 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3
|
|
|
|
Chris39
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact and light, good performance during daylight and acurate AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad low light performance
|
|
|
Many bad comments about it but I have to say it is not so awful.
The design purpose for this lens is not for pro but traveller or houswife. So do not look at it in a picky way after you play with quite a few L lens. I do revaluate when I tried severl L band within that range(28-300) and surprisingly I realize I missed something really good about it. Its AF is acurate. With a tripod the macro is really good. No obvious distortion with resonable CA.
I saw some good review about it and now I believe they are right. When you travel it is a choice. And it is also a good back lens.
I did not find MTF for this lens neither the 28-75 f2.8. Obviously Tamron unwillingly to share these informations unlike Canon and Sigma. But for the purposes I listed I would recommend this lens if you have some extra money in your pocket.
|
|
 Jun 10, 2005
|
|
Spartan37
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 219
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, Macro pics nice
|
|
Cons:
|
AF slow and unreliable, Twist Zoom very tight, No good for action events, plastic feel, AF/M switch hard to change.
|
|
|
This is the second Tamron lens I have owned. My first was the 70-300mm and it was great.
I moved to this lens thinking I would like it because it had so much more range, which it does, however it never produced the quality I was looking for.
I found the auto focus to be adequate in daylight situations, but somewhat slow. I was very disappointed with the focus when using this camera during the evening or at night.
This lens always felt a little "fisher price" like to me because of the plastic finish.
IMO if you are looking for medium to higher quality results you may want to look for another lens.
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2005
|
|
Kagetsu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 355
|
|
Review Date: Mar 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fairly universal, and easy to manage.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, generally soft, with heavy softness at full length, flimsy and hard to activate lock/AF switch. Poor autofocus
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about this lense... It's not bad, but it's not great... But as far as saying it's good... The jury is still out on that one.
I've never used a more temperamental lense in my limitted experience with camera's. There are days when I couldn't imagine a better photo and there are other days when I wonder why I bothered with it in the beginning.
At full extension, the lense produces heavily softened photo's, though at close up ranges (not more then 80-100mm) it can produce some very nice images, where softening is a benifit.
It's not really an all out lense, if you're really looking for something great. Even amatuers will be annoyed by it's temperamental nature.
On the other hand, it does produce some very nice shots, sometimes, in ideal conditions, but it's really, a hit and miss sort of thing, mostly miss.
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005
|
|
skmdc
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 668
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $389.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
great all purpose lens, light weight, sharp images with good light, very acceptable on both ends of zoom, good color represenation, good daytime lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Somewhat cheap in construction, a little soft in certain situations (low light w/ full zoom), sometimes not nice bokeh--but sometimes creamy and nice--too inconsistent.
|
|
|
This lens is not a pro lens. I have a sigma ex 70-200 that I can compare it to and in many situations that lens is sharper and definately has nicer bokeh. However, that lens is also a HUGE beast that can make shooting sometimes a pain. I really LOVE my sigma for low light situations that require a long zoom (think sports or wildlife) but I wanted a lens for "everyday" and I've found it with this.
First let me clarify that I have the "Promaster" but it is made by Tamron. If you can find the promaster version get it because they slap a lifetime warranty on it.
When I first purchased my 20D a friend recommended this lens. I didn't know at that time that Promaster was made by Tamron and I had trouble finding an online dealer. I purchased a Sigma (not my ex) 28-300 mm instead hoping it would be as great as my friend said her Promaster was. I can't describe how AWFUL that lens is. It produces images so soft, even in great light, that you can see the blur on the tiny LCD! I couldn't use it.
So I purchased my Sigma EX (after MUCH research) and loved it except for the weight and size. It's just not suitable for certain situations (think vacations and runabout picture trips). While on vacation we were in a mall and I found a camera store that sold Promaster. They had the lens so I asked to try it out. The dealer informed me it was really a Tamron. Even in the low light of the mall I got nice results right off the bat. Wanting a light weight, good all purpose zoom I immedately slapped down the cash and bought the lens. It has made shooting fun again! I don't change lenses nearly as much now and my camera is light for easy toting.
I get fairly sharp images at both ends in good light. In the best light I describe it as TACK sharp but it degrades somewhat in low light. Unlike other reviewers I find the color representation right on. After reading the previous reviews I compared pictures I had to the actual objects I shot and couldn't see a difference with my eyes! Since I enjoy shooting during the day and outdoors this lens is great for me. I can get wonderful portraits with it and I'm very pleased all around. I even get nice results in low light situations--but not always. But it's much better in low light than the awful Sigma I mentioned earlier. This lens is a big noisy to listen to, but not overly terrible and it can hunt in low light.
Each lens has a purpose. The purpose of this lens is to take good pictures during the day without having to change lenses for every situation. If I have to have a true wide angle or light gets low I'll be forced to switch. But for the majority of situations this lens is great. And it does take acceptable macro shots. My friend who uses this lens is taking a stock photo class. She has L-glass zooms, wide angle and macros, but she still uses this lens 60% of the time and gets her images approved for stock submissions. So while it's not a "pro" lens it is a fine lens for many people.
So writing this review and giving this lens an "eight" overall rating I'm not comparing it to $2000 L-glass. That would be an unfair comparison. But for the price range this lens performs far above expectations for me. In a perfect world they would make a 300mm zoom lens this light weight with 2.8 throughout the zoom--but that's not possible. For the money this lens is keeper.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2005
|
|
GungaDin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility (Range), Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow, 'Tamron' Color Cast
|
|
|
Using this lens for three weeks produced mixed results, from 'very useable' between 35 and slightly over 100 mm to 'precarious' beyond the 200 mm range. However, under perfect lighting conditions it performed much better than I expected from a "Super-Zoom" of this range. AF was reliable and sufficiently fast, but sharpness tended to fade away beyond 200 mm (using a monopod or tripod). What eventually couldn't make it a 'keeper' was it's Tamron-typical red-ish color cast, which seems to be more pronounced with this lens than with most others of the Tamron range. The results were overly contrasty and somewhat over-saturated images, with blue tones shifted towards purple and green tones shifted towards brown, whereas the brighter mid-tones appeared to stand out unnaturally. Nevertheless - if I REALLY needed a single, compact all-purpose lens badly, this Tamron zoom would be my choice.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2005
|
|
kiepje
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, weight, colour saturation. Very usable as a macro
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow speed, plasic feel
|
|
|
Borrowed this lens from a friend (I am saving for a 70-200 2,8 IS). I was eceptic at first, but made a few very nice shots with it. The saturated pictures are not for everyone, but with the mushrooms i shot it came out nicely. At 300MM it is difficult to shoot hand-held due to the slow glass. Overall this is a nice lens for it's price. Due to the close focussing distance you can use it as a macro, but the results are not as good as my (2x more expensive) Canon 100MM 2,8 Macro.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
172367
|
Apr 1, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
82% of reviewers
|
$461.48
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.95
|
8.30
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
