 |
|
|
David Baldwin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3146
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, light weight, good image quality if used carefully
|
|
Cons:
|
No image stabilization, but what do you expect for this price.
|
|
Tamron 70-300mm F4/5.6 DI LD Macro
If you need a reasonable longish focal length lens, but money is a problem, this Tamron is well worth a good look.
Its basically a middle of the road lens for those who can't afford to spend a lot of money on a pro level zoom.
The build is quite good and is surprisingly light. The image quality is good (not incredible) even on a 20 mpx full frame sensor, as long as you shoot in the range f9-f11 and use a tripod for longer exposures (this lens has no image stabilization). I shoot using RAW with a 5D2 and process in ACR and on the basis I don't have £1200 for a pro level zoom at present this £95 Tamron is allowing me to take shots I wouldn't otherwise be able to:
http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/la35.html
In short, if you don't need to shoot at wide apertures, don't need ultrafast AF for sports or flying birds, and can use a tripod in lower light, then this is a good lens photographically speaking. If you factor in its incredibly affordable price tag and low weight its a wonderful deal, just don't expect top of the line features!
|
|
 Mar 7, 2014
|
|
Matt Hunt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Range (in theory), size of grips for focus and zoom. 1:2 macro
|
|
Cons:
|
Too light, needs manual focus when in 'macro' mode and the manual focus ring is too highly geared making to hard to achieve accurate focus
|
|
|
OK, I've tried this on a Canon 30D since my wife is interested in taking close-up pictures, but not always true macro. I had hoped that this lens would give her a passable street lens with which she could also photograph textures, patterns etc.
Ergonomically the lens is not too bad, however, on an overcast day in the street the lens did not want to focus on a man in a white shirt against a dark building and insisted on focusing on various peripheral focus points instead. In the macro mode, the closest focus is some three feet away and you need to fully extend the lens. Since it is so light I found it hard to keep steady (I do not have unsteady hands) and the AF hunted. In manual focus the focus ring is light and highly geared so despite my best efforts to move the ring a fraction at a time, I kept overshooting my focus point.
I can see that if you want a lens for pictures to shove on facebook for example, this might well be adaquate but otherwise it is too flawed.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010
|
|
aradilon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Macro mode!, cheap, range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, slow autofocus.
|
|
|
I have this lens for 2 years now it was my first lens i bought after the kit lens and i didn't have any regrets allthough thats only because it was so cheap.
Pro's;- Macro mode it has an 1:2 macro mode from 180-300mm wich works great and u get alot of space between u and the bug or insect. (its alot of fun)
- Cheap its so cheap that EVRYONE that buys his/hers first dslr should get this to its so much fun to get so close to to insects and have so much range.
Con:- Soft, lets say it as it it its soft mostly from 200-300mm and the image quality is not good allthough u get some good photos once in a while if u have luck (wich i had mostly at weddings).
- Autofocus is very slow for macro work its not that bad cuz u don't need it but for weddings its horrible thats why i'm saving for the sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Summary; Good and fun lens for beginners use it until u can get a 70-200mm f2.8, but a recommend lens for evryone who just starts and want to have alot of lens for a cheap prize.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2010
|
|
---XR---
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1470
|
|
Review Date: Apr 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $88.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
|
I paid 88 bucks for this lens, and it was the second lens i ever bought after a 18-70 nikkor. I was impressed being that it had such range, but in retrospect the lens is truely you get what you pay for.
It feels very light and therefor, cheap. it's image quality is sometimes half decent and in low light, just dismal.
If your new to DSLR's, and own an entry level nikon camera, it's a good lens to buy for learning how to shoot correctly, but for anyone who has used anything semi better, you realize this is a Toy's R Us lens.
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2009
|
|
wg-racing
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 1, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Ergonomics, design, appearance and price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is very poor at wide apertures and long focal lengths.
|
|
|
Tamron 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro - Canon Fit
Having read a number of positive reviews, I bought the latest Di version of this lens in the Canon AF mount for £119 which seemed like it was going to be a bargain. Wrong! It was really disappointing. Poor image quality at wide apertures and long focal lengths meant it had to go back. Not a patch on the Sigma 70-300 APO which I’ve owned previously. The Tamron offers about the same image quality as the non-APO version of the Sigma lens which again is pretty average. I could get decent results in a very narrow range of focal lengths and apertures but to me that really hinders my photography – I want to be able to use a zoom across its full range and wide open if needs be.
You can get decent images from this lens but it’s hard work and I was constantly thinking about whether or not you can get in to the optimal range. In poor light you simply cannot. This does not make for spontaneous images! It's a real shame as this is a well built, fine handling lens....altough personally I don't like plastic lens mounts.
If you’re on a tight budget I’d say the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Lens is a better bet for around £30 more.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2009
|
|
hokiejimbo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 24, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $125.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome value! Incredible color and really good sharpness. I've gotten some really incredible results from this best-value lens. I've also gotten some really good results with Macro.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA is really strong at both ends of the zoom range, so it's really important to only use the lens as about a 100-250, if you want usable results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2008
|
|
mihaiconstanti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice colors, strongly built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy, lazy zoom, faded colors (of compared to Canon), some fringing at high contrast, bad focus in low light.
|
|
|
Considering the price of this lens, it is a very good choice. I had hard times over the last couple of years with Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 because of softness and bad focus (maybe because of too much use, who knows..). Tamron is up to my expectations if you keep some very simple rules in mind such as:
- never use it fully extended at 300 mm
- never use the largest aperture for the focal length used (stop it down as much as you can)
- try increasing ISO on the camera to get higher speeds rather than attempting at lower speeds.
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2008
|
|
WazzoTheMartia
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
PRICE, sharpness, weight, build, range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Unacceptable focus from 2 copies on my Canon.
|
|
I really wanted to like this lens. After reading the reviews here and elsewhere I decided to buy it rather than the kit lens when I bought my 400D earlier this year. It had the range, quality and PRICE that I wanted.
From the beginning it exhibited unacceptable front focus (see the 100% crop pictures on my review page: http://warrenmars.com/pictures/camera/tamron_70_300/review.htm
The lens was sent back and 2 weeks later a fresh copy appeared. Same problem. The camera body was then sent off to Canon for calibration. 2 weeks later it returned. Same problem. I was livid. Obviously someone was letting me down but was it the lens or the camera? I bought the Canon nifty fifty and it focused largely ok although it still exhibited some focusing issues.
I decided to try the lens offset screw twiddle, as detailed elsewhere on the net. Success! The Tamron lens then focused much better. Check the result on my review page. Unfortunately, in order to get the Tamron lens focusing properly the necessary mirror offset now caused both my Canon lenses to back focus badly. The evidence against Tamron was compelling. I reset the mirror to its correct position and sent the lens back to Tamron with a letter detailing the situation and a selection of photos.
To their credit Tamron's Australian distributors Maxwell, made a real effort to fix the problem. The lens was sent to Japan for analysis by the mother company. Unfortunately they could find no fault with it despite the clear evidence of front focus. They offered to set up the lens to suit the camera if I would just send my 400D off to Japan. I declined and got my money back.
I hesitate to apportion all the blame for my bad experience to Tamron. Other experience with various Canon bodies has led me to the conclusion that Canon have a real problem with their autofocus units. Nevertheless Tamron ought to be aware of any such issues, and the time wasting nightmare that I went through trying to get to the bottom of the problem simply should never happen. It is not good enough Tamron!
On the positive side however, IFF the lens focuses properly in your camera, then you have a bargain. During the brief period when I had the camera set up to work with the lens I got lovely images: sharp, contrasty and colourful. The lens felt good in my hand and the zoom ring didn't slip. The focusing motor is a little rough & noisy but worked well enough. I found though, of course, that a 300mm lens needs IS, you can shoot at f8 (where the lens is really sharp) in bright daylight at ISO 400, but when the light is weaker you'll get camera shake blur unless you open it up to f5.6 and /or use ISO 800. Still, you can't expect IS in a $200 lens. Or can you...
The macro facility sounds great but isn't as useful as one might think. At 300mm at closest approach the depth of field is only a few mm. This is ok for flat objects but not enough for insects etc. At 180mm it is more useful, but again the DoF is a bit narrow. It would have been much better if they had let the lens extension come out for the entire focal range, not just 180-300. And again, IS is really needed for anything handheld at 300mm. The business of changing into and out of the macro mode is rather fiddly as people have mentioned and there are no instructions to advise you. You can't switch out of macro mode while the lens is hyper-extended. To correct this, just focus on some distant object and the lens will retract, allowing you to change back to normal mode.
This was my first experience with Tamron and it was mostly bad. Since I believe Canon are partly to blame I may try another Tamron lens on the Nikon D60 that I have just bought but I will only buy if I have a cast iron money back guarantee for any reason.
If you have a Canon TRY BEFORE YOU BUY.
|
|
|
May 29, 2008
|
|
LotsToLearn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 434
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight. Great optics for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
No stabilization or focus motor. Barrel extension.
|
|
|
I have this lens in a Nikon mount and I would say that overall it is excellent value for the money.
It produces sharp images with great colour rendition and contrast. It's lightweight and easy to handle. As is a typical complaint with many consumer telezooms, it would be very useful to have stabilization and a high speed motor but you're getting what you pay for here. In fact the quality of the images is better than what you pay for. Perhaps Tamron will re-issue it later now that they have their VC technology.
Optically, this is a great option for a telephoto zoom if you're on a limited budget. I'm very happy with it and if used within it's limits, you would be too.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2008
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very very good lens and fantastic range of 70-300 ,best buy of them all.
absolutely recomanded,in short Tamron continues to surprise me .
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs VR or IS motor(Buy The Nikon)...little too plasticky..
|
|
|
Very good zoom for almost no money,no matter what you will not be dissapointed!
I have used it on a Canon 300D some years ago with great results..its fantastic perfect for travelling and alike.
Super colours and sharpness .
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2007
|
|
Peter twohey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 118
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic value for money.Good IQ and a great range.
|
|
Cons:
|
The oh so fiddly Macro.
|
|
|
Just like the Canon 50mm f/1.8 this lens is an absolute bargain.Ok its not the fastest but when stopped down particularly between f/8 and f/11 this lens takes nice sharp images.Once you have overcome the fiddly macro setting it also takes excellent macro pics as well.In good light with a 1.4 adapter you also have a very light 100mm-420mm lens.
This lens does get a bit soft past 200mm and does suffer a bit with CA but thats easily sorted.Astonishing value for money.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2007
|
|
PeterArbib
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Apr 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good size, but light. not too heavy. Nicely balances is held under back zoom ring. Sharp at all Focal lenghts from 1-2 stops down. But best at F/8-11 on my copy.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft wide open past 200mm. close down to F/10 to F/16 with a high ISO like 400 or 800.
|
|
I bought the 'Promaster Label" (it has a lifetime warranty over the Tamron warranty.
I found this lens a blast to use at Little League games. that was my first outing with it. I had a Canon D60 at the time. I used ISO 400 for the test behind 1st base. I have some very sharp Batter shots and a few nice 2nd base action shots too. I used the zoom between 200-300 most of the time at around F/6.3 - F/11.
And the results were fabulous see http://www.pbase.com/peterarbib/sports for the samples.
If you pay attention to some basic guide lines with telephoto zooms for shutter speed and use a middle F/stop. You will obtain some nice sharp pictures. Remember to use no less than 1/320s with this or any long zoom tele lens.
I see no reason to "up-grade" to a Canon EF, unless I get a 70-200 F/4 L.
|
|
|
Apr 3, 2007
|
|
Carmen Miranda
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1879
|
|
Review Date: Dec 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Best, if not the same, as the other nominally specked zooms, excellent macro
|
|
Cons:
|
two stage mech for macro
|
|
Camerapapi says, "I really question if the Nikkor is not made by Tamron, they are identical."
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2006
|
|
Alex DeClerk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 66
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light, Big(gets some funny looks)
|
|
Cons:
|
AF is Slow, Focusing Ring, Soft
|
|
|
Very cheap, light lens. AF is slow, but it seems pretty accurate to me. Very soft @ 300mm. Color is not reproduced very well. CA city, Lots of CA! Did I mention AF is slow?
If you need a cheap lens, fast this is your lens. Do a little sharpening in PS and you're good.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2006
|
|
Roman Melihhov
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2006
Location: Estonia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $281.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweighted, silent zoom, sharp, contrast images
|
|
Cons:
|
rotating first lense, some CA at focal length above 200mm
|
|
|
would recommend anyone as first tele-zoom with macro that fits in any photographers bag
|
|
|
Oct 5, 2006
|
|
Roman Melihhov
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2006
Location: Estonia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
inexpensive, lightweighted, silent zoom, veri sharp and contrast image. >Best one can get for a price.
|
|
Cons:
|
some CA at focal length above 200mm
|
|
|
Purchased mine today. Knew what testing against and all I can say this lense produces sharp, contrast images at all focal lenths. Some CA at above 200mm.
Would suggest as a first tele-zoom and macro lense.
|
|
|
Oct 5, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
287056
|
Mar 7, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
84% of reviewers
|
$166.41
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.20
|
9.31
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
