[WMBP]

I have the 70-300 and I think "Macro" is a sorry term as it does not get that great a magnification. It's quite good as an all around telephoto or for flowers etc but for bugs or serious detail on small objects, it's a million miles from my DFA 100mm dedicted macro lens.

Well, the Tamron 70-300 is obviously not a true macro lens in the old, technical sense. But I don't think it's contemptible. 1:2 is rather decent magnification and is quite common. There are lenses being sold as macro that have magnification levels of 1:3 or worse. I think 1:4 is frequently considered an absolute cut-off, but I'm sure I've seen something marketed as "macro" that had something like a 1:4.9 ratio.

But this is not that complicated. Get what works for you and your needs. There's nothing magical about the 1:1 ratio. If magnification is the ONLY criterion, then heck, get a microscope - or look for a lens with a 1.5:1 magnification ratio. But of course, magnification is not the only criterion. When people think about "close up" photography, they usually aren't thinking so much about getting close to their subjects but rather about getting photos that fill the frame, so they don't have to lose detail by cropping. If you're photographing postage stamps for the National Archives, you will want to have a high-quality macro lens, no doubt. But there's more to quality than mere magnification. And for many other forms of small-subject photography, a 1:2 ratio or even higher will be perfectly satisfactory.

The original poster mentioned that his budget was tight here - he's trying to get a long lens AND a macro capability for $200 or less. The Tamron 70-300 fits his needs well. A better quality macro lens will run a lot of money in itself. Lenses from Tamron and Sigma that have a 1:1 ratio START at $400 AFTER REBATE and go up from there. And none of them provide long telephoto capability as well, so they're less versatile.

Will

[fevbusch]

The original poster mentioned that his budget was tight here - he's trying to get a long lens AND a macro capability for $200 or less. The Tamron 70-300 fits his needs well. A better quality macro lens will run a lot of money in itself. Lenses from Tamron and Sigma that have a 1:1 ratio START at $400 AFTER REBATE and go up from there. And none of them provide long telephoto capability as well, so they're less versatile.

Will[/quote]

Yes, Will, that's exactly the point. I can't afford a dedicated macro of 100mm or more that has more range than my Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX macro (which I am really very happy with). I also physically can't handle a camera/lens combo that's very heavy. At first glance I thought the Sigma 70-300 DG macro was not extremely heavy even though it's a bit long (so I'll buy a bigger camera bag). For the money it seems like a good idea plus the zoom can't hurt when I take my ultimate trip to the Grand Canyon some day. Thanks for everyone's input. It is really appreciated. Freddy

[-spam-]

You're not related to this guy, are you ?
why so small photos with with pentax 12-24 ? [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I was on the floor laughing before i even clicked on the link. I needed a good laugh today, thanks

[fevbusch]

Yeah, even though the joke was kind of on me I was cracking up. That's one of the interesting things about this forum. Even the unbelievable can provoke useful thought.
"out of the mouths of babes....." Regards, Freddy
P.S. Is it true that K100d's can have babies. I could use a backup camera!

[TaoMaas]

I've got the older version of the Tamron 70-300 lens. I've been using it over the past couple of weeks for close-ups of wildflowers and it does a decent job. It's not quite as good as my Pentax 100mm macro, but it works well enough that I don't feel compelled to carry my true macro along with my Tamron when I go for hikes. I'm going to disagree about it being heavy because I think that's a relative thing. Yes, it's heavier than my 18-55mm kit lens, but it's much lighter than my Series 1 90-180mm zoom or my Pentax 200 f2.8 lens.

[silverbullet]

Tao,
You are correct, weight is relative. I think the 70-300 seems heavier than it is due to the long barrel extension with macro focusing. I just pulled out my Canon FD 70-210 and Vivitar Series 1 28-90 to remind myself what an actual heavy lens feels like. The Tamron is pretty light in comparison.

[TaoMaas]

Of course, on the other hand, you can drive nails with those old Series 1 lenses, if need be. lol

[silverbullet]

If I was lost in the woods with only a camera and lens to protect myself and document the experience, I'd take the Series 1. It is a brilliant lens, and will work as a weapon in a pinch.