Sony Alpha with Tamron 28-300 ?

Question

Any thoughts on buying the Tamron 28-300 for use with a Sony Alpha DSLR ?

Answer 1

For the exact same price as the Sony A100, get a Canon 400D. It doesn't have built-in image stabilization, but it's a superior camera in every other respect. For one thing, it's vastly better at high ISO settings. To some extent, that even compensates for the lack of image-stabilization (you can use a higher ISO setting with the Canon, which reduces the shutter time, which reduces blur). With Canon, you'll also have a much better selection of lenses if you ever decide to upgrade that Tamron you're thinking of.
Instead of the Tamron 28-300, consider a Tamron/ Sigma 18-200 as your all-in-one lens. With the Sony A100 you have a 1.5 crop factor (1.6 with a Canon 400D), so a 28-300mm lens will effectively give you a range of 42-450mm. An 18-200mm lens effectively provides 27-300mm. With indoor pictures, landscapes, street photography, etc., you'll really appreciate the extra zoom range at the wide end. It might not sound like much, but those few extra mm make a world of difference. Of course, the difference at the tele-side of the zoom is also considerable, but the 18-200mm lens provides a much more useful range for general photography.
Another way to go, is to forget about an all-in-one lens and invest in a better quality lens in the 18-70mm range. After all, the quality of your lens(es) determines your image quality. For general photography, 18-70mm should cover about 70 to 90% of your shots. It won't be of much use if you plan on shooting a lot of sports or wildlife, but otherwise give it a thought. (The 'traditional' setup is a two lens combo: 18-70 ish, and 70-200 ish.)

Answer 2

I agree with OMG. I have tamron 28-300 with nikon D70. It's decent. I have some really good pics with it. But traditional 18-70 and 80-200 is nice too. It's convenient to have that much range (28-300) when walking outdoors. But it wont focus as fast as many good 80-200 lenses (esp expensive ones). A constant f2.8 (fast zoom) is a great thing. You can get the tamron. But if you become addicted to hobby and addicted to great sharp photos, you will likely eventually upgrade - so maybe you should upgrade now if you can afford to. By upgrade, I mean fast focusing lens thats around 18-70 and good fast 80-200 zoom, esp if you plan to do sports. A good 18-200 for travel could be a blessing (less lens changing) but wont be ideal for sports (not fast enough). It's an expensive hobby if you get serious about it. In the best of all worlds you own a "do everything lens" like this, and specialty lenses that do certain things lots better.

Answer 3

I am seriously not impressed with the A100, which pains me somewhat since I own an R1 and feel that camera is rather nice. I don't know what crack the devs at Sony are smoking but they took none of the innovations from the R1 for the A100.

Bummer.

Answer 4

The wide end is more useful than the telephoto end. There is no lens will cover from 18 to 300. The 28mm equals to 42mm on full frame, which is not wide enough. I will get Sigma 18-200mm instead.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FSigma-18-200mm-Minolta-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB000CHR0XQ%2Fsr%3D8-10%2Fqid%3D1160635743%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics&tag=nqhp-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325

Answer 5

Looking at comparative photo's it makes a good combination if you can afford it.