| Author: | | New Member Registered: May, 2012 Location: Brasov, Romania Posts: 5 | | Review Date: May 11, 2012 | Not Recommended | Price: $167.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | range, price | | Cons: | CA | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 3
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 8
Value: 5
| |
For a beginner is OK but CA is visible (sometimes horrid!?). AF hunts in low light. It's OK in good light.
Aberatii cromatice mari (chiar prea mari uneori). Autofocus jenant in lumina slaba. Pe lumina buna e ok.
| | | | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2010 Location: Erie, PA Posts: 67
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 29, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $135.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, Bokeh, contrast, color rendition, lightweight and PRICE | | Cons: | Purple fringing, slight zoom creep | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I have had this lens for about a year now and It is my second favorite lens next to my Pentax-F 50mm F/1.7. The Sharpness, bokeh, color rendition and contrast are top notch. You lose a bit of color and contrast wide open at 300mm but for the pice...well it is the bargain of the year. I use this lens for everything from shooting soccer games to portraits to macros of butterflies and insects. Yes its not a true macro and its doen't kick in till after 180mm but it really does come in handy when you are trying to sneak up on a jumpy critter. The purple fringing in highlight areas really is the problem with this lens but so far it has been easy to get rid of in post processing. This lens is always with me and the fact that it is so light and versatile make it an easy choice.
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2011 Posts: 10 | | Review Date: August 11, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $240.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Super telezoom with low price and low weight | | Cons: | Built quality, handling somewhat impractical, image quality | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 1
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 2
Value: 10
| |
This is clearly a cheap lens. Even I can see this: things wobble a bit when you manipulate it, image quality at 300mm is clearly not best, not very sharp and with a lot of CAs. But it is enough to view on-screen unless you really want to crop (but anyway you have already zoomed, so you don't need to crop anymore, do you?)
The macro thing is most unpractical: you have to zoom to at least 180mm, then switch the macro on. Now to zoom out you must first switch the macro off. Bit tedious. Putting the hood on is a pain, as the front element rotates to focus you'll need to hold it tightly, and then to put it off (reversed) you just' can't hold it so it will turn: you'd better put it in MF before if you don't want to damage the AF motor.
AF is ok, not as noisy and slow as I had expected it. There is no quick shift MF. MF is ok, a bit soft but the range is fairly large so it is doable.
But for this amazingly low price, I got a 300mm zoom which is light enough to be taken in the bag everywhere, and it can take fairly close-up macros. Now that's really amazing, and despite all the limitations I'd still recommend the lens at this price!
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: May, 2011 Posts: 1,889 | | Review Date: August 5, 2011 | Not Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | Cheap | | Cons: | Cheap quality, soft at 300, horrid CA, focus hunt, broke first day(!!!) | |
My copy of this lens may have been exceptionally bad. I also suspect that a returned lens may have been sold to me as new, so I may have inherited someone else's problems.
I was only able to take about 20 shots with this lens before the aperture lever broke. I was shooting, and between shots the viewfinder just went dark. Poof - dead lens. It was permanently stuck at its smallest aperture, and I couldn't even get it to open by moving the aperture lever manually (it was locked solidly).
Of the shots I did get, I was very disappointed when I reviewed them. There was horrible chromatic aberration on every other shot (very bad purple fringing wherever there was a contrasty edge). The lens was soft at 300. The macro mode was more or less a gimmick. The lens caused a lot of focus hunting in what should have been more than adequate lighting (outdoors, afternoon sun, conditions that don't cause problems with any of my other lenses).
I was not a happy camper. I returned this lens the next day, and exchanged it for a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DG which is MUCH BETTER. I'll review it separately.
Bottom line: This lens is cheap for a reason. It's very cheaply built, and this whole experience has soured me on ever wanting to try another Tamron budget lens. Best advice, forget it and go Sigma.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: June, 2011 Location: Budapest Posts: 33 | | Review Date: July 29, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | cheap,initial macro-photographer | | Cons: | Unfortunately, the plastic lens, high CA! | |
Average quality, but it is pleasantly light to use.
I sometimes Raynox DCR-250 I use at the lens.
ff-pillangó / bw-butterfly by Yard-Photo, on Flickr
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2011 Posts: 160 | | Review Date: June 7, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $164.95
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | zoom, 1:2 macro, pretty cheap, well built | | Cons: | usual quirks of a cheaper lens | |
Glad to have this cheap yet great quality lens, especially since it does 'double duty' of zoom and 1:2 macro. Yeah its not perfect, such as not silky smooth mm adjustment.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Posts: 3,026
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 1, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | inexpensive for focal length | | Cons: | purple fringing can be bad, rear lens cap can get "stuck" | |
Need a recommend w/ caveats option in that field.
The Caveat is it's highly recommended in this price range because it's sharper and less expensive than the Sigma 70-300, but it has more purple fringing than the Sigma. But at this price range for the sharpness you get, you really can't do better.
It's actually a shame Tamron has decided not to produce their new 70-300VC in Pentax mount because it seems to be a lot sharper, though much more expensive
Purple fringing can be taken care of relatively easily w/ most software nowadays...the main negative is that it's longitudinal PF so it destroys some detail. It's a lot more obvious on certain Pentax bodies. E.g., on the K10D w/ the weaker antialias filter, it was very common. On the K20D, it occurred MUCH less. On the K-5, people have reported it has more PF.
The other negative is that the rear cap can get stuck. It seems to be a dumb design on Tamron's part because it happens w/ other Tamron lenses. I had to send mine back to get them to free it. If you do get this or any other Tamron lens, replace the rear cap.
So that said, sharpness is good stopped down slightly up to 280mm (like most zooms, the far ends aren't that great until you stop down a bit more). It's even usable wide open. I used it for the US Open tennis tournament in NYC. I also tried the 60-250 one year. While the 60-250 was definitely sharper and more contrasty w/ less PF, it wasn't hugely better with web resolution or even screen resolution photos, so I'd use the 70-300 as a travel lens.
The hood is ok..the lens does drift down when you point the camera down but there's a lock to prevent this.
You really can't do better at this price range. The next step up is Pentax's 55-300 which is better between 280-300mm and has better contrast throughout, but is 2-3x the cost of this lens...
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Berlin, DE Posts: 30
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 4, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $120.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Acceptably sharp; nice colors; good build quality; light; almost no CA; very affordable | | Cons: | AF painfully slow and tends to hunt in anything less than bright daylight; zoom ring is tight, dry, and has a bit of a drag; no QuickShift; manual focus too light and dry; flares readily; contrast on the low side; purple fringing | |
I am pretty happy with the lens overall. While not the best telephoto zoom out there, it's definitely far from being the worst. A better alternative would be DA 55-300, which is more than 2.5x the cost. I guess DA L 55-300, while mostly sharing its build quality and the lack of QuickShift, would be still optically better - at not that much of a price premium. I did not yet try any of the DA lenses mentiones though.
Sharpness. I find this lens sufficiently sharp at all focal lengths. It will appear slightly soft near the long end if you look at a 100% crop, but I've seen worse from lenses twice its price. I've seen better, too (from lenses 3x its price). Most of aperture range is very usable wide open, while I would stop it down one stop at the longer end (after about 250mm) to get it to its sharpest. I don't find the corners to be much softer than the centre; maybe it's my copy, but it is good.
Contrast is on the low side. It's not that bad, and responds nicely to post-processing, but I would avoid shooting this lens in dull weather for this and other reasons.
AF is noisy and painfully slow. With no QuickShift, there's not much you can do to make it any faster. AF tends to hunt, especially in dull weather, and does not always lock even to contrasty subjects. Sometimes it takes a buzz, a few moments of "thinking" and a final short "buzz" before finally locking onto a subject. However, when it does lock, I found the AF to be accurate, at least on my sample. I did not need to do any AF adjustments in the camera.
Manual focusing is usable, but just barely so. The focusing ring feels dry, completely undamped, and too quick for precise focusing. I do realize, however, that throwing a wider turn would make the already slow AF even slower, so I guess it's a reasonable compromise here.
Zooming is dry, slightly tight and slightly uneven, at least on my sample. It has a bit of a drag at 70mm. Most other lenses I used zoom much much smoother than this.
Colors are nice and bright. Again, I've seen better, especially from DA* lenses, but this Tamron is good here.
CA is very well controlled except for purple fringing (see below). There's a tiny bit of green/magenta CA in the corners, but that's about it. One of the best telephotos in this respect.
Bokeh CA is heavily pronounced. Blurred background objects have visible green tint, while frontal defocus zone is decidedly purple.
Purple fringing is evident at all focal lengths (not just the long end as most other reviews mention) when shooting wide open, but a) it'a not as bad as I expected after reading the reviews, and b) it mostly goes away when stopped down one stop. Having said that, it certainly has more PF than many other lenses.
Build quality is adequate, better than the price point suggests (my expectations are low at this price point). About on par with the non-WR kit lens or non-WR 50-200 albeit with less wobbling. The lens rattles if shaken and squeaks if squeezed.
It flares readily when the sun is in the frame. I've seen better.
Macro mode is a useful gimmick, especially considering that you do get the macro mode at such a long end. And remember, just a few decades ago your dedicated "macro" lens would only go to 1:2 without an extension ring. Engaging and disengaging the macro mode is tricky, but once you're there it's rather handy. One other thing to consider: the 1:2 magnification is quoted for the 35mm sensor. On 1.5x crop, you're getting magnification closer to 1:1.45.
One other thing I found with this lens is I have to be careful when attaching/removing the hood, as the front element rotates with the hood. I don't want to stress the (made of flimsy plastic, I'm pretty sure) internal gears by forcefully rotating the front element.
CONCLUSION
It's a very, very nice lens for the money. If it cost double its modest price, I would rate it a 7. As it is, I'll give it an 8. It's not without its faults, but it's totally able to produce some very nice shots - especially if you know its limitations and are willing to do some post-processing.
I think this lens is underrated because - let's face it - its price tag makes it mostly attractive to new SLR users who won't know about its limitations and how to deal with them, minimizing the optical negatives of this lens. In the hands of a pro, this is a very capable telephoto.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Posts: 2,626
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 3, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Zoom Range, Weight of lens- Good Start for a Macro-zoom | | Cons: | Don't Filter Stack! | |
I have been using this lens quite a bit and it is a great lens to have for those mid-to-long range telephoto applications. The shots I have included show some of its range. The shot on the river is through a gap in the trees (hence the BOKAH fringe). The shot of the drummer is sharp, but shows why sometimes manual focus is better (on any lens) as the drum is sharp, but the drummer not! Still getting used to this Auto Focus thing!
The focus hunts a bit, but mostly I have noticed this in situations where there is something between me and my subject. Switching to a single focus point seems to solve this. I have used this in macro a bit, but work with other systems when I get serious about going close.
Zooming is a bit tight and could be smoother, but as this is a very new lens I am waiting to see if there is some break in on this factor. The lens is light compared to some other lenses I have used. This is a big advantage when hand holding as there is a lot of lens out in front of the camera. Using a nice pistol; grip helps improve the hand-holdability quite a bit.
Do not stack filters (e.g., Skylight/UV and Polarizers) I have noticed some ghosting with it (double image), particularly at the longest focal lengths. Also, make certain you use a good quality (double coated) filter anytime you use a filter on this lens, for this ghosting issue. It does improve/solve it substantially.
The lens gives great color (as does the camera!) and am quite pleased with both the quality and value for the price of the lens. I would certainly recommend it and it is a standard part of my camera bag.
See the two images in
Tamron 300
BD  | | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Hungary Posts: 12 | | Review Date: October 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | good AF,cheap | | Cons: | cheap plastic body | |
I love this lens.
My first Tamron tele...great drawing,cheap construction.
But...look my best photo:
ködgyár / cloudfactory by Gabeszfotó, on Flickr
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: May, 2008 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,180
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | 70-300 Range, Good sharpness & Contrast--Light | | Cons: | The old nemis of PF & CA in the conditions which bring them on--low light hunting. | |
If you consider what you get, what you pay, and compare that to other options out there, the lens is clearly a 10.
I owned the non-DI version of the lens which, if anything, should not have been as good on my K20d as this DI version. I did not test but, from images I've seen of the DI version, there is nothing for me to conclude it was any different from my non-DI version.
The best word to describe this lens is VERSATILE!. 70-300mm range, some 1:2 Macro ability, Auto Focus, and nice image quailty. The lens is also light and well-constructed. I have heard complaints of its performance at the long end, but mine was very good @ 300mm. 62mm filters are a big plus too.
If you buy the lens and do not have basic understanding of PF/CA & the available means to minimize them, then search out that knowledge before you start shooting with the lens.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: MA, Boston Posts: 134 | | Review Date: August 25, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | light weight, inexpensive | | Cons: | motor noise, slow AF | |
this is great telephoto lens for great price.
I got it 130$ while ago, and used it and always happy for the result.
very sharp at starting aperture, even 300mm.
also 1:2 Macro function is pretty good.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: January, 2009 Location: Salisnury, Canada Posts: 68
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 15, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $102.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Great value and IQ for the money | | Cons: | Zoom ring stiff/draging, AF hunts a bit | |
No doubts, this is a serious piece of glass. I bought this lens off ebay couple month after I sold an earlier version of the same lens - what a difference. I keep test shots of both nature and printed pattern on file for all my past lenses, so I can go back and compare.
I sold the previous Tamron 70-300 because my Pentax kit 50-200 lens was much better (sharper and color rendition) in their common range of 70 to 200 mm. Now the situation is very much reversed - the Tamron Di is much sharper than Pentax at any focal length and at any aperture. At 100 mm the Tamrom is sharper at 4.5 than Pentax at 8.0 or 11.0, which is the best aperture range for this lens.
As almost everyone noted/commented, the 250-300 mm range is little bit softer, but if you shoot at 6.3 to 8.0 the pictures are still great. Just a silly note here, if you want to shoot test pictures at the above focal range without a GOOD tripod, do not expect sharp pictures - myself, I cannot reasonably handhold anything over 100 mm.
The macro IQ is very good as well with one mechanical glitch, maybe just on my copy of the lens. I can turn the macro switch on, but I cannot turn it simply off. I need to put the camera to MF, turn the focus ring a bit in either direction and only then I can turn the macro switch off.
A bit annoying is rather stiff zoom ring, it has some drag in it when going from the 70 mm position. Again, might be just my lens and it is not a serious issue. Another thing is that the AF hunts a bit, especially at long focal length.
If it was not for the above mechanical issues, for the optical quality, I would give this lens a 9 rating.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2010 Location: California Posts: 1,602 | | Review Date: April 20, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Price, macro, 300mm zoom | | Cons: | CA (can be bad at times) | |
The main reason I give this lens a 8 is because of the price tag. For $150 you will be hard pressed to find a 300mm zoom lens with macro capabilities.
The picture quality is very good but not great.
Do not buy this lens if your main focus is Macro shooting because the macro is also good but not great. The Macro is 1:2 so it is not a "true" macro lens. It is pretty much a bonus in my opinion.
CA can be very annoying but also can be fixed in photoshop (with RAW images). I should also note that the CA is only noticable when you crop the image but not noticable in the picture as a whole. If it were not for the CA this lens would easily receive a 9 (the last 1 would be for a bit sharper images at 200+ zoom, just a bit).
All in all this is a very good lens FOR THE PRICE.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Tokyo Posts: 723 | | Review Date: January 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharpness, size, IQ, macro | | Cons: | size | |
this is a great lens that produce sharp images even at 300mm.
CA, namely purple fringing, is a bit of a problem, but post processing can minize it.
 | | |
