 |
|
|
Mauro P. Pieri
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
I'm looking for
|
|
Cons:
|
bad istruction sheet
|
|
|
I bought this lense because I need a cheap macro lenses with good quality. On the istruction sheet Tamron wrotes that I can use macro by using the "macro switchover mechanism" but on the lens there's not any "macro switchover mechanism"!! I did a search for different istruction but I didn't find any other istruction on the technical sheet. So I still not do any macro shot with this lens.
|
|
 Oct 21, 2007
|
|
Joshua June
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $40.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive starter lens with good reach and somewhat good quality and alacrity.
|
|
Cons:
|
Overall quality not professional standards, lens quality and build suspect, NEEDS a tripod or stand to use properly.
|
|
|
This review is for beginners only. The quality and build are quite diminished compared to professional lenses (that my patronizing friends let me touch) so it is unfair to put them in their category which costs at least ten fold more.
After 2 months of use with this lens I had to add a tripod and a mono stand to my collection for image stabilization purposes in any light. That being said...
The quality is incredible for the price I paid, absolutely not a bad deal given price range. Against a D80 with the Nikon Stock and optional Zoom addition I was able to generate a better photo, faster, for 400$ cheaper on my Rebel Xti. The reach is shaky and as I see it a tad "dark" as in it does not absorb light as much as I wish it would but with babysitting and the rock bottom price I really cannot complain. For the beginner wishing to get butterfly or flower photos this lens with a mono stand will do you wonders, just don't use it as a walk around!
Simply put, It did all I wished the lens to do in a wide range fashion with the exception of sports photography, it simply isn't fast enough. But as CHEAP as this guy is, do not buy the stock lenses for canon if you can get a kit with this semi-precious gem.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007
|
|
forkball
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 24
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $69.80
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
The focal range, price, comes with lens hood, and it's relatively light. This lens CAN produce nice images IF you know and work within it's limitations.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creep, rotating front element, slow and loud AF, CA, and soft images at low aperatures. Oh and at f/4-5.6 it's pretty slow especially at the long end. Listed features was Macro, and while I didn't buy this for Macro photography, I think it's still misleading. Not a Macro lens... not even close.
|
|
|
Well I bought this lens last year off of Ebay for $69.00 and change. It came in the box with warranty card and all the covers and hood so I think I got a hell of a bargain. I bought it initially for my film camara and it worked fairly well for that as long as I was using fast film, I could get some decent shutter speeds for hand holding. I then converted to digital and found that digital image sensors required a bit more resolution than a 35mm film frame does and the limitations of this lens were exposed(no pun intended). Since most shoot digital, I'll keep my review to that aspect.
The 75-300mm actually shows up in EXIF from my 20D as a 70-300mm which I thought was pretty odd. I think it probably needs to be re-programmed.
Build quailty:
It's not horrible, but if you've ever held an "L" lens or a Sigma EX lens, you'll not be terribly impressed. The front element does rotate during focus so it's not great for polarizing filters unless you lock focus first then adjust the filter. Pain in the bum. The zoom creep on this lens is pretty bad, but I generally zoom when composing anyway so not a huge problem. The lens cap design I think is probably the best going. I love the pinch front which makes it easy to remove and replace even with the deep lens hood on. The hood is very good. It locks on the lens better than the Canon hoods for sure.
The slow loud AF motor didn't lend well to trying to keep up with running ball players so it's not a good lens for outdoor sport in any light.
Image quality:
I notice that it's nowhere near as sharp as my other lenses straight out of the camera. Images CAN be helped with USM or smart sharpen filter in photoshop at the cost of a little extra noise... but 4x6 prints are very decent looking. I wouldn't go beyond 5x7 with it unless I'm able to use it outdoors with an aperature range of F/8-11 with decent shutter speeds. That's really the sweet spot of this lens which is consistant with other reviews. Below F/8-11 (F/8 for short and F/11 for long), images do suffer from a loss of resolution.
purple CA was strong and noticable at most all focal lengths and VERY hard to get rid of. No matter what I tried in ACR I couldn't completely get rid of it in the more extreme cases.
I did take it to my daughter's dance recital and got some fairly usable images from it, but again... 4x6 or 5x7 but nothing larger. Using higher ISO settings is a must with this lens. Good thing the 20D is very good at 800 and highly usable at 1600.
Overall:
I paid a small price for a very usable lens. It won't win any quality awards but it does what it's designed to do. I've since replaced this lens with a 70-200 F/4L and comparing the two is just not fair so I won't... but I will say that considering everything else, I do not miss the extra reach, yet. If you can't afford to buy a better lens, this one will do the job. Don't expect too much from it and you'll probably be content. I'll keep it in my film camera bag as it worked pretty well with that media which in all fairness to Tamron is what the design intention was in the first place.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2006
|
|
cootertwo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sturdy Build, Good Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Non I can see
|
|
|
Got a deal on mine off of Ebay! Like new, in box. I'm a newbee, but enjoying the learning process. Took a lot of shots with the kit lens of my ist DL (18-55), Mounted this lens, took a bunch of different shots. Went back to the kit lens, more shots, and now I'm back to this Tamron 75-300, as I prefer the quality, and being able to reach out.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2005
|
|
iammanas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $109.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sturdiness, handling, photo quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow autofocus, no IS
|
|
|
At this price, quite a nice telephoto add-on lens. Very sturdy as I have been using it quite roughly in India and in rough weather conditions (with my Canon Elan 7N) - till now without a scratch.
Photo quality at the max zoom is good (if not excellent), but I have managed to take quite sharp and good photos at 300mm - without a tripod ! (Given that, I have managed to take a photo, a little soft and average sharp, at a 6 sec exposure with bare hands during the night) - hence, for usual photography, due to the slow autofocussing, really needs tripod or some kind of image stabilization at the telephoto end - though we can't complain of this at this price.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2005
|
|
jcampb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $160.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, weight and good macro performance
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't really complain considering the price... but slow focus.
|
|
|
At under $160 US you really can't complain. My copy was usable at f5.6 up to 200mm and f8 at 300mm. CA is tamed but visible in hi-contrast situations. Not a great wildlife lens but it's pretty good for shooting people. A good lens for outdoor portraits and compress landscape... not good for fast sports or birds.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2005
|
|
sludge01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 109
|
|
Review Date: May 20, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $110.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, little chance of zoom creep
|
|
Cons:
|
SOFT under some circumstances, slow focusing motor, front of lens turns while focusing
|
|
|
While this lens is usable, it requires a bit more babysitting than most to get sharp images. You really don't want to shoot at an aperture wider than f8, at any focal length. All the way out at 300mm, you probably don't want to go lower than f11.
The focus motor is quite slow if it has to travel far, though focusing does seem accurate.
The front element rotates during focusing, making it quite difficult to use a polarizer or GND filter.
The hood, while secure, is a pain to line up properly and attach.
On the plus side, the lens doesn't cost much. Also, the zoom ring is very firm, so you're not likely to get any zoom creep.
|
|
|
May 20, 2005
|
|
sivrajbm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3430
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $145.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Tamron Quality, lightweight, smooth zoom and focus ring
|
|
Cons:
|
slow focusing, equal to the canon 75-300.
|
|
|
Bought this lense as a tester against the Canon 75-300.
At 120.00 bucks less than the Canon this lense beat it at everything from 75-F13 all the way to 300-f45. The Tamron has much better feel and is much smoother. CA on the Tamron is better controled. There is no speed difference between the two lenses, they both hunt some. This lense is a much better value than the Canon. If you need a decent lense in this range get this one not the Canon. Or you could save your money up for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or the Canon 70-200 2.8L. The Canon goes back on Monday. I'll keep the Tamron till I can get one of the other two. It'll probably be the Sigma for me.
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
8
|
94854
|
Oct 21, 2007
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
75% of reviewers
|
$105.63
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.38
|
8.13
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
