out.

Those teleconverter lenses look interesting too. Would you guys recommend coupling one with the 218-200?

In order to understand this, one needs to separate what the lens does vs. what the camera does. Start thinking in terms of field of view instead of magnification. The focal length of the lens creates a certain angle of field of view. This field of view is basically the same at a given focal length. That is what the lens does. The camera is responsible for how much of that field of view is captured, based on the size of the film or the size of the sensor.

In the days of film, one rarely heard of the concept of "crop factor," at least I didn't. If I used a 200mm lens on 35mm film, the 35 mm width of the film would capture a certain width of the view. The lens is throwing the same light on the focal plane, but you're only capturing 35 mm of it. If you now put 4"x5" film on that same focal plane, you will capture light on a wider spread of the focal plane. Look here to see this visually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format_(film) Anyone who worked with more than one film format understood this in the above terms.

With digital, you have sensor size instead of film size. The sensor on Nikon DX cameras is closer in size to 23mm, which is .66 the size of 35mm. The Canon systems, most of them anyway, have a sensor that is closer to the size of 35mm film. The new Nikon D3 is supposed to have one of these so called "full frame" sensors that is closer to 35mm.

Now the DX lenses that Nikon offers do sort of complicate things. They are designed to bring light into the sensor more perpendicularly to the focal plane of the sensor. There's a lot of massaging of the light to do this, and in the end, they only did it enough to basically cover the 23mm DX sensor. I have the 17-55f2.8 DX lens, and the field of view that it presents at 55mm on my D200 is exactly the same as what my 24-135 gives me set at 55mm. If I repeat this on my N90, 35mm film model, I will get an unexposed ring with the DX lens.

All of this technical gibberish aside, my opinion follows other suggestions in this thread, and that is to get a better lens before you get a better camera. The D70 is still very good resolution, and you would find that the 18-200 VR is such an improvement in lens quality and versatility that even when you crop an image taken at 200mm, you will have a better image then the 300mm you now have. Focus and color will be more accurate. If then you have extra money, wait just a little while and replace the D70 with a D200, as the price is sure to come down; even more money? next get the 70-200f2.8VR; still more, now the 17-55f2.8DX; Still got some money left?, then consider the D300. Still got some money left? Order me a D300!

My Opinions / Your Money!

Giphsub · September 12, 2007

OK, again thanks for the replies guys.

I think I get what you are saying and at this point I will just accept that that is how it is without worrying too much about it further.

I live in Japan and the d200 is dissappearing from the shops. They didn't slash the prices greatly at all. I have been told by a major camera shop here that they can order one in for me but they refuse to give any discount on the price. They said that they will no longer be able to get hold of the d200 after the end of this month. So it seems to me that something different is going on here in Japan. There is my excuse to go for the d300. I will be moving back to Australia next year and want to get some new equipment before heading back. The listed price of the d300 for release in Aus is 2900 dollars. The guy at my camera shop will give it to me for about 800 bucks less than that. So even if prices drop in Aus on the camera it won't go less than that for a long time I'm sure. Anyway...

So, going for the 18-200 will give me clearer and sharper shots? Great. I shoot a lot of zoomed up shots of birds and small creatures, so my only other worry is whether 200mm is going to satisfy me after having gotten very used to using a 300mm. What do you think about teleconverter lenses? Can I use one with the 18-200? Are they effective? I read somewhere that they are now very good unless used with the top level lenses. Is this generally right? Again thanks for your help guys. Really appreciated

HarveyMushman · September 12, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

What do you think about teleconverter lenses? Can I use one with the 18-200? Are they effective? I read somewhere that they are now very good unless used with the top level lenses. Is this generally right? Again thanks for your help guys. Really appreciated

Someone else can correct me here, but I believe the 18-200 would be a poor choice for use with a teleconverter. Depending on the TC you chose, you will lose at least one stop and the 18-200 is already at f/5.6 at 200mm. Also, according to the B&H's site, Nikon's mildest TC, the 1.4x 14E, is only fully compatible with a selected number of AF-S lenses--the 18-200 is not among them. You'd be better off buying a lens that reaches to 300mm, or simply cropping an image shot at 200mm (the D300 will give you plenty of cropping latitude).

Giphsub · September 12, 2007

Thanks, that's what I thought. Alright it seems like I am leaning towards the 18-200. If I wanted a reasonably (similarly) priced 300mm, any recommendations?

jonh68 · September 12, 2007

There is a 70-300 VR lens as well that is around 450.

Again, my recommedation is get the 18-200. It will do 90% of what you want to do. After you use it, you will get an idea of what lenses to get to supplement it. If you don't like it, you can sell it and maybe make more money off of it.

With the 18-200 range covered, you can think bigger such as getting 200-400, or even the sigma 50-500. I wouldn't get a 300 mm as I have the 18-200 unless its a pro-grade lens. I have the 70-300 g, and the crops I make with the 18-200 are clearer and sharper than a non cropped from the 70-300g.

I am sure the 70-300 VR is much sharper than what I have, but I would think bigger than that since I already have the 18-200 covered. I find I need a longer range for some wildlife pics and 300mm is not going to make that much difference. I want something at least 400mm.

Mitchell · September 12, 2007

HarveyMushman wrote:

Someone else can correct me here, but I believe the 18-200 would be a poor choice for use with a teleconverter. Depending on the TC you chose, you will lose at least one stop and the 18-200 is already at f/5.6 at 200mm. Also, according to the B&H's site, Nikon's mildest TC, the 1.4x 14E, is only fully compatible with a selected number of AF-S lenses--the 18-200 is not among them. You'd be better off buying a lens that reaches to 300mm, or simply cropping an image shot at 200mm (the D300 will give you plenty of cropping latitude).

Tim, you're correct here. The 18-200mm is not compatible with any teleconverter. Do not try to use this lens with one as you can damage the rear element.

HoofClix · September 12, 2007

I don't have a teleconverter, so can't really say how they act, but I do know that they're really designed for use with prime fixed focal length lenses, not with zoom lenses, though that doesn't mean that you won't get images... Just not the best use of the money.

I have a photographer who I hire to do horse shows with me, and she has both the 18-200VR and the 70-300VR. I don't let her use the 70-300 because I don't like the clarity and accuracy of the image when she pushes it out past 200mm. It's the same with the old 70-300 non-VR. I do not suggest that lens.

If you get the 18-200, then get the D200 or D300 later on when it comes out, you will have all those extra pixels on that same plate, allowing you to crop your 200mm images down a whole lot more, and still have better clarity than that 300mm VR you are talking about.

View this from the point of what you are buying in each progressive step. How far do your really want to go with this. My bag has two D200s, a 17-55dxf2.8 a 70-200f2.8VR, and a nice used 80-200f2.8AFS, which is mostly all I need, but I'm in a different place. The only other lens I'm considering for the bag is that very 18-200, as it's a very versitile "walkabout" lens for decent light conditions...

Mitchell · September 12, 2007

HoofClix wrote:

I don't have a teleconverter, so can't really say how they act, but I do know that they're really designed for use with prime fixed focal length lenses, not with zoom lenses, though that doesn't mean that you won't get images... Just not the best use of the money.

.

Teleconverters can be used on select zoom lenses. Many use them with good results and minimal reduction in IQ on the 70-200mm, f2.8VR. You must check the teleconverter compatability charts to see which lenses can be used with converters.

I don't own the 18-200mm zoom, but many speak highly of this lens as a good, light walkaround lens for use in good lighting. I've been tempted to buy one of these, but I've been spoiled by my fast zooms and primes.

Shane422 · September 12, 2007

Mitchell wrote:

Shane, this is absolutely correct. Certainly you are not denying that a 200mm non-DX lens on my D2X gives me the effective reach on my sensor of a 300mm lens?

I am saying just that. With any lens, you do not get any more reach on a crop factor camera than with a full frame camera. You just get less of the picture as if you were seeing the same view with blinders on. You would not crop and 8x10 to a 5x7 and call that a real zoom would you. The only thing you are changing is field of view. Its similar to "Digital zoom".

Giphsub · September 12, 2007

OK, I feel pretty happy to go with the 18-200 I think. You have all been very helpful. Thanks for the advice and help.

HoofClix · September 12, 2007

Shane422 wrote:

With any lens, you do not get any more reach on a crop factor camera than with a full frame camera. You just get less of the picture as if you were seeing the same view with blinders on. You would not crop and 8x10 to a 5x7 and call that a real zoom would you. The only thing you are changing is field of view. Its similar to "Digital zoom".

I think we're all pretty much in tune here, but Shane, your first sentence there is not exactly correct... If you shoot at 200mm on a full frame sensor of 6mp, then target the same thing at 200mm on a .66 size sensor like on your D50, you will get more "reach" out of the dx sensor. To print the same image as the full frame "DX" image, the full frame print would only be utilizing the center 4mp of the image. One might not see much difference in an 8x10, but it would be less "reach."

Shane422 · September 12, 2007

HoofClix wrote:

I think we're all pretty much in tune here, but Shane, your first sentence there is not exactly correct... If you shoot at 200mm on a full frame sensor of 6mp, then target the same thing at 200mm on a .66 size sensor like on your D50, you will get more "reach" out of the dx sensor. To print the same image as the full frame "DX" image, the full frame print would only be utilizing the center 4mp of the image. One might not see much difference in an 8x10, but it would be less "reach."

That's true. My statement only applies when using an FX lens. But I didn't really consider that anyone would really consider using a DX lens on a FX body. I guess the only way to really prove this to the world would be with the new D3 which can shoot in FX or DX mode. I think I heard that when you go into DX mode, the resolution drops down to where it is only able to use about 5MP of the 12 Mp sensor.

dancorder · September 13, 2007

Giphsub wrote:

OK, I feel pretty happy to go with the 18-200 I think. You have all been very helpful. Thanks for the advice and help.

I don't think you'll be disappointed, mine stays on my camera almost all the time.

Now, at the risk of flogging a dead horse :deadhorse

I decided to do my own experiment to settle my curiosity. I put my D50 on a tripod and took some pictures with my 18-200DX and my fixed 50mm non-DX lens.

From the point of view of answering the original question: 50mm on my DX camera with a DX lens looks the same as 50mm on my DX camera with a non-DX lens. (There is a slight difference but I think that must be down to scale on my zoom being slightly off, see further down for what 75mm looks like). Therefore Giphsub should be comparing the 200mm on the DX with the 300mm on his non-DX.

18-200DX @ 50mm

50mm fixed non-DX

18-200mm DX @ 75mm for comparison

HarveyMushman · September 13, 2007

dancorder wrote:

I don't think you'll be disappointed, mine stays on my camera almost all the time.

Now, at the risk of flogging a dead horse :deadhorse

I decided to do my own experiment to settle my curiosity. I put my D50 on a tripod and took some pictures with my 18-200DX and my fixed 50mm non-DX lens.

From the point of view of answering the original question: 50mm on my DX camera with a DX lens looks the same as 50mm on my DX camera with a non-DX lens. (There is a slight difference but I think that must be down to scale on my zoom being slightly off, see further down for what 75mm looks like). Therefore Giphsub should be comparing the 200mm on the DX with the 300mm on his non-DX.

18-200DX @ 50mm

50mm fixed non-DX

18-200mm DX @ 75mm for comparison

Thank you, but the more meaningful comparison would be between a crop-sensor camera like your D50 and a full-frame sensor camera like the new D3. Maybe the Canon guys could help us out here?

Tamron to Nikkor??

Comments