Author: | |
New Member Registered: August, 2010 Posts: 1 | Review Date: May 25, 2021 | Not Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 5 |
Pros: | It was very cheap. It produces some images so its better than nothing. | Cons: | AF is unreliable. A bit soft wide open across most of the zoom range. | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 7
Camera Used: Sony A7Riii, Sony a5000 with LA-EA4 adapter
| | I got the lens exceptionally cheap a while ago. At the time I had a Sony a5000 and had freshly bought the Sony LA-EA4 AF adapter from Minolta A-mount to Sony E-mount. On the crop sensor camera, the centre was kind of OK but the lens had some difficultly getting the focus and tended to hunt a fair bit more than other Minolta lenses (35-105 mm "new", the beercan 70-210 f/4). I did not particularly like this lens and ended up using the beercan in scenarios where I wanted the reach even with the beercan being 90mm shorter in its reach.
After getting a full-frame body I found this in one of my boxes where it had been sitting for the past few years and gave it another try. I am still not a fan of this lens, it seems. It might be cheap, but even when being cheap if the lens is not getting a spot in the camera bag like ever it's a bit of a waste. If you need an A-mount lens in that rough range I'd find the extra 20..30$ over this particular lens and get instead of the Minolta 70-210 f/4 ("the beercan") which is a bit heavier and a bit bulkier but feels to me a lot sharper and most importantly, focuses much better.
Maybe the sensor in the a7r iii is a bit too high resolution for this lens. 42 MP is a lot of pixels to peep at. But the images from my version of the lens come out slightly soft even when looking at the images at only 25% magnification.
I'll finish my review with the image of this lens mounted on the camera (to show what lens exactly I am commenting on) Followed by a couple of snapshots of straight out of camera jpeg's in standard quality to allow people to judge themselves if the lens is good or not good enough for them. | |
|
| |
Site Supporter Registered: April, 2013 Location: Norwich, Connecticut Posts: 440 | Review Date: February 1, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Sharpness, cost & availabilty | Cons: | Slow, difficukt to manipulate apurture ring from Auto while on camera. | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 6
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-20-D
| | Found this lens in a thrift store. I love the fact that no one else wants Pentax mount lenses...
A bonus for the purchase was that today was "Senior day" all purchases are 20% off!
Had my camera with me for a project and was able to confirm the mount and functionality.
Initial tests indicate this is going to be the most widely used lens in my bag. http://www.rjpictures.com/images/Pentax-forum/K20_0140-1024.JPG | |
| |
New Member Registered: March, 2012 Posts: 16 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: February 17, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $48.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Sharper than you would expect. | Cons: | CA and max aperture. | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 6
Value: 8
Camera Used: ZX-30 and K5
| | Sharpness must be very copy dependent. Mine is wonderfully sharp at 300mm and I regularly push it to 300mm. I do spend a fair bit of time cleaning CA but for the price(less than $50) it is a very good lens. I do like the macro though standing back 1.5 m is odd. http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2014/7/11/1405081281301-_igp1695.jpg | |
| |
Inactive Account Registered: March, 2012 Location: Northern California Posts: 137 4 users found this helpful | Review Date: July 21, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | Performance, sharpness, light weight, low cost | Cons: | CA (purple), cheap build, poor manual focus | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| | This is of course a rebadged Tamron. Perhaps I just got lucky with my copy but the sharpness of the image is much better than I would have expected of a low-cost lens.
The contrast and color can be a bit lackluster but I've had good results with post-processing in Lightroom and Nik plugins.
AF can hunt a bit in low-light but that's to be expected on the K-5 at a max. aperture of f/4.
I basically stole it on EBay for $35 U.S. If you can get it for $50-or-less this is a very good value. Use a hood! | |
|
| |
New Member Registered: May, 2012 Posts: 7 3 users found this helpful | Review Date: May 30, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Great value, macro mode, sharp pictures | Cons: | none for the money | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
| | After buying one of the many named cheap f8 500mm mirror lenses on ebay
i was rather shocked at the results from this lens after shooting some pics in my garden
i don't think i have taken photo's so bad. none i took were worth keeping all dull and drab.
also these mirror lenses are all manual and fixed at f8
so it was put straight back on ebay and sold at knock down price and a loss.
after doing some research i picked up a Quantaray 70-300mm F4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2 for a great price and these are not common here across the pond (uk).
i was not expecting much but i hoped for a slight improvement over the 500mm mirror lens
wow what a great lens miles better than the mirror lens and nearly the same focal range, also auto focus and not a fixed aperture.
yes its not a lens for a pro but what pro would pay $90 for a lens, i did and it's all smiles all round and value for money. The macro mode is great fun too.
remember you can have the best camera and lens but still be a bad at photography
so if you want a great cheap lens with great range then this can be highly recommended .
| |
| |
Site Supporter Registered: June, 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Posts: 6,124 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: March 10, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Value, sharpness, macro | Cons: | purple fringing at full zoom | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| | If you want a cheap and seemingly well made longer zoom then I'd go for this one. Did I mention it's sharp and cheap? I bought it used quite some time back, and have since sold it, but it is a solid performer at a good price. I wish I had kept it!
The only real issues were it is heavy, and there was some purple fringing at longer zooms. The other thing that I remember was the panic that set in when I thought I had broke it one time. I had in in macro mode. That is only from 180-300. I tried to retract it and it quit coming back in at 180. That was a quick scare for me, but then I realized what I had done, and then all was well.
I can certainly recommend this cheap and sharp macro lens.
| |
| |
Junior Member Registered: October, 2011 Location: Belton, SC Posts: 33 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: October 31, 2011 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | 300mm, cheap, macro | Cons: | f4, bit soft at 300mm, lacks contrast, AF hunts, not weather sealed | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 6
| | I do a good bit of shooting indoors, and this lens just doesn't do it for me. It isn't fast enough nor is the contrast high enough to suit my liking. What you get for the price though is quite nice I guess. I would suggest this to a beginner on a budget, but that's about all. The only reason i keep this lens is for a backup, "just in case" something happens. Don't get me wrong, you can take some amazing shots with it, if you're willing to take a long time getting used to it's quirks and oddities. I will say that the lens has a good feel to it. Zoom and focus are nice and tight but not too tight. Feels pretty sturdy for what it is too. IMGP7916-Edit2-1 by carlin.lusk, on Flickr IMGP2892-Edit by carlin.lusk, on Flickr
| |
| |
Senior Member Registered: September, 2011 Location: Chandler, AZ Posts: 142 | Review Date: October 12, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | Weight, Cost, DOF | Cons: | AF, IQ Low Light | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 6
Value: 10
| | Mine comes across as a "Tamron AF70-300mm F4-5.6 LD Macro" as well. Personally, I love the way this lens presents the bokeh. I do find it nicely weighted (though just a touch heavy for not having a mount ring) even on a mediocre tripod. The AF is a little on the slow side, but since I mostly shoot kit, I don't notice it that much - you might. The macro feature is nice, and is mostly what I use it for, but I find I need pretty good light for this lens. All in all, pretty nice. Just snapped a quick Macro of my other Pentax below: | |
| |
Senior Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 100 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: June 12, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $55.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | Price, reach | Cons: | PF, slow AF | | Purchased used at KEH. EXIF identifies it as a Tamron 70-300 LD macro.
Decent lens with great reach. Except for a flimsy lens cap, the build is solid. Focus is slightly stiff, but nothing feels wobbly or cheap. AF is good in bright light on my K5, but in dim light autofocus hunts and often never locks at all. This problem gets worse with a circular polarizer attached. But that's ok, because the front rotates when autofocusing ...
Macro mode works well, but AF speed becomes even worse. Also doing macro work @ 300mm requires a steady hand and a lot of light.
Purple fringing is very prominent on this lens. Flare is not controlled at all. Keep this away from bright light sources.
I do not notice any zoom creep.
| |
| |
Site Supporter Registered: February, 2011 Location: Murfreesboro Tennessee Posts: 3,458 | Review Date: February 26, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | price, weight, Macro and tele | Cons: | slow AF in low light | | I use this lens for both landscape /wild life, and macro shots
| |
| |
Forum Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Illinois Posts: 53 | Review Date: September 10, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $39.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | 1:2 macro; reasonably sharp; Value/$$ | Cons: | Hunts in AF | |
I got this lens in great condition as a "bargain" lens from KEH. I had read other positive reviews and I couldn't beat the price. It is reasonably sharp over the whole range, obviously better stopped down. It loves sunlight. It's done well at the zoo and the botanic gardens. The AF tends to hunt a lot, particularly close up, but fortunately there is a manual override on the lens. I did have once instance where the AF "locked" onto my subject (with focus point manually selected) and was noticeably OUT of focus when I reviewed the images. Overall, I am pleased with this lens and it has given me good results for a bargain zoom. | |
| |
Inactive Account Registered: December, 2007 Location: MA Posts: 9 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: August 27, 2010 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | fairly inexpensive, extremely light | Cons: | stiff zoom ring, fringing | | Bought Spring 2010. I'm embarrassed to admit what I paid for this lens. I bumped the average up a little. I was in the mood for a longer lens than my sigma 50-200. When I stumbled upon this lens at a Ritz Camera far from home (yes I had to ask them to dig around for any thing Pentax) it was an impulse buy.
Extremely light, but I find the zoom ring stiff. It may be loud, but I've never had a good quiet piece of glass.
I experienced some heavy fringing in some shots I took today in macro mode. Good thing purple is one of my favorite colors.
Not bad a lens I suppose, as I'm trying yo test out a few inexpensive lenses without getting heavily invested yet.
My best results have come using manual focus.
| |
| |
Veteran Member Registered: December, 2009 Location: Maine Posts: 408 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: May 23, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Price - IQ - Versitality | Cons: | | | I got this lens as part of a package with a used k10d and a 18-55 II so I estimated the cost.
The "macro" function of this lens is actually decent but it is somewhat prone to CA in high contrast areas.
As a tele it also works quite well for a budget lens.
This lens also works quite well for still lifes and portrait work.
I did retire mine for the time being for the DA 55-300 but something tells me that it will eventually come out of retirement.
Two of my images (flowers) that were accepted into PPG were taken with this lens.
| |
| |
New Member Registered: November, 2009 Posts: 7 | Review Date: April 22, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Good price for the lens. | Cons: | Macro mode was a little squirly for me. | | I enjoyed using this lens quite a bit, and took some good shots with it. I was shooting wildlife from a boat, and had a bit of an issue with autofocus, due to both ME and the subject moving.
The few times I worked in Macro mode gave varied results. I did not buy this lens for macro mode, so overwall, I was decently impressed.
| |
| |
Veteran Member Registered: November, 2008 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 681 | Review Date: April 17, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $56.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | Good for the price | Cons: | IQ | | As in life, so it is with this lens. You get what you pay for. Here is my Video review of this lens:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk5KlditubI[/YT]
| |