I am new to this forum and I would like to get some advise and comments regarding the Tamron 70-300 LD Macro glass quality. I just received my 300D yesterday and I was offered a good price (USD 130) for the Tamron glass to go with it.
Before I make the decision, appreciate some feedback from the good folks in this forum on the pros and cons of this glass.
It's not too bad. I took some good pictures and made a few large prints with it on the 10D. I'd say its a bit better than Canon's 75-300. It's far inferior to the 70-200 f/4L, though.
Thanks for the heads-up there. I do realise the 70-200 f4/L glass has far more superior optics compared to the Tamron and I would certainly like to get it if I could just afford it .
BTW, nice photo! Was it taken with the Tamron or the 70-200?
I have the Tamron 70-300 and have a kind of love-hate-relationship with it, I got it as a present when I started practising with my husband's old non-digital Canon. Okay, before I start a rant, maybe I should make a pro and con list.
Cons:
- Sucks in less than perfect light. Really. It does. I can't get sharp pics when it's overcast and not because the focus is off (it isn't), it's just not good enough optically to deliver sharp pics.
- Focus hunts a lot on every camera I tested it with, even on a Canon EOS 1v. And I mean a lot.
- Focus is slow and very, very noisy. It actually scares birds and you can be sure to miss a lot of shots when you have to focus on something that moves at least a little. It will go to infinity and back a few times and take very long seconds to get there each time. That, together with the noise, makes the most patient animal flee in horror. I focus manually when I want to get a shot fast.
- Bad build quality, especially the hood is very annoying
- slow (5.6 at 300, ok, you know that already, but do you know how annoying that can be... )
- you have to invest in a tripod to get sharp pics at all with that lens at the long end, and that's at least another $150 (though I'd pick up a good tripod anyway if you want to do macro)
- if you add a close-up lens, I should expect the quality to deteriorate even more.
Ok. Overall, it's not too bad, you can get good pics with it, but it's bad enough so you will want to upgrade soon. Would I recommend it? If you're on a really tight budget and want to do some telephoto and macro, it's better than nothing. If you think you can afford a 70-200 (maybe a used one) in the near future, I'd buy for example a Canon 50 1.8 first and have some fun with that and spend money on good glass later. The 50 makes a very good first lens and is very affordable at around $80-90, I think.
Folks don't see the shortcomings of lenses like the Tamron Zoom with non-digital because they'll mostly make small prints, but with digital, the lack of sharpness, contrast and colour will come screaming in your face when you look at the pics on your screen. I think you'll be disappointed soon, especially if you hang around in this forum.
If you want to do macro, I'd consider buying a used Tamron 90 mm macro because it's really really good, even as a telephoto, it's 1:1 and it's affordable (have seen it around $300 used in excellent condition). That's only $170 more and you can keep the money for the closeup lens...
William, imho if you are desperate to get 300mm for a relativly cheap price, go for one of the canon offerings! They are fairly cheap and offer good quaility for the money! I would also reccomend a 50f1.8 prime, as they are one of the best value lenses in the world!!!
Buy cheap, buy twice. Buy quality, buy once. Do you really want a lens that you're not going to be happy with? Keep saving those hard earned pennies for a lens that will deliver the results you really want.
You don't necessarily *need* L glass, but just try and stay away from the really cheap stuff. The advantage of a SLR system is that you invest your money in lenses, then upgrade bodies every now and then when necessary. If you invest in high quality lenses, they'll stick around for a lifetime. If you buy very low end lenses, you'll grow dissatisfied with them, sell them at a big loss, then end up buying what you originally wanted in the first place.
Thanks so much for the response and good advice . I guess there is no such thing as "cheap n good" glass except maybe the 50f1.8 prime.
If I can only afford one good quality L glass, which one should be in the bag? My main subjects are mainly people portraitures and nature shots.
There's a lot affordable glass out there that's really good and not L. Depends on what you do exactly, of course. Did you order the kit lens with the 300D? That would give you a starting point for little money and you could go from there, check out what you really need and what you shoot mostly. If you do landscapes, maybe you want a wide angle or moderate wide angle, then one of the moderate WA primes should be ok for you. The 35/2 is fairly cheap and makes a good lens for landscapes (not too wide though on a 300D, but I like the view you get and will get one in the next months) and portraits and group shots to some extent. I have the Sigma 15-30 and like it a lot, but that's far more expensive than the Canon 35/2.
If you're more into macro, I can only repeat my Tamron 90 recommendation, that's a fabulous lens and also good for portraits (yes, Tamron makes good glass too ) and I'm gonna get it and it's bigger brother (the new Tamron 180mm that may even outperform the Canon L 180 optically, but we're not sure ) eventually too. If you are more into birds and wildlife, it starts getting expensive, you could get a 300 mm Canon prime and an extender or something.
So, if you get the kit lens or the 50/1.8, the 35/2 or a shorter Sigma for landscapes and the Tamron 90 macro for macro and portraits, you'll get away with around $600-700 and I don't think you can buy an L lens for that. The lenses I quoted are all good optically, the differences compared to the L lenses are mostly bokeh, build quality and maybe a bit more contrast or sharpness here and there, but not so much you can see it on a normal in-the-field picture.
There are other options of course and I'm sure you'll be showered with recommendations now.
But it all boils down to what you really want to shoot. And that you'll probably only find out when the 300D is there. Anyway, I'm sure you'll have loads of fun with your new toy and I think the second best about photography after taking photos is contemplating long and hard what you could buy next.
Thanks so much for the response and good advice . I guess there is no such thing as "cheap n good" glass except maybe the 50f1.8 prime.
If I can only afford one good quality L glass, which one should be in the bag? My main subjects are mainly people portraitures and nature shots.
Best Regards!
Well the two most affordable pieces of L glass are the 70-200F4L and the 17-40F4L. If in time you can get both of these then you have yourself a good combo!
chris78cpr wrote:
William, imho if you are desperate to get 300mm for a relativly cheap price, go for one of the canon offerings! They are fairly cheap and offer good quaility for the money! I would also reccomend a 50f1.8 prime, as they are one of the best value lenses in the world!!!
Chris
Hi Chris,
copy that on the 50f1.8 prime ! I am leaning towards the Macro (1:2) capability of the Tamron glass.
Ben Horne wrote:
You don't necessarily *need* L glass, but just try and stay away from the really cheap stuff. The advantage of a SLR system is that you invest your money in lenses, then upgrade bodies every now and then when necessary. If you invest in high quality lenses, they'll stick around for a lifetime. If you buy very low end lenses, you'll grow dissatisfied with them, sell them at a big loss, then end up buying what you originally wanted in the first place.
Hi Ben,
I can agree with your logic regarding high quality lenses and in the long run we probably will upgrade the SLR bodies (especially digital) anyhow.
Antje wrote:
There's a lot affordable glass out there that's really good and not L. Depends on what you do exactly, of course. Did you order the kit lens with the 300D? That would give you a starting point for little money and you could go from there, check out what you really need and what you shoot mostly. If you do landscapes, maybe you want a wide angle or moderate wide angle, then one of the moderate WA primes should be ok for you. The 35/2 is fairly cheap and makes a good lens for landscapes (not too wide though on a 300D, but I like the view you get and will get one in the next months) and portraits and group shots to some extent. I have the Sigma 15-30 and like it a lot, but that's far more expensive than the Canon 35/2.
If you're more into macro, I can only repeat my Tamron 90 recommendation, that's a fabulous lens and also good for portraits (yes, Tamron makes good glass too ) and I'm gonna get it and it's bigger brother (the new Tamron 180mm that may even outperform the Canon L 180 optically, but we're not sure ) eventually too. If you are more into birds and wildlife, it starts getting expensive, you could get a 300 mm Canon prime and an extender or something.
So, if you get the kit lens or the 50/1.8, the 35/2 or a shorter Sigma for landscapes and the Tamron 90 macro for macro and portraits, you'll get away with around $600-700 and I don't think you can buy an L lens for that. The lenses I quoted are all good optically, the differences compared to the L lenses are mostly bokeh, build quality and maybe a bit more contrast or sharpness here and there, but not so much you can see it on a normal in-the-field picture.
There are other options of course and I'm sure you'll be showered with recommendations now.
But it all boils down to what you really want to shoot. And that you'll probably only find out when the 300D is there. Anyway, I'm sure you'll have loads of fun with your new toy and I think the second best about photography after taking photos is contemplating long and hard what you could buy next.
Thanks for the elaborate recommendations and I do agree with you that I will probably need to get outside with the 300D and figure out what I am really missing that I would like to shoot with.
I purchased the 300D with the kit lense (18 - 55) and I am looking for a telephoto zoom lense for the longer reach.
chris78cpr wrote:
Well the two most affordable pieces of L glass are the 70-200F4L and the 17-40F4L. If in time you can get both of these then you have yourself a good combo!
Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the recommendations for the two L glass. I was wondering about the 28-135 IS which I noticed in your profile. What is your experience and opinion about that glass?
Thanks for the recommendations for the two L glass. I was wondering about the 28-135 IS which I noticed in your profile. What is your experience and opinion about that glass?
Best Regards!
Well i like it, i know it's not the most expensive or best quality piece of glass around but for the price it is very good! Gives a great range of focal lengths and has IS. I mean as a walkaround lens it's the best imho. And IS is great when you are out and about at dusk and need to just get that shot!!! GO for it if you can afford it!!!
Chris wrote:
Well i like it, i know it's not the most expensive or best quality piece of glass around but for the price it is very good! Gives a great range of focal lengths and has IS. I mean as a walkaround lens it's the best imho. And IS is great when you are out and about at dusk and need to just get that shot!!! GO for it if you can afford it!!!
Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for sharing your experience regarding the 28-135 IS glass and I hope I can afford the $ for it . I do quite a bit of walkaround at dusk and have to use the flash to get a decent shot, hopefully this will change with the IS glass.
and I was offered a good price (USD 130) for the Tamron glass to go with it.
.
) eventually too. If you are more into birds and wildlife, it starts getting expensive, you could get a 300 mm Canon prime and an extender or something.