 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
|
|
|
|
tech058
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Light for a 70-300 zoom... thats it?
|
|
Cons:
|
Very bad CA.
|
|
|
Only worth it if you can pick it up for less than $100.
|
|
 Jan 10, 2005
|
|
DamienB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $140.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap. Fairly sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Overwhelmingly bad chromatic abberations, soft above 150mm or so.
|
|
|
Compared to similar third-party zooms this one's sharper, but suffers from appalling amounts of chromatic abberation - say hello to bright pink/purple fringing on the edges of any high contrast areas. This alone makes it nearly useless for use in bright weather.
Definitely a lens only for beginners or snap happy amateurs.
(price paid is in UK £)
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2004
|
|
swanny338
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1139
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
good starter lens, has ability to get some long shots
|
|
Cons:
|
soft just about all around, not the best color or contrast,
|
|
|
I got it a few years ago when I started up and when it still cost a good amount of money, now I realize I was overcharged for it hehe. Mine has been laying around for a while, guess I should sell it...
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2004
|
|
miksik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2004
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, good optical quality at 75; good "starter" lens for amateur
|
|
Cons:
|
bad optical quality at 200-300
|
|
|
At 75-100 this lens has a very good optical quality, at 200-300 it is soft. AF is not as speedy as I would expect but still better than similar Sigma (without HSM)
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2004
|
|
JLavino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 272
|
|
Review Date: Aug 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light (but that adds to the cheapness)
|
|
Cons:
|
Chromatic Aberration, Soft 200-300mm.
|
|
|
This lens is a sub-par lens, but can be used for a few things. Its soft from 200-300mm, at 75-200 the lens if fairly sharp for the money. Be careful of the purple fringes in metallic and white objects, ruins pictures...
I would reccomend this lens for someone who isnt so seroius about shooting and just needs a zoom.
Justin
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: May 22, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
light
|
|
Cons:
|
slow focus, chromatic aberration, low sharp, bad constrution.
|
|
|
A terrible tele lens, you buy very better lenses paying little thing more the.
|
|
|
May 22, 2004
|
|
jedlawre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 521
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, light, good reach with digital rebel
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft... very bad from 200-300, slow focus, chromatic aberration
|
|
|
I have only had this lens for two months and I'm already selling it to purchase a F/4 70-200 L. Everything looks soft on my digital rebel. I only recommend this for people who don't care if their photos are sharp. Do yourself a favor and save for a L series lens. However, I did like this lens until I used a L lens one day!
-you get what you pay for!
|
|
|
May 9, 2004
|
|
canberkol
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Location: Turkey
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
slow autofocus
|
|
|
Because of its comparable price I can't complain about this lens. Yes its auto foucs is slow, and sometimes it may drive you crazy. However, this lens is easy to work with for a beginner. Quality of this lens may not match pro.s, yet I believe it's a good choice for beginners like me who want to get close into action and who cannot afford quality lenses.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2004
|
|
Claude Adams
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 811
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $249.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, light
|
|
Cons:
|
soft a 300mm
|
|
|
I don't have any complaints about this lens. I'm just a hobby shooter and this lens was what I needed . . .a little reach without breaking the bank. It performs well in full sunlight, great pictures! I hope to upgrade soon to a 70-200mm f2.8 but will keep this lens in the meantime.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2004
|
|
rscottntw
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 520
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $229.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Affordable alternative. Well made for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
It isn't "L" glass. Focus is a little slow.
|
|
|
Works very well with Canon Digital Rebel. Smooth, quiet, AF good, but could be quicker. Light weight easyto hand hold. Very good results with tripod. I've taken some really sharp handheld wildlife shots. All in all, for the money I had available to buy a lens I'm very pleased with the performance and results that I get.
Rick
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2003
|
|
GlenW
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Low cost, it's actually quite sharp for me, can handhold reasonably easily due to low weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Doesn't feel especially well engineered, zoom action could be smoother/better damped.
|
|
|
I may be lucky and have a good example so I find it hard to believe the poor reviews in general for this lens. I'm no expert but it meets my requirements, and I take into account the limitations. It's a cheap lens and not particularly fast (aperture wise).
Nevertheless, I have taken a number of photos, handheld with not particularly fast shutter speeds, larger apertures, and been very, very pleased with the results. No problems with the autofocus either.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2003
|
|
ChuckyB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price. Very big focal length (especially on a DSLR).
|
|
Cons:
|
Lots of Chromatic Aberration. Not very sharp at large apertures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2003
|
|
dbarthel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 788
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
absolutely none.
|
|
Cons:
|
everything ben mentioned
|
|
|
I'd be ashamed to give this one away.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2003
|
|
Ben Horne
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 11207
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor Image Quality, Significant Chromatic Aberration, Soft from 200mm to 300mm, cheap build quality
|
|
|
This was one of the first lenses I owned before I could save up for some quality L glass. I do not recommend this lens because of poor image quality (soft at all focal lengths, but especially from 200-300mm and wide open), Chromatic Aberration (always present --- especially in the bokeh), and cheap plastic build quality. Stay away from this lens if you can --- If you buy it, you will likely sell it on ebay within 6 months.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
62
|
179389
|
Jan 11, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
63% of reviewers
|
$193.03
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
5.15
|
7.20
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
