2.3.2013

I have only been into DSLR photography for around a year but have already made some expensive mistakes. My first error was buying my Nikon with the kit lenses, an 18-55 and 55-200, both VR. They had their good points I grant you but the 18-55 was too little range ( I was used to a bigger zoom range compact) and the 55-200 was frankly disappointing beyond about 140mm (soft, even stopped down). I knew someone with an 18-105 VR who rated it highly and as they can be picked up for around £170 second hand, I bought one. This is a good lens and obviously made the 18-55 redundant - so it went, and the useable range of the 55-200 not worth the trouble of putting it on - so it went too.I felt the loss in my camera bag though. I needed a telephoto capability. Having spent far too much of the family budget on camera equipment already (I also bought various filters, a tripod and a 40mm f/2.8 micro (superb lens), I was on a tight budget. I bought a Tamron adaptall 70-210 lens for £10 (& £15 for an adapter). This has many things going for it including forcing me to learn how to use my camera manually, but sharpness does not quite stand scrutiny in the digital age and it's sometimes a pain to have to set up manually when you want results quickly. I have some nice photos from it, but it doesn't answer all my needs. Ideally I would have bought the Nikon 70-300 VR but at over £350 it wouldn't happen any time soon. The more I read about this Tamron AF 70-300 Di LD Macro though, the more I thought it would suit for now. It gets criticised for not having VC, going soft beyond 200mm and having a noisy and slow autofocus. I am now more aware of what I need from a lens and I often use a tripod for static scenes so I reckoned I could live without the VC (Tamron speak for VR). It may indeed go soft beyond 200mm, but up to that focal range it is comparable to the 18-105. It also seems to be better than the 55-200 at the extreme tele in their ranges. I must add that according to lab tests the Nikon at 200mm should be sharper than the Tamron at 300mm which is not how it seems to me, so I have to wonder if I had a 'duff' 55-200. The final point was the autofocus. If I was photographing sports or action regularly then it would not suit (and I would want VC/VR too!). but landscapes don't move while the AF hunts a little so it is fine for me, and it is not objectionably noisy, though not as quiet as the Nikon lenses I have owned. I did a little experiment looking over to the Ironbridge from the top of the Rotunda (1/4 mile or so for those not familiar). I had a photo of the bridge with the 18-105 at 105mm, one with the 70-300 at 170mm and one at 280mm. I cropped each to show a similar section of the bridge. The portion from the photo taken with the 18-105 was a very small part of the total photo and so, although you could read the words on the bridge structure, you would not have found it acceptably sharp. The two from the 70-300 were both much better. The 170mm one was about 1/16th of the full photo and was very sharp, the other was around 1/8th (very rough figure, both) and was slightly more blurry. I deduced from this that a/ it was good to have the lens as it could beat the 18-105 when you needed more focal length, and b/ it would be better to take a shot at 170ish mm and crop than extend it to nearer its maximum. This is real world testing, hope it helps. TimAdditions: I have found it to be sharp even at 300mm when stopped down to f/16 or f/22 but you will have to manually focus and have reasonable light to do this.To answer another persons review question. Lenses of a certain age sometimes don't have focus motors built in but will autofocus on a body with a motor - generally a higher spec body. A Tamron like this may have two versions, one with and one without a motor, the part number will be followed by 'N II' if it has a motor. Be careful on ebay tho, I have been caught out as some info is auto filled in and gives the 'N II' part number sometimes when it isn't.

15.11.2011

Tamron, back in the '80's and 90's so dominated the indie telezoom market, with their Adaptall 80-210mm f3.8-4, which at a good price, almost uniquely, actually delivered a quality that was usable at any setting, including wide open at the long end. It sold in its 100,000's, if not more.Times have moved on and zoom ranges extended, as are us photographer's expectations. 70-300mm is now the basic norm, with some sort of close focus a feature many hobbyists look out for, as an added bonus.As a semi pro, using the full-frame Nikon D700, I only had reason to try one of these dinky lightweight lenses whilst waiting for an insurance claim on a broken, much more pricey Nikon equivalent. The cost then,on special offer, was little more than the Excess that insurance claim incurred! I now use as my telezoom standard Tamron's flagship model, their Vibration Control, Ultrasonic Motor A/F Superior Performance, at nearly three times the price.Yes, there are differences, but not so big as perhaps one would imagine and shots I'd taken with the cheaper lens at London Zoo, for example are not wanting in any department. It uses (so I am informed) high grade plastics for some of the elements - glass is heavy - and why not? My spectacle lenses are plastic! This keeps the weight down and probably the cost too.Up to about 200mm, it is bitingly sharp, with high contrast and pincushion distortion (straight lines at frame edges bowing inwards) fairly well controlled. My much heavier Tamron is market-leading in this respect but for most, and for most subjects, the cheaper lens won't disappoint.At 300mm, yes, the images are fairly soft but good contrast still produces pleasing images. If you want to enlarge to A3, from a shot taken at 300mm, you might be disappointed, whereas A4 should be fine. I haven't used a 'cheap' Nikon lens of this spec, though even expensive ones aren't so brilliant either and my flagship Tamron beats them in any case - in my experience).I do recall the macro 'feature' as being useful (though I own a specialist macro - another Tamron!, the 90mm f2.8) so I didn't rely on this but I did try it out. Image quality was actually very good, especially for flowers and natural things. Yes, the switching to - and from - was a bit fiddly and made it impossible to track, say a butterfly, if it flew out of the macro's zone of focus.But, on the basis of value/features/spec/quality, in roughly that order, then how can I not award four stars? It got me out of a jam and I keep on finding images that I'd taken with it and for the large part are they are indecipherable from the others, unless one really zooms right in and examines 'actual pixels' on a big computer screen.For those on a budget, or those whose first telezoom this is and don't want to make an expensive mistake then this dinky Tamron comes quite highly recommended; by someone who still has one of those old 80-210mm Tamrons from thirty years ago! (- which I no longer use, I have to add.....)

1.6.2017

Okay, so I didn't really buy my lens from Amazon. I bought the exact same lens from a Jessops retailer for the exact same price and it was much easier for me to and collect personally. I bought a Nikon D3300 just for a hobby and take pictures in my free time, and got this lens 2 weeks after getting the camera. It's my first lens after the kit lens which was included with the cameraWhen I bought the lens from Jessops, I was told that I had one years manufacturer warranty, however, on the outside of the box, it was written that I could get the warranty extended for 5 Years. To do this all I simply did was go to the website written on the box and filled in a really short form with the product information,which was included in the box.If this lens from Amazon comes in the same packaging as the one I got from Jessops, then you'll be able to extend the warranty to 5 years. The reason I say this is because inside the box, there is a small sheet containing the products serial number, which you have to put in the form to extend your warranty.The lens that I bough from Jessops had a lens hood too, which is quite nice and fits perfectly. The lens itself also fits nicely onto the camera. It's got a nice quality build to it but I'm sure it's not comparable to some other lenses out there which cost hundreds or even thousands.There is a drawback to this lens though, it doesn't have image stabiliser. The kit lens that came with the camera has stabilisers which prevents the lens from shaking, but this one doesn't. I can definitely notice the shake when hand holding the camera and looking through the view finder. This shouldn't be a problem if you have a sturdy tripod. Not having the stabilisers doesn't necessarily mean you need a tripod. You can just adjust the shutter speed to make it faster and get shots that are not shaky. If you plan on taking pictures with slow shutter speeds, I'd definitely recommend a sturdy tripod. I guess it'll take time for me to get used to using the lens without image stabiliser. If you plan on getting this lens just for casual use then it shouldn't be a problem at all.You could get a 70-300mm lens with image stabiliser but that's way more expensive than this one. (I'm a student so I'm on a tight budget)The autofocus on it is good, but it's not the best. it does take quite a while for it to focus so I wouldn't recommend using autofocus if you're planning on taking pictures of fast moving objects. Also, the autofocus is a little bit loud when it's adjusting. I always prefer to use manual focus as it gives you more control over which areas you want to focus on.Apologies for rambling on about the lens but I hope you find it useful. I've attached a few sample shots which I've taken with the lens, both in macro and normal mode.

12.8.2018

I was kind of on the fence about buying this lens but thought I'd take a gamble and try it out as it does have quite an attractive price. Coming from a 18-55 kit lens like most people who buy this lens, the first thing you realise is that the minimum 70mm zoom on this, requires you to have quite some space from your subject. This lens will not work well in small to mid size rooms and is better suited to larger areas, unless of course you're purposely doing some macro shots.There's a switch on the side which lets you change the focusing distance from normal to macro which is a nice touch, and the minimum focusing distance isn't bad but don't expect to get the super close up style images of the eyes of insects as the minimum focusing distance doesn't allow this.

27.7.2013

Most amateurs think that pros always use pro quality lenses. This is far from the truth - especially for lenses we would not use everyday. This lens could earn you serious money. My review is based on just an afternoon's work at a gliding club shooting gliders and their tow planes- both static and flying, and the gliders being winched launched and of course landing. I particularly wanted to shoot at 300mm handheld and shot at 200 ASA at 400th second in shutter priority mode on a Canon 550D plus battery grip..I should add that I got my lens second hand on ebay for £62 including postage and the lenshood. The lens is mint so I was not upset when a rear lens cap was not included as it should have been!The autofocus is not loud and screechy; in fact I did not notice it whilst working.

30.11.2011

Once I'd chosen the dSLR that was best for me, which after much consideration turned out to be the K-r, I had to choose between getting the body with two kit lenses (18-55mm and 50-200mm) or just the 18-55mm kit and a budget long zoom.Checking out all the reviews for the Sigma 70-300mm (non-APO) and this Tamron 70-300mm, since they were so similarly priced and within budget, I settled on the Tammy for a couple of reasons:1) The sample photos (here on Amazon, and on Pentaxforums) seemed to demonstrate that through the lower focal lengths there was more sharpness from the Tammy. While the long end looked soft on both lenses, the Sigma seemed to just win out,

13.7.2012

Please don't take the Amazon star rating too serious - every lens has its pros and cons that I wouldn't want to squeeze into a single one-dimensional figure...A quick note about me: I have been into SLR cameras and lenses for more than 20 years - as a hobby in the beginning and professionally later. Maybe because of my technical background I started testing my own lenses quite a while ago. I have a (no longer so) little test lab of my own where I do 6 different image quality tests (after taking a lens out for a while).The AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD MACRO 1:2 is one of the lowest cost lenses available. It's made of plastics but looks nice and feels pretty solid.

13.12.2012

I bought this as I wanted to add a zoom lens to my kit, and also wanted to play with macro photography a bit more. I shoot with a Nikon D3100, which means if I want auto-focus, I need to buy lenses with a focus motor built in (which this lens does).I couldn't justify paying out a fortune for a really good Nikon zoom lens, so this seemed a good compromise. For the price paid, I'm delighted with it. It feels solid and well made. The shots I've taken so far have been good (I've uploaded a couple of them to the image gallery, to show the results I was getting even at 300mm - I hope to add a new macro examples soon too)).Auto-focus is effective enough, fairly quick and, whilst not silent,

21.6.2012

I would have given this 5 stars if it were not for the lousy AF - It really is next to useless in my opinion. On my Nikon D3100 it has trouble even in optimum light conditions.Sometimes it works - sometimes not! Which can be very frustrating, I just keep it in manual focus, because guaranteed if you start to rely on AF , the time you need it - it will let you down. So why not put a little more effort in to get familiar with MF, that way you know where you stand and when you forget about the headaches the AF system on this lens IS going to give you, your left with a pretty good piece of equipment, and not just for the price.For the shots I have taken,

24.7.2011

A budget lens for the amature photographer i bought this lens to go with my new D7000 ,On opening this lens i was suprised at its good build quality and it does look the shiz on the body as well ,It has a good weight and feel and the focal lenth is very good as well, combine this with a macro feature and it is a recipe for a knockout lens , So why only two stars i here you ask?,OK here,s the bad news, The lack of vr means you can forget this lens at full lenth unless paired with a tripod in anything less than perfect light ...No If,s ...No butts, It wont make a difference how good you are,And even in perfect light at its fastest setting its hard to pull off more than sixty percent of the time

8.5.2010

I bought this lens as a replacement for the standard 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Sony kit lens that came with my Sony Alpha 200W DSLR, and I have to say it was worth it.Although it only has roughly the same specification as the original sony lens, the difference in image quality is noticeable. I take alot of pictures of wildlife and motorsport (not to mention portraits and landscapes, but obviously not with this lens) and I had terrible purple fringing (CA) at 200-300mm particularly in high contrast situations, and I have to say this lens reduced this effect massively. This has improved image quality no end. At 62mm diameter it is also a better light gatherer (the Sony is 55mm dia)

8.8.2010

Wow, what a cracking lens! I did a lens swap for the day with my girlfriend's brother-in-law, giving him my Sony 50mm portrait lens. I took the 70-300mm to the Mela Festival in Edinburgh and limited myself to this lens for the whole day and I have to say I was well impressed. Even though for a close-range subject you have to move a little further away, the narrow depth of field you get on a bigger zoom is incredible, and also the fact that you can get in so close from so far away was a revolution to someone whose biggest lens to date had been the Sony 18-70mm kit lens. I felt like a proper paparazzo, and you can take some fantastic candid shots without the subject being (too) aware!

7.9.2014

There's an inherent snobbery attached to DSLR photography, bizarre tribal wars between Canon owners and Nikon owners and even more snobbery when it comes to lenses. I was looking for a budget Zoom lens not even knowing such a thing could exist. I'm no would-be professional photographer, I just like going out and taking photos without trying to willy-measure over kit.the Tamrom AF 70-300mm caught my eye. How on earth can a lens costing under 100 quid possibly compete with proper Nikon kit (it was bought for a Nikon D3200)? Simple answer is, you do indeed get what you pay for but if you're - like me - unwilling to part with the better part of 300 quid to get a similar Nikon branded lens with Autofocus and VR,

5.4.2014

This lens is now my primary lens when I do drifting/sports events for a number of reasons, I'll list these reasons towards the end of this review.The lens for the price is outstanding (£89), the build on it is superb, the lens hood is sturdy enough to take a good few knocks when out on trails or at events.It will work in the rain, I've had it out in numerous weather conditions and it still works.When it has been swapped for another lens, it really doesn't take that much room in the bag (I use the Lowepro Vertex 300 AW Photo/ 17" Notebook Backpack for Digital SLR & 6-8 lenses - Black for hiking/sports and the AmazonBasics Backpack for SLR Cameras and Accessories Black backpack for biking)

9.1.2018

This lens was bought to upgrade my old AF lenses which are not autofocus compatible with my new camera, a Nikon D3400. It was an opportunity to try out a 300mm focal length lens to see if its worth upgrading to a Nikon one in due course. This is a pleasantly well made lens which can be switched over from auto to manual FOCUS. The zoom ring is by necessity and design manually operated. Movement is smooth and the focus motor is relatively quiet.There is a "Macro" switch but in reality it is a lock button for the zoom ring between 180-300mm. Focus is an art form with this selected but will deliver good results if the camera is around 5' away from the subject.

Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro - Reviews

Info

Analysis

Detail