Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD

I purchased this to go with my Rebel XT to use for outdoor photography. Even though longer focal lengths are recommended for wildlife photography I have managed to get some good results from this lens. The lens is not to heavy to pack along and so far as proved to be durable.
The main issue I have found with the lens is at full telephoto the edges of the subject I am photographing are blurred or appear to have a double edge. If I back the zoom off slightly this goes away.
All in all it's a good lens for the price. I hope to eventually move to faster longer lenses in the future.

Price

Blur at full telephoto with Rebel XT.
Lens rotates when focusing which is an issue when using polarizing filters.

Tamron 70-210mm for Pentax KAF.

none needed

For this price you mostlikely won't get anything better. Best used stopped down to F/8-16 for best sharpness. Use the 300mm only in emergency (a tad soft). The lens works as expected for that price, and if you don't pint bigger than 5x7, you can't find anything better (for that price).

Compact, lightweight relatively sturdy dirtcheap with decent picture quality ideal for lightweight hikes

AF is noisy and hunts sometimes in low light not really sharp at 300mm

Sigma 70-300 (pain in the lower spine)

never needed

After visiting an airshow whilst only carrying a 105mm, I realised that many pictures are impossible to get without a decent tele(zoom)lens. I then found this lens at a reasonable price secondhand and I have not been disappointed; it does exactly what I bought it for: taking distance photographs at good sharpness, contrast and colour. Especially the weight is an additional bonus; there is hardly a reason not to take this lens along if you feel you might need it. If you don't, it still won't break your back being useless. One peculiar thing, but that might just be me, is the lens diameter; 58 mm is unlike any other lens I've seen (most seem to be 49, 55, 62, 72 - anything but 58!) and that makes it difficult to exchange filters. And whoever dubbed this a MACRO... yeah well, at 300mm and 1.5 m focal distance it is hardly worse than a 105 mm at 50 cm, but taking into account the shutter speed needed and the 5.6 aperture it isn't really what I would call macro. Then again, I seem to have a model that doesn't have that little macro-switch on the side (brandspecific? mine is Minolta). The speed of the lens isn't quite bad - 4-5.6 over the range is as much as my contemporarily owned 28-105 over it's focal range so I'm not complaining there. Also if I'm not mistaken, the 5.6 only 'kicks in' very close to 300mm, so for most of the time it actually works at 4.5 I agree with previous posters calling it a good lens for portraits; the lens seems to give it's best quality pics between 100 and 150 mm, exactly what you need for portraits. Sure, you can't really get that very tight focusing you'd get with f/2.8... can't have it all can you? I haven't used it extensively enough (nor taken notes of how I made the pictures) to judge how well it performs at different apertures and/or high zoom - I only use it to take the occasional picture impossible with another, less-zoom, lens. On maximum aperture and 250+mm, it does seem to get unreasonably soft/unsharp, though. As a consequence of my low-intensity use I also cannot judge its durability. In my hands it simply doesn't get dirty or worn. Anybody looking for a first telezoom (in my case probably my last for a while), seriously consider this one. For the money it will not disappoint you.

- lightweight - cheap - reasonably fast - over 4x zoom range

- picture quality at 'extremes' isn't that good - MACRO? what macro?

none in the telezoom range

none needed

I guess my experience with this lens is pretty similar to a lot of people gathering by the reviews. I bought this zoom based on a price–quality trade off and I am generally pleased with it. It was inexpensive and not bad build and optics. Yes the results are not as contrasty as they could but they are still okay. Yes, the AF is noisy but the build quality is okay. I find it is most useful for portraits and other people shots where a bit of softness is not such a problem. The macro facility, however, is a waste of time. I primarily use this lens with a Nikon F60/N60 and this is not a good combination for AF. It frequently hunts and chews up a lot of battery power winding in and out. I often find it easy to switch the AF off and go manual. The AF does seem to work a little better on my F80/N80. Overall, a cheap, light, and useful zoom for travel and general consumer photography.

Value for money Build Light weight and compact (relatively)

Noisy and slow AF AF hunting

Nikon 70-210

N/A

I'm not sure if I have the "2000 version" of this lens or not. I've always used primes, but wanted to see if I could find a cheap lightweight tele-zoom to play around with. The first thing I did was to walk into the nearest Ritz Camera and buy a Quantaray 100-300 4.5-6.7 (see my review), for $149. The thing was cheaply constructed and rattly, but it focussed surprisingly well on an EOS 7e, and was wonderfully compact and lightweight. I was surprised by the results: not tack sharp (hand-held) but very pleasing in rendition. Then I thought I'd try the Tamron 70-300 for about the same price. The construction quality of this lens was considerably better, it was half a stop faster, and the weight and size were only a little greater than the Quantaray. My guess is that the Tamron simply tries to accomplish too much for such a low price (the wide zoom range plus macro)- hideous pincushion distortion at 70mm; muddy/low contrast at all settings; terrible AF response (easier to focus manually). Though they are not exactly the same thing, the Quantaray wins, for my purposes.

Pretty tight plastic construction; wide range; has macro capability; tad bit faster than some others in this price range. Light, quite compact and handles well.

My sample has poor optical performance overall; AF does not work well on my 7e. Focus does not quite reach infinity on mine, in either mode! These defects could be owing to sample-to-sample variation characteristic of inexpensive lenses.

mostly high-quality primes. I want a lightweight, compact zoom telephoto for casual photography, and only the cheap, slow ones seem to have these characteristics. If anyone made a nice AF prime of about 200 mm, f4.5 or so, incorporating plastics to reduce the weight, I would probably buy that instead, but the nearest I find is the canon 200 mm f2.8L, at 1.68 pounds. The action of Father Time is making it harder for me to carry around heavy gear.