File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
is tamron ok? I just got a tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 for about $200 cad for my a200.
I wanting something cheap, that would give me a bit more zoom, and something that would be an upgrade from the 18-70 kit lens.

I've read a few reviews and the thing people weren't that happy with was the slower AF, but I haven't had too much of a problem with it.

What would be a good next lens, I would want something a bit more wide to counter the zoom on this guy. But should I stay with tamron? they are usually pretty inexpensive, or should I save up more and go sony, or try to find some used minolta lenses online?
I'm just doing it for a hobby, so I'm not doing any specific type of photography yet, and I don't want to spend too much (reason for just getting the cheap tamron)
>> Anonymous
They are generally the cheapest and worst quality of the major lens makers, but they are still good. Sigma is a step up and Canon and Nikon are about the same. But it really depends on the individual lens. I don't know anything about Tamron for Sony, so I can't help you.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
while cheap glass is tempting I would avoid it if you can. Camera bodies change, lenses don't. Place your money in lenses and they should last you until the next format change, the last time we have format change was from FD to EF. EF-S doesn't count imo it's a subformat.
>> Anonymous
tamron 17-50 f/2.8

end
>> Anonymous
>>234747
>70-300
>17-50

BRB, sneaking up on birds with my 50mm.
>> Anonymous
>>234724
I dunno, i tend to find that tamron higher end lenses have better optics while they have lesser build qualityand less features while sigma is visa versa.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
afaik the kit lens is a tamron with sony badges.

sage for useless info.
>> Anonymous
>>234866

yeah, it's useless info

because the 11-18 is a Tamron, not the 18-70
>> Anonymous
LOL a200 LOL
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
I own 3 Tamron lenses for the EOS mount. I got the 17-50 f/2.8 for $440, 75-300 f/4-5.6 for about $150, and the 28-80 3.5-56 for about $50 (though I don't use it anymore at the moment).

The glass is better than what you are paying for. The build quality is where Tamron cuts its corners. Motors are slow and noisy as fuck. They definitely feel cheaper than similar lenses from Canon/Nikon. I've never used anything other than Sony's kit lens though, which I hear is made by Tamron anyway.

Honestly though, if you're a cheap student like me who's relatively inexperienced with this stuff, you probably won't mind. I really had no problem with the build quality until I got to spend a lot of time with better equipment (being able to use a D300 kinda spoiled me).

If you can afford better lenses, I'd say spend the extra money. But if you just have enough money for those lenses, and spending the money on Tamron is the difference between shooting with the Tamron, or shooting with crappy lenses/having a gap in your equipment, go for the Tamron and think about upgrading in the next 3-5 years.
>> Anonymous
TAMRON: For Morons Only
>> Anonymous
>>235227

$10 says this guy is a Nikkorfag
>> Anonymous
>>235227
I love my 17-50 shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
you can't touch this

CAN'T TOUCH THIS
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>235987

fully extended
>> Anonymous
The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens. I used that with my 300D Digital Rebel for two years before I moved on to my 5D and 24-105mm L. Go read fredmiranda.com's user reviews rather than asking the idiots on this board about lenses.