[wildlifephotog]

There is the Tamron LD 70-300. It does not do macro. The 70-300 Di LD is the new one with macro from 180mm to 300mm.

[emalvick]

As a reply to the original post, at $70 the only reason not to get the lens is if you already have one or something covering the same focal range.

I actually have that lens, and found it quite good up to about 250 mm. At larger focal lengths, the lens becomes quite soft unless you are shooting something at a close range.

The macro function is ok, but I don't really think of it as macro. Rather, it is a nice way to get a closer focusing distance.

However, I will mention that after a couple of years, I got tired of the soft long end of the lens and ended up getting the 55-300. That lens is fantastic for its relatively good cost, and I've actually gotten more out of it since it covers the 55 to 70 mm range that I was missing.

The beauty of the cheaper lenses, is they give you a chance to figure out what you need and decide whether you really need to go better, get primes, etc.

[Stratman]

For a little more, you should go for the Di LD version. it does 1:2 macro, and to me, that is worth the extra $. Here are a few samples on the "macro" capability in my unskilled hands

@300mm, ISO 100, F8



@180MM, ISO 100, F8



@300MM, ISO 100, F8

[Gregor]

For a little more, you should go for the Di LD version. it does 1:2 macro, and to me, that is worth the extra $. Here are a few samples on the "macro" capability in my unskilled hands

@300mm, ISO 100, F8

Nice shots! I do like the idea of the 1:2 macro.

[menappi]

I got the macro version of this lense for 90 bucks in new condition and have enjoyed it so far. It has a purple fringing problem but it can be fixed. The only gripe I have is the focus...slow and noisey. It hunts a lot. Colors seem to be a little desaturated as well but I always shoot raw and throw those bad boys in PS..but if you can get one for cheap then go for it!