[wilson44512]

i had my Nikon 55-200MM VR for about 2 month. when it was on my camera it fell off my desk. about 3 feet and it broke the lens. camera OK. i took it to the camera shop i bought it from. and they sent it to Nikon to see how much it would cost to fix? they called me back after a week. and said it will cost $165 to fix. i said wow. i only paid $249 for it new. i told them not to fix. here is were i would like your opinion. the camera shop has a Tamron AF 70-300MM macro lens that will work on my D40 for $200. and there having a sale on the 55-200 VR for only $149. if you had a choice which one would you go for? when i had the 55-200 i couldn't really get a good Sharpe picture. i had to work with it in photo shop. with the Tamron lens it don't have VR but it does have a longer reach and macro? has any one used this lens before or have it now?

[buck52]

Hi wilson

See if they will let you try the Tamron... Tamron makes some very good lenses.
The vr would be nice but you would probably enjoy the extra reach.

I have not used either so I have no personal experience. I have read though that lenses in that price range can vary from one sample to another which is why it's important to try before you buy...

here's a link... http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

[gyrgrls]

Tamron lenses are inexpensive, but the image quality is fair to midland.
I wish I would have bought a good Nikkor-Micro zoom, when I had the money.

Tamron lenses are OK, but they are nowhere near as sharp as their
more expensive big brothers.

Another "Gotcha" is the zoom range. The more zoom - the more image quality
is sacrificed. I know, because my cheap $540.00 Tamron 28-200 mm zoom
is a little soft. I need sharpening in Photoshop, even from a film scan (35mm).

Digital will fare even worse than film, unless you use camera "RAW" format...
and that takes up a lot of memory.

Consider a set of fixed lenses, along with two or more zooms, to cover
your desired magnification range.

55-200 is even pushing it. Like I said: I use a 28-200,
only because I'm lazy, and I hate changing lenses.

BTW: I do have a cheap Canon Powershot, and some of its pictures
are sharper than those from my expensive Nikon N-90S. Why?
I think it's the Tamron lens.

I have an old Vivitar 85-205mm manual zoom, that I used to
use with my old Nikkormat FT-2 (R.I.P.). This lens would run circles around
the Tamron, even though it is more than 35 years old!

My favorite zoom is the Zeiss 16-80mm. (35mm body).
Unfortunately, I don't have it. I can't afford it. So what do I do?
I whip out my trusty Tamron AF-D 28-200 and take a cheap shot.

[buck52]

I'll only say that I have a Tamron 90mm macro and it is as sharp as any thing out there and it is a wonderful portrait lens...which can't be said from a lot of macros


As I said the the cheaper variable aperture lens very greatly from one copy to another so the to the other so testing them is of great importance...

just so you know what I have...

Fuji S2 by far the best color of it's generation... slow as a turtle focus and shutter lag but for landscapes I would not part with it... put it on a tripod and it would be tough to beat...

Nikon D2x... lightning fast focus and burst...second only to the D3

Nikkor 17-35.2.8...28-70 2.8... 70-200vr 2.8... first generation 80-400vr 4.5-5.6...200..1.4 macro...Tamron 1.1 2.8


I think the Tamron 70-300 macro would be a great choice for wilson at this point provided he can try it to be sure it's a good sample...

[gyrgrls]

Yes, but the reason quality varies from one specimen to the next
is inconsistency in manufacturing, due to poor quality control.

And now, with much of the labor outsourced, this doesn't help matters.

A good Japanese built Nikkor lens is probably the best choice
for the serious photographer, budget permitting.

Again, this only my opinion. "Your mileage may vary".
(now there's a kackneyed idiom for you!)

[Poopdeck]

Originally Posted by wilson44512

i had my Nikon 55-200MM VR for about 2 month. when it was on my camera it fell off my desk. about 3 feet and it broke the lens. camera OK. i took it to the camera shop i bought it from. and they sent it to Nikon to see how much it would cost to fix? they called me back after a week. and said it will cost $165 to fix. i said wow. i only paid $249 for it new. i told them not to fix. here is were i would like your opinion. the camera shop has a Tamron AF 70-300MM macro lens that will work on my D40 for $200. and there having a sale on the 55-200 VR for only $149. if you had a choice which one would you go for? when i had the 55-200 i couldn't really get a good Sharpe picture. i had to work with it in photo shop. with the Tamron lens it don't have VR but it does have a longer reach and macro? has any one used this lens before or have it now?

I wopld not change from Nikon to Tamron although Tamron lenses are very good. If you shop around and replace your broken Nikon 55-200 you will get it for $129

[moehunter]

Hey wilson,
You did not say what you would be using this lens for.?
I’ve bought most of my glass used with great success, I feel most comfortable with the 24 mm, 50 mm & 100 mm fixed, be great if you could try before buying.?
I believe there is 3 or maybe 4 now with the D .verison of the lens your interested in, make sure of which one your buying.?
goodluck,