 |
|
|
hermosawave
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic, slow aperture
|
|
I got this lens for my 20D and 5D as an alternative to my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
I used to have a 70-200 f/4 L and had trouble getting it into some sports venues (LA Colosseum, Seattle's Safeco Field) so I knew I was going to have trouble bringing in the 2.8. Some venues (AEG's Staples Center and Home Depot Center) SPECIFICALLY won't allow fans to bring in lenses longer than 3". So the hunt was on for the longest focal length lens I could get for three inches!
The 28-200mm version of this lens is exactly three inches according to the specs, but I couldn't find one in LA's large camera stores, so I decided to give this one a shot -- it's 3.25" so I thought I might be able to sneak it in.
Put it on my 20D and took it to the Home Depot Center last night. I got in the door (that's a big plus right there!) and was able to to shoot with decent results... http://www.hermosawavephotography.com/events/photos.php?ID=182
I'm surprised how good this lens is actually. Not RAZOR sharp but perfectly acceptable. Yes, the build is all plastic, but it's very nicely done, everything moves smoothly.
The big problem with this lens is that you're shooting at 300mm @ f/6.3, so between the lens opening and the image stabilizer you're giving up approx. five stops compared to the 2.8 IS (@ 300mm with a 1.4X converter or at 200mm without). The result is you end up shooting at very high ISO to get the shutter speed up to the point that you can hand-hold it.
For someone needing a small light duty lens I would not hesitate to recommend this one. It's small and light, has a big range, works nicely and is decently sharp. But if image quality is your overriding concern, I would probably spend the extra $200 and get the 70-200 f/4 L.
|
|
 Aug 16, 2007
|
|
LotsToLearn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 434
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact. Great zoom range. Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS. 'Slow' lens.
|
|
|
I have the pre-DI version. I originally bought this to use as an every day walk around lens and cover off the range that my 75-300IS turned out to be very disappointing in for digital. That was also all before I started investing in really serious glass.
Contrary to alot of what I've read, for me this lens was superb. Images were extremely sharp, almost overly so if possible. Colours were vibrant and accurate. Focusing wasn't superfast but it met my needs accurately.
The only 'negative' I found was that the zoom ring was fairly tight. The build could also be nicer and by that I mean sturdy. It's somewhat plasticy.
I only don't still use it alot because I favour my L's now for most of my shooting. I highly recommend it for anyone looking for an every day/travel lens and/or on a budget. Even though I really don't need it, I will actually consider picking up their new version with stabilization once it's available here since I found this one to be so satisfying.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2007
|
|
pabloa3
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
low cost, lightweight, good zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
sharpness after 200mm
|
|
|
I picked this up to be my lightweight carry-around lens when I don't want to pack my other lens with me. For example, the other day I took the Seattle water taxi to work and having this lens allowed me to get a ton of shots at different zoom levels without lugging a ton of stuff. Normally I wouldn't take my camera or take it with the 50mm f1.8 lens. With the 28-300 - I have a lot more flexibility in my shooting.
Overall I was happy with the shots. They were definitely a little soft in the high zoom ranges. I used the sharpness setting in software to help this out a bit. Otherwise, I was happy with the quality.
The autofocus worked well - relatively quick and quiet. I find my sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX to have a louder/slower autofocus.
The build quality seems solid and the feel of the zoom and focus rings are good.
|
|
|
May 11, 2007
|
|
tune82
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 31, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, good zoom range, small
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharpness at 300 mm
|
|
|
Must say i own the "LD" version of this lens, so before the "Di" upgrade. Have the lens for over 3 years now and very happy with it. It's a very good overall lens for everyday and holiday shooting, especially if you take a look at it price. It's also not very large, so it fits nicely in a small camera bag.
Lot of people compare it with lot more expensive lenses and give it bad ratings as such and this lens does not deserve that.
In all it's a very practical lens and gives you value for your money.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007
|
|
mlavander
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 701
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight, zoom range, macro capabilities
|
|
Cons:
|
Few sharp photos, horrible indoors.
|
|
Buying this lense was a huge mistake. I was looking for a cheap long zoom before getting the $$ for my 70-200 F/2.8L. I wasted a lot of time with this lense. There were only two photos from 1000+ that I shot with this lense that I would consider super sharp keepers. It is horrible indoors for obvious reasons - the max aperture is too small. AF is extremely slow and it cannot keep up with moving subjects in AI Servo. It was always focusing 10 feet behind the subject. Forget it for sports.
The one positive thing - the ability to focus at about 19" at 300mm. Still, the AF was tricky to use and I was usually shooting with a wide open aperture so DOF and manual focusing was difficult to nail at that distance and length.
The extension of the lense when zooming was annoying. It also seemed to be a vacuum for dust.
My two good shots...
http://mlav.us/mlav/photos/tiger-1.jpg
http://mlav.us/mlav/photos/bfly090305-2.jpg
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2007
|
|
slobomitic
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
zoom range, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I am making lots of great images on my 5D at full range from 28-300mm. Yes, image at 300mm is not as sharp as Canon 300 f2.8L but compare the price and size and you’ll be happy with what you get here.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2006
|
|
SKYWESTR
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1335
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $285.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, size, zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
soft after 200, focus ring rotates during AF, hunts in moderate light.
|
|
|
I love this lens! It's a great little lens with lots 'o zoom. I bought this as a walk around lens and it's performed well. Very sharp at 28-200 however pretty soft after that. It also hunts quite a bit and I have to remember to keep my long fingers off the focus ring 'cause it moves. A little noisy when focusing but it's just as loud as my 50 1.8II. This is the lens to get if you're just getting started and want one "do it all" lens.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2006
|
|
ktomkins
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price performance
|
|
Cons:
|
Gets a little soft past 200mm
|
|
|
This is a great little lens for the price. It is light and a great performer for such a wide zoom range. I have been using this lens on my Rebel 300D for some time. I had a Canon 28-135 for a while before I got this lens. I sold the Canon because this lens was sharper and had MUCH less CA than the Canon glass did.
I just purchased an EOS 5D along with a 20-300 L series lens. I tested the two lenses on my 5D. Between 28 and 70, the results were almost identical. The Tamron actually had less vignetting than the L series did. CA and sharpness of the two were virtually identical. After 70mm, the L series was noticably sharper and had less CA. However, when you realize that it costs about 5x as much as the Tamron, you would expect that.
I am sending back the L series lens for a different one. However, I am keeping this one. It's a great lens for the price.
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2006
|
|
timpdx
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1986
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $240.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good "all in one" range, decently sharp in good light, zoom lock. Nice at the 28 end.
|
|
Cons:
|
Why buy a 300mm if it is going to be soft at the long end? CA is heavy when I used it to shoot surfers on reflective water. Focus speed is ok, not great.
|
|
|
This is "Cheap Reach" and that is all that needs to be said. At the 28 end this was quite sharp, compared will with my Canon 28-135 IS, maybe even better, but turned to mush at 300. I would not go above 200 with this lens, so, what is the point, get the Sigma 70-200 for a lower price and enjoy a sharp lens.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2005
|
|
jamesots
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 12, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, Range, Price, Size, Weight, Internal Focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at extreme zoom ranges, AF sometimes hunts, plastic mount
|
|
|
Bear in mind that I have never had any L glass, and this lens replaced the Canon 70-300 kit lens.
This lens feels really sturdy despite being plastic, while the Canon 70-300 felt a bit like a toy. It has a really nice zoom and focus grip, and the whole lens just feels like quality (although I'd prefer a metal mount). I didn't like the way the zoom ring goes the opposite direction from Canon lenses to start with, but I've got used to it. It's nice having a lens hood which can be stored on the lens, and that the lens cap has a clever design so you can still take it on and off when the hood is attached. The lens is much smaller than the Canon 70-300 despite having a longer range. It's nice having internal focusing as well, so that my filters don't spin round when I focus.
At extreme wide angle and telephoto the images are a little soft, especially around the edges, but when it's used on an EOS 300D you don't use the very edge of the image, which improves the quality a little. In the middle of the range the images are very sharp.
The autofocus is generally very fast and accurate, although in low light and when focusing on sometime far from the current focus point the lens sometimes hunts around without finding anything. When that happens I release the shutter button when it nears focus and then try again - the lens can normally focus easily then.
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2005
|
|
sparta75
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, zoom range, zoom lock (at 28mm), 6yr warranty, lens cap design.
|
|
Cons:
|
Supplied lens hood a bit cheap.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens as a compromise "walk-around" lens, and have yet to be disappointed with its utility in this regard. Focusing in dim light can be something of a challenge, but using a technique where you let up on the shutter button when you approach exact focus, and then quickly pressing again will pretty much eliminate any hunting problems. This does not have a "USM" type focus motor, so there is a soft buzz as the lens focuses. Focus is quick, but could draw attention in a quiet area.
The lens cap is designed with a double release system, with release flanges on the edge of the cap and at the center of the cap (great for attaching/detaching the cap with the lens hood in place.
For the combination of price and versatility, this is the lens to get.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2005
|
|
IlMetiu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Not Havy, quite good quality, cheep!
|
|
Cons:
|
From 200 to 300 the zoom is not to perceive
|
|
|
Good B/N !!
Better than CANON 70-300 4-5.6 !!
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2005
|
|
Wyco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Location: Hungary
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, Good image quality, Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS (not to much suprise), difficult in low light conditions, build quality (too much plastic)
|
|
|
I found this lens to be a really good purchase, as I paid about $250 (52.000 HUF) for it. Its range is an ultimate positive, but as mostly in the cases of such lenses, this is why one buys it.
Althgouh I never had the chance to see other 28-300 products IRL i therefore say that this is a very light one (compared to the datasheet of the Canon's) and cheap. It is naturally a problem, that its not 2.8 :D but thats again not a suprise. I mostly have no problems with the AF, except in dark when the MF comes handy.
Talking about the MF/AF, i muss the Tokina solution for the MF switch (though many ppl dislike it), whereas the AF functions quite well, I've never really had problems with mis-focusing.
All in all: recommended.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2005
|
|
mahatmark
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 105
|
|
Review Date: Sep 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Well Built, Sharp,Great Zoom Range
|
|
Cons:
|
None To Complain Of
|
|
|
This may not be the same lense..I just bought the earlier Tamron 28-300 LD Asperical model # 285DN, new on close out from a canadian company. The lense I got has a 72mm front filter thread and not the 62mm as is sold now. The weight of my lense is 20.6 ounces compared to the 14.1 ounces of the current lense. Perhaps it was redesigned. I find mine to be an excellent walk around lense. I tripod or monopod should be used when extended to 300mm..as the minimum aperture does become the F 6.3..Also my camera is the earlier Kodak DCS 330, which has a 1.9 crop factor on the sensor which is 22mm diagonally. Thus this lense becomes a 53mm to 570mm for my purposes, and is great for sports, wildlife, and general photography, couple with my 17mm the two make a great combination. So I am curious why such a well built lense,that was obviously superior, with LD and aspheric hybrid glasses, was sacrificed to make the current, lighter, version, that seems to have so many condemning reviews. The model 285DN 28-300 is great..and a hefty piece of glass, well built..What they sell now is perhaps different, But the 285DN had a list of $800.00..still sells in LA for $400.00 in Black finish..I got mine in Silver Finish with an awesome lense shade, and caps, and full warrantee, for $170.00 with shipping and insurance
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2005
|
|
libros1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $369.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
price
|
|
Cons:
|
simply poorly made
|
|
|
not sharp slow to focus
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2005
|
|
mailman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Not expensive, useful across a range of focal lengths, compact, sturdy.
|
|
Cons:
|
Low light performance
|
|
|
I picked up this lense when I purchased by Nikon D70 and have to say that I am happy with the over all results Ive achieved with the lense.
The range of the lense makes it quite a handy lense to have in the bag for times when you will be wanting reach and dont want to be changing lenses all the time.
The cost of the lense was pretty good. At a shade over £220 I think this is good value for money.
While its true that in low light conditions the lense does struggle Ive still managed to capture many good shots with it.
Once again, over all Im pleased with the lense but will shortly be upgrading to something with a little more reach (like a sigma 50-500).
|
|
|
Jul 24, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
