Quantaray 28-200MM F3.8-5.6 Lens

I bought this Quantaray lens on a whim, my better judgement told me to stick with Nikkor, and with a DX lens. (I've recently added a Nikon D50 to my collection). I've crudely tested the Quantaray against the Nikon Kit lens, and found them to be quite similar on the subject, but different at the edges, an effect probably caused from the fact that the Quantaray is not a digital lens, and it is a superzoom, so sacrifices must be made. You can count on detail falling off rapidly as you near the edge of the frame. I would not use this lens for landscapes or vistas. I do recommend it if your center subject is your primary concern, and if you are using depth of field to blur the rest of the background anyway. I will use it for close ups at weddings, but I'll switch to a Nikon wide angle for group shots and architecture. On the performance end, it focuses almost as fast as the kit lens, and almost as quietly. It is somewhat heavy, but hey, it's a superzoom! Back to comparisons; My Panasonic FZ15 camera that I bought on Ebay for $265 cleanly blows away this lens, as well as the Nikon D50, when it comes to captured details, contrast, macro, image stabilization, low f-stop, and a term I call "snappiness". If the FZ series had a dedicated flash, I'd use them in every opportunity instead. It makes me wonder if we are all getting taken to the cleaners on the prices of these lenses, when point & shoot cameras can blow them away. Now if only Panasonic would switch to a Sony CCD for higher ISO capability...

The 28-200mm turns into a 42-300mm on a Nikon Digital. The center of the frame seems decently detailed throughout the zoom range. Small, compact, and reasonable.

Super soft details as you near the lens edges (on a digital SLR). Say, where's the alignment mark for lens mounting? It's there, right above the manual f-stop ring, and there's another on the top of the barrel edge, but you have to look for them. No Macro. I know that f3.5 is standard for a $200 zoom, but how can Panasonic put an out-performing Leica 35-435mm 2.8 lens with image stabilization a camera for under $500? To buy the same capable lens as the one on my FZ15 for an SLR cost over $2000, and weighs 6 times more? Are we really paying for true value when we purchase ANY lens for an SLR? If Panasonic could improve the noise issues on the FZ30, I'd do away with the SLR idea altogether.

Dozens of lenses over the years, mostly for Canon.

None needed.

My expectation were not high given the low price of this lens. But I wanted something better than the lousy 18-55 Canon that comes with the Rebel XT so I picked this lens. I have been VERY surprised by the results. The lens is really great. At all focal lengths and in all situations thus far this lens has performed far better than I expected. I have also compared it to the Canon 20-35 USM and the Quantary takes much better pictures. I am selling the Canon and buying a 17-40L for the wide angle shots.

Picture quality, price, fast and quiet focusing, accurate focus (unlike 20-35 Canon)

None at all.

Religously a Pentax user in the past.

Not needed.

I purchased this lens with much reservation, but I have to say that it performs very well in the situations that I use it. I have a RebelXT with the kit lens and I impulse bought the 75-300mmIS Canon lens. Being on the sidelines at youth football I needed something wider than 75mm but with some reach. This fit the zoom range and the price range to a T. I purchased it and took it to DC on vacation and found it very useful, light and as easy to carry as the kit lens. This lens is very similar to the Tamron 28-200mm and was assured at two Ritz stores that it actually is a Tamron produced exclusively for Ritz.

Pretty fast auto focus. It is a little soft on the corners at 200mm but for what I am using it for not an issue. It comes with a lens hood. Pictures are generally pretty sharp and I have taken about 200 shots with it already. Overall an excellent lens for the zoomrange and price.

Somewhat stiff zoom ring. Certainly not L glass, but for 200 not expecting it.

18-55mm Canon kit, 75-300mmIS Canon, 18-200 Tamron.

I purchased this lens as a low-cost portrait lens that could hopefully fill any and all portrait needs until I could afford to purchase a faster (2.8) zoom. I'm switching 'camera outfits' so I'm reinvesting in camera lenses. My first purchase was a Tamron 28-75 XR Di and I love it 100% - however, I wanted to zoom a little further out so facial features were not exagerated when the camera was tilted slightly and so I could provide more distance between the camera and the model - in efforts to prevent the model from becoming uncomfortable. This is a $200 lens, and a great lens for $200. There are variables that I must control (camera shake, exposure, etc..) and when I provide enough light for the exposure, the lens performs well and the images are sharp. There are many lenses I would prefer, however, for it's price - it's a great lens. When I purchase the lens which I would REALLY PREFER, this lens will become a back-up, or will remain in a film camera body while I'm shooting digital....

Price, zoom-range, image quality

??? For $200, it is not weak, and doesn't fail any expectations I hold for a $200 lens.

Haven't used any similar lenses with that zoom range.

This is a top-notch lens. It is fast, compact and has good quality optics. Like ALL lenses it causes the camera to 'hunt' in low light. The AF is pretty quiet and it is pretty fast for a zoom of this range.

Quick, quiet AF motor Size Pretty fast for a zoom 19.7" min focus Has Metal "vitals"

Lock button only works on 28mm setting. Should have a lens hood included.

None

Not needed