| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2012 Posts: 678
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 14, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | long focal range, reasonably sharp, nice bokeh | | Cons: | Slightly washed out colors | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: Kx, K10D, K200D
| |
My Tamron infatuation continues with this latest lens acquisition and I seem to become more of a fan with each one. While I'm not as in love with it as I am with my 28-105mm Tamron that lives on the front of my Kx, it is still a worthy addition to my collection. The lens feels well built and Zooming and focusing are smooth and I don't notice any zoom creep. I just like the feel Tamron's rubber-coated lens barrels. Mine does vary slightly from the one in the photo in that it has the Tamron name molded into the rubber grip in raised letters instead of the ribbed grip. I'm not sure whether that makes it an earlier or later model but it does match my other two Tamrons. The lens delivers sharp Images but colors are slightly muted. Granted, this that could be partly because I took my test shots on an overcast winter afternoon. With that in mind, I may come back and amend my assessment later. But even with that shortcoming in mind, I find the lens to have a pleasant bokeh but it's also nice and sharp, even zoomed to a full 300mm. Interestingly, the camera mistakes this lens for one of four different Sigma models. Although this lens bills itself as a 'tele-macro' lens, it's definitely more 'tele' than 'macro'. While definitely best suited for pulling in distant objects, it will certainly take okay "close-up" photos of smaller objects--albeit from about a yard away--and there is no true macro mode. But all in all, I have other lenses that are far more capable when it comes to macro photography. Still, with a understanding and acceptance of this lens' strengths and limitations, it can be a valuable addition to one's kit.
UPDATE: After owning this lens for eight months with little use, I took it and my K200D to a small outdoor music festival yesterday and it really proved itself. For its focal length, the lens works quite well in low light situations and the always difficult conditions of shooting after dark with only the stage lights for illumination. While I wouldn't put this lens up against a $1,000 professional grade behemoth, it's a great performer for the cheap, second hand lens that it is.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2010 Location: Bucharest Posts: 16
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 29, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Dirt cheap, amazingly sharp at 70-200mm range | | Cons: | soft at 300mm with serious chromatic aberrations | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K3-II
| |
I wanted to buy this as a (duh) second hand. While testing it, turned out the zoom ring didn't work. I was kind of disappointed. I actually thought the guy was trying to rip me off. Suggested he might try to fix it, but given he was asking for it around 30$... Why bother. So the guy looked at it, handed it to me and said "You bothered to come all the way. Here, keep it. For free."
So I took a chance and took it to a repair shop. It cost me 50$ to fix it. They just replaced the plastic zoom ring and both rubber handles on it. It looks just like a brand new lens now.
The shocker? The awesome resolution on it. I did some tests on a tripod. From 70 to around 200 mm it's damn sharp at just F/5.6. Further on resolution drops and CA goes quite high. But damn, at 70mm F/5.6 it rivals my 50mm F/1.8 for sharpness... I really wasn't expecting that.
I also took it to an air show. Quite surprised to see the results.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2011 Location: San Diego Posts: 228 | | Review Date: March 31, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, very good IQ | | Cons: | Zoom creep, internal blind can come loose | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5IIs
| |
I got this in "new-ish" condition (boxed, with sales receipt, etc.) from a thrift shop for, I guess $6. Soon after using it I noticed that a circular piece on the inside had shifted off-center. This piece is on the back of the front element. Its a circular band that blocks the outer 1/4 inch. It's glued to the back, and had shifted off-center. The lens still worked, but I wonder how IQ was affected by this. Using an art tool I was able to take the element out, and right the blind, but I didn't put it back in correctly. I hope that now it's back in correctly that the blind won't move again. It did move, and having to fix it a second time made me notice that the element wasn't put in correctly the first time I did it. Unfortunately, I scratched the lens the second time I worked on it. The lens might have been scratched when I bought it, and I just didn't notice.
It's a pretty good lens in general. I wouldn't use it for a paid shoot, but I'd have no problem using it for personal pics.
I think the retail price on this was $289 when it was bought in 1989. I'd say that lenses are less expensive today.
In Adobe Bridge it shows up as a Sigma.
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: May, 2013 Posts: 81 | | Review Date: July 17, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Decent zoom especially for the money | | Cons: | considerably more purple fringing than DA 55-300 | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| |
First of all I am not a professional photographer so keep that in mind as you read my review. Okay, so the lens I have is actually a Promaster AF70-300 F/4-5.6 Macro Autofocus Zoom Lens Spectrum 7. When I downloaded pictures to Lightroom 5 and selected Enable Lens Correction the fields automatically populated with the Tamron 70-300 AF LD Macro. After some research it indeed appears my Promaster is a rebadged Tamron. So, with that out of the way I decided to do a comparison between this lens and my DA 55-300. I was very surprised to see that the Promaster/Tamron (from now on I'll call it: Pro/Tam) was "basically" just as sharp as the Pentax. By "basically" I mean that the differences were negligible enough that I would have no problem keeping the $20 Pro/Tam as my zoom lens and selling my DA 55-300 and use the proceeds to go toward the Pentax 18-135WR.
So what were some of the differences? Well, while i wouldn't say the Pentax images were any sharper, I would say that the Pentax did a better job of accurately nailing the focus more often that the Pro?Tam. The next thing I noticed was that the Pentax lens was noisier at high ISO than the Pro/Tam. The Pro/Tam does have some short-falls though, the biggest being a marked increase in purple fringing. ...This is very easy to fix in Lightroom. The other thing is that it only zooms in to 70mm.
| | |
