Author: | | New Member Registered: January, 2022 Location: Tournai, Belgium Posts: 2 | Review Date: March 20, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | Large range, lightweight | Cons: | Not so sharp, no IS | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 6
Camera Used: Canon 5DIII, 700D, Olympus OMD1III/OMD5 ii
| | I got this lens in a bunch of photo equipment, with a lot of "as-is" stuffs. I fact I was only interested in a Canon 35-105FD included in the lot of stuff, and the price was so low, I didn't think twice and bought it.
This lens was included, in a very bad aesthetic shape but after cleaning, in a good condition, I tested it on a few cameras from Canon and Olympus with a EF-AFMFT adapter.
The pros are the lens is very light, easy to use but the image quality is not so good except around f8, and f8 on a Canon body at 200mm without IS, is not so easy and it it's to take a tripod, I take my 300L or my 100-400L.
Usually IS is not mandatory for me as I mostly use pro grade lens or in-body stab, but with this lens, on a Canon without IS, it's just useless.
I don't really recommend this lens, except if it's the only one you have and have no other lens to compare with, because if you have other lenses event the poor Canon 70-300 non-L version, you'll never use it.
In other words, this lens is just to start photography for a very low price but with compromise on quality.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2008 Location: Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire, UK. Posts: 62 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: December 24, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: N/A |
Pros: | Compact, full frame, versatile, quick to focus on K1ii. | Cons: | Dated design, CA but corrected in Lightroom. | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| | I have an almost mint copy of the 171D variant. I bought it for £20 at the Disabled Photographers' flea market stand at the photography Show in Birmingham in September 2022. It came in the original box with both lens caps and a lens hood. I tried it out on a day out at a heritage railway and it is similar to my Sigma 18-200mm DC lens that I use with my K3 in that it not the sharpest lens ever but it is ideal for a day out with just one lens.
| | | | Pentaxian Registered: October, 2006 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 4,721 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: July 20, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Very useful zoom range, Image quality | Cons: | Weight on the 171D and 371D models, the 571D has a 62 mm filter size and is much lighter | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: KR
| | I have owned three versions of this lens, 171D, 371D, and 571D (Pro-Master badge - Spectrum 7 XR 28-200). The 571D is my go to lens and the 371D is now on my DS, which my son uses.
For my use (mainly outdoors or indoors with external flash), I could not differentiate between the 3 versions when post processing from raw. I don't do formal lens comparison so I will let my images do the talking. If you click on the image it will take you to my Flickr account with the exif data below the image. Sorry but my post processing software does not record lens ID. Indoor w/ Flash Tamron 171D - ƒ/5.6 50.0 mm 1/125 ISO 400 Tamron 371D - ƒ/9.0 40.0 mm 1/125 ISO 640 Rebadged 571D - ƒ/5.6 200.0 mm 1/80 ISO 800 Outdoors Tamron 171D - Taken through a window - ƒ/5.6 180.0 mm 1/125 ISO 800 Tamron 371D - ƒ/5.6 100.0 mm 1/250 ISO 800 Rebadged 571D - ƒ/32.0 135.0 mm 1/25 ISO 200
Tim
| | | | New Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 7 3 users found this helpful | Review Date: January 31, 2017 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Bokeh, versatility | Cons: | CA | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: k30
| | I was given this lens by a friend, and if I'm honest I wasn't immediately impressed, but I'm starting to see it has some qualities. It's the early 171D version, and it's quite a handsome beast. Fairly big and chunky, but not too heavy. Initially I thought it was soft, but the strong CA can affect the perceived sharpness. Actually I've had some really nice sharp results.
I think its a lens you can learn to get good results from. The contrast is quite aperture/FL sensitive, wide open at 200mm can look very flat, but stop it down a wee bit and the IQ really improves. It suffers a bit from ghosting too, so not a lens for shooting straight at bright sources; although as I type it occurs to me I should try it without the huge 72mm SUN Skylight filter it came with, I'm not sure how good it is. If it makes much difference I will update. I'd certainly recommend using the hood, which is quite a convenient design.
The AF is noisy but quite reliable. Reasonably close focussing is nice. I find the images respond well to a contrast boost in LR. Great focal range for FF. It would be interesting to see how the CA cleans up on a K1 with a high dynamic range and lowish pixel density.
One thing I'm starting to love with this lens is the bokeh; for an old superzoom its quite exceptional. I've given it a relative 10, not by comparison with a FA77 limited, but with similar zooms. But it really is smooth, and if you manage to get good contrast the images have a nice 3D quality. I've shot some really attractive portraits with it.
The shortcomings of this lens are fixable in PP to a large extent, and it's qualities are desirable. OK, some might not want to faff about in PP, in which case there are much better lenses. But for the price these go for now (next to nowt), it could be a great walk around solution for a budget k1 shooter to supplement a bag of primes. Thats what I'm hoping when I've saved up enough for one myself!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2014 Location: NY Posts: 1,559 4 users found this helpful | Review Date: January 16, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $245.00
| Rating: 10 |
Pros: | contrasty | Cons: | none | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| | Not a bad zoom , it seem to get an undeserved bad rap. but it is a good performer . you should get one and see, besides they are almost for free now on the EBAY.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 678 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: December 29, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $24.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Good focal range, responsive autofocus | Cons: | Very wide barrel, washed out colors at 200mm | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 7
Value: 9
Camera Used: K2000
| | Another great Tamron lens. Mine is the earliest variant—171-D. I picked it up on the cheap and definitely got more than my money's worth. The 28-200mm focal length makes this a good choice for those times when I only want to carry one lens. There's a lot to like about this lens. It's sharp, autofocus is responsive, bokeh is pleasant. There are only a few minor negatives. For some reason, colors appear washed out when the lens is extended to its full 200 mm. Backing off slightly improves the image greatly. With a 72mm filter diameter, this lens is quite girthy, to borrow a line from an old hot dog commercial. My hands aren't exactly huge, so it feels like a lot to hold onto. Fortunately, the lens is relatively light for its size and feels well balanced on the camera, even extended to its full 200mm. That said, the build quality seems quite good. Everything's nice and tight, although the zoom ring is almost too tight. I feel like I'm fighting the mechanism when zooming out toward 200 but not when zooming back in toward 28. I have only had this lens a short while and have yet to really put it through its paces yet but I look forward to doing so in the near future. Early indications suggest this lens will have a long term place in my bag.
| | | | Junior Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 42 4 users found this helpful | Review Date: February 21, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Built well and handles well. | Cons: | A bit slow, but it's very cheap too. No real complaints from me. | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: Film bodies
| | This is the third edition in the Tamron 28-200 line. Pretty good IQ when you consider its focal range. Shutterbug did a comprehensive review some years ago.
| | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2010 Location: Adelaide, SA Posts: 273 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: February 21, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Lightweight, long zoom range, inexpensive | Cons: | Zoom creep, not quite as sharp as the new modern lenses | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: MZ-30, K7
| | Lightweight superzoom that was perfect for my film days and even got some use on my K7.
Surprisingly good image quality given some of the advancements of lens designs in recent years and it being one of the first true superzoom lenses.
Autofocus was quicker on this lens than some of my recent DA, FA and DA* lenses.
| | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 118 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: June 22, 2014 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
| After years playing with DSLR I start to try to think positive.
EVERY LENSES ARE GOOD AS LONG AS YOU GET A GOOD COPY.
What makes different : one is BETTER than other.
Consider this, you get a bad copy of Pentax DA* 16-50 2.8 and you get a good copy of Pentax DA 16-45 4.
You will make a better pic with Pentax DA 16-45 4!
This lens is cheap, will not make you bankrupt and can make a good pic as long as you get a good copy and you know how to use it.
the sample pics are took with Pentax K30 and the lens has scratch on front optic, all handheld including the candle. https://www.flickr.com/photos/94312009@N02/sets/72157644887191749/ | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2013 Posts: 112 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: March 3, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Great all around lens | Cons: | Creaky-plasticky zoom control | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: Nikon
| | I have this lens with a Nikon mount and after using it a bit, I feel comfortable posting a review. It is definitely not legacy glass; but I won't hold that against it because I'm an old dude who still likes those tank-like Western electric rotary dial phones, pre-1970 American cars built of real steel and I like my cameras/lenses the same way!
I would say this is an excellent value for the money. It does what I need it to do and it does it well. It is my most used lens. It doesn't seem as sharp as some others, but after carefully reviewing my last group of photos with another lens, I think this is more of a color rendition issue. The colors are still very good, and that's just my opinion comparing the two, the way they look to me. My only real complaint is the auto focus has trouble in certain lighting conditions, back lit or bright sky. It also has a little trouble deciding focus on landscapes at times but as I have used this a lot, I know what to expect and its not as big a deal as I thought the day I first stuck it on my camera!
| | | | New Member Registered: November, 2013 Posts: 14 | Review Date: February 15, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $69.00
| Rating: 10 |
Pros: | 571 D much more better than 171 D version | Cons: | sometimes refections of sun | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: k-5 k-200D k-x k-S1 fuji x-T100
| | Great zoom range of improved 571 D version with MUCH MORE BETTER SHARPNESS AND CORRECTION THAN EARLIER 171 D VERSION
PAY ATTENTION: This "sun shine lens" must be stopped down - between f 9 and f 13 best results !
+/O aperture wide open only fair sharpness, especially at 200 mm
+/++ good to very good sharpness with f 11 over the full range
+ high contrast
++ beautiful colour rendition
++ very carefully corrected CA's at 28mm
Try to get the newer 571 D version, The lower evaluation concerns the old 171 D version. It is really a big difference between both versions !
Use higher ISO and stop it down + short 1/500 sec, in order to get wonderful pictures with this lens - FULL RECOMMENDATION
Ps. Close ups with 36mm macro ring at 135mm f 11 possible !
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2013 Location: Ontario Posts: 726 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: October 23, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | Nice range, built like a tank, very nice to handle | Cons: | Soft and slow, IQ not so great | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 7
| | This was my first extended zoom lens (28-200). I didn't want to invest too much money and I got what I paid for.
Note that my version of the lens looks a bit different from the one on the pictures but the specs are identical.
This lens is not very sharp from 28 to 50 or from 90 to 200. Between 50 and 90mm sharpness is a bit better but it is still soft compared to other equivalent lenses.
Aberration or fringing most specifically is pretty bad at longer ranges.
Distortion however is lower than expected on a lens in this price range, good to normal levels for a long zoom lens.
Bokeh is decent, seen better but easy to live with.
This lens is actually nice to handle, if feels sturdy, every rings (focus, zoom, aperture) are very smooth and feel much better than the price would suggest.
It was a nice "Starter" lens and I still use it once in a while when I fear I might damage one of my better lens but there are much better options in the same kind of price range (sigma DC 18-200 f/3.5-5.6)
| | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2013 Posts: 41 | Review Date: September 10, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | durability | Cons: | IQ | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| | I got this lens cheap when I bought my used K20D. This was my first foray into digital SLRs - I still shoot a lot of film.
The IQ of this lens is not very good in my experience but I had it tumble down a hillside in the Canadian Rockies recently and still come up working (along with the K20D)...
For its price - I got it for less than $100 - it is okay - but I'd have looked elsewhere if it had broken...
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2008 Location: Lachine, Quebec, Canada Posts: 453 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: August 16, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $125.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Inexpensive, great walk around range | Cons: | PF and CA | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| | I picked up this lens 3 years ago after moving into the DSLR world to take on a trip to France. I wanted a super zoom to avoid having to lug around too much gear and so that I could hand over the camera to my wife will on the trip.
I'm giving this lens an 8 because I think that given the nature of the beast, it acquits itself admirably.
Yes, it does have some real PF and CA issues, even when stopped down to f/8 or f/11, yes, flair is out of control sometimes. I just try and think a bit if I can do anything to mitigate those problems, and if the shot is golden I'll spend time in post to fix it up.
As well, my rating is in the context of how I use this lens: walking around, primarily daytime, on a K100DS.
For that purpose, especially stopped down to f/5.6 or more, not a lot to complain about. Even from 135-200mm, it does quite well for me (I do try and avoid the range between 175 and 200mm). Internal reflections can also be a bit of a problem here (above f/11), so again I do try and avoid those situations.
Resolution and detail are acceptable on my whopping 6mp K100DS- I can imagine higher spec'ed sensors would seriously show the flaws of this lens.
I do not have any issues with zoom creep- my copy is a little too tight, I find.
I have literally hundreds of photos taken with this lens, but here's a few of those that I found surprising. Of course there's post editing: this is a consumer zoom for the love of Mike. But I find that I can pull some really decent images out of the RAW sources, and I actually trust this lens more than I thought I would after my initial purchase! | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: South Florida Posts: 312 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: April 7, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | Good range, decent results with good light, weight helps with shake, zoom lock, build quality | Cons: | Dark, slow, AF hunted a lot with K100D, heavy | | I bought this lens a few years ago when I had my K100D, and I used it almost exclusively. I had bought the K100D without a lens, and this was my first lens.
Being that it was my first DSLR, I didn't realize what some of the gripes I was dealing with were.
Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first:
For what it is, it's extremely heavy. It's subject to a lot of zoom creep, but fortunately it has a lock for 28mm. But it's too heavy to be a casual all-around shooter.
On my K100D, it read out as having a maximum aperture of 4, not 3.8, though it likely was opened all the way up. At any f/stop, the light this lens transmitted to the viewfinder was dim. It was fine in bright situations but once you went inside, it became a problem. I only realized how bad it was once I got my (admittedly also heavily flawed) FA 28-80 f3.5 . . . for only being 0.3 stops faster, that lens was brighter and . . .
It autofocused faster than the Tamron. The 28-200 would really hunt around, and though the manual focus ring was nicely damped, it seemed slow to focus.
However, in well-lit situations, it was capable of producing sharp images with good color reproduction. The copy I got had a cracked filter ring and the coating was wearing on the front element, but it produced great images. Other than that wear, the glass was clean and the thing was built like a TANK. Very sturdy and hardy.
If you're willing to work with its limitations, and you really want a zoom with THAT MUCH range, this is a good option. But it will fight you a bit.
Once I got the FA 28-80 f3.5 I used that almost exclusively. At the time I didn't know about KEH or Pentax Forums. I wish I had bought a kit 18-50 instead and maybe the 50-200 which I have now.
Here's a shot that was taken in the middle of the range (75mm), with plenty of light (it was a strobe behind him)
And here's one all the way in at 200, with lower light.
As you can see, CA was pretty good, not much PF, but when you go all the way in, the resolution goes down and it gets pretty soft.
| | |