| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 514
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 15, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Zoom range, sharpness (yes, it's good), value | | Cons: | chromatic abberation wide open | |
I can't believe this lens is so inexpensive. You really do get a lot for the money here. In my use of this lens, I have yet to be disappointed in it's performance or IQ - especially considering such a wide & long zoom range out to 300mm. Certainly, you can find primes to outperform it, but realistically you're talkin' $$$$. Even the weaknesses are minimized if you stop down a notch or two.
The macro capabilities are a HUGE bonus and it is actually very good in this respect. Amazing versatility in such an inexpensive lens.
Looking for a great all-round long range lens? This one is tough to beat even at twice the price.
To be fair, here is a clip from a review web site in Denmark:
...from a value perspective it is fairly amazing what it can give you. The resolution is very good till 200mm. At 300mm there's a drop in quality especially at f/5.6. Typical for such lenses the contrast suffers at wide-open aperture so stopping down is advisable from about 200mm onwards. Distortions and vignetting are not field relevant whereas lateral CAs (color shadows at the image borders) can be fairly obvious at longer focal lengths. Apart from the rotating front element the build quality of the lens is actually pretty fine for a lens in this class (better than e.g. the Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 or Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED).
I've noted only minor CA at the long end of this lens - to the point where I don't bother to PP it out in some cases because it is only just barely noticable IF you're looking for it. Of course, those shots are stopped down considerably as shooting wide open is rarely preferable.
Since this copy found my bag, others have raved about it's value. Search for threads in these forums for some discussions & pictures.
| | | | | | | Forum Member Registered: March, 2008 Location: College Park, MD Posts: 86 | | Review Date: March 28, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $130.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | cheap, well-built, sharp, light, macro | | Cons: | chromatic aberration, slow autofocus, no quick-shift | |
My first autofocus tele lens, and I am quite happy with it!
First, the good:
- It's cheap ($130 from Buydig.com) but well-built, comes with a nice reversible hood, and good quality lens caps. The zoom and focus rings have a solid and smooth feel.
- It's really quite sharp at the long end. Decent wide open, and really great if you stop down to f/8.
- It's lightweight and attractive. Random people are surprised when I tell them it only cost $130.
- The macro mode is fun and works well.
The bad:- Autofocus is slow at f=300mm. This is probably more the fault of the K10D body than the lens, but I'm told that f/5.6 is marginal for autofocus.
- No quick-shift! The Pentax kit lens has *spoiled* me rotten... I can spin the focus ring to approximate focus, then autofocus instantly. Not so with the Tamron, it lacks the clutch to allow you to instantly switch between autofocus and manual focus... you actually have to flip the lever on the body to use MF.
The ugly:- Purple fringing/chromatic aberration. This is the well-known, discussed-to-death downside to this lens. At f=300mm, there is significant CA in high-contrast areas. Especially noticeable against snow if backlit, I've found. Here's a photo of mine that illustrates it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/White-tailed_doe.jpg To me, this is only a slight annoyance... it can be mitigated in post-processing, and is not present in better lighting conditions, and mostly only appears in lateral areas of the image.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Posts: 7,183 | | Review Date: April 4, 2008 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | sharpness, size, IQ, macro | | Cons: | CA,CA,CA | |
Very usefull lens. Covers great range. Is perfectly sharp stopped down between 70-200. Slightly soft at 300 but still very usable. Fantastic macro capability.
Downside is: the built quality is not bad certainly nothing to brag about. And mostly purple fringing. In bright sunlit day you'll get nasty purple edge to everything in high contrast. You can fix this in PPing, but life would be nicer without it.
Alltogether, it's great lens for the money, better than it's Sigma counterpart...
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Posts: 3,381 | | Review Date: April 22, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $129.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp, light weight, inexpensive | | Cons: | CA, slow focus, soft after 210mm | |
Pros: Sharp from 70-210mm rates a 9; Soft above 210mm rates a 7 (can sharpen nicely in PP); Not a true macro, but very good macro capability, rates an 8; Inexpensive, a bargain for the $'s.
Cons: CA or purple fringing in high contrast shots (requires additional software\cost to remove).
This is a great lens if you are budget conscious, want to gain experience or determine if wildlife shooting is for you. If you are careful when shooting in high contrast situations, you will be pleased with this lens. It is capable of producing very good images.
Build quality is fair and the macro function is a bit quirky.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2007 Location: Phoenix Posts: 1,056 | | Review Date: May 4, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | great value, very decent IQ, good build quality | | Cons: | rotating front element, PF (but what do you expect at this price point?) | |
I have been surprised at how good a lens this is. It really is sharp, at least in the center, which is probably more important than edge sharpness in a tele-zoom. The build quality is at least on par with Pentax DA-series zoom lenses, and certainly better than FA-series zooms. Sure there is purple fringing in high-contrast situations, but that is easy enough to fix later. All in all a great value. A worthy placeholder until I can afford some telephoto primes...
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 428 | | Review Date: January 4, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $190.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Range, Price, weight/size | | Cons: | Purple fringing, Performance beyond 200mm | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 9
| |
Great price and value but the lens has Purple fringing beyond 250 and is not as sharp beyond 200. Also contrast declines beyond 250.
However, below 200 it is very good (I am pretty amazed at 70mm). Focus can be problematic on K10D.
Utility: 9
Sharpness: 7
CA:6
Contrast: 7
Build quality: 7
Auto Focus: 7
EDIT IN 2013: Now that I have lots of experience with long prime and zoom lenses, this lens is slightly less than when I did the review in 2009. The Pentax 55-300 is so much better and the new tamorn 70-300 has been reported to be better as well....
If you can afford better, buy better.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: St Louis, Missouri U S A Posts: 2,464 | | Review Date: January 22, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $169.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, color, macro ability | | Cons: | purple fringing in high contrast scenes | |
This was the first new lens I bought, and I have used it quite a bit. As others have said, it is an absolute steal for the price!! It is ( for a 70-300 zoom ) quite light, and easy to hand hold even @ 300 mm. Sharpness is good to me, even at 300 mm. I have taken a lot of flower "macro" shots with this lens, and the only time it fails, is "user error" I have also used it a lot at the zoo, and it never disappoints me there either. There is the dreaded purple fringe, but other than that, I am very satisfied with this lens.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 69 | | Review Date: March 28, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $148.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Cheap........ | | Cons: | You get what you pay for....... | |
Wanted a decent tele with a macro feature without breaking the bank. Out of a couple of hundred photos with this lens, I really didn't have many I could be proud of. Even though it is nicely made in the Tamron tradition, it is hard to get a photo that really pops out at you with the wow factor. I find it soft at all focal lengths and apertures. Just doesn't have that Pentax quality resolution. And the macro feature can be a pain engaging and disengaging. I finally gave in and purchased the Pentax DA 50-300. Now there is a nice prosumer super tele.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Gouda, Netherlands Posts: 165 | | Review Date: April 5, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, macro, lightweight, sharp at all lenghts | | Cons: | Purple Frining, no quick shift. | |
Cheap lens for birdwatching. I think this is a good deal if you don't have more money The PF in the 200-300 is a little bit annoying.
With this lens I replaced my F100-300 with no second of regret.
regards,
Cor
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 1,270 | | Review Date: June 13, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $133.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | price, sharpness, build quality, size/weight, macro, close-focusing relative to other 300mm zooms | | Cons: | CA/PF, slow AF, color cast | |
In light of the price, this lens is amazing. Many of my favorite wildlife shots were taken with this lens. Sharp throughout it's range when stopped down. AF is slow - slower than on the Pentax FA 80-320. My copy of this lens had very bad PF, and even a purple-ish color cast on grays, so post-processing is a must. I sold my 1st copy, and have regretted that so much that I have a new one on order.
The "macro" is actually 1:2, and I've found it to be extremely useful, particularly when taking pictures of dragonflies.
If you are not willing to post-process, I would avoid this lens.
Update (6/17): just got in my 2nd copy of this lens, and in addition to the virtues of my 1st, it has little less PF. Yay!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: July, 2007 Location: Arnold, Md. Posts: 762 | | Review Date: September 6, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $138.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Light, low cost | | Cons: | Dont have any | |
I've been miffed that my version doesen't want to duplicate the PF everyone whines about. The images shown on this Forum with the PF seem to barely exhibet the condition and were taken usually under poor lighting. I'm more than satisfied with wide open or really stopped down performance. | | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2009 Location: Ireland Posts: 31 | | Review Date: September 18, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $128.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Light, cheap, great bang for buck | | Cons: | Not great above 250mm | |
I bought this as a simple cheap AF lens to put into action when the conditions warranted it. Mostly I shoot with manual, but found an AF would be useful from time to time.
This particular purchase isn't one I've regretted. It's had a few serious workouts and came up trumps on every occasion, with an extremely high percentage of keeper shots. The AF may be a bit slow and noisy, but I find it to be accurate and reliable so far, at least in summer conditions. Sharpness, contrast and colour rendition are good. Optically it's at its best below 250mm, but it's not that >250 is bad, just not as good.
Irish Conker Championship, Freshford 2009 by Lensosaurus, on Flickr
band leader by Lensosaurus, on Flickr
flautist-sore-lip by Lensosaurus, on Flickr
A Surfeit of Santas by Lensosaurus, on Flickr
IMGP1949 by Lensosaurus, on Flickr
| | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2008 Location: Pireaus, Greece Posts: 18 | | Review Date: September 26, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Very good for the price, acceptable resolution (if you don't Pixel-Peeper), good macro | | Cons: | A little low contrast ... | |
Well the negatives are as the others mention.
But I will stand, more, to what you have to do if you want to take the most of the lens.
At 300 you have to go to f/11 and 1/200 for hand held, to be sure, for the perfect shot
moon 300, f/11 and 1/80, ISO 200, hand held (croped a little)
of course, you can have very good photos on higher apertures
300, f/6.3, 1/800
Generaly for focal length 180 and upward, the maximum aperture have to be the 6.3. As I mention before you can take the best at f/11 and up
At 70 and f/5.6 is ok (and the max f/4 is acceptable)
At 180 - f/11 - 1/6 (tripod) nearly perfect!
After all I add up that this lens was made for the range 90- 200.
Maybe tamron decided to rich the limits, for having better versatility (not bad thought), but with the cost of performance/speed at both ends (less at 70 more at 300).
At the range of 90-200 you can easily use the aperture range, from 5.6 (6.3) to 22 with good to excellent results!
The best comes from f/11 to f/16 for all focal lengths
| | | | | | | | Review Date: September 29, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | good range, cheap, build quality | | Cons: | image quality | |
its a bit difficult to rate the lens. when i bought a 70-300, i think i can shoot on 200-300ish mm easily. But the image quality of the lens on that range let me down.
How ever from 70-180mm, the lens gives very good images, especially on f/5.6-8.
so its a bit difficult to say whether the lens is good or bad. However if we consider the money spent and the build quality, this lens is a bargain.
I don't have this lens anymore, and upgrade it to tele prime lens.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2009 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 242 | | Review Date: October 9, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $125.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Low cost and versatililty | | Cons: | CA/PF | |
Hard to beat this lens for it's decent IQ, 1:2 macro ability and range for this small of a price tag. Throw a Raynox-150 on it and you get a extremely good low cost alternative to a dedicated macro lens.
Purple fringing is the only real drawback of this lens, but as others have noted, you can fix with post processing if needed.
240mm
300mm
 | | |
