Originally posted by Peter Zack Not much interest here. Only beacuse it doesn't feature a macro setting. I will get one of these 'super' zooms eventually and it will most likely will be an 18-250 Pentax or a Sig/Tam 70-300 and only because of the 1:2 macro advantage and slightly longer reach.
Someting for vacation, single lens shooting. My wife is a real trooper with me and the camera bag but during vacation I can see her doing the finger tap on the table if I'm switching lenses every 5 minutes as we explore some city.
Originally posted by Ed in GA Just curious re: the 1:2 Macro setting on the Tamron.
With a lens like the Pentax 55-300, couldn't the same thing be accomplished using a close up set like the +1, +2 & +4.
The two features on the 55-300 which appeal to me more than the Macro setting on the Tamron/Sigma is the non-rotating lens and quick shift feature.
I have the Tamron 70-300, and while I like it, I don't care for the rotating front element and having to switch the camera to "mf" to touch up the AF to my liking.
The Tamron doesn't go that much closer even in the macro setting. It's closest distance is 0.95M against the DA 55-300 min close focus of just under 1.1M, which it can do at all focal lengths, the Tamron's minimum is 1.5M between 70 and 180mm.
I have found that I've hit the minimum focus distance from time to time at the normal setting, in fact you cannot use the lens with the macro mode selected under 180mm, it locks up. I think I would prefer to have a full time 1.1M minimum rather than a switched 0.95M at the long lengths only.
Another factor is that the AF rotation on the Tamron is very large and the AF mechanism is highly geared which gives rise to slow AF. The 55-300 has a lesser rotational angle and if it's like most of the other screw driven Quickshift lenses, the AF will be pretty snappy. I hope to try one out as soon as they appear here in the UK.