View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nethersole
Joined: 17 Sep 2012 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:27 am Post subject: Opinions on Kiron 28-210 vs Tamron 35-210 vs Tokina 35-200 A |
|
|
nethersole wrote:
Hi,
this is my first post here, but I have benefited a lot while wandering in the forum in the past few months.
My question is, provided that the wide shoots are being taken care of by a wide angle zoom, which one of the two lenses is a better choice for travel photography, Kiron 28-210, Tokina 35-200 ATX, or the Tamron 35-210 (MF of course)?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Happy shootings! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ymmot
Joined: 24 Sep 2011 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ymmot wrote:
Welcome to the forum,
I don't know if you will find anyone who used all three of them (they are not hugely popular).
I have a Tamron 35-210, and although it is not bad it is not great either, though my copy is not very clean.
From what i know it has a good reputation, in that it is much better than it should be for an almost 30 years old zoom, which I think is probably true.
I guess it also depend on which camera you use, as for my case I use a 4/3 camera, on which lenses may perform differently than on a APS or Full frame camera.
As a final note, I would also like to note the weight of the thing, it is quite long and slightly under 900 grams depending on the adapter attached.
That can make it quite uncomforble to hold, especially if your camera has a small handgrip, or wear it around your neck (no tripod socket either), at least for me, as even a Tamron 103A becomes somewhat unconfortable without the portrait grip on my camera.
Though some people prefer heavier lenses, so I can't really judge that for you.
Also since they are generally cheap if you have the patience to search them out, it can't really hurt to try one or two them I would say.
If alternative suggestions are allowed, a Tamron 17A and 103A together (or equivalent) will cover the same range at a slightly higher weight (slightly under a kilo), though they will probably be more comfortable to manouver around as the 103A is the heaviest at ~650 grams and for walk around the 17A at ~350g is quite doable on a camera dangling on your neck. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nethersole
Joined: 17 Sep 2012 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nethersole wrote:
Hi Tom,
thank you very much for your reply.
I am going to use the lens on a disproportionately small Sony NEX5.
I have tried a Tamron 35-210mm this morning. It is indeed substantial in weight, but relatively slender. When extended to 210mm, it is almost a mini bazooka. With the rubber hood on, it is pretty intimidating. However, there was no time to take photos so its image quality remains uncertain.
I had a Kiron 28-210 somewhere in storage after using it for a trip to China almost 10 years ago. I liked it, but the tele end is only f5.6, and I recalled the shoot of the peak of Kagebo to be rather soft. Not sure if I can dig it out now, and if it is still clean as 10 years ago though.
By the way, the wide angle zoom I am going to use is a Sigma 21-35 AF version with fixed plastic hood. I got it rather inexpensively, as the aperture was fixed at the wide open position. (if the reviews on the internet is correct, its performance at wide open is not considered as bad at all, hopefully)
Thanks again for your reply! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I think better to split focal length to two parts one 35-80 or 28-80 and one 80-200 both Tamron SP or 70-210 35-70 etc
they are good ones. Kiron is heavy and less good I have , had all
Best ones what I did try made by Olympus and Konica , both compatible with NEX. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nethersole
Joined: 17 Sep 2012 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nethersole wrote:
Attila wrote: |
Kiron is heavy and less good I have , had all |
Thank you for your reply as well. Do you mean the Kiron super zoom is not as good as the Tamron 35-210?
Attila wrote: |
Best ones what I did try made by Olympus and Konica , both compatible with NEX. |
Are they also in the "super-zoom" league?
Please let me know, thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ymmot
Joined: 24 Sep 2011 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ymmot wrote:
If this list is correct/complete, there are probably no superzoom Konicas:
http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eHexanonUebersicht.html
I know this one to be pretty much complete, so no superzooms from Olympus (in German):
http://olypedia.de/OM
Though I can't really imagine where you have to dig it up from, though if you already have the Kiron,
I would at least try that one out before buying another one (also a bit dependent on which mount it is/for how much you can get an adapter)
Just shine a LED light/torch through it you should be able to see quite well if there is any crap/fungus/animals/rainforests/etc. in there.
Digging up my Tamron for a minute it was not as large as I remembered it, though my right hand still cringes at the thought of that on a NEX5. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
nethersole wrote: |
Attila wrote: |
Kiron is heavy and less good I have , had all |
Thank you for your reply as well. Do you mean the Kiron super zoom is not as good as the Tamron 35-210?
Attila wrote: |
Best ones what I did try made by Olympus and Konica , both compatible with NEX. |
Are they also in the "super-zoom" league?
Please let me know, thanks! |
I mean super zooms are not good , no matter who made it or not made it. Simple too much for old technology. I don't know any from serious makers like Konica , Olympus , Nikon etc. Just third party makers made them to cheap family lenses I think. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
I have the Tamron SP 35-210mm and I was very surprised about its quality. I use it on a Canon 5D and I am very pleased with the output. I also has a macro setting, although it is a bit awkward to use, it is a very nice extra. I posted some pictures here about two months ago about this lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
http://forum.mflenses.com/macros-with-tamron-sp-35-210mm-f3-5-4-2-t51469,highlight,%2Btamron.html
Do you have sample from 35mm end too ? Usually that is worst part. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
diddy
Joined: 28 Mar 2012 Posts: 288
|
Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
diddy wrote:
Thanks for providing the link, Attila! I have mainly explored the 35mm length and the macro setting. Please find below an example of a shot taken at 35mm with the Canon 5D mark 1:
IMG_1431 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|