Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Third-Party Pentax Lenses - Reviews and Database » Tamron Lenses » Legacy Zoom Lenses
Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical Review RSS Feed

Tamron ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical

Reviews Views Date of last review
23 74,405 Mon March 26, 2018
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
91% of reviewers $109.50 7.91
Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical

Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical
Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical

As kiron kid mentions in his review there were several slightly different incarnations of the 28-200mm autofocus superzoom, The earliest model was 171D which was optically the same as the adaptall 171A. Then numbers went to 571D and then an XR LD aspherical. Also sold as a Promaster (Spectrum 7 XR 28-200). And one version was sold as a pentax: the FA 28-200mm.
LD (low dispersion), IF (internal focus) and aspherical are common denominators. Note that the 200mm focal length only applies to infinity focus, at closer distances the maximum focal length is significantly less - down towards 135mm odd for say 5m focus.
The model number is usually on the lens by "Made in Japan".

Aperture: f/3.8-5.6
Minimum Aperture: 22
Construction: 15 Elements-13 Groups (171D); 16/14 (271D...)
Angle of View: 75-12 degrees.
Minimum Focus: 0.49 m (171D); 0.51m at 135mm (271D) giving 1:4.8.
Filter Size: 72 mm
Length: 75.2 mm
Weight: 354 grams; 465g (271D)
Macro Ratio: 1:4
Coating: Multi-coated
Focus System: Automatic

Was made for all the main camera mounts.
Price History:

Add Review of Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-15 of 23
Site Supporter

Registered: October, 2006
Location: North Face of Mount Shasta
Posts: 120
Lens Review Date: March 26, 2018 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $65.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Affordable, reasonably sharp, good contrast, fast autofocus, lightweight, durable
Cons: For the cost, nothing
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 7    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: K20d, K3   

I had originally purchased this lens for my son's first dslr and over time has proved to be one heck of a gem.
This lens isn't capable of competing with my main line glass on any level, but for what I use it for, it's a definite winner.
This is my lens of choice whenever I'm with the family in crowds or other dangerous surroundings. The beauty of this lens is its ability to consistently produce very acceptable results while holding up to some solid bumps and bruises in the process.
My copy has paid for itself several times over and has earned its way into my primary bag. Mine belongs to the 3rd generation of this lens, the 571d, with the 62mm filter size, light weight and reasonably quick internal focus, especially on my K3. If you ever run across one in decent shape, I would strongly suggest picking it up ... it could earn its way into your bag just like mine did.

Its close focus ability;

Registered: October, 2006
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 4,333
Lens Review Date: July 20, 2017 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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 - É/5.6 50.0 mm 1/125 ISO 400

Tamron 371D - É/9.0 40.0 mm 1/125 ISO 640

Rebadged 571D - É/5.6 200.0 mm 1/80 ISO 800


Tamron 171D - Taken through a window - É/5.6 180.0 mm 1/125 ISO 800

Tamron 371D - É/5.6 100.0 mm 1/250 ISO 800

Rebadged 571D - É/32.0 135.0 mm 1/25 ISO 200

New Member

Registered: December, 2013
Posts: 1

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: January 31, 2017 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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
Posts: 1,049

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: January 16, 2017 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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.

Registered: August, 2012
Posts: 521

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: December 29, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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 variantó171-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.
Veteran Member

Registered: July, 2007
Location: North West UK
Posts: 378

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: September 17, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $40.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Good focal range, fairly small, quite sharp, good macro
Cons: Classic Tamron issue of images looking cooler, Could be sharper, Aberrations
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 9    Camera Used: K-1   

I have only just bought this lens (a 471D chrome version) for just over £30, and I have given it a run on my K-1. Now that is no mean feat, giving it a run on Pentax's most powerful and demanding DSLR.

Did it come out smelling of roses? Not quite. The contrast and bokeh are very good but there are one or two issues.

Sharpness - It is acceptable, not blow your mind nor bad, but okay.
Colour balance - Typical Tamron, the images come out rather cool as opposed to Pentax glass, my superb Tamron 90mm macro suffers the same problem. I don't know what it is, but I do prefer Pentax colours over the cooler Tamron glass.
CA and fringing. Oh dear, even stopped down there are huge elements in high contrast areas of purple fringing. However CameraRaw does have a lens profile built in for this very lens, and it helps a lot.

Overall though, If this was bought new (but they don't make them new anymore) then I would but it as an average lens. However. as this was found in a camera shop second-hand and I bought it with a SFXn body as well for £50, I would say it does have a lot a bang for the buck.

Worth having for its useful focal range, and complements the K-1 well for this, just ensure you shoot RAW, or shoot with film.

Great single lens for travel.

Edit - I know it has been a couple of weeks since posted, but I am beginning to love this lens, Sharpness is better than initial thoughts, CA is still average, but then again CameraRAW sorts it very well. In extremis it is still a problem. Then again this lens cost me thirty quid, so I consider it a bargain!
Find one for a lot less than a night out, and really enjoy this lens. Bang for the buck, this is a great lens! :-)
Junior Member

Registered: November, 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 33

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: February 21, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: February 21, 2016 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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: 100
Lens Review Date: June 22, 2014 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: None indicated | Rating: 7 


After years playing with DSLR I start to try to think positive.


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.
Senior Member

Registered: August, 2013
Posts: 112

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: March 3, 2014 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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: 5
Lens Review Date: February 15, 2014 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $69.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: sharp zoom lens when using 50-135mm with f 8-11
Cons: visible CA's, sometimes refections of sun
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 10   

  • great zoom range, a good lens for weddings' shootings and familiy feastsreally sharp until 8x12"printings

  • when using extreme focus, visibles CA's (200mm) for big posters - must be eleminated by Photoshop.

  • I've got some items of it as gift for my children and good friends, because 50 to 135 mm have nearly none of optically mistakes: excellent sharpness in this range.
Veteran Member

Registered: October, 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 726

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: October 23, 2013 I can recommend this lens: No | 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: 40
Lens Review Date: September 10, 2013 I can recommend this lens: No | 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
Lens Review Date: August 16, 2011 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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
Lens Review Date: April 7, 2011 I can recommend this lens: Yes | 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.
Add Review of Tamron  ( Promaster ) 171D, 271D .... 571D AF 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD IF Aspherical

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]