 |
|
|
shooterdad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2018
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Long range, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Bought it used, and found it's grey market. But firmware updated to be used in new Canon cameras.
Need some micro adjustment for AF, and that's quite easy. Performance is quite consistent and stable, much better than the crop 16-300mm. On full frame, the IQ is very satisfied. It's not up to the 70-200L but not by far.
|
|
 Sep 21, 2018
|
|
ksmmike
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 284
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $625.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight
wide range
|
|
Cons:
|
not as sharp as my Nikon primes, but it's pretty close for my uses.
|
|
|
I bought this lens for a trip to the UK and Ireland. It was light enough and had a wide enough range that I rarely put on another lens. I have blown up many of the images to 12x16 or 11x14 and they hold up quite well. I compared it to my Nikon 28mm 2.8 and yes the prime is sharper, but not by much. I have also used this lens at a recent NFL game from my seat. It's not built for that usage, but it held up well. Because it's so much lighter and smaller than my Nikon 80-400, from my seat, I'll use it for that now and again. However, as a travel lens, between this and my Nikon 16-35, it's all I really need. I've been impressed with the results.
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2016
|
|
jhazens1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 8, 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $849.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, zoom range, respectable IQ
|
|
Cons:
|
some vignetting if wide open, opposite zoom ring rotation compared to Canon.
|
|
|
I bought this lens to be used on a Canon 6D and to replace my 24-105 f/4L IS USM and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM on a trip to Peru. I would have loved to have my L glass, but we were trekking the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu as well as many other treks and travel around the country so weight was a very big issue. I purchased the lens well in advance of the trip to be sure I was satisfied with the picture quality. It is a fuzzy line whether to take the best glass or to go light. I would be lying if I were to say there was never a time I wished I had my L's, but overall I was very satisfied with the photos I came away with.
I loved having the zoom range without having to change out lenses constantly. I was able to capture wide landscapes and urban buildings and then quickly capture a bird, or close-up of my kids. I did find that if I did not stop down a bit throughout the zoom range (f/8 - f/11), I noticed some vignetting in the corners.
A couple annoying things in my opinion. If you are used to Canon, the backward zoom ring rotation drove me bonkers at first. I did get used to it after a few times out, but it can still cause someone to miss a shot in a pinch. The other item for me is that the zoom ring on the Tamron is the outside ring and focus ring closer to the camera...also opposite to my 24-105 where the zoom ring is closer to the camera. With the zoom ring being closer to the hood on the Tamron, it is difficult to rotate the zoom without the lens hood turned out. I usually store my camera with lens on and hood turned toward camera for lower profile, so it got in the way when I would pull the camera out for a quick shot if in my bag. Most of the time on the treks this was not an issue since I had the camera in my hands while trekking.
All in all, a very good lens for travel. I will still use my L glass most of the time, but will not hesitate to throw this Tamron in the bag when trekking or just traveling in general.
A year later: Wanted to come back with a little update. I have had this lens for a year now and I find myself leaving the L glass at home more often when going on a hike or a trip even. I have printed several pictures for my home and office (some from Peru trip and others from day hikes and camping trips in my home state of Utah). Most of my prints are 20"X30" and one would be hard pressed to pick out which prints are from this lens or from my 24-105 L.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2015
|
|
Mond
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, Portable, Reasonably Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
None for the price
|
|
|
Bought this lens as a single-lens solution for a full-frame Nikon when travelling, particularly by air when space/weight is limited. Have not been disappointed.
Not quite as sharp as a 2.8 but it's pretty good nonetheless, with good colour rendering and contrast. And at last it's a Tamron lens that does not overexpose on a Nikon.
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2015
|
|
Aucklander
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2015
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, sharp, very well designed
|
|
Cons:
|
f3.5 to 6.3
|
|
I'm truly surprised that no one has posted their opinion on this really good lens.
This is a very capable and versatile lens for travelers. Couple it with a 50 f1.8 or a 35 f2 on a Canon 6D, I'm good to go. And yeah, I travel with a Canon G7x.
Oh, I got second hand really cheap but it was almost brand new.
I think this review by Dustin Abott sums it up really well:
http://dustinabbott.net/2014/08/tamron-28-300mm-f3-5-6-3-di-vc-pzd/
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
5
|
18066
|
Sep 21, 2018
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$741.33
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.17
|
9.33
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
